|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 22, 2010 16:58:53 GMT -5
----------------and buy a $1,000 sound system in 2010? I'm only going to make one comment in reply, and it's this: if you think a $1000 sound system is even near the high standard league, then your ears have been deprived! How many people out there (except obsessive technophiles, that is) do you think have spent anything near or over $1000 for their home listening? And no, my ears have never been deprived. Far from it. |
|
Joseph McCabe
Very Clean
A rebel to his last breath ...
Posts: 912
|
Post by Joseph McCabe on Oct 22, 2010 20:49:51 GMT -5
I'm only going to make one comment in reply, and it's this: if you think a $1000 sound system is even near the high standard league, then your ears have been deprived! How many people out there (except obsessive technophiles, that is) do you think have spent anything near or over $1000 for their home listening? Sorry, Joe. Spending $1000 on sound gear for home listening is not the domain of "obsessive technophiles". Obsessive technophiles would regard a set-up for $1000 as junk. I am not an audiophile, but my own modest system (built up over time) would, on today's prices here in Australia, cost about $2500 (our prices are a little up on US). Audio gear lasts a long time, of course, if you buy quality, so spending on the best you can afford is a good investment. I have a NAD amplifier, NAD CD player, JM Lab speakers, and a Luxman turntable. Vey nice, clear sound - but definitely not top drawer. You think your car is a good acoustic environment and $1000 set-up is high-end? Your ears most definitely have been deprived. McCabe |
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 23, 2010 7:50:13 GMT -5
Sorry, Joe. Spending $1000 on sound gear for home listening is not the domain of "obsessive technophiles". Obsessive technophiles would regard a set-up for $1000 as junk. I am not an audiophile, but my own modest system (built up over time) would, on today's prices here in Australia, cost about $2500 (our prices are a little up on US). Audio gear lasts a long time, of course, if you buy quality, so spending on the best you can afford is a good investment. I have a NAD amplifier, NAD CD player, JM Lab speakers, and a Luxman turntable. Vey nice, clear sound - but definitely not top drawer. You think your car is a good acoustic environment and $1000 set-up is high-end? Your ears most definitely have been deprived. McCabe I notice you haven't commented on my remark regarding 1964 Beatle Fans, and how they loved that music and appreciated it even when listening on little AM transistor radios, and rinky-dink phonographs. Were they not fit to say they loved the music and it sounded great to them, too? And yes, I had then-state-of-the-art equipment in the home many times when I was younger. Still, the music has never sounded better to me than now. |
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Oct 23, 2010 8:47:36 GMT -5
OK, guys, speaking just for myself, I think we all got it now--you have different opinions on stereo equipment and the costs associated therewith, as well as the best places to listen to music.
Maybe you could start a separate thread to argue about this--one I wouldn't need to open (as I do this one, since I'm hosting this game)?
Thanks,
JcS
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 23, 2010 9:21:05 GMT -5
I'm sorry, Joey. You are right. This is not the place to go on about this. I'm finished commenting and have said all I care to say, though.
|
|
nine
Very Clean
Posts: 840 
|
Post by nine on Oct 23, 2010 9:32:48 GMT -5
OK, guys, speaking just for myself, I think we all got it now--you have different opinions on stereo equipment and the costs associated therewith, as well as the best places to listen to music. Maybe you could start a separate thread to argue about this--one I wouldn't need to open (as I do this one, since I'm hosting this game)? Thanks, JcS Not a bad idea. I reckon I could learn given the fact that My stuff is played through the PC through crappy speakers... |
|
nine
Very Clean
Posts: 840
|
Post by nine on Oct 23, 2010 9:49:08 GMT -5
Sorry, Joe. Spending $1000 on sound gear for home listening is not the domain of "obsessive technophiles". Obsessive technophiles would regard a set-up for $1000 as junk. I am not an audiophile, but my own modest system (built up over time) would, on today's prices here in Australia, cost about $2500 (our prices are a little up on US). Audio gear lasts a long time, of course, if you buy quality, so spending on the best you can afford is a good investment. I have a NAD amplifier, NAD CD player, JM Lab speakers, and a Luxman turntable. Vey nice, clear sound - but definitely not top drawer. You think your car is a good acoustic environment and $1000 set-up is high-end? Your ears most definitely have been deprived. McCabe I notice you haven't commented on my remark regarding 1964 Beatle Fans, and how they loved that music and appreciated it even when listening on little AM transistor radios, and rinky-dink phonographs. Were they not fit to say they loved the music and it sounded great to them, too? And yes, I had then-state-of-the-art equipment in the home many times when I was younger. Still, the music has never sounded better to me than now. I remarked earlier about the way Get Back was mixed. It was mixed with a little record player in mind, like the kids had. Look this story up because it's a classic. |
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 23, 2010 10:10:03 GMT -5
And I still haven't voted here because I must find a retail store that sells the Wonderwall c.d. No mail order, I want to hold it, walk it to the counter and have a real human ring me up. Preferably with an old fashioned cash register with no computer scanning(so the Gov't doesn't know I'm buying this) but I know I'm pushing my luck there.
|
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 25, 2010 14:28:16 GMT -5
BACK TO THE EGG, Side 2
I could not find Wonderwall in a store and I went to the few that still sell c.d.'s. I did play all but two songs off WW-2 from YouTube. It is much better than I ever dreamed but it is a movie soundtrack ultimately and for repeated listenings, I prefer BTTE-2.
1. Rockestra Theme: Wasn't this exactly what punk rock was trying to kill? Bloated. A failed experiment by Paul, a dead-end.
2. To You: My favorite song on the album. Not perfect but I like the strumming electric guitar intro and the overall vibe.
3. After The Ball / Million Miles: Paul doing gospel. It is okay, a little too calculating or forced but okay.
4. Winter Rose / Love Awake: I love WR, a beautiful song that captures the haunted beauty of Winter. LA is pretty but not nearly as good as WR.
5. The Broadcast: Pretentious. This irritated me in 1979, it irritates me in 2010.
6. So Glad To See You Here: This is pretty good, not so bloated as RT. I remember reading in 1979 that Wings were coming to America to tour and this song was tailored made to be the opening song. vectis can correct me but I don't think Paul opened any of his 1979 Tour with this. Shame as it would have been a good concert opener.
7. Baby's Request: More ear candy but why Paul? We all know that you can do these period pieces but why?
|
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Oct 25, 2010 19:14:24 GMT -5
I love Baby's Request. One of my absolute favourite McCartney songs. Those close harmonies are exquisite, and the song is a pleasure to play.
|
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 25, 2010 21:47:31 GMT -5
I love Baby's Request. One of my absolute favourite McCartney songs. Those close harmonies are exquisite, and the song is a pleasure to play. I wish Paul would have kept "When I'm 64," "Your Mother Should Know," "Honey Pie," "You Gave Me The Answer," "English Tea," "Till There Was You," "A Taste Of Honey" and maybe some others for a separate album(and all together) and off of Beatles, Wings or solo albums as those were Rock albums and these songs, however fun, catchy or zany, are decidedly not Rock. McCartney For The Grannies would have been a catchy name for such an album. |
|
nine
Very Clean
Posts: 840
|
Post by nine on Oct 26, 2010 1:23:54 GMT -5
I love Baby's Request. One of my absolute favourite McCartney songs. Those close harmonies are exquisite, and the song is a pleasure to play. I wish Paul would have kept "When I'm 64," "Your Mother Should Know," "Honey Pie," "You Gave Me The Answer," "English Tea," "Till There Was You," "A Taste Of Honey" and maybe some others for a separate album(and all together) and off of Beatles, Wings or solo albums as those were Rock albums and these songs, however fun, catchy or zany, are decidedly not Rock. McCartney For The Grannies would have been a catchy name for such an album. He could also have a kiddies compilation... Yellow Submarine, Rupert, Once Upon A Long Ago, Mary Had A Little Lamb etc |
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Oct 26, 2010 5:37:47 GMT -5
McCartney For The Grannies would have been a catchy name for such an album. Or McCartney for Vectisfabber. I like all that stuff, and (generally but not exclusively) prefer it to his rock side. I think that's one of the reasons I lean towards paul marginally over John - for me, it's all about melody and harmonies, and not so much about beat. |
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 26, 2010 6:08:45 GMT -5
I love Baby's Request. One of my absolute favourite McCartney songs. Those close harmonies are exquisite, and the song is a pleasure to play. I wish Paul would have kept "When I'm 64," "Your Mother Should Know," "Honey Pie," "You Gave Me The Answer," "English Tea," "Till There Was You," "A Taste Of Honey" and maybe some others for a separate album(and all together) and off of Beatles, Wings or solo albums as those were Rock albums and these songs, however fun, catchy or zany, are decidedly not Rock. McCartney For The Grannies would have been a catchy name for such an album. My, you are brutal here, JSD. Now, I do sort of know what you mean about "Twee Paulie", but that's always been a part of Paul McCartney's persona from DAY ONE. And in his defense -- though I may prefer he did more harder edged stuff at times, what's wrong with taking a break for the occasional "soft" song? ENGLISH TEA, by the way, may be my favorite song off CHAOS AND CREATION. Paul is a perfromer of many styles and talents (I know I've just scored a few point with RTP). There is room for everything. |
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on Oct 26, 2010 11:16:27 GMT -5
To me Paul's diversity is his strength and that is why he is my favorite performer. Seeing him go from stuff like "Helter Skelter" to "Yesterday" to "Band On The Run" (hard rock to ballads to songs with a variety of sounds) that's what I admire.
|
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 26, 2010 13:07:50 GMT -5
I was just suggesting that Paul save these fun, cute, and zany songs for one compilation of such. Then vectis and other fans of this would be in hog-heaven! A whole album of such!
I would buy it too. That would free up the other albums for more contemporary-appropriate material.
|
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Oct 26, 2010 16:03:34 GMT -5
I wish Paul would have kept "When I'm 64," "Your Mother Should Know," "Honey Pie," "You Gave Me The Answer," "English Tea," "Till There Was You," "A Taste Of Honey" and maybe some others for a separate album(and all together) and off of Beatles, Wings or solo albums as those were Rock albums and these songs, however fun, catchy or zany, are decidedly not Rock. McCartney For The Grannies would have been a catchy name for such an album. My, you are brutal here, JSD. Now, I do sort of know what you mean about "Twee Paulie", but that's always been a part of Paul McCartney's persona from DAY ONE. And in his defense -- though I may prefer he did more harder edged stuff at times, what's wrong with taking a break for the occasional "soft" song? ENGLISH TEA, by the way, may be my favorite song off CHAOS AND CREATION. Paul is a perfromer of many styles and talents (I know I've just scored a few point with RTP). There is room for everything. Yes. Why must it be all or nothing. I like the variety. Few "rock" stars have the ability to do such songs. Another one that comes to mind which I think was influenced heavily by Paul was Freddy Mercury (Seaside Rendezvous, Good Old Fashioned Lover Boy etc.). He had the talent to pull that sort of thing off. As for English Tea, I think its my favorite on C&C also. When I'm 64 is put down by many but it is a great melody with witty lyrics. It is so extraordinary for a 24 year old to write such a sensitive song to his wife or girlfriend asking if she'll still love him when he's old. It is universal and has stood the test of time. Its one of the best loved and standout tracks from Pepper. |
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 26, 2010 16:47:52 GMT -5
My, you are brutal here, JSD. Now, I do sort of know what you mean about "Twee Paulie", but that's always been a part of Paul McCartney's persona from DAY ONE. And in his defense -- though I may prefer he did more harder edged stuff at times, what's wrong with taking a break for the occasional "soft" song? ENGLISH TEA, by the way, may be my favorite song off CHAOS AND CREATION. Paul is a perfromer of many styles and talents (I know I've just scored a few point with RTP). There is room for everything. Yes. Why must it be all or nothing. I like the variety. Few "rock" stars have the ability to do such songs. Another one that comes to mind which I think was influenced heavily by Paul was Freddy Mercury (Seaside Rendezvous, Good Old Fashioned Lover Boy etc.). He had the talent to pull that sort of thing off. As for English Tea, I think its my favorite on C&C also. When I'm 64 is put down by many but it is a great melody with witty lyrics. It is so extraordinary for a 24 year old to write such a sensitive song to his wife or girlfriend asking if she'll still love him when he's old. It is universal and has stood the test of time. Its one of the best loved and standout tracks from Pepper. That is true, with acts like The Stones, it's just pure unadultrated rock and roll that doesn't lend itself to such variety and zany antics like this: |
|
nine
Very Clean
Posts: 840
|
Post by nine on Oct 27, 2010 3:32:10 GMT -5
My, you are brutal here, JSD. Now, I do sort of know what you mean about "Twee Paulie", but that's always been a part of Paul McCartney's persona from DAY ONE. And in his defense -- though I may prefer he did more harder edged stuff at times, what's wrong with taking a break for the occasional "soft" song? ENGLISH TEA, by the way, may be my favorite song off CHAOS AND CREATION. Paul is a perfromer of many styles and talents (I know I've just scored a few point with RTP). There is room for everything. Yes. Why must it be all or nothing. I like the variety. Few "rock" stars have the ability to do such songs. Another one that comes to mind which I think was influenced heavily by Paul was Freddy Mercury (Seaside Rendezvous, Good Old Fashioned Lover Boy etc.). He had the talent to pull that sort of thing off. As for English Tea, I think its my favorite on C&C also. When I'm 64 is put down by many but it is a great melody with witty lyrics. It is so extraordinary for a 24 year old to write such a sensitive song to his wife or girlfriend asking if she'll still love him when he's old. It is universal and has stood the test of time. Its one of the best loved and standout tracks from Pepper. He was younger than when he wrote it. It's origins were pre-fame and I think it may have been done at The Cavern. I concede that it might have been quite different back then. |
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Oct 27, 2010 6:39:27 GMT -5
When I'm 64 and Maxwell's Silver Hammer have mock laughs from Paul ...
|
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Oct 27, 2010 12:35:45 GMT -5
When I'm 64 and Maxwell's Silver Hammer have mock laughs from Paul ... You mean tongue in cheek? |
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Oct 27, 2010 12:36:36 GMT -5
Yes. Why must it be all or nothing. I like the variety. Few "rock" stars have the ability to do such songs. Another one that comes to mind which I think was influenced heavily by Paul was Freddy Mercury (Seaside Rendezvous, Good Old Fashioned Lover Boy etc.). He had the talent to pull that sort of thing off. As for English Tea, I think its my favorite on C&C also. When I'm 64 is put down by many but it is a great melody with witty lyrics. It is so extraordinary for a 24 year old to write such a sensitive song to his wife or girlfriend asking if she'll still love him when he's old. It is universal and has stood the test of time. Its one of the best loved and standout tracks from Pepper. He was younger than when he wrote it. It's origins were pre-fame and I think it may have been done at The Cavern. I concede that it might have been quite different back then. He wrote the music at 16, but the lyrics weren't completed in their present form until 1966. |
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Oct 27, 2010 16:03:40 GMT -5
When I'm 64 and Maxwell's Silver Hammer have mock laughs from Paul ... You mean tongue in cheek? Yes , although today it would be Ms Shevell's cheek  |
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on Oct 27, 2010 17:50:13 GMT -5
[quote author
That is true, with acts like The Stones, it's just pure unadultrated rock and roll
[/quote]
Like "As Tears Go By", "Lady Jane", the opening to "You Can't Always Get What You Want"?
And by the way I like all those songs quite a bit.
The Stones as "pure rock and roll" and the "greatest rock and roll band" are two statements that are quite overused.
At one time I considered the Stones a close 2nd to the Beatles. As time goes by my opinion of the Beatles continues to grow, will my opinion of the Stones continues to drop. I'll take The Who and The Kinks over the Stones easily.
The Stones were a great singles band through the early 70's. They had a couple other classics with "Shattered" and "Start Me Up", but otherwise have been pretty average over the past 35 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 28, 2010 15:01:07 GMT -5
Like "As Tears Go By", "Lady Jane", the opening to "You Can't Always Get What You Want"? Those are Rock ballads, not one cabaret, music hall, vaudeville or film musical song among them. I respectfully disagree on the "singles" band tag too as Beggar's Banquet through Exile On Main Street is one amazing album run rivaled (though probably surpassed) only by The Beatles. There are subsequent great albums too but that string of albums from 1968 through 1972 was on fire. Oh yeah, their singles then were hot like "Honky Tonk Woman" but The Stones in the early 70's were about great albums too. To each their own though. The Beatles got more older people to like them with the music hall style songs. I guess that is cool. |
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Oct 28, 2010 16:32:18 GMT -5
Every Stones album rocks. Their last 3 rock and roll, rock and soul or just rock at a lower gear.
A Bigger Bang, Voodoo Lounge, Bridges to Babylon blow away most of their 60s stuff.
At the same time I love the Who as well but I don't think they have as many good songs as the Stones.
|
|
