NanciNet Digest 7-06-97
// Pick your debate: Napster? Vinyl vs CD?
// You're welcome to skim past any or all of it...
// Enjoy...[BP]
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: NN: Re: Iris DeMent/Kate Rusby
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 09:30:12 EDT
From: RoanInish@aol.com
Christina wrote:
(( In a side note- I recently bought an album by an Irish lass named Kate
Rusby
that does an excellent cover of "Our Town" that Iris fans would love...her
voice is very reminiscent of Ms. Dement's..with an irish tilt. >>
As both a massive Iris DeMent fan and a massive Celtic music fan I too am
very fond of Kate Rusby and her cover of "Our Town" although nobody can come
close to topping Iris' version which for me is one of the all time greats.
The Kate Rusby CD also has a gorgeous song called "The Wild Goose" which is a
must hear.
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: NN: Iris DeMent/Kate Rusby and many apologies....
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 10:18:35 EDT
From: Poetmuse@aol.com
RoanInish@aol.com writes:
(( As both a massive Iris DeMent fan and a massive Celtic music fan I too am
very fond of Kate Rusby and her cover of "Our Town" although nobody can come
close to topping Iris' version which for me is one of the all time greats.
The Kate Rusby CD also has a gorgeous song called "The Wild Goose" which is
a must hear. >>
Well, thank you, for at least you did not correct my faux pas and inform me
of Kate's ENGLISH heritage..... okay people, I goofed. I get one more email
telling me she's ENGLISH and not irish I may have to hurt someone....
I'll make them listen to Kenny G or something ad nauseum... He,of course, is
neither American, English, Irish or Brazilian. He's Alien and needs to go
back to his own planet. But I digress.
Cheers!
-Christina "check the liner notes, me?" Myers
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: NN: Kate Rusby
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 10:25:35 EDT
From: AlunSmith@aol.com
Christina,
Glad you enjoyed Sleepless by Kate Rusby but you are mistaken in thinking she
is Irish. She hails from Yorkshire and Yorkshire folk are apt to take offence
at being taken as from anywhere but God's own county!
Another artist in a similar vein I would heartily recommend is Kathryn
Williams whose Little Black Numbers will be high on my list of albums of the
year. I don't know if it has had a US release but sound clips can be heard on
the Fish Records website (www.fishrecords.co.uk).
Alun
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: NN: Kate Rusby
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 11:08:56 EDT
From: Halesbop@aol.com
Kate is coming to the US for a brief tour next month, her first I believe. We
are getting two shows here in Michigan, one in East Lansing on Nov 14 and
then Nov 15 at the Ark. Looking forward to it.
Steve
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: NN: Re: Muzak
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 09:24:09 EDT
From: RoanInish@aol.com
(( I've heard the Purple Haze muzak, I swear! And I've also heard a muzak
version of Why Can't I be You, by the Cure and Wish it Would Rain by our
nanci...
No wonder going to the dentist is a scary thing for me...... >>
Yikes almightly! No more elevators for me!
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: NN: Napster--Nanci content
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 10:55:24 CDT
From: "Ashley Palermo" (ashleypalermo@hotmail.com>
Hi all, I am emerging from my "read-only" status to comment on Napster.
Chris Whelehan wrote:
"On the subject of Napster, I would be interested in hearing all of your
comments. I have bought about five cd's so far that I would not have
bought had I not heard the artists work via Napster. The one thing you
can't get from Napster are the liner notes which, if you love the
artist, are a must read. Also the sound quality is much better than you
can get from Napster files...unless you are fortunate enough to find ALL
of the songs you want at a high bit rate. So from my point of view,
Napster must remain."
First let me say, I am not a Napster user. To me, it takes too much time
and computer space...However, I must disagree with Chris that Napster must
remain. Everytime you download a song from Napster, you are depriving the
artist of hard-earned profits. If the purpose of Napster was just so you
could "try a song out," then you would not object to the program being
limited to a "listen only" format.
I don't know if this has been discussed or not (I recently rejoined the
list), but a couple of months ago a group of artists placed a full page ad
in several newspapers that stated something like..."If a song means
something to you, imagine how much it means to us." Included on the list of
artists was none other than Nanci Griffith. I truly believe that there are
other ways to test out music. Borrow from a friend, go to Tower records and
listen on their headsets, or buy the cd and take the good with the bad, but
don't use Napster.
I hope I have not opened a huge can of worms here. BP, feel free to edit!
I hope you are all having a great weekend....
Ashley in Nashville
P.S. Just as a side note, I am a law student at Vanderbilt, and we(all
vandy students) are blocked from the Napster site while we are on campus.
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: NN: Napster--Nanci content
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 13:03:25 -0400
From: darrell (r-tome@home.com>
Ashley,
Read this with interest. I have a room mate who uses Napster regularly
and I refuse to benefit from it. I firmly believe in supporting the
artist. I was wondering if the "listen only" format
was something that has actually been considered. Sounds like a great
idea and does throw out the
" I wouldn't have bought" argument. We are fortunate to have Bibelot
Bookstores here where you can listen to anything before buying, plus
many listening stations. I agree this doesn't resolve the
out of print or hard to find music and I don't have an answer for that.
Any ideas?
Darrell
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: NN: Napster--Nanci content
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 10:27:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Houser (jchouser@yahoo.com>
> Everytime you download a song from Napster,
> you are depriving the artist of hard-earned
> profits.
I don't necessarily agree with this belief...
One, I am only depriving the artist of profits if I
had or have any intention of buying the CD. And if I
don't know about the artist, I probably won't buy the
CD (I, too, have purchased many CD's after an initial
listen on Napster)...
Two, mp3 files are not CD quality - I was "lucky" to
find one song recorded at 320 kbps and I still don't
think the quality stands up to a CD (an unfortunate
discovery after downloading a really big file).
Therefore, if I like the song, I buy the disk...
A few additional thoughts - and a question:
When I was at an electronics store the other day, I
checked out a Philips dual tray CD player (one tray
play, one tray for burn). This has been out for a
couple of years, but now the price is reasonable.
Anyways, I asked the store person what the RIAA must
think of this product, and he responded that some
group (the recording industry group?) is getting a cut
of EACH AND EVERY CD blank sold. Can anyone confirm?
Also, how many folks use VCR's to record stuff off the
TV? Do you know each time you record a show and keep
the recording, you are violating someone's copyright?
The original Supreme Court decision (the Sony
decision?) only approved recording for purposes of
"time shifted viewing" and did not approve, say,
recording each and every Star Trek episode (so, if you
are one of those with the entire ST library or
similar, you are, um, probably guilty of a crime)...
The bottom line is this: Napster may stay or go (I say
they win their case), but mp3s and peer-to-peer file
sharing are not going away. Therefore, everyone better
find a way to prosper in this new environment,
because, well, that's just the way it is...
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: NN: Napster--Nanci content
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 13:11:45 -0400
From: "Chris J. Whelehan" (megyver@home.com>
I agree John...does not matter what happens to Napster at this point,
there will be no stopping the sharing of MP3 files. For every Napster
that goes down...there will be 10 others starting up, (ie.Scour
Exchange). I also believe you are correct that the recording industry
is getting a cut of each cdr sold just as they are with cassette tapes
I believe. Can anyone confirm this?
Also, Napster is only of real value if you have a cable connection or
faster. I for one would not be using the service if I had to wait an
hour for each song to download.
Perhaps if the artists could put their cd's at a high bit rate on their
web sites for download at a cost of say $5.00 per cd with the ability to
also download the liner notes. This would save them millions in
distributing costs etc.. thereby leaving them probably with what they
are already getting per cd. This too would only be feasible for people
with high speed connections so you are eliminating most of the music
buying public.
Lets keep this discussion going folks!
Chris
ps...just bought the new Mark Knoffler cd...great duet with James Taylor
on there if your a fan.
pss...also just bought the Nanci Griffith cd Blue Roses... whats the
deal with Gulf Coast Highway...what a complete hack job. That song is
best when its raw..just like most of Nanci's tunes.
Regards
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: NN: Napster--Nanci content
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 12:50:24 -0500
From: Sarah Wrightson (sarahwrightson@vincebell.com>
Didn't we agree to keep Napster, religion, death penalty, abortion and
politics off the list?
Big (g>
Sarah
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: NN: Napster--Nanci content
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 20:21:00 +0200
From: "Marius Molstad" (marius.molstad@c2i.net>
Best suggestion today,
Think about how great things would've been if we still had vinyl albums instead
of CDs, MP3, DVD etc. First of all you would get a true musical experience and
secondly it wouldn't fit in a computer! Sure, computers have done lots of good
(like giving me a chance to write this), but music is still best alone without
a computer. Oops, I almost entered the discussion.
By the way, I just got the old Flatlanders album on the spin right now. For
those who don't know, this is a Lubbock, Texas based band that consisted of
Jimmie Dale Gilmore, Butch Hancock and Joe Ely. Great album that are given a
different twist partly because of the great songs and partly the musical saw.
Marius
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: NN: Napster--Nanci content
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 20:24:14 +0200
From: "Marius Molstad" (marius.molstad@c2i.net>
>Perhaps if the artists could put their cd's at a high bit rate on their
>web sites for download at a cost of say $5.00 per cd with the ability to
>also download the liner notes. This would save them millions in
>distributing costs etc.. thereby leaving them probably with what they
>are already getting per cd.
Pardon me, but this sounds like a sad world where the idea of an album seems
blur.
Marius
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: NN: Napster--Nanci content
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 13:28:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Houser (jchouser@yahoo.com>
> Pardon me, but this sounds like a sad world where
> the idea of an album seems blur.
OK, donning the flame retarding kevlar jumpsuit for
keeping up the dreaded N word discussion...
It would be a better world, IMNSHO...
Let me list a few things that come to mind:
- How many times have you purchased an album and been
completely disappointed or, at best, only liked one or
two songs? Well, that now goes away, and when one
discovers an album worthy of the name, one buys it.
Quality goes up or sales go down...
- I don't have to listen to commercialized radio to be
be exposed to new music...
- Sure, I can drive the several miles into town (I'm
in the sticks - and loving it) to check out the CD at
the one local music store that allows a listen before
purchase, but think of the gas I've saved:)! OK, this
is mostly a joke, but any few spare moments I save by
not going to town (and the few spare drops of gas I
save) is a wonderful thing...
Agree with you about the demise of LPs, but, well,
technology marches on and the world changes -
sometimes with downsides, of course - but, on balance,
this technology is probably a good thing...
John "looking for that jumpsuit in 46XL" Houser
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: RE: NN: Napster--Nanci content
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 14:33:00 -0400
From: "Panchyshyn,Roman" (panchysr@oclc.org>
Howdy everyone,
Just got back to my e-mail and I see we're back on that dreaded N topic
again (and no, the N is not for Nanci). This battle has been raging since
Radio Shack began selling reel to reel tape decks in 1962, and probably
before that I think. I know, because I had one, and as a kid I used to waste
my time recording music off the FM radio, or recording my favorite
ballgames. How times have changed, now instead of Jim McKay coming on TV and
talking about the "thrill of victory and the agony of defeat", while some
ski jumper goes flying headfirst sideways off a ski ramp, we get the
obligatory "No part of this broadcast can be redistributed without the
express written consent of ABC..."
While we argue over Napster, everyone is missing the bigger picture
surrounding this copyright debate. Napster is just one small fish in the
pond. The real issues over copyright are ownership and access, and the key
is what access free citizens in a democratic society should have to
information that keeps our society free and open. As a librarian, this is a
central issue to the profession. We have content owners (for example
publishers) against content users (library patrons, or NN readers). How do
you balance the public's right to know against the content owner's attempts
to make as large a profit as possible on access to their data or information
(books, music, etc...) If someone writes a book on how to build a better
mousetrap, I read it then tell you how to build it, have I violated
copyright law? Does a citizen in a democratic country have the right to
access that information about the mousetrap free of charge, or must they pay
for it?
That's really the issue for me here in a nutshell. The publishing industry
is attempting, through the courts, to diminish the concepts of "right to
know" and "fair use" to the extent that all access to and distribution of
data or information will be on a pay per view basis. The courts must define
what is "fair use" in the digital world, and right now, it's the information
consumer (and in our case, even many of the artists) that are getting the
short end of the stick. Do you want a society where only those who can
afford it will have access to information?
And my copyright story of the day. Now I know there are a few lawyers and
law students out there. Look up case No. 96-55243, Wendt vs. Host
International, US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. How many of you folks
remember the show "Cheers"? The Wendt in this case is George Wendt. This
case is a copyright case, and it may just end up in the Supreme Court.
What's at stake here is who owns copyright of a movie or TV character, the
writers, the studio or the artist? This lawsuit arose over the use of robots
in "Cheers" theme bars, licensed by Paramount, that resembled Norm and
Cliff. What is being argued here is that the fictitious character (Norm or
Cliff) has become so closely identified with the actor as to give the actor
control over the character. This is being argued under a right of publicity
statute, which gives ordinary people like you or me control over the use of
their likeness or voice for profit. So, when you make a Star Trek action
figure that looks like Capt. Kirk, who controls the character, Shatner or
the studio? So, think of the irony, if a writer comes up with a character,
you make a movie or TV show about the character, the actor or actress
becomes so closely associated with that character that the actor, not the
writer, gets control of the character (and profits. Are you listening, Harry
Potter author?).
So, while Nanci fights the good fight against what she believes is blatant
copyright infringement, we have to look at the broader issues surrounding
access to data and its fair use. Are you "ripping off" an author or artist
if you borrow their book or CD from the library? Publishers damn well think
so! Right now, the courts are deciding this issue, but if they rule heavily
in favor of publishers and database providers, you begin to look at a
society with very unbalanced access of information between the rich and the
poor, between those who can afford to pay for information and those that
cannot. So how do you balance this in a democratic society?
And, now you all know why Cliff and Norm (George Wendt and John
Ratzenberger) can't find work in TV sitcoms any longer.
Roman from Ohio
PS: Cliff on Cheers always reminded me of my favorite post office joke:
Q. What do the Post Office and the shoe store have in common?
A. They both have 50,000 loafers.
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: RE: NN: Napster--Nanci content
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:47:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: odddduck@deltanet.com (Bill Lukesh)
>H! Right now, the courts are deciding this issue, but if they rule heavily
>in favor of publishers and database providers, you begin to look at a
>society with very unbalanced access of information between the rich and the
>poor, between those who can afford to pay for information and those that
>cannot
This argument is far too goofy to ignore. It has to do with accessability.
If its quicker and cheaper to download a recording, no one's going to go
out and buy it. That's different than a even copying it from a lending library.
People can argue back and forth to the cows come home, but if the musicans
stop getting paid, they are going to stop putting out new music. If you are
happy with the thought of not hearing anything new. Go ahead use Napster.
BTW the rich have always had better access to information. That is
something that's never going to change. It may not be right or just but it
just is. However, Using that sort of argument to justify freeloading is
obscene. Most poor people don't own cd burners in the first place.
Bill Lukesh
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: NN: Napster (no Nanci)
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 16:26:58 -0400
From: "Richard" (rweintraut@email.msn.com>
I understand why some think NAPSTER may help some artists,
but I disagree... and will speak up until the list owner ask us to
drop the subject.
>Also, how many folks use VCR's to record stuff off the
TV? Do you know each time you record a show and keep
the recording, you are violating someone's copyright?
>When I was at an electronics store the other day, I
checked out a Philips dual tray CD player (one tray
play, one tray for burn). This has been out for a
couple of years, but now the price is reasonable.
Anyways, I asked the store person what the RIAA must
think of this product,
(There was a law pending where artists would receive some
profit from blank CDs, I do not know if it was enacted.)
The problem with copyright is when you make a PROFIT or you
keep the original owner from making a profit.
If I record from TV... (which has paid the artists) or CDs that I have
paid for.. (I paid the artist)... and do not sell them or give them
to others, I don't believe I have broken the copyright...
NAPSTER makes a profit..... None of that profit goes to the artists.
There have been court rulings to this effect.
>On July 26, 2000, the district court issued an opinion and order
granting a preliminary injunction against NAPSTER. The district court
concluded, inter alia, that Napster's users are engaged in extensive
copyright infringement and that Napster is contributorily and vicariously
liable for their actions.(
This ruling is being appealed.
If you're willing to dig through the government babble... look here.
http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright
The people who are hurt most are the artists... very few of them are
in favor of NAPSTER.
Trout
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: NN: Re: Napster (no Nanci)
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 18:34:04 -0500
From: "Jim Woodward" (jwoodward@houston.rr.com>
my 2 cents...
> NAPSTER makes a profit..... None of that profit goes to the artists.
As I understand it, Napster hasn't made a nickel from their facilitation of
music exchange (or whatever you choose to call it), and I don't think it
would matter either way.
There have been a number of colleges that have blocked Napster from their
networks, usually justifying the block because of the load on their
networks, not copyright considerations. Of course, it's easier for them to
defend that rationale to their students, rather than trying to argue
copyright law.
The fact that a CD ends up in a used CD sale bin is evidence of nothing. I
have many I'd sell for $1 each because I'll never listen to them again. If
that's where they come from, it's OK. On the other hand, if I buy a CD, rip
it and copy it, then resell the original, I'm in violation, I think.
I think it's pretty clear that Napster is illegal, and it's only a matter of
time before it gets shut down. The copycats will follow down the same road.
Artists will (and probably should) keep the pressure on whatever substitute
pops up. What I'd rather not see is an attempt at a copy-proof solution.
That will just raise the noise level for everyone concerned - someone breaks
whatever protection scheme is created, causing a new one to be invented.
Software manufacturers gave up on that a long time ago.
The only justification I've heard that I can buy for a music exchange is
sampling, and there are good ways to accomplish that without damaging the
artists. The Amazon example - making partial cuts available for download,
but not the entire cut - works great.
Jim "returning now to lurkdom" Woodward
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: NN: Re: Napster (no Nanci)
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 00:51:09 -0400
From: "Shawn Kimbro" (kimbroj@charter.net>
Richard writes:
> I understand why some think NAPSTER may help some artists,
> but I disagree... and will speak up until the list owner ask us to
> drop the subject.
As a fledgling artist, and a big fan of nearly all types of music, I have
mixed feelings about Napster. I made a decision to put a few songs on both
MP3.com and into a Napster available directory because the goal right now is
to get our music heard by as many people as will listen. It was my decision
to forego the royalties on those tunes because I feel that I have other good
tunes to sell in hopes of return compensation for the investment I made in
recording. I think Napster should live on, but I believe it should be up
to the artists, or whoever owns the intellectual rights to a particular
song, to determine what is available free there. Or, in lieu of that,
Napster, through advertising, user fees, or whatever means, should pay
performance rights royalties just like any radio station in the country has
to. MP3 technology is a fantastic resource for musicians, especially those
in niche genres. But I don't think it should impair the artists rights to
music they create.
Warm Regards,
-Shawn
http://mountainsoul.cjb.net
http://www.mp3.com/mountainsoul
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: NN: Vinyl vs QUALITY SOUND!
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 16:56:00 EDT
From: Annavedo@aol.com
marius.molstad@c2i.net writes:
(( Think about how great things would've been if we still had vinyl albums
instead of CDs, MP3, DVD etc. >>
Why? Isn't the quality of the sound important to you? I love being able to
hit the repeat button and hear one song over and over. I love being able to
carry a CD in my bare hands and lay it in the seat next to me in the car. I
love being able to listen to that CD a MILLION times, with no reduction of
sound quality or damage to the disc. Other than harkening back to a "simpler
time" when we all saved our pennies to buy albums and 45's, I see no point in
romanticizing the vinyl days. No more warped records and loopy sound. No
more "disc-washer" before each and every spin of the record. No more crackle
and pop to obscure the sound of the MUSIC. Good riddance, I say!
*Anne*
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: NN: Vinyl vs QUALITY SOUND!
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 18:16:04 EDT
From: PRobin5478@aol.com
yeah, but I miss record covers
I miss the artwork and the feeling of holding a record cover in his your
hands when you gave a new record a first spin
there was something physically pleasing about vinyl LPs that CDs don't have
check out ALMOST FAMOUS for vinyl love
Peter in SoCal
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: NN: Vinyl vs QUALITY SOUND!
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 19:11:15 EDT
From: Halesbop@aol.com
Not to mention some of the other useful functions of lp jackets. Ever tried
to clean weed on a jewel box? Kids these days don't know what they're missing.
Steve
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: NN: Vinyl vs QUALITY SOUND!
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 19:06:13 -0500
From: Sarah Wrightson (sarahwrightson@vincebell.com>
> Not to mention some of the other useful functions of lp jackets. Ever tried
> to clean weed on a jewel box? Kids these days don't know what they're missing.
ROFLOL is the politically correct expression...
Nitall...have a great week,
Sarah
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: NN: Vinyl vs QUALITY SOUND!
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 02:17:53 EDT
From: Annavedo@aol.com
thornton@onenetwork.com writes:
(( there is something so much warmer about analog recordings. >>
As Phoebe says: "Um, ok..."
Call me crazy, but I find nothing warm about ticks, pops, scratches and
skips. Nostalgic, yes. Believe me, there is nothing like sifting through
the old record collection in the basement on a rainy day. Heck, where else
can I hear Mac and Katie Kissoon singing "Chirpy Chirpy Cheep Cheep?" But
I'd much rather hear recorded-live acoustic performances (and warts!) free of
all of the inevitable distractions of vinyl.
For my buck, nothing so far has heightened my listening pleasure like the
advent of the compact disc!
*Anne "ain't technology grand?"*
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: NN: Vinyl vs QUALITY SOUND!
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 17:31:07 -0400
From: Tony Cox (tonycox@pacific.net.au>
Annavedo@aol.com wrote:
> For my buck, nothing so far has heightened my listening pleasure like the
> advent of the compact disc!
I just wish I could play you one of my (well-looked after!) records on my
wonderful record-player so that you could hear how vinyl can still leave CD for
dead when it comes to "listening pleasure" on many recordings. But yes, CD is
very convenient.
Tony , trying hard to hold back on my favourite hobby-horse.
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: NN: Vinyl vs QUALITY SOUND!
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 09:31:54 +0200
From: "Marius Molstad" (marius.molstad@c2i.net>
Anne,
Sure, I can understand that you feel that way.
When it comes to vinyl lovers like me it's a lot like motorcycles. Why do
people drive these old Harley Davidson bikes? They're slow, they're
uncomfortable, there's always something that needs to be fixed, why don't they
just buy one of these new Hondas? they're cheaper, faster, more
reliable....they're missing the point! There's something subjective that comes
into a discussion like this because these are feelings attached to experience,
childhood, memories etc. It's not searching for perfection, but preserving
something that enhance the listening experience. I got old Townes Van Zandt
vinyl albums with lots of "sound effects" and I got new
reissues on CD, why should I ever bother with taking out the LP? In my head is
sounds truer to hear Townes sing "For the sake of the song" through those vinyl
imperfections, than a perfect digital remastering. I can understand that some
people (well most people...) don't feel like I do, but that's because they
don't have these subjective emotions attached to a good ol' vinyl album. So
Anne, there's no objective (or reasonable(G>)
explanation for our vinyl lover's behavior!
Best
Marius
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: NN: Vinyl vs QUALITY SOUND!
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 10:22:54 EDT
From: Annavedo@aol.com
Eh, ya bunch of nostalgic old weenies! You sound like Dana Carvey's skit
about the Grumpy Old Man.... "In MY day....we had crappy audio sound and we
LIKED it!!!"
There goes your video, Bob Mc!!!
;-)
*Anne*
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: NN: Vinyl vs QUALITY SOUND!
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 23:45:11 +0800
From: "Bob McConnochie" (rsm@ppp.com.hk>
If I never make it back to Scotland, Anne, I'll get my Mum to send all my
vinyl over to you in Colorado.... PLUS a decent turntable and a valve
amplifier!
You can't say fairer than that!
Bob "shoebox in t' middle of road" Mc
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: NN: Vinyl vs QUALITY SOUND!
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 09:42:39 CDT
From: "Jack Webb" (jwebb714@hotmail.com>
During an appearance on David Letterman, Nanci said that she preferred vinyl
to cd because she thought it sounded warmer.
Jack
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: NN: CD vs REAL MUSIC!
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 06:40:12 -0400
From: Tony Cox (tonycox@pacific.net.au>
Jack Webb wrote:
> During an appearance on David Letterman, Nanci said that she preferred vinyl
> to cd because she thought it sounded warmer.
The only trouble with that word 'warm' is that it could be taken to mean 'not
as
clear', whereas that certainly isn't the case on my set-up. I'd go for
'organic' as opposed to the 'synthetic' characteristic of a lot of digital
recordings. In other words, more natural and thus closer to real live music.
And no, I'm not in the least bit sentimentally attached to my vinyl collection.
Quite the opposite - I'm a compulsive minimiser of possessions. It's just that
every time I set out determinedly to get rid of these space-consuming items
(and
yes, I have a CD recorder) I find the alternatives just don't match up
musically.
But then, I'm blessed/cursed with having what many consider to be the best
turntable there is, made by the Scottish company Linn. When they released
their
last upgrade (a separate phono stage between turntable and pre-amp) they said
that it put vinyl replay so far ahead of their $5000 CD player (also very well
regarded) that they went back and eventually came up with a $20,000+ CD player
that is now considered the benchmark in the industry.
Tony "could go on forever but unless you actually hear it you'll still think
I'm
talking crap".
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: NN: CD vs REAL MUSIC!
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 20:30:40 -0400
From: "Chris J. Whelehan" (megyver@home.com>
Digital sound is just a pile of numbers. A cd player reads those
numbers and translates it into sound by way of a digital/analog
converter. It does not matter if you pay 5 dollars for a cd player or
5,000, they will both sound the same...UNLESS...the manufacturer has
colored the sound somehow to make it sound better...much like the
loudness button on your stereo which simply changes the equalization on
your system. True, some manufacturers will use better components than
others, but that would only alter the sound quality minimally.
Therefore....the poor sap who goes out to buy a 20,000 dollar cd player,
is just that...a poor sap!
Remember..the numbers don't lie...manufacturers do!!
ps..DVD sound will soon be a reality and you can toss all your cds away
for the new format. They can hold at least 24 bit info vs. only 16 bit
for the conventional cd.
Regards
Chris
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: NN: Vinyl vs QUALITY SOUND!
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 11:42:09 EDT
From: TeacherJef@aol.com
((
I just wish I could play you one of my (well-looked after!) records on my
wonderful record-player so that you could hear how vinyl can still leave CD
for dead when it comes to "listening pleasure" on many recordings.
>>
Vinyl is a blast. We should remember that the artists and producers who
distributed vinyl had in mind the end user with a phonograph and a 12 inch
sleeve in hand. Everything was created to sound best with those given
limitations.
But it should be noted that once an LP is recorded onto today's digital home
systems, the new recording sounds exactly like the LP. Not only that, but
software is available for cheap that can then remove the clicks, pops and
surface noise in a way never imagined by the artists. With that, I never before
thought I'd be able to say that a CD will sound better than the original LP,
but it is true.
-Jeff S
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: NN: Vinyl vs QUALITY SOUND!
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 10:53:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: odddduck@deltanet.com (Bill Lukesh)
Have these two things been mentioned yet?
On vinyl, the sound quality sours towards the end of the side. The stylus
goes over less distance/revolution. Those overpriced audiophile vinyl things
are always squeeze the music onto the edge as mush as possible.
The other is the amount of time on disc. I had an audiophile pressing of
Solti's classic(1972) recording of Beethoven's ninth. It was two discs with
one movement/side. That's 3 side flips boys and girls. Its now available on
one CD. No side flips and no awful distortion on the glorious finale
section of the last movement.
Having grown up on those Bulky opera sets where you have to bound over to
the record player every 25 minutes , its really nice to be able to hear an
entire act of 'Tristan' in one sitting. Multiple CD players make this even
easier.
Compare:
Wagner's ring on # of vinyl discs/ vs # ofCD's ( the solti set)
Rheingold 3/2, 5 side breaks vs one.
Walkurie 5/4 9 side breaks vs three
Siegfried 5/4 9 side breaks vs three
Gotterdammurung 6/4 11 side breaks vs three.
Thats 34 sidebreaks vs 9. Also its easier to stop 'mid disc' than it is
with a stylus. Also an entire opera can be loaded into a multiple cd player
so one never has to leave the couch.
Bill Lukesh.
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: NN: What in the worlds come over you?
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 00:24:32 -0400
From: "Chris J. Whelehan" (megyver@home.com>
Thank you all for the discussion re: Napster...its a refreshing change
from the last thread...Napster is apparently having their day in court
this week. We will see..but like I say...it is now UNSTOPPABLE!!! Just
like cloning. People say we should put a stop to it and that its not
right...well guess what...there is no way to stop it...it will happen
regardless of what laws are put in place...its a part of our nature as
sad as that may seem.
Listening to allot of John Prine lately...what great lyrics he has
written...humorous and poiniant...listening to his music is like reading
a great book!
On another note...how about that Nanci Griffith Other Voices
video...just watched it again Saturday night....enjoyed it more than
ever!!..I don't own the Other Voices Two video...can anyone recommend
it? Thanks
Chris
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: NN: What in the worlds come over you?
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 00:37:35 EDT
From: Poetmuse@aol.com
The second Nanci video (Other Voices too) isn't as good as the first in my
honest opinion but still worth the price because well...hell, it's nanci
griffith!
I would also suggest One Fair Summer Evening, if you haven't seen it already.
And I just gotta know.. are you a big Magyver fan or just know someone named
Meg?
(lol)
-Christina
now playing: Sarah Harmer/You were Here
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: NN: What in the worlds come over you?
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 09:50:12 -0500
From: Laura Breidenbach (pray@remembered.com>
Meg?
Where have I been all these years...cooped up at home!
I did not realize that there were videos available..
assuming I can get them from Amazon.com...get that
charge card out and start shopping.....I hope!
Thanks for the info!
Laura Breidenbach
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: NN: What in the worlds come over you?
Date: 2 Oct 2000 19:11:38 +0000
From: "Matt Bloomfield" (mail@mattbloomfield.co.uk>
*Chris J. Whelehan* wrote:
> Listening to allot of John Prine lately...what great lyrics he has
> written...humorous and poiniant...listening to his music is like reading
> a great book!
Me too, only got into him very recently even tho' Speed of The Sound
etc was the first NG song I heard.
If you can get hold of the John Prine Anthology - Great Days I
recommend it, it's a two CD set and comes with a booklet containing a
lot of info on the songs and on John himself, there are also some
pictures from the OV sessions.
Regards,
Matt
--
http://www.mattbloomfield.co.uk
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: NN: My.Doesn't Kitty Have a Nice Long Tail?? (was napster)
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 17:54:03 EDT
From: Poetmuse@aol.com
those of you who have been on the list since the dawn of time will understand
this post. Those of you who haven't, go find an archive.
>:*)
Christina "what's an mp3?" Myers
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: NN: On second thought...
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 18:19:14 EDT
From: Poetmuse@aol.com
Having put forth the Kitty-cat defense in hopes of stopping any long drawn
out discussion on Napsters and the like, I did realize I had my own two cents
to contribute:
People who are against Napster or disagree with it are highly disregarding
the American need to *own* things. We love to buy things that have liner
notes, pictures, lyrics etc etc. We love to have our own stuff. My closet is
very definite proof of this. That said I must also confess I've never
bothered with mp3's, napster and the like because 1) I have a crappy computer
2) who has the time?? 3) I LIKE buying a new album and discovering it. Yes, I
have my share of junk (the Rembrandts and Glass Tiger come to mine, in fact I
use one as a coaster) but overall I've learned to *research* before buying.
Not because of a high flalutin musical ethic but because money-wise, it makes
more sense. And also; I am of the strong belief that some albums and some
groups take more than one listen to get in to and I might be deprived of that
if I downloaded it and then deleted it (which IS very easy to do) whereas if
I bought the thing I'd force myself to give it the old college try because
hey, I plunked down money on the thing.
It's interesting that in the discussion of artist's rights and whatnot that
no one has mentioned how Used record stores, used book stores et al also take
away from the artists' royalties. It's the same thing (in practice) really.
Basically I think that FANS will always find a way to get to their favorite
artists and music lovers will always find a way of trying new things with or
without Napster and the gang.
The internet has just blurred the lines a bit. I guess I agree with the
person who mentioned that if you take away one, another will pop up. Getting
free access to things will never go away or at least, attempting to get free
access. Bootlegs have been around forever and will probably continue to be as
long as artists still tour.
Although according to my one friend, there will soon just be Web Broadcasted
concerts where we all plug in virtually. :shudder:: Of course, he's sort of
cynical and wears black a lot.
and that was more than two cents. Sorry.
Christina " here kitty,kitty" Myers
N.P: Sign of Truth/Tish Hinojosa
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: NN: Re: Napster (no Nanci)
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 09:56:09 -0400
From: Steve Robertson (stever@mindspring.com>
> MP3 technology is a fantastic resource for musicians, especially those
> in niche genres. But I don't think it should impair the artists rights to
> music they create.
Amen, Brother Shawn! I find it ironic that a discussion of computer-aided
music distribution generates so much disagreement on this particular mailing
list. After all, most of the folks on this list prefer musicians that they
didn't hear on their local radio station.
Before the Web, these artists had to spend years touring the smallest venues
and playing to miniscule crowds to eventually build an audience through
word-of-mouth. The Web and e-mail allow those recommendations from friend to
friend to spread much faster. Being able to hear a sample of that unknown
performer over the Web makes this viral marketing even more effective.
Taking that one step farther, any independent musician should be able to
make a much higher profit by selling MP3s than they ever could selling CDs-
as long as those MP3s cost less than a CD, or about 50 cents per song.
Napster doesn't store or distribute MP3s. They just help individuals find
the file they want on some one else's hard drive. All the indignation should
be aimed at those individuals who choose to build their music collection
without contributing financially to the artist and copyright holder.
Personally, I think that any musician who's good enough to make music a full
time profession can- with the help of the Web- find enough paying fans to
make the thieves irrelevant.
>From the Georgia Pines,
Steve Robertson
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: NN: CD vs REAL MUSIC!
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:32:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: odddduck@deltanet.com (Bill Lukesh)
((The only trouble with that word 'warm' is that it could be taken to mean 'not
as clear', whereas that certainly isn't the case on my set-up. I'd go for
'organic' as opposed to the 'synthetic' characteristic of a lot of digital
recordings. In other words, more natural and thus closer to real live music.>>
I bet you think that 24 still pictures per second doesn't resemble motion
either.
Early in the digital age there was validity in digital recordings sounding
worse than analog ones, However, that was due to the fact they had yet
learned how to properly record with the new process. Most of this was due
to microphone placement more than anything else. They had to learn to
re-mike almost every instrument. Furthermore, the deterioration of old
analog masters made early digital transfers of classics sound rotten.
Decca physically had to scrap the rust of the master tapes of Solti's ring
when they converted it to digital for the first time. If I recall correcty
'Last of the true believers' was one of the first digitally recorded
'popular' albums I ever owned.
Bill Lukesh
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: NN: Shawn Kimbro's MOUNTAIN SOUL [was Re: Napster (no Nanci)]
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 22:37:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Reid Mitchell (reidmitchell@yahoo.com>
> http://mountainsoul.cjb.net
> http://www.mp3.com/mountainsoul
Innocents should be warned. This harmless sounding
webpage is actually a depiction of some dark Gotghic
fantasy in which a beautiful woman is captured by
three foul, ugly men and forced to listen to
out-of-tune hillybilly instruments. The photographs
clearly show her screaming.
_________________________________________________________________
Subject: NN: Reid's Revelation
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 23:36:42 -0400
From: "Shawn Kimbro" (kimbroj@charter.net>
Hey gang --
We were happy to see NN/Moonpie grumbit Bruce Miller show up at one of our
gigs this weekend. He stuck around a while and we mixed up the weekend with
some half-yard micro-brews, hiking, marching band competitions, and even a
late-night jam session at somebody's cabin in Gatlinburg who displayed a
passion for putting plaid barstool covers on his head while doing imitations
of fat Austin Powers characters. Thanks for all the well-wishes. In
response to some questions, our CD CLINCH RIVER VALLEY is available and I'll
shut up about it now, I swear. I've just forwarded a cache to Bill Lavery
at Village Records, or you can get them directly from me. Unfortunately,
Reid Mitchell has exposed the dark underbelly of our brand of Appalachian
folk music (Don't believe it when he says N'awlins has the best Goth
clubs--Amanda is frequently mistaken for Betty Page) so that eliminates one
surprise element, but there may be another or two.
.---. ___________
|===|////SEE/////\ Warm Regards,
| ////ROCK////[]\ -Shawn
| ////CITY////|__|\
| ^|^^^^^^^^^^| | "Years go by and everything changes
| | | | But nothing does" -Kate Campbell
|__ |___[X]____|__|
http://mountainsoul.cjb.net
_________________________________________________________________
*****************************************************************
* End of NanciNet Digest #00A02 *
* *
* To post a message to NanciNet, send e-mail to *
* *
* nanci@world.std.com *
* *
* Please include a descriptive "Subject" with your posting. *
* *
* All postings are distributed to the unmoderated list; *
* Digest messages are subject to approval and editing. *
* *
* To obtain a current FAQ file, send the "info nanci" *
* command to majordomo@world.std.com *
* or see http://www.jump.net/~ferg/nanfaq.html *
* *
* To unsubscribe from the Digest, send the "unsubscribe *
* nanci-digest" command to majordomo@world.std.com *
* *
* Searchable NanciNet archives are at: *
* http://brisbin.net/Nanci/archives/arc.html *
* *
* Questions about NanciNet? Send e-mail to bpage@itol.com *
*****************************************************************
Questions about NanciNet? Send e-mail to bpage@scctel.com
Return to Archives or The Blue Moon Page