WHY are less people listening to music? (1 Viewer)

[BrianB]

I'm surprised by this. Most musicians would agree with me that there are real limitations to the 16/44 CD format.

So how does that make anyone who can "put up" with CD not a "real music lover"?

 

[Marc Colella]

I know real music lovers, experts in classical and blues who have no interest whatsoever in audiophile gear and hi-rez formats.

To these people, CD is more than good enough and they would rather spend their money on more music than on better gear and formats.

 

[AndyDC]

Two unrelated comments.

On music today vs. years ago, it's remarkable to me how little popular music has changed since say 1982 or three. Even rap was already around then. Compare that to the differences in musical styles from the '40s (Big band etc.) to '50s (doo wop, rock and roll) to '60s etc.

On a contrary note on frequency of music listening, I myself upgraded/dusted off my sound system inspired by HT, but I now find myself really listening to music much more than before (admittedly a low bar).

 

[Seth--L]

I think that most musicians would agree that recorded sound will never come close to reproducing the live concert experience, so if you're that thursty for great sound, go to more concerts, or make your own music.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

A music lover is one who is so captivated by beautiful music that their listening experience transcends formats and gear. They'll listen for years or decades on the same gear, with nary a tweak or upgrade.

An audiophile is one who has so little passion for music that they are so distracted by real and imagined format and gear limitations and don't really listen to the music.

A music lover achieves nirvana from the music itself, not the playback chain.

Robert Fripp once talked about having his whole life changed by hearing Hendrix and Beatles on the AM radio in his car. Zappa's life was changed, not listening to a turntable and hi-fi, but by listening to Edgar Varese on a record player. Countless people have been moved to tears listening to beautififul music on lousy record players.

Millions if not billions of people, living and dead, who never listened to SACD, DVDA, or even quality vinyl, are the true music fans. The arrogant and shallow attitude of the tiny minority who claim that mainstream formats and playback hardware are not acceptable for music fans is simply wrong...and ignorant. I pity them.

 

[Seth--L]

Exactly. In the classical music industry, live radio broadcast recordings from the 20s-60s have become very popular (these are recordings that were made for radio, never intended for commercial release). The sound is typically awful, often in mono, but as long as the conductor's intentions are able to be heard, nobody cares about the sound.

 

[Chuck L]

I agree with the ‘death’ of music by MTV and radio very much, but want to expand on that a little more.

At one time, the main focus of both MTV and VH1, we all agree on, was music video. As soon as they started only airing music video’s during only the late night and early morning (people are either asleep or going to work, so who can watch) and the rest of the time filled up with so-called variety programming, music became dead on arrival.

Counteract that with radio in general only focusing, if they still play music, on about forty songs over and over, the average person gets tired of it. Top 40 radio as almost always operated this way with the mindset that the average listener wasn’t going to listen but twenty minutes anyway. So that is way you will hear Pink’s “Feel Good Time” five times in a two-hour period.

Also, the main focus in radio these days is saving money by hiring less people and making more money ‘whoring’ out their talent. Syndication of radio plays a role in the way that music the past several years has been on the airwaves. Whereas radio stations used to play music blocks, that has been replaced by talk blocks and a song or two thrown in each hour to allow the ‘talent’ to take a piss or smoke.

Radio stations I also blame for the death of music because of the simple ness of programming. While in the 50’s there was the debate of pay-o-la, to a certain extend, it does still exist but in other forms. For an example, when radio stations are putting together THEIR summer concert, the type that is totally radio station produced, when they are dealing with that artist management, concessions are made. In many cases, they will be told that they have to play an artist song not only a certain amount of time, but they can also be told to drop not only that artist last single to give the new one more play, but other artist as well to reduce the competition for their artist. They can also stipulate that if they want a said artist, that the radio station must add to it’s lineup a lesser known artist for the exposure, regardless of merit.

The music industry and radio have also done a lot to condemn those people that have downloaded music from the internet. What doesn’t make sense though is just how some of the music gets out there to begin with. In many cases, radio stations and the said record company, are the only ones that will have ‘radio edit’ versions of songs, and those seem to pop up way ahead of time before an albums release. Those cannot all be coming from the public at large. There is a lot more file sharing and ‘piracy’ issues coming from within the industry than what is to be let on.

Now…back to the music video stations. With the shift of entertainment now focused on programs that list that the “100 Top Artist To Show Their Breast,” “The Osborne’s” or “The Real World (But Many Things Contained Within Are Prompted)” music has lost its shine. It has almost come to a point that when these channels do show videos, that much like radio, you can predict what song will be following it. It is all too ‘programmed.’

The art form known as video though is still alive and well and in the programming for channels such as the multi-channeled VH1-Classics and MTV2. This though can be a double edge sword. Many times, some of the artist that they play not only has a current recording contract, but also some actually have deleted catalog albums. How is someone supposed to find that song that they have discovered when it isn’t available…in most cases, file swapping.

So all it all boils down the deterioration of music as whole, but I really think that the company’s themselves want to blame the wrong people.

 

[TommyT]

Supposedly the belief has been that people listen to the radio while driving to & from work so that's probably where the 20 min standard comes from & why people never notice just how bad the programming is. It wasn't until I was working my 1st student job in college that I noticed just how horrific the redundancy of the playlists was. The fulltimers where I worked were allowed to play their favorite radio station 1 day a week. The majority of the time we listened to the local classic rock station.

What's always annoyed me about playlists is that the bands that get airtime [rant]have recorded MANY other songs over the years.[/rant] In some cases the more obscured & even BETTER tracks from their repertoire are ignored. Why? [rant]Because their recording companies have dictated to the bands what songs will be released as singles & what will not be.[/rant] It all struck home for me when I was watching Aerosmith's video "The Making of Pump". There's a scene where Geffen mogul John Kalodner tells the band that they should change "Janie's Got a Gun" (probably the most overplayed rock song of the 90s) slightly so it will make a better hit single. Sounds like recording company manipulation to me!

 

[Lee Scoggins]

The arrogant and shallow attitude of the tiny minority who claim that mainstream formats and playback hardware are not acceptable for music fans is simply wrong...and ignorant.

Again, no one is saying that listening to redbook makes you less of a fan, just that there are better ways to experience the same music. I think that music fans intimately familiar with particular favorite albums can most readily hear the difference.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Lee:

I simply feel that redbooks are not really high fidelity enough for music lovers

As far as I can tell, that can mean one (or both) of two things.

1) Those who feel that CD is good enough aren't real music lovers.
2) Most music lovers are dissatisfied from CD.

Regardless of which you mean, you are dead wrong.

Most music lovers are happy with less sound quality than CD. It's called MP3. Just in the last month three of my coworkers have bought IPODs and dumped every CD they own into them! These are people that love music and listen to it for hours and hours a day.

 

[BrianB]

I simply feel that redbooks are not really high fidelity enough for music lovers

Except you're wrong - the majority of music lovers are quite clearly saying they don't care that redbooks are not "high fidelity enough", and that doesn't make them like music any less.

Look at the success of mp3. Look at the sales of CDs vs SACD etc. The majority of people out there are happy with CD.

[rambling]
I've also yet to see anything to back up the original poster's argument that people are listening to music less in the first place.

Combine the complaints in this thread with the complaints about "rock'n'roll" being dead since 1973, I think it says more about not music being dead, but people just not liking /modern/ music or being exposed to enough modern music. Some people are turning into their parents.
[/rambling]

 

[Mike Broadman]

Allow me take some middle ground here.

- I can't understand how a real music lover can't be concerned with sound quality at least to some degree. I listen to MP3s in the car for convenience, but I sound quality is something I notice and care about.

- A well-mastered CD is good enough for great sound and enjoyable music.

So, a "music lover" can get along just fine with just CDs. High-res simply offers a way to extend that.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Some people are turning into their parents.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Let's look again at what I said:

I simply feel that redbooks are not really high fidelity enough for music lovers

This is FAR different from saying that "if you don't listen to redbook, then you are not a music lover".

It is saying that I personally believe that the quality is not high enough for music lovers.

I think its silly to suggest that redbook is adequate when we are all aware of its shortcomings. That shortchanges fans by taking energy away from creating better sound.

It would be a BETTER world if we can move to a higher resolution format for sound, just as we have moved and are moving into higher definition video.

There are some redbooks that sound fabulous like the XRCDs, numerous great masterings, product from Chesky and Reference and other labels, etc. But in my opinion this is the exception.

I would like to see a day when a music lover can walk into WalMart or Best Buy and purchase hirez for the same price as redbook-both software and hardware. Sure, many will have crap systems that may not exactly highlight any big differences, but why limit those who want better quality.

The extra transparency could possibly help incentivize better performing systems as well.

I think something else is likely to happen. As we start seeing low cost ($100) universals, people are going to have an opportunity to hear the difference between their past redbook purchases and the new SACDs/DVDAs. When they do, I think more than a handful are going to be pleased and likely try more discs.

Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.