Archive through January 26, 2005

Gold Member

Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2126
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 10:24 pm:

RANTZ any injuries from the near fatal volume excursion?

Hope not for your sake!

Relevant Product Info

Gold Member

Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2127
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 10:29 pm:

How about all those 1 hit wonder bands?

I've got several compalation cd's with those great tunes on them
some of my more cherrished disks.

Anyone Remember "mountains" mississippi queen ? , man great song!
Well I found there greatest hits cd used one day, now I know why I found it.

Silver Member

Username: Rick_b

New York
USA

Post Number: 760
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 11:14 pm:

Kegger,

I remember them well. I wonder what ever happened to Leslie West? Doesn't really matter does it? He played a mean guitar though. A Les Paul gold top, if memory serves me correctly. How old I feel...............................

J. Vigne

Unregistered guest

Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 12:52 am:

My comments regarding Kegger's preferenece for solid state electronics prior to hearing tubed equipment was not meant as a challenge to anyone. I thought this was a stated fact made by Kegger. My comment was meant to only point out that people's taste will change as they are exposed to different and (what they feel is) better equipment. Most salespeople know the best way to convince a client of the quality of a purchase is to ask the client to listen to their old equipment after about two weeks with something new. If the improvement has actually been positive, the client should find it hard to believe they ever thought the old gear was that good for so long. If the client goes back and still feels the old gear is better, then there probably wasn't an improvement made that was relevant to the client. That's the point of improving your system, that's all that was meant. I don't know how anyone should feel belittled by anything there.

I do like a lot of movies that were done in Black and White. Lugosi is still the best Dracula, Karloff the best Frankenstein monster and Chaney will forever be the Phantom of the Opera. "Grand Hotel" is a movie I can watch dozens of times. The closest to it today is "Oceans Eleven". They are not in the same league, but, they are not meant to be in the same league. One is smart and intriguing with a touch of social commentary; while the other is slick and entertaining. What does that make someone who likes one and not the other? I don't know. Maybe just someone who hasn't seen them both because they dislike B&W movies. "The Best Years of Our Lives" is one of my favorites also. 1946, Black and White anti war movie. But, I've seen "The Deerhunter" and "Apocalypse Now" and they filmed "Born on the Fourth of July" literally in my backyard. They are all different films. "The Ruling Class" is in color but doesn't need surround to make it a great film. I surely don't think that every movie that was made in B&W is a classic, but, I do think there are a lot of films that should be seen for their artistic value whether they're in B&W, color or 3-D. If you don't like something after you've tried it, fine with me. I'm certainly not alone in feeling the ability to tell a story has been lost in the last few decades. My preference is for a movie where the surround system is used to benefit the film; not where the surround effects are the reason for the film. Some people prefer the other way around. OK.
As to the center channel, it is John who thinks all center channel speakers should be buried in a very deep and wide hole. I use a center channel but tend to keep the level lower than most people. That's a personal preference and sometimes I'll raise the level quite a bit for intelligibility, depending on the mix. As far as music goes, there is more music written before 1990 in my collection than music written after that date. That would be true of several of the contributors to this forum, I believe.
Kegger, your history of Elvis is a bit misguided. There were people who thought rock and roll was horrible music; even some that thought it came from the Devil Himself! There are probably still people who feel that way. But, the idea that people thought Elvis was crap is just not correct. Some thought he was dangerous. They were outnumbered by those who thought he was "The Greatest"! The idea that, "Things come around and what many don't like now will become classics in the future!", doesn't hold its weight in the context of history. Crap is crap and tends to stay that way. If MOST people think it's crap today; well, probably MOST people will think its crap in fifty years. There are exceptions, but not many. And whether the assessment of crapiness is accurate is always worthy of debate.
I don't think there are many new performers like Elvis, Patsy Cline, Chet Baker, Count Basie, Van Cliburn, Gary Cooper, Greta Garbo, Charlie Chaplin, Martha Graham and on and on. These are, mostly, people who changed the way other people thought. Once more I'm not alone in the idea that there is a mendacity about performers like Brittney Spears. Maybe that is just old phartism on my part. Every generation gets that disease and every generation that follows thinks them fools. I'm not trying to stop anyone from listening to anything they wish to spend their money on. Most of what's new just isn't to my taste. What's wrong with saying that? Listen to anything you want; I wasn't trying to change anyone's opinion. I was just responding to a question Ghia had asked. Sorry you didn't care for my description of my dogs.
When you write, "Just giving up on the whole technology because one believes the other format
is better is just selling out to the old technology.
The same would be true of the opposite. If one just wants to simplify and relagate
to stereo because they find it satisfying to them that is fine also. But to
shun a format because one believes the other is better is the wrong approach.", I really get lost in that logic. If I honestly find A better than B; I would be a fool to use B. To avoid B because I'm convinced B isn't as good as A is only logical. If I'm convinced Budweiser is better than Milwaukee's Best; which one should I choose? Which would you choose? This isn't a matter of selling out to anything or any technology. I think two channel reproduction of music is superior to multi channel. It is as plain as that; I can't state it any more simply. Why should I continue to listen to something I consider inferior? If somebody else wants to spend their time and money on multi channel, what's it to me? I DON'T CARE!!! Show me where I said I did and I'll apologize for something. I'd like to know why you folks feel I shouldn't be allowed to like stereo. You like this and I like that. What's the big deal?
This has nothing to do with my not wanting to bother to set up a surround system. I have one set up for my HT and it is set up properly. Do you think I just stuck stuff in corners and said the heck with it? As to the quality of the HT components, they are of sufficient quality to do a proper job with audio and video sources and are not going to be embarrassed by anything anyone else on this forum owns. That system just isn't what I prefer to listen to music on. Now why that bothers anyone, I don't know.

Larry - Peter Noone (Herman) still performs at oldies festivals. He was imprisoned for a few years in the '80's for embezzling funds from the band's bank acount. He performs alone today with a back up band that has nothing to do with the original Hermits. Too bad you didn't care for Mr. Garcia and his friends.

J. Vigne

Unregistered guest

Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 12:59 am:

Mr. West and Mountain travel to about 100 dates a year. West is a diabetic and has cut back the touring dates considerably over the past decade. I have a good friend who follows them around the Midwest during the summer and has designed a logo for the cyc to be used behind the band. Mountain will play Fort Worth, Texas in February. Tickets begin at $25.

Gold Member

Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1295
Registered: Aug-04

Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 01:07 am:

Kegger,

I think we escaped injuries - no sign of damage so far. Thanks for asking.

______________________________

"Generation X-ers were raised by parents who grew up listening to Rock'n'Roll and, in many cases, didn't get that exposure to jazz and classical of the previous generations.

I wish my parents had grown up with rock or jazz etc. Apart from the kidz stuff we sang at school my first musical recollections were like: "There is nothing like a dame . . . " or "When the wind comes sweeping down the plain . . . " This was the music I learnt from those rare occassions of being taken (dragged) to a musical or some relative's birthday party. We had no music player at home back then except for an old Astor bakerlite mantle radio - which was primarily for news until television arrived to make it a dust collector.

The closest I ever got to the classics was listening to a few my granfather's lp's on his old "radiogramme". He also had a fine tenor voice and he was not embarrassed to perform for us on the spur of the moment or any occassion. That is a fond memory.

So by the time I had progressed to "I don't wanna be your tiger . . ." or "I wanna hold your hand . . . " other kids my age were moaning "I see your red dress and I want it to be black . . . "

It was from around then when I began to see the light. When I was about fourteen and my parents had finally succumbed to my pleadings for a portable record player, I sent away for a few carefully chosen LP's (from those cheap record club intro offers) - Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf, BB King. When they arrived my father hit the roof. He made me pack them up and send them back. He added a note saying that because I was a minor, the order was not legally binding. He was not a religious man but we weren't about to have any of that devil's music in our house. Doris Day would certainly have been acceptable - Elvis or the Beatles may have taken some doing but were a possibilty, but my record buying days were over before they began. Until . . .

At seventeen, on a day when I received the order not to come home without a haircut (the revolution was well under way by then) - I didn't - until much later and even then, it was for visits only. I may not have been born in a crossfire hurricane nor schooled with a strap across my back (around the legs and backside once in a while maybe) but life had, all of a sudden, truly become a gas, gas, gas! This of course was when I should have been thinking about higher education and the future (if there was to be one).

The reasons for people preferring certain genres of music I think may have had a little to do with understanding, a benefit from a better education, but more so maybe, because of mere circumstance.

I don't mean to be portraying my parents in a bad light. In many ways, few would have had better. Though while I think they lived in the dark for quite a while, they did eventually find their way out to become more accepting of things different to their funny ways.

But don't all parents have their funny ways?

At least now I enjoy a wide variety of blues, jazz, earlier rock, can appreciate some of the classics and heck, even enjoy the fine voice of Doris if I really have to :-)

Gold Member

Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2128
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 02:21 am:

Jan!

"Lugosi is
still the best Dracula, Karloff the best Frankenstein monster and
Chaney will forever be the Phantom of the Opera. "Grand Hotel" is a
movie I can watch dozens of times. The closest to it today is "Oceans
Eleven". They are not in the same league"

Those are your opinions and not fact but you state them as they are.
And may have many that agree with you but that still does not make it so.
___________________________________________

"But, the idea that people thought Elvis was crap is
just not correct"

So you believe no one thinks or thought elvis's music wasn't that great?

__________________________________________________

"Things
come around and what many don't like now will become classics in the
future!", doesn't hold its weight in the context of history. Crap is
crap and tends to stay that way. If MOST people think it's crap today;
well, probably MOST people will think its crap in fifty years. There
are exceptions, but not many. And whether the assessment of crapiness
is accurate is always worthy of debate."

I never said most I said many meaning that if a certain generation "maybe older"
thought that the music was crap but the younger generation liked it then it might
be a classic when the younger generation gets older. Isn't that how classics become
classics for different generations? I certainly don't have all the same classics as you.

_______________________________________________

"I don't think there are many new performers like Elvis, Patsy Cline,
Chet Baker, Count Basie, Van Cliburn, Gary Cooper, Greta Garbo,
Charlie Chaplin, Martha Graham and on and on"

Again that is your oppinion and more than likely based on the era you grew
up in while a younger generation may think different.

_________________________________________________

"When you write, "Just giving up on the whole technology because one
believes the other format
is better is just selling out to the old technology.
The same would be true of the opposite. If one just wants to simplify
and relagate
to stereo because they find it satisfying to them that is fine also.
But to
shun a format because one believes the other is better is the wrong
approach.", I really get lost in that logic. If I honestly find A
better than B; I would be a fool to use B. To avoid B because I'm
convinced B isn't as good as A is only logical. If I'm convinced
Budweiser is better than Milwaukee's Best; which one should I choose?
Which would you choose? This isn't a matter of selling out to anything
or any technology. I think two channel reproduction of music is
superior to multi channel. It is as plain as that; I can't state it
any more simply. Why should I continue to listen to something I
consider inferior? If somebody else wants to spend their time and
money on multi channel, what's it to me"

" If I'm convinced
Budweiser is better than Milwaukee's Best; which one should I choose?"

Well if Milwaukee's Best came out with a new recipe I'd have to try it
first to decide but I'd also have to give it a chance. If my bud was in a
chiled glass and the beer was cold to start with but my Milwaukee's Best
was warm and in a can then I'm not giving it a fair shake.

Again you miss the point. The point was not to say listen to something you
don't like and find to be crap. But to ask yourself is there something I could
try to give this format as much a chance as my stereo. If you had something in
your stereo that didn't sound right you'd check it out and try and find the culprit.
Maybe the amp for surround is inferior comparred to my stereo setup or my
preamp or the cables or the my speakers aren't quite what is needed.

___________________________________________

"I'd like to know why
you folks feel I shouldn't be allowed to like stereo"

Who said that? certainly not me! I like both and if I didn't I wouldn't knock what
someone else felt was good. But you seem to do the oppposite!

_______________________________________________

"This has nothing to do with my not wanting to bother to set up a
surround system. I have one set up for my HT and it is set up
properly. Do you think I just stuck stuff in corners and said the heck
with it?"

Of course not and the comment wasn't meant to be anything like that.
But the question was did you "or anyone" spend as much time/energy/money
on each amp channel and speaker/preamp/cable that you have on each channel
of the beloved stereo setup you have.
____________________________________________
And you accuse me of accusing you of attacking me I did no such thing just
responded to your post and you seem to of taken my post as an attack on you.
I'm fine with your post as far as coming after me. I just happen to disagree with
some of what you wrote and you dissagree with some of mine. But when you
post as to your preferences in the surround/stereo debate you make surround
sound like a kids toy while complaining that people knock your stereo when I
don't think I've ever heard anyone have anything negative towards stereo. The
people here who like surround still like stereo also they may like surround more.
So I'm not sure where you are coming from.
__________________________________
Just so everyone knows this post was not written or meant with any ill fealings or
attack on anyone for what they listen to or prefer. Everyone should know by now
how flexable I am as to ones oppinion and respect there space. Just as I would
hope others would to anyones oppinion or thought. Remember no one knows
all and many things in this world are still being developed and figured out. So
what you think one day may change the next based on some new eveidence.
Some may have hard core preferences/likes/dislikes but "try" to keep an open mind!

That's it the Keg out, peace all including you Jan!

Gold Member

Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1296
Registered: Aug-04

Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 02:57 am:

Guys,

We go around and around on this issue. Jan, imho you do have a way of saying we should enjoy our preferences without getting upset with each others opinions while, between the lines, you keep putting down hi-res surround as inferior sound which is a suggestion that we prefer inferior reproduction of music. You call it inferior yet you have not heard it on every system - nor have I/we heard stereo on every system. Why can't the formats just be labelled as 'different' in way that doesn't appeal to you in the same way stereo does. It may be nitpicking, but it would be a less than upsetting way to describe what others have a passion for.

After all, we keep saying - it's about the music.

Gold Member

Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2129
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 02:58 am:

Nice recolection story there rantz. I have no story like that nor do I have
the greatest memory for the finer details of my music upbringing.

What I can remember where the trips in our dodge van "be it up north or african
lion safaris in ohio!" lol. Well the van had an 8track player and my dad would
be jammin some deep purple/pink ployd/led zepelin/iron butterfly/alice cooper
or the stones/the who as his tastes progressed to newer artists
eddie money/ramones/talking heads so did mine then onto
the ac/dc's and scorpions/matalica my dad and myself listend and listen to the same
stuff. Now that I've gotten older I try and broaden my horizons by listening
to different things but I allways come back to my roots. maybe some black sabboth
or rush or van halen. Then sprinkle in some slower rock like peter gabriel or
joe jackson/steely dan. Then I gotta throw in something like tracy chappman.

So my main music is mainstream rock from yesterday and today.
From fleetwood mac to the police to bands like porupine tree and beck among others.
(listening to some classic clash right now on my almost completed new center channel)

Gold Member

Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1297
Registered: Aug-04

Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 03:49 am:

Kegger,

That's pretty good taste imho but I must admit, I'm more of a 'yesterday' rock fan but not saying there's no talent out there today - just not as much as there should be - that could be my age showing too, I guess . Your dad sounds cool - my son has one like that too :-)

Cheers

John A.

Gold Member

Username: John_a

Post Number: 2759
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 04:41 am:

Phew.

I am with Ghia: can't keep up. But have read all. Have a dose of flu, so am at home. If I can post here I can do work, too, so it would be dingenuous to claim I have extra forum time. Being ill is no excuse in the 24/7/365 world.

Seems like we all agree. Though I am definitely of the opinion, now, that my next surround system will be 4.0. that is, two stereos. Many DVD-A discs are in that format. Also, my DVD-A player will distribute the ".1" and the "centre" of 5.1 to the Left and Right main channels. If I eventually incorporate a sub, it will be a good one, small, and connected at speaker level, in order to complement and extent the range of the main speakers. But at the moment we have a smallish listening room and a sub will just make everything more complicated. I am fairly well decided that the centre speaker causes more problems than it solves. But Jan is right about the Mercury 3-channel stereo; that was their original intention. I look forward to reading any views from Jan or from Kegger, whom I know is a center-channel advocate.

As regards music, I agree with all. Having a slimmed-down system for a while, I resisted the temptation to buy a Norah Jones last Saturday on the grounds that it was avaiable on LP, and I do not have my turntable here. Ditto for two DVD-As of baroque stuff; I no longer have surround.

I bought "The Wall" on LP last Sept. but have had time to play only one side. At that time I also bought a Chris Barber double LP and have played one side, and liked it immensely. That's the stuff. I was into jazz in my teens, but never got back by the time I had my own hifi. I heard Ray Charles "Making Whoopee" on the radio a few weeks ago and though it was outstanding and I mean to get some Ray Charles.

My teens must have been at about the same time as MR's, and driven by similar forces. I remember all those bands, MR, and the test of time, to me, reveals that a lot of them had no talent whatever. Many just aped The Beatles, even affecting Liverpool accents, despite coming from Surrey or somewhere. I try not to be judgemental and "high minded", but Mrs A and I bought two boxes of four compilation CDs for the last long car journey. "Hits of the 60s" (for me) and "...of the 70s" (for her). They really are not so good. It was good to hear "whiter shade of pale" again, but it is the bass line, written by J.S. Bach. The words still seem like nonsense. Probably the good stuff from that time does not get into compilation CDs, surviving on its own merits. Herman's Hermits does not qualify, imho. Ditto Gerry and the Pacemakers. One HiFi News regular I quite enjoy is dicussing in Feb 2005 how well such a system reproduces the "Whack" (what's this about "whack", SM...?) of Dave Clark's drums. Remember "Bits and Pieces", MR? What a waste of time and technology. IMHO...! It may score marks for nostalgia, but, as music...?!

On the long drive back across Denmark last week, my 17-yr-old son and I played: Tchiakovskly 1812 overture (Mercury - ripped - thanks, you-know who!) which skipped on the rented cars CD player; Beatles Sgt Pepper; Beatles No. 1 complication CD. The Beatles beat Tchaikovsky hands down, for both of us. REAlly enjoyed that. Son wants to play bass guitar and I am gong to get him one when he next comes to the cotkw; he has a band of friends back over there waiting for a bassist. [WE checked out basses in Denmark Street; one shop sells nothing else. It seems to be like hifi; the real value-for money, at the "beginner" end, is instruments made in China, using components also sold to US names e.g. Fender and then sold in guitars many times the price.] To me, the main thing about music is to play it; get involved. I listened with new interest to all the McCartney bass lines. They are good: inventive; clever; interesting. There is something there to engage with; something to listen to. Not all pop is like that. Not all "classical" either. There can be music that reaches you, and music that doesn't, in any genre. I suppose the question is how much you have to wade through to get to the good stuff. Don, Kegger and I seem to agree on C&W, but I'll bet there is something there if you know. Most people can't be bothered with classical for the same reason, I expect; it seems like it will not be worth the effort.

John A.

Gold Member

Username: John_a

Post Number: 2760
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 05:00 am:

"Beatles No. 1 complication CD"

should be

"Beatles No. 1 compilation CD"

By the way, none of the A family can stop whistling/singing the theme to "Bob the Builder". Great bass line: in c; CCFG;CFGC repeated over and over.

Bob the Builder (CC - statement)
Can we fix it? (FG - rising cadence; a question?)
Bob the Builder (CF repeat statement)
Yes, we can! (GC Perfect cadence; the answer!)

Brilliant!

Must go.

Gold Member

Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1298
Registered: Aug-04

Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 06:20 am:

"By the way, none of the A family can stop whistling/singing the theme to "Bob the Builder". "

I think the A family should get counselling - soon.

Don't forget the hot toddies. Get well!

:-)

Silver Member

Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 488
Registered: Oct-04

Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 09:14 am:

Jan V. - Wow! thanks for the Noone posting, thought he must be dead by now!

Oh, yes - very important - do you mean that some real music HAS been written since 1990? (grin)

John A. - what a pity. You've obviously gone "round the bend." Bob the Builder?!?!

My Rantz - you are quite right - the A family needs liquid help.

BTW - a very interesting story you tell - and we thank you for it. Sounds like your "final chapter," is, however, mostly sun and roses!

To all: It would "appear" that I "may" have purchased a pair of light cherry B&W 705s from a chap on Audiogon. Still working out details, and will let all know. Also awaiting word from another chap as to whether he'll buy my Polks. Good grief - too much up in the air! Sigh.

More anon. . .

Bronze Member

Username: Simplymcintosh

Post Number: 22
Registered: Jan-05

Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 09:29 am:

JohnA,

Don't take this grief from the non-believers. However, if you really want a catchy tune, watch the "Chicka Chicka Boom Boom" children's video. At the very least, it will take your mind off Bob the Builder. :-)

J. Vigne

Unregistered guest

Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 10:19 am:

"Why can't the formats just be labelled as 'different' in way that doesn't appeal to you in the same way stereo does."

Taking the suggestion made by Rantz, here goes.

The surround format is, uh ... different!

(Even though I see it as no more than the same old stuff that has been recycled since the '70's. I've heard enough of it over the last twenty five years to be able to have that opinion. Those of you who are coming to surround as a "new" technology may have an opinion that varies from mine.)

That took almost 3500 posts to figure out?

Oh, yes, it doesn't appeal to me.

Is everybody happy with that or did I state something that's my opinion that you read as fact?

Silver Member

Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 489
Registered: Oct-04

Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 10:23 am:

SiMac - how about "Chickaree chick, cha-la cha-la, chekalahroma in a bananaca, poly-ca woly-ca can't you see - chickaree chick is me!"

Now THAT'S a "song!" (double grin)

J. Vigne

Unregistered guest

Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 10:24 am:

And Lugosi IS (always will be) the best Dracula!

Silver Member

Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 490
Registered: Oct-04

Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 10:31 am:

Jan V. - actually, well perhaps, uh, oh, I guess I'll accept that as opinion, sir.

Gee, ev-body - dare's too many "faks" floating around hear! Just my opinion, of course!

Perhaps there ought to be an electronic "stamp" that we all could just insert at the beginning of every post - thus. . .

IMHO ONLY - blah blah blah.

IMHO ONLY - well, perhaps not. blah blah.

You get the pitchur - that way anybody who got upset could have little recourse. After all, Jan's, Lar's, MS's, SiMac's, Two Cents', Don RX-1's, Kegger's, Rick's, John A's - all of us were just expressing our opinions! It would be right there - IMHO ONLY - the term for the "New Beginnings" on "Old Dogs."

Of course - that's only my humble opinion. . .

Silver Member

Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 491
Registered: Oct-04

Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 10:32 am:

Jan et al: IMHO ONLY - Lugosi WAS and ever SHALL BE the best Dracula ever!

Bronze Member

Username: Simplymcintosh

Post Number: 23
Registered: Jan-05

Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 11:11 am:

Jan

Oh, yes, it doesn't appeal to me.

That seems to be stated in a matter-of-fact tone. Be careful. :-)

Ok, let's get into symantecs. Kegger, in your post,

"I don't think there are many new performers like Elvis, Patsy Cline,
Chet Baker, Count Basie, Van Cliburn, Gary Cooper, Greta Garbo,
Charlie Chaplin, Martha Graham and on and on"

Again that is your oppinion and more than likely based on the era you grew
up in while a younger generation may think different.

Since Jan started out with "I don't think" he's not really stating it as a fact. Also, I may have poisoned him into thinking that with some of the comments I made about Patsy Cline ("they don't make 'em like that anymore" - is what I said). In recent days, I've heard people say

"they don't make them like that anymore..."
"we'll never see another..."
"everyone else is a pretender..."

in reference to Johnny Carson. I think there are certain people who embody a charisma that goes beyond the ordinary and it is ok to acknowledge that. This is just an opinion but, the generation that preceeded ours does often appear to have more grace, class and timelessness in many regards. For instance,

- I don't see Letterman or Leno having the cultural impact that Carson had in his day nor do I see them being as timeless as Carson. Watching some of the old Carson clips, it is amazing how effortless and funny he was without the need to be as crass or profane as many of today's comedians.

- Which anchormen or journalist will have the timelessnes of a Murrow or a Cronkite? Certainly not Dan Rather or Peter Jennings.

- Patsy Cline has been dead since 1963 yet her music is still relevant today and is often used in movies or commercials and her voice can give goosebumps in its purity and delivery (as a was reminded of recently). What female singer today will still be relevant 42 years from now? Britney, Ashlee? Aimee?

That's not to say our generation is totally lost or irrelevant. Certainly we have many technological contributions for which to be proud. But, for me, there's this general feeling that much of what passes for "entertainment" is shallow and crass and disposable (Super Bowl, halftime performance, anyone?) and the vast majority of it will be forgotten. I can see someone in their 30's forty years from now "discovering" jazz from the 1950's and 1960's but I don't see them discovering "Hey Ya".

Of course, this viewpoint comes from someone who was probably born "too late" - in her opinion - so feel free to dismiss it. lol

Gold Member

Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2130
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 11:25 am:

SimplyMcIntosh some well laid out points there but I do believe we will
have clasics from our time just like every other generation.

I just think there are more artists out there now comparred to before with
more exposure even for the bad ones so we see more of it. Where I believe in
the past more of the crap was weeded out and we didn't see it.

Gold Member

Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2131
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 11:30 am:

There are so many record labels now and movie companies fighting for a
piece of the pie that it's tougher to find the good among the bad!

Silver Member

Username: Rick_b

New York
USA

Post Number: 761
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 11:53 am:

......YEP........

3500 posts to come back to the same conclusion. We are different, and like what we like, and it really doesn't matter what others think.

On the subject of Lugosi as Dracula, there is no debate................period.

So after all of the above, all 3500 posts. Let's call this thread a draw, and move on to a new thread we can call home. Let's call it The Dog House.

What say ye, Old Dogs?

Bronze Member

Username: Simplymcintosh

Post Number: 24
Registered: Jan-05

Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 11:58 am:

Kegger,

The problem with our generation (and the current Gen Y-ers) is that the "bad ones" are the ones who get all the exposure. And, evidently, this is what people "want" and "like".

And, you're right, there are "more artists", "many record labels (although most are subsidiaries of big conglomerates) and "many movie companies" fighting for a piece of the pie. Which is another reason why it will be harder for "classics" to come out of this era. But, the real reason, IMHO, is that there's very little of substance to what passes as "culture' these days. Maybe I'll be proven wrong.

In this, the "information age", a lesson is needed: Information is not Knowledge.

Don't look now, I think the old dogs thread is getting off-topic. :-)

Gold Member

Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2132
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 12:03 pm:

Rick I meant to come back to this (mountain)

"Kegger,

I remember them well. I wonder what ever happened to Leslie West? Doesn't really matter does it? He played a mean guitar though. A Les Paul gold top, if memory serves me correctly. How old I feel..............................."

You sure seem to know your gutairs , I've seen you mention others in the past.

Bronze Member

Username: Simplymcintosh

Post Number: 25
Registered: Jan-05

Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 12:25 pm:

I remember the old "Mississippi Queen" song too. How about another old guitar-driven song "Flirtin' with Disaster"?

Gold Member

Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2133
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 12:37 pm:

Yah A little molly hatchet!

I've got 2 of there albums!

J. Vigne

Unregistered guest

Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 01:04 pm:

Gee, somebody gets it. If someone writes Lugosi is the best Dracula or Honda makes the best cars; that can only be an opinion. It is based on subjective evaluation. There is no possibility that statement, on its face value, could be seen as a fact. It can be a fact that I hold that opinion and even that I hold that opinion to be true. Those are facts about me. The statement about Lugosi, Elvis and so forth is an opinion.
If I write Denver is at a higher elevation from sea level than Dallas, that can be taken as a fact since it is easily verifiable. There's not much that can be read between the lines of that statement. You can open up an encyclopedia and find that fact repeated. You're unlikely to find Honda makes the best cars in that same book.
You can blame it on the nuns, that's certainly who I blame most things on, I was taught it is redundant and unnecessary to constantly make the statement that something is an opinion when it is obviously an unverifiable statement. Therefore, I find it a silly exercise in typing to place IMHO at the beginning of every sentence or even at the front of each post. Maybe Larry has more rules about this than the nuns got around to, but, it seems simple to discern when facts are being stated and when opinions are being given. I was also taught that is why they separate the editorial opinion pages from the news pages. You should be able to make that distinction when you read something. There are responsibilites of the writer and responsibilites of the reader. Many of those responsibilites are mutual; such as assuming the reader can undersand certain concepts which allow someone to write at more than an elementary level. In my opinion, we have had this discussion a while ago.
I suppose someone might take this as another one of my arrogant posts where I'm preaching about something that makes someone else uncomfortable. Sorry if that's the case; I'm really just trying to clear things up a bit. I assumed we were having a discussion; and I believe a discussion is a presentation of opinions which may be backed up by facts. 5.1 is a fact. That I don't care for 5.1 is an opinion. There's no need to get feelings hurt or to "get going" over my opinion. Take my word for it, no one else gives a rat's hiney about my opinion.
It seems ridiculous to constantly be going over the same territory of whether I'm a dickhead or not. Your opinion on this matter is your own and I see no need to belabor the issue.
Here are some facts. I have heard enough surround systems to make what I think is an informed decision about the value of the format. I have heard enough stereo systems to do likewise with that format. I have a surround system in my house which has decent quality. I have several stereo systems in my house of various quality. I listen to mono systems and mono recordings. I do own a Brian Eno disc recorded in quadrophonic sound.
Here are some of my opinions. I have not found sufficient value in any surround system to satisfy what I feel is important to reproducing music in my home beyond that which a simple stereo system can provide. I would prefer more film makers think about how to tell the story without surround effects before they begin adding them to the film. I would prefer to listen to music on any of my mono systems over the excesses of most surround systems I have sold, set up or heard. I would prefer the musicians and producers think about how to make good music before they begin adding surround effects. I prefer most music that was written and performed before the current surround format was released. I prefer most films that were written and produced before the current surround format was released.
Two more facts. I don't care whether anyone agrees with me or not. If someone wants to listen to something I don't care for, that doesn't bother me.
If anyone feels attacked or offended by this post, I guess I'll have to leave it to someone else to sort things out. The division between facts and opinions seem fairly clear to me, and, the idea that a discussion can take place if there are no opinions expressed seems obvious. It cannot.
With that, I shall thank Larry for his corrrection to my grammar. It's good to have a nun around sometimes. I do disagree since I am not Lugosi and the reference was made in the third person. Is "shall" correct for anything other than the first person? And finally, Lon Chaney will always be the best Phantom and the 1921 silent film is the absolute best film of the story ever made. That's a fact!

Silver Member

Username: Rick_b

New York
USA

Post Number: 762
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 01:18 pm:

It's rat's patooty, Jan.

Gold Member

Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2134
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 01:48 pm:

Well that certainly clears it up there jan!

But will there ever be a surround format that might meet your approval?

Gold Member

Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2135
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 02:21 pm:

By the way jan I thought we were just having a discussion.

Nothing to get all worked up about it's only audio and video!

John A.

Gold Member

Username: John_a

Post Number: 2761
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 02:49 pm:

Actually I had a story a bit like MR's but it concerned the Dave Clark Five's first No 1 "I'm feeling Glad all over" and is therefore not suitable for a family forum. No further musicological analysis of "Bob the Builder"; I see that few appreciate this great song.

I am trying to understand the quotes in Larry's It would "appear" that I "may" have purchased a pair of light cherry B&W 705s..

There are fine speakers, Larry. You will "hear" all sorts of cars driving off with those! Also you will "need" some stands!

Silver Member

Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 492
Registered: Oct-04

Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 03:47 pm:

SiMac: - (STAMP!) IMHO only - wow! A great, if short quote to remember: "Information is not knowledge."

Thanks! Made my word-day!

John A. - sigh - here's what's going on, and the reason for my qualifiers.
Found - on audiogon - a pair of my beloved B&W 705s - but they were not on the open forum. The ad-time had expired, and I sorta found them in the "morgue." But I e-mailed the chap, and he said he was still selling them. OK, I said, and we started negotiating.
Last night, we were still debating payment type and shipping cost, and he said he'd get everything ready to send to me today. Well, here it is nearly 4 p.m. EST and - no response yet.

IF he responds, I have purchased some 4-month old speakers - in the light cherry that Mer and I really like best. For a decent, if not great, price. I'll post when/if the deal solidifies.

The other end of the deal - a chap e-mailed me, wanting to buy my Polk speakers. Price agreed on, and then he said he'd "have to get back" to me, as he was also bidding on some eBay speakers. He said he'd respond by - about now. But - nothing so far.

Sooooo - I'm in the middle and wondering how it will all come off - IF it works out at all.

The quotes, John, were merely for emphasis. Nothing more.

Jan V. - my response to your Lugosi posting was just a liddle bit of word-play by an aging and pretty useless ole journalist who really, really misses newsrooms and teletypes and "copy!" and, heck, my life. Sigh. I'm trying to substitute the world of HiFi - but it doesn't quite work.

Gold Member

Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1299
Registered: Aug-04

Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 03:51 pm:

"Take my word for it, no one else gives a rat's hiney about my opinion."

At least not when it comes to surround :-)

But, the FACT is Jan, you're quite wrong. Many people, at least on this forum, do value your opinions immensely as they/we do your explanations, advice and knowledge about audio. And we even acknowledge your witty humor (US).

Because you wish to regard highly most things born of a certain era doesn't bother me nor should it anyone else - but I don't believe any of us here are so moronic that we can't tell the difference between your opinions and what is fact, I think it is just that we take exception on those occassions when it appears as if you regard yours as gospel. You rebuke those of us who take exception to your words yet it's very easy for you to take someone else's words, like 'very nice' for example and then re-use them in a way that appears very demeaning when it is obvious those words were just pulled from nowhere to descibe something very pleasureable.

I thought by my comment - Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 02:57 am: - was trying to help put an end to this nonsense but you even had to take a stab at my intent there and give it a twist because you so obviously thought it foolish.

But enough, I think you do care what others think of your opinions, otherwise why offer them? I think we all care what others here think of our opinions and comments and it is okay to misinterpret someones meaning and get upset - as long as we work it out. We are all different and sometimes we write things in the heat of the moment. All dogs take a snap at each other on occassion. Why not see if we can shake paws like good kind gentledogs without trying to mark our territories at the same time.

Silver Member

Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 493
Registered: Oct-04

Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 03:53 pm:

Jan V. - (STAMP!) IMHO - oh, the heck with it.

In re-reading your longish posting above - please, sir, I was NOT trying to correct your grammar with my Lugosi word-play. Really not. Here's another (good?) example of a posting that was sent across, and not made plain enough to avoid misunderstanding.

Sorry, Jan - nun-ruler response was not what I had in mind.

Silver Member

Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 494
Registered: Oct-04

Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 04:00 pm:

Rick: Is "patooty" anything like "male cattle manure?" (grin)

Gold Member

Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1300
Registered: Aug-04

Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 04:13 pm:

"So after all of the above, all 3500 posts. Let's call this thread a draw, and move on to a new thread we can call home. Let's call it The Dog House."

Rick, I agree - but I tried that with "Old Dogs barking about anything" and it didn't seem to take take. I wonder why?

Are you still "Snowbound" there?