FM radio was patented in 1933 and the first station started broadcasting in the US in 1939.
However FM listenership in the US did not exceed AM listenership until 1978.
Germany went pretty much completely FM after 1945. I grew up in Germany and I do remember one single AM station there. In Stuttgart with a good tuner you could receive 26 FM stereo stations by the mid '70s.
However FM listenership in the US did not exceed AM listenership until 1978.
Germany went pretty much completely FM after 1945. I grew up in Germany and I do remember one single AM station there. In Stuttgart with a good tuner you could receive 26 FM stereo stations by the mid '70s.
There is a downward trend in recorded quality related to low res MP3, cheap earbuds, compression, software to put talentless singers on pitch, etc. that is centered on pop music. Jazz, classical and other long standing genres seem to have avoided those pitfalls but the withering of CD format in the face of MP3 downloads is of concern. Plenty of great music is out there live for the taking in major markets!
This may be slightly offtopic, but how one listens to music arguably affects what music gets produced and the sound of it.
Oddly, compression in audio has a double meaning thesedays. There's the LA-2A kind that reduces volume change and dynamic range, and there's the psychoacoustic data reduction kind. One is classic (volume compression has been used in pop music for over a half century), the other is modern, but they both affect current sound (even if you don't listen to MP3's, pop mixes are double-checked to sound good through MP3 playback, just as decades ago they were checked to sound good through the average car stereo and cheap home speakers).
Here's a bunch of articles on why "MP3 sounds better than CD:"
https://www.google.com/search?q=MP3+Jonathan+Berger
The article "The Good Enough Revolution" is quite interesting, as it covers other technical/social phenomena similar to adoption of (medium-bitrate) MP3 encoding. "To some, it looks like the crapification of everything."And to anyone who sees audio quality as meaning most faithful reproduction one can afford (to buy or to make), it is indeed the crapification of sound.
But there's the more general definition of quality as used by business, meeting customers' expectations. Those customers are in the mass market, not those whose main focus is accurate sound reproduction. It doesn't have to sound great, as long as it's easy to control, is the size of a matchbook, and one can get new songs anytime one has a laptop and a wifi connection.
I've seen writings about how different music sounds from earbuds compared to good speakers, and that's yet another aspect of the differences (both technical and social) between current and decades-old ways of listening to music. The Sony Walkman has its share of the blame.
Oddly, compression in audio has a double meaning thesedays. There's the LA-2A kind that reduces volume change and dynamic range, and there's the psychoacoustic data reduction kind. One is classic (volume compression has been used in pop music for over a half century), the other is modern, but they both affect current sound (even if you don't listen to MP3's, pop mixes are double-checked to sound good through MP3 playback, just as decades ago they were checked to sound good through the average car stereo and cheap home speakers).
Here's a bunch of articles on why "MP3 sounds better than CD:"
https://www.google.com/search?q=MP3+Jonathan+Berger
The article "The Good Enough Revolution" is quite interesting, as it covers other technical/social phenomena similar to adoption of (medium-bitrate) MP3 encoding. "To some, it looks like the crapification of everything."And to anyone who sees audio quality as meaning most faithful reproduction one can afford (to buy or to make), it is indeed the crapification of sound.
But there's the more general definition of quality as used by business, meeting customers' expectations. Those customers are in the mass market, not those whose main focus is accurate sound reproduction. It doesn't have to sound great, as long as it's easy to control, is the size of a matchbook, and one can get new songs anytime one has a laptop and a wifi connection.
I've seen writings about how different music sounds from earbuds compared to good speakers, and that's yet another aspect of the differences (both technical and social) between current and decades-old ways of listening to music. The Sony Walkman has its share of the blame.
Everybody thinks that the music before they were 20 years old is far better than the music after. So I put the date where music started to suck at 1974 or so.
I think this is a pretty good time for music, outside of mainstream stuff, and I actually no longer like a good deal of the music I enjoyed before 20.. I do still like some of the same artists, but like me they have evolved over time.
It is a cost thing
LoFi MP3 pumped through lowest bidder DACs and into 50 cent earbuds won't give a true indication of the artists talents--that is a good thing! Now you can have them learn dance steps, stay slim and all that other stuff to look good on TV. It's not like a 15 year old is going to buy a CD anyway... when was the last time you saw a teenager carry a disc-man?
If I was a music company, I'd push for the lowest quality music that sells, the cheapest production and make sure some nut with a real audio system is not going to put "Gangsta Dung DOA and the dancing hoochies" on his audio system to note the total lack of quality. The kids listen to it on a mono speaker broadcast from their phones...
That is fine though, the audio industry has embraced the "lifestyle" speaker and all the cost reduction it involves. Once they realized they can make them much smaller than previously--because it kills the sound quality but it still sells...then the flood gates were opened! Look at Infinity Systems (owned by Harmon) as an example...all little speakers to look pretty but nothing that is physically large is offered.
The audio industry won't die from this, the MP3 generation will grow up and actually demand good sound.
LoFi MP3 pumped through lowest bidder DACs and into 50 cent earbuds won't give a true indication of the artists talents--that is a good thing! Now you can have them learn dance steps, stay slim and all that other stuff to look good on TV. It's not like a 15 year old is going to buy a CD anyway... when was the last time you saw a teenager carry a disc-man?
If I was a music company, I'd push for the lowest quality music that sells, the cheapest production and make sure some nut with a real audio system is not going to put "Gangsta Dung DOA and the dancing hoochies" on his audio system to note the total lack of quality. The kids listen to it on a mono speaker broadcast from their phones...
That is fine though, the audio industry has embraced the "lifestyle" speaker and all the cost reduction it involves. Once they realized they can make them much smaller than previously--because it kills the sound quality but it still sells...then the flood gates were opened! Look at Infinity Systems (owned by Harmon) as an example...all little speakers to look pretty but nothing that is physically large is offered.
The audio industry won't die from this, the MP3 generation will grow up and actually demand good sound.
Sure but the downside now is that any one with a couple of thousand dollars can set up a "recording studio" become a "producer" and pump out talentless crap. The gate keepers usually had a minimum amount of talent that was necessary to get a contract, and then they would invest in marketing and exposure (sponser live tours). They also used a lot of the money they made on there top 5% acts to develop new acts. (reinvest there money in more music) This dosnt happen much anymore.
Now there is so much music (a lot higher percentage of bad) that its hard to find what you like. And the quality of the music coming out of most of these garage studios is far from what a record label could do in a real studio (all tough they often dont).
DJs suck. They are part of this problem. They use real musicians talent to make money, and put these same musicians out of a gig. Why would people pay more to see a DJ pretend he has talent than to see a real band? There are less and less places for new bands to play live and gain some chops (and some needed cash) because of these bastards. Austin is a shinning example of the opposite Sy, but these are few and far between.
That's why I like the music discussions here (and on other forums)- I can get and give recommendations. There's some great bands I hadn't previously heard of that internet friends have pointed me to. Not all of it is to my taste, but it doesn't have to be. Speaking of which, we're currently spinning "Bright, bright, bright" by the innovative band Dark Dark Dark. Heard about them on Facebook.
Despite my 1965 cut-off, I still find stuff I like that was done later. With few exceptions, I've never cared for the music of my peers. Don't know why - just a retro snob I suppose.
Working as a sound engineer I had to mix mostly rock, cause that's what sells. What a joy it was for me to mix the occasional latin, jazz or even reggae band. Something I could actually enjoy.
There is certainly a lot of rubbish music on the market these days, but IMO, there always has been. Guess i like old rubbish better than new rubbish, always have. It is fun to find new stuff you like, tho. Pomplamoose is fun in a light hearted sort of way.
Working as a sound engineer I had to mix mostly rock, cause that's what sells. What a joy it was for me to mix the occasional latin, jazz or even reggae band. Something I could actually enjoy.
There is certainly a lot of rubbish music on the market these days, but IMO, there always has been. Guess i like old rubbish better than new rubbish, always have. It is fun to find new stuff you like, tho. Pomplamoose is fun in a light hearted sort of way.
As a thought, it's very easy to get your music out there these days - it would take me a couple of hours with a small mixer and my guitar to get a couple of tracks recorded and on the internet. Its not difficult.
Back when music was distributed mainly via vinyl, cassette, or CD, there was at least some quality control as the people doing the production and distribution can pick and choose over what they actually send out to the world.
Welcome to the digital age.
Chris
Back when music was distributed mainly via vinyl, cassette, or CD, there was at least some quality control as the people doing the production and distribution can pick and choose over what they actually send out to the world.
Welcome to the digital age.
Chris
My daughter is fourteen years old, she plays guitar and sings. She also writes her own songs. Now she has bought a webcam for around £25, and intends to perform and post her performance on YouTube. She has been avidly practicing Jolene by Dolly Parton, and will soon be performing on YouTube.There is massive revival of folk and country music by youngsters of her age, all boldly performing and singing their hearts out, just using a web cam and a guitar. This seems to me to be a democratization of music, a positive movement away from over produced music by video stars who can't actually sing or play anything, assisted by audio technology which is capable of making them sound in tune, using autotuners and other audio technology like that. Most of these YouTube kids live in the States, but this movement has spread to the UK and seems to me to be positive change, kids playing raw stripped down music full of life and passion. Welcome to folk music!
Last edited:
that is true. I have posted a few youtube vids and made a few CDs, I have one of those hard disk recorders and they are amazing. but in the old days if you had talent you had a great chance to be discovered. Now I posted vidoes on youtube and only have 30hits it is not as easy as one would think to get noticed. recording your own music has gotten dirt cheap and cac do it in your own home. That is good. but the radio station playing your song days are long gone.
I think you are right. I am listening to the Beatles lately and I truly doubt if is possible to make recordings "better" then these. Al new cheaper AND better recordinggear has not made records any better (very subjective, I know). I do think that the investement in (studio) time largely determs the quality of the record. Right now a large band gets a couply of weeks of studiotime with a (hopefully) good producer, now compare that tot the 60's and 70's
Last edited:
ah, 1993. just happen to coincide with the release year for the debut album of two of my favorite artists on the planet
µ-Ziq - Tango N' Vectif at Discogs
AFX* - Analogue Bubblebath 3 at Discogs
simply put, music got faster and simpler while maintaining it's soulful identity.
µ-Ziq - Tango N' Vectif at Discogs
AFX* - Analogue Bubblebath 3 at Discogs
simply put, music got faster and simpler while maintaining it's soulful identity.
Suggest you get the book
"Perfecting Sound Forever" by Greg Milner.
He does a wonderful job of describing recording "techniques" starting with Edison; how the music "business" started and then forever changed how it is "created" for mass consumption. There is a whole chapter devoted to the '90's - and as I remember, what he calls "the volume war"!
Charles
"Perfecting Sound Forever" by Greg Milner.
He does a wonderful job of describing recording "techniques" starting with Edison; how the music "business" started and then forever changed how it is "created" for mass consumption. There is a whole chapter devoted to the '90's - and as I remember, what he calls "the volume war"!
Charles
What bands? In the Netherlands you only here females singing. They don't know how to write music or lyrics, can't play an instrument, can't do much of anything. Just take someone like Anouk. She doesn't even like the type of music she sings. But that is what they want her churn out.... So yes things have changed. It is not just the "nostalgia" thing. Mainstream artists used to be able to write their own material and play instruments.
That said. If you look hard enough there is plenty of good music.
Besides female singers, in the Netherlands you also have the super DJs - Tiesto, Armin van Burren, Ferry Korsten to name a few...
but hey, they work with sound samples and equipment, they don't sing. 
Stictly FWIW..........
Watching the new years eve celebration from NY City's Times Square on TV last night in the US ("Dick clark's rockin' new year's eve") about the only good song/performance was ......believe it of not, from Justin Bieber of all people. This was simply because the song was an old song and accompanied by Carlos Santana.
The song was the Beatles' "Let it Be" and the young crowd loved it.
Good music stands the test of time.
IMO, every other newer "song" by the other singers last night will fade into obscurity shortly.
Watching the new years eve celebration from NY City's Times Square on TV last night in the US ("Dick clark's rockin' new year's eve") about the only good song/performance was ......believe it of not, from Justin Bieber of all people. This was simply because the song was an old song and accompanied by Carlos Santana.
The song was the Beatles' "Let it Be" and the young crowd loved it.
Good music stands the test of time.
IMO, every other newer "song" by the other singers last night will fade into obscurity shortly.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.