most actually rare records that are even worth buying a reissue of are not audiophile pressings or anything to begin with... they are private and small label records
nev mind.
ditto
You don't agree?
Odub made a comment about your definition of 'rare' being skewed, and I asked him to explain what he meant. While I was responding, Odub edited his comment to "nev mind", and I followed suit. I'm actually glad the issue was dropped, I don't have the time or energy to get involved in another argument.
When I read that comment back I realized it sounded more skewed than I intended it to. I'm more thinking about these guys who insists they need to spend $700 on an original Stone Harbour so they can hear the original shittiness unique only to the original pressing. "You know, for the sake of the PURE TRIP dude."
I forgot that people in this post are trying to decide whether or not to buy the repress of that Curtis album they can't seem to find.
This is the most preposterous thread on here in at least a week. BS that common records are better than rare ones. Thats like saying Miller brews the best beer and McDonalds has the best hamburgers. 9 times out of 10 independent, underground music - from whatever genre and era - will be far, far more diverse, will be delivered with more passion, will ring with authenticity not hollowness, and in the end will challenge and expand your notions of what music can be. I guess those are the things i look for in any art form.
9 times out of 10 independent, underground music - from whatever genre and era - will be far, far more diverse, will be delivered with more passion, will ring with authenticity not hollowness, and in the end will challenge and expand your notions of what music can be.
There are tons of soul 45's that sell for hundreds of dollars that are inferior imitations of million-selling Motown tracks.
Not all, of course - most rare/collectible soul & funk 45's are sought after due to their sound being either unique or at least extremely well-executed. But there are plenty of records that are rare and expensive whose value is owed to scarcity far more than quality.
There are entire eras of classic rock, jazz, soul and (most obviously) rap music which are best documented on major labels, and while not all dollarbinners they are records that sold in large quantities and are easily acquirable.
9 times out of 10 independent, underground music - from whatever genre and era - will be far, far more diverse, will be delivered with more passion, will ring with authenticity not hollowness, and in the end will challenge and expand your notions of what music can be.
There are tons of soul 45's that sell for hundreds of dollars that are inferior imitations of million-selling Motown tracks.
Yeah, you can say that about most movements in commercial music. I guess it raises some philosophical questions. Does an "inferior imitation" translate to a lesser musical experience? How many times can you listen to a perfect Motown song before feeling a need to look beyond? Do you ever reach that point? If you say you can listen to Motown records forever and don't need to hear the inferior imitations, can you REALLY say you like Motown records? The roots of a tree are just as important as the tallest branches and leaves.
This is the most preposterous thread on here in at least a week. BS that common records are better than rare ones. Thats like saying Miller brews the best beer and McDonalds has the best hamburgers. 9 times out of 10 independent, underground music - from whatever genre and era - will be far, far more diverse, will be delivered with more passion, will ring with authenticity not hollowness, and in the end will challenge and expand your notions of what music can be. I guess those are the things i look for in any art form.
this post is 100% bullshit the 'lol pop music = big mac' fallacy is so ridiculous at this point.
BAN
also i own the curtis reissue and am very happy w/ it.
Yeah, you can say that about most movements in commercial music. I guess it raises some philosophical questions. Does an "inferior imitation" translate to a lesser musical experience? How many times can you listen to a perfect Motown song before feeling a need to look beyond? Do you ever reach that point? If you say you can listen to Motown records forever and don't need to hear the inferior imitations, can you REALLY say you like Motown records? The roots of a tree are just as important as the tallest branches and leaves.
there are great common records, and great rare records. liking common records does not make you cool / better than anybody. liking rare records does not make you cool / better than anybody.
people make it seem like soulstrut is down on common records, when in reality, its just a matter of interest. which sounds like a more intriguing thread: "dude, marvin gaye is pretty cool, because you didnt know that yet" or "dude i just discovered this recording only a handful of people have heard and although it is definitely inspired by something else more popular, just like everything that came before it, its new and strange and unfamiliar and just might have an impact on you as well"
good music is good music. if you dont already know this, youre retarded.
(but who's with me on that slight embarassment you get when you go up to the counter with some dollarbincommon?)
9 times out of 10 independent, underground music - from whatever genre and era - will be far, far more diverse, will be delivered with more passion, will ring with authenticity not hollowness, and in the end will challenge and expand your notions of what music can be.
There are tons of soul 45's that sell for hundreds of dollars that are inferior imitations of million-selling Motown tracks.
Yeah, you can say that about most movements in commercial music. I guess it raises some philosophical questions. Does an "inferior imitation" translate to a lesser musical experience? How many times can you listen to a perfect Motown song before feeling a need to look beyond? Do you ever reach that point? If you say you can listen to Motown records forever and don't need to hear the inferior imitations, can you REALLY say you like Motown records? The roots of a tree are just as important as the tallest branches and leaves.
I just thought it was funny that you said one was only a true Motown fan if they could appreciate the greatness of lesser Motown imitators, thats all...
I am definitely an appreciator of industry outsiders though.
9 times out of 10 independent, underground music - from whatever genre and era - will be far, far more diverse, will be delivered with more passion, will ring with authenticity not hollowness, and in the end will challenge and expand your notions of what music can be.
There are tons of soul 45's that sell for hundreds of dollars that are inferior imitations of million-selling Motown tracks.
Yeah, you can say that about most movements in commercial music. I guess it raises some philosophical questions. Does an "inferior imitation" translate to a lesser musical experience? How many times can you listen to a perfect Motown song before feeling a need to look beyond? Do you ever reach that point? If you say you can listen to Motown records forever and don't need to hear the inferior imitations, can you REALLY say you like Motown records? The roots of a tree are just as important as the tallest branches and leaves.
Name your top 10 favorite soul singers.
soul singers? I dunno,
Reuben Bell James B. whoever is singing on that Carlettes 45 Helene Smith Larry T. Curtis Mayfield Hector Lavoe Dawn Penn The Esquires umm... let's see aretha franklin al green betty wright albums from no earlier than 1978
This is the most preposterous thread on here in at least a week. BS that common records are better than rare ones. Thats like saying Miller brews the best beer and McDonalds has the best hamburgers. 9 times out of 10 independent, underground music - from whatever genre and era - will be far, far more diverse, will be delivered with more passion, will ring with authenticity not hollowness, and in the end will challenge and expand your notions of what music can be. I guess those are the things i look for in any art form.
this post is 100% bullshit
No it isn't, he's just overstating his case. Issues of creative freedom, dedication, and urgency are unquestionably valid when talking about independent versus commercial music in the pre-digital age.
This is the most preposterous thread on here in at least a week. BS that common records are better than rare ones. Thats like saying Miller brews the best beer and McDonalds has the best hamburgers. 9 times out of 10 independent, underground music - from whatever genre and era - will be far, far more diverse, will be delivered with more passion, will ring with authenticity not hollowness, and in the end will challenge and expand your notions of what music can be. I guess those are the things i look for in any art form.
This sentiment may be somewhat true about the music industry as it currently exists, where the few large media corporations can distribute their limited range of product to the biggest audience. But this is a remarkably ignorant assessment of the music "from whatever genre and era" that came before. The definition of "independent" music used to be quite different when there were more than four record labels competing for the mass media music dollar. Actually, comparing music to hamburgers or canned beer is pretty ridiculous from any perspective. Puhleeze.
I just thought it was funny that you said one was only a true Motown fan if they could appreciate the greatness of lesser Motown imitators, thats all...
I am definitely an appreciator of industry outsiders though.
I stand by that question. I'm not saying I have the one right answer or anything, but I do think that appreciating the lesser cuts is sorta the ultimate way to appreciate the real deal.
If your perfect 10 of a wife that you think you love is wrecked in some kind of accident, and all of the sudden you're not sure if you want to stick around, were you really ever in love?
This is the most preposterous thread on here in at least a week. BS that common records are better than rare ones. Thats like saying Miller brews the best beer and McDonalds has the best hamburgers. 9 times out of 10 independent, underground music - from whatever genre and era - will be far, far more diverse, will be delivered with more passion, will ring with authenticity not hollowness, and in the end will challenge and expand your notions of what music can be. I guess those are the things i look for in any art form.
this post is 100% bullshit
No it isn't, he's just overstating his case. Issues of creative freedom, dedication, and urgency are unquestionably valid when talking about independent versus commercial music in the pre-digital age.
yeah but i don't agree that what is popular is in any way inherently linked to these things
This is the most preposterous thread on here in at least a week. BS that common records are better than rare ones. Thats like saying Miller brews the best beer and McDonalds has the best hamburgers. 9 times out of 10 independent, underground music - from whatever genre and era - will be far, far more diverse, will be delivered with more passion, will ring with authenticity not hollowness, and in the end will challenge and expand your notions of what music can be. I guess those are the things i look for in any art form.
this post is 100% bullshit
No it isn't, he's just overstating his case. Issues of creative freedom, dedication, and urgency are unquestionably valid when talking about independent versus commercial music in the pre-digital age.
yeah but i don't agree that what is popular is in any way inherently linked to these things
Inherently? No, of course it isn't. Realistically? Yes, it certainly is (or at least was).
Like it or not, what is popular has as much to do with marketing and exposure as it does with artistic merit. Fooling people into believing they like a product is how all of my social psychology friends get paid.
This is the most preposterous thread on here in at least a week. BS that common records are better than rare ones. Thats like saying Miller brews the best beer and McDonalds has the best hamburgers. 9 times out of 10 independent, underground music - from whatever genre and era - will be far, far more diverse, will be delivered with more passion, will ring with authenticity not hollowness, and in the end will challenge and expand your notions of what music can be. I guess those are the things i look for in any art form.
this post is 100% bullshit
No it isn't, he's just overstating his case. Issues of creative freedom, dedication, and urgency are unquestionably valid when talking about independent versus commercial music in the pre-digital age.
yeah but i don't agree that what is popular is in any way inherently linked to these things
Inherently? No, of course it isn't. Realistically? Yes, it certainly is (or at least was).
Like it or not, what is popular has as much to do with marketing and exposure as it does with artistic merit. Fooling people into believing they like a product is how all of my social psychology friends get paid.
Marketing and exposure can certainly create popularity for a mediocre product, but they do not preclude popularity for a genuinely good product. I would even suggest that marketing hype can only create popularity for a short period of time. For a record to maintain popularity for more than a year or two (and thereby be continually issued/reissued) there would have to be something more than pure hype going on.
This is the most preposterous thread on here in at least a week. BS that common records are better than rare ones. Thats like saying Miller brews the best beer and McDonalds has the best hamburgers. 9 times out of 10 independent, underground music - from whatever genre and era - will be far, far more diverse, will be delivered with more passion, will ring with authenticity not hollowness, and in the end will challenge and expand your notions of what music can be. I guess those are the things i look for in any art form.
this post is 100% bullshit
No it isn't, he's just overstating his case. Issues of creative freedom, dedication, and urgency are unquestionably valid when talking about independent versus commercial music in the pre-digital age.
yeah but i don't agree that what is popular is in any way inherently linked to these things
Inherently? No, of course it isn't. Realistically? Yes, it certainly is (or at least was).
Like it or not, what is popular has as much to do with marketing and exposure as it does with artistic merit. Fooling people into believing they like a product is how all of my social psychology friends get paid.
Marketing and exposure can certainly create popularity for a mediocre product, but they do not preclude popularity for a genuinely good product.
I agree with this 100%. The public may be easily manipulated but they aren't stupid. If an album fails to pass the threshold of listenability, there's a strong chance the album will tank.
I would even suggest that marketing hype can only create popularity for a short period of time. For a record to maintain popularity for more than a year or two (and thereby be continually issued/reissued) there would have to be something more than pure hype going on.
I agree with this for the most part as well, though I have a hard time even conceiving what it means to be popular 2 years after being released.
good music is good music. if you dont already know this, youre retarded.
Best post yet.
HCrink, if you can't hear how disgusting Scorpio reissues sound, no disrespect, but your stereo or your ears are out of wack. They really sound awful, but if you're content with them, feel free to keep them and sell me the OGs.
I would even suggest that marketing hype can only create popularity for a short period of time. For a record to maintain popularity for more than a year or two (and thereby be continually issued/reissued) there would have to be something more than pure hype going on.
I agree with this for the most part as well, though I have a hard time even conceiving what it means to be popular 2 years after being released.
In the context of this thread, I was thinking of records that stayed in print for a long time. Pink Floyd, Neil Young, Led Zeppelin, Los Beatles. And also The Eagles, Saturday Night Fever, Carly Simon, etc. I don't really like all of these bands, but the fact that their records stayed in print for a long time indicates to me that people were getting something from their music and they should not be dismissed as mediocre because of their popularity. In the current age of digital downloads, I don't really know if music stays "in print" in the same way or if media companies just assume that once the music has been out there for a while there is no more profitability as it is essentially public domain.
what is popular has as much to do with marketing and exposure as it does with artistic merit.
today? WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY MORE.
Actually, maybe not. I've been reading up on random copying theory which is this application of power law distribution from the world of math and physics to the sociology and anthropological world and the findings are pretty intriguing. I'll spare folks the academic paper but this Telegraph story does a decent job of summing up the main arguments:
I don't think what's being said here negates the idea that marketing plays a difference - exposure is actually quite crucial - but ultimately, what the argument notes is that most of the last 50 years, the turnover of pop music at the top of the charts has been strikingly consistent: 6% a week.
Notably, the data used to calculate that was taken from charts beginning in the 1950s through 1980s. It'd be quite interesting to apply the same analysis to the last 20 years to see if there's been a deviation.
Comments
When I read that comment back I realized it sounded more skewed than I intended it to. I'm more thinking about these guys who insists they need to spend $700 on an original Stone Harbour so they can hear the original shittiness unique only to the original pressing. "You know, for the sake of the PURE TRIP dude."
I forgot that people in this post are trying to decide whether or not to buy the repress of that Curtis album they can't seem to find.
haha! I'm just retarded.
There are tons of soul 45's that sell for hundreds of dollars
that are inferior imitations of million-selling Motown tracks.
Not all, of course - most rare/collectible soul & funk 45's are sought
after due to their sound being either unique or at least extremely
well-executed. But there are plenty of records that are rare and
expensive whose value is owed to scarcity far more than quality.
Yeah, you can say that about most movements in commercial music. I guess it raises some philosophical questions. Does an "inferior imitation" translate to a lesser musical experience? How many times can you listen to a perfect Motown song before feeling a need to look beyond? Do you ever reach that point? If you say you can listen to Motown records forever and don't need to hear the inferior imitations, can you REALLY say you like Motown records? The roots of a tree are just as important as the tallest branches and leaves.
the 'lol pop music = big mac' fallacy is so ridiculous at this point.
BAN
also i own the curtis reissue and am very happy w/ it.
Hilarious
Please continue...
there are great common records, and great rare records. liking common records does not make you cool / better than anybody. liking rare records does not make you cool / better than anybody.
people make it seem like soulstrut is down on common records, when in reality, its just a matter of interest. which sounds like a more intriguing thread: "dude, marvin gaye is pretty cool, because you didnt know that yet" or "dude i just discovered this recording only a handful of people have heard and although it is definitely inspired by something else more popular, just like everything that came before it, its new and strange and unfamiliar and just might have an impact on you as well"
good music is good music. if you dont already know this, youre retarded.
(but who's with me on that slight embarassment you get when you go up to the counter with some dollarbincommon?)
whatever, I'm obviously crazy
I just thought it was funny that you said one was only a true Motown fan if they could appreciate the greatness of lesser Motown imitators, thats all...
I am definitely an appreciator of industry outsiders though.
soul singers? I dunno,
Reuben Bell
James B.
whoever is singing on that Carlettes 45
Helene Smith
Larry T.
Curtis Mayfield
Hector Lavoe
Dawn Penn
The Esquires
umm... let's see
aretha franklin
al green
betty wright albums from no earlier than 1978
maybe?
edit: Little Beaver singing high notes
No it isn't, he's just overstating his case. Issues of creative freedom, dedication, and urgency are unquestionably valid when talking about independent versus commercial music in the pre-digital age.
This sentiment may be somewhat true about the music industry as it currently exists, where the few large media corporations can distribute their limited range of product to the biggest audience. But this is a remarkably ignorant assessment of the music "from whatever genre and era" that came before. The definition of "independent" music used to be quite different when there were more than four record labels competing for the mass media music dollar.
Actually, comparing music to hamburgers or canned beer is pretty ridiculous from any perspective. Puhleeze.
I stand by that question. I'm not saying I have the one right answer or anything, but I do think that appreciating the lesser cuts is sorta the ultimate way to appreciate the real deal.
If your perfect 10 of a wife that you think you love is wrecked in some kind of accident, and all of the sudden you're not sure if you want to stick around, were you really ever in love?
IMO, perfect shit is nice, but gets boring,
personally I prefer out-of-tune horns and/or a healthy dose of humanity
so like I said... crazy
Inherently? No, of course it isn't. Realistically? Yes, it certainly is (or at least was).
Like it or not, what is popular has as much to do with marketing and exposure as it does with artistic merit. Fooling people into believing they like a product is how all of my social psychology friends get paid.
today? WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY MORE.
Marketing and exposure can certainly create popularity for a mediocre product, but they do not preclude popularity for a genuinely good product. I would even suggest that marketing hype can only create popularity for a short period of time. For a record to maintain popularity for more than a year or two (and thereby be continually issued/reissued) there would have to be something more than pure hype going on.
I agree with this 100%. The public may be easily manipulated but they aren't stupid. If an album fails to pass the threshold of listenability, there's a strong chance the album will tank.
I agree with this for the most part as well, though I have a hard time even conceiving what it means to be popular 2 years after being released.
Best post yet.
HCrink, if you can't hear how disgusting Scorpio reissues sound, no disrespect, but your stereo or your ears are out of wack. They really sound awful, but if you're content with them, feel free to keep them and sell me the OGs.
In the context of this thread, I was thinking of records that stayed in print for a long time. Pink Floyd, Neil Young, Led Zeppelin, Los Beatles. And also The Eagles, Saturday Night Fever, Carly Simon, etc. I don't really like all of these bands, but the fact that their records stayed in print for a long time indicates to me that people were getting something from their music and they should not be dismissed as mediocre because of their popularity. In the current age of digital downloads, I don't really know if music stays "in print" in the same way or if media companies just assume that once the music has been out there for a while there is no more profitability as it is essentially public domain.
you will see a bunch of "I don't" and "me and" and" "me" and "I"...
well, we all can't be as ego-less as you apparently
How did you even find this thread? I'm pretty sure it didn't turn up in your search results.
Ha ha ha. I don't care about that shit, just check my weekend finds, dollarbincommons & proud! Good music is good music man, just like you said.
Actually, maybe not. I've been reading up on random copying theory which is this application of power law distribution from the world of math and physics to the sociology and anthropological world and the findings are pretty intriguing. I'll spare folks the academic paper but this Telegraph story does a decent job of summing up the main arguments:
http://www.bio.indiana.edu/~hahnlab/MediaFiles/Dog%20Breeds/Telegraph_UK.html
I don't think what's being said here negates the idea that marketing plays a difference - exposure is actually quite crucial - but ultimately, what the argument notes is that most of the last 50 years, the turnover of pop music at the top of the charts has been strikingly consistent: 6% a week.
Notably, the data used to calculate that was taken from charts beginning in the 1950s through 1980s. It'd be quite interesting to apply the same analysis to the last 20 years to see if there's been a deviation.