People who only like old movies/music/art/etc, and automatically dismiss anything new.

Does every era have the same amount of good stuff in it? Don't you get crappy lulls when nothing much is going on?

i don't think i've met anyone like this.

What, *another* thread about Geir?

If they spend their time enthusing about what they do like and getting me into it - CLASSIC.

If they spend their time grumbling about the stuff they don't like - DUD.

(Same applies to people only into new stuff, obv)

xpost to Jed - I've never met anyone who is like this for EVERY artform, but I've encountered people who are for individual ones.

I don't mind people grumbling about stuff they don't like provided that they can back up their argument with coherent, informed reasoning and it's not just kneejerk allfieldsaroundhereism.

Where it goes wrong is where people get paid vast amounts of money, are offered top writing jobs, win awards, keys to the kingdom etc. for grumbling about stuff they don't like in order to appeal to the basest urges of tired but determined middle-aged demographic nostalgics.

To be honest that's the case when they're enthusing about what they do like: my sunny optimism is no match for the MOJO 100 Records That Changed The World.

They have a movie reviewer in a local paper who is exactly like this. He never gives any new movies five stars, but whenever they put a restored version of a classic film in the theatres, it's five stars automatically.

www.chambersharrap.co.uk:
classic (adj) 1 made of or belonging to the highest quality; established as the best.

so, good old films are good and new films might not be. sounds reasonable.

He never gives any new movies five stars, but whenever they put a restored version of a classic film in the theatres, it's five stars automatically.

TBH, I find the opposite of this far more irritating. Like critics who will automatically give the new Arctic Monkeys or whatever album five stars BECAUSE IT IS THE NEXT BIG THING rather than waiting to find out if it really is "a classic" (hah) or just the latest hype.

He never gives any new movies five stars, but whenever they put a restored version of a classic film in the theatres, it's five stars automatically

Well, that kind of makes sense doesn't it, in a way? What percentage of films in any era are classics? So he reviews 100 new films in a year and doesn't like most of them - what's wrong with that? Most of them won't be very good.

cant it just be that they have an aesthetic preference for films/music of a certain period?

"You know the type I'm talking about"

My parents?

that seems limiting, altho it's probably good to focus on certain periods for a...certain period (not too long).

the ones who feel that no good music has been made since the seventies, or that the golden age of film was the 1940s

*Puts hand up*

Lately all I've been renting is a ton of classic films noirs from the 40s. As for music, surely the 70s has it all covered. Is there really a better decade?

yes, the 90's. and the 80's. and the 00's.

1979 alone is better than those decades.

People who only like old culture = anathema to me. Such wilful refusal to acknowledge progression and improvement makes me sick.

You and Mao both

xpost
I think I can agree with that and still posit that films and our current brand of popular music (well, rock in any case) are probably past their prime.

Love of the past is an anti-revolutionary act.

I don't think I know anyone who ONLY likes old music/whatever. I mean, sure, my favourite time for music is unquestionably 76-84, but that doesn't mean I don't listen to a load of music from the 00s as well. This thread is made of straw.

Wilful refusal to acknowledge crap/average times for music (i.e. 2007) is slightly irksome.

> Such wilful refusal to acknowledge progression and improvement makes me sick.

is improvement guaranteed though? you talk as though it is.

How dare people be wilful!

How dare people be Will Fyffe!

Rock is going in directions unimaginable twenty years ago. I merely think that the truly exciting leap forwards, namely the dissolving of genre and the total confluence of modern sound onto a limitless palette, has been delayed somewhat from when I thought it would arise, as if music has collectively drawn a ten-year breath before taking the plunge. It's going to happen soon, though, and when it does, things will suddenly become a whole lot more intriguing than they ever were.

Roughly the same thing is happening with film, although more rapidly.

P.S. I have two good records from 1979, they are Secondhand Daylight and Drums And Wires. Very little else from that year strikes me as interesting given what's come afterwards. Drums And Wires itself struggles to be THAT interesting in the face of XTC's later, better, efforts. So ha!

And what about "154"?

OK I NEED TO GET THAT RECORD

WE'VE HAD THIS ONE BEFORE

People still listen to "rock"?

http://www.iisg.nl/~landsberger/images/cr01.jpg

Old fogies!

Any progressive person would've ditched rock by 80s.

The Fall and maybe Can probably released something in 1979 that everyone loves. They can be exempt too.

Bowie's The Lodger was 79.

Can were crap by 1979

Well, not crap, just past it

I tend to think that grand sweeping statements that only (this) made in (this) style in (this) time period is ok, or nobody should be listening to (this) after (this) date or nothing good of (this) has ever been made after (this date) are more of a problem that the fact that some people only like old stuff. The fact that such statements are routinely made by people in positions of cultural power is actually really bad!

Rock is going in directions unimaginable twenty years ago.

Name names.

it was Tucker, Sir

they never imagined it going back to the 70s, 20 years ago

People who only like old culture = anathema to me. Such wilful refusal to acknowledge progression and improvement makes me sick.

-- Just got offed, Thursday, 24 May 2007 12:24 (22 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

See, this viewpoint, taken to it's extreme, results in this:

filmography of actress Pauline Frederick, with preservation status listed

I merely think that the truly exciting leap forwards, namely the dissolving of genre and the total confluence of modern sound onto a limitless palette

This sounds like something someone would have said in the sixties, let alone the seventies.

Abba, Louis.

(also the melange of styles you're optimistically waiting for sounds like a vast amount of unlistenable crap with the occasional gem. A bit like music usually is, then)

Any progressive person would've ditched rock by 80s.

http://newmedia.leeds.ac.uk/acom/wakeman.jpg

namely the dissolving of genre and the total confluence of modern sound onto a limitless palette

causing blogospheric critics everywhere to panic as they try to describe and label said music.

"it's all jazz-funk now"

omg strongo was right

Currently, the 1970s are currently my 2010s. I'm perpetually astounded by how much fantastic '70s stuff I still haven't heard.

https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/1917267_10153466084278802_3885994459233011597_n.jpg?oh=44325ec32e6853d0293ad923c1a0165c&oe=5713B0F6

^ unless that was written before 1970, it is not worth reading. plz inform me of its date of composition so I can decide whether to read it.

the album came out in 1970. might have been written in 1969 or earlier though.

http://cdn.yourepeat.com/media/gif/000/001/555/ca07ad64420e3d1230725dbc842baff0.gif

paying $ for mp3s or cds (even as a gesture of support) is unappealing to some people.

Yeah, but it's exactly because these people find CDs unappealing (and they do, I know, because I've talked to them about it) that it feels like retro fetishism to me. I fully understand wanting to own a physical product, I still buy most music like that, but there's absolutely nothing that makes a cassette a better product than CD. CDs are not any flimsier than cassettes (cassettes can and do get damaged by the machines playing them, which never happens with CDs), CDRs are even easier and cheaper to produce than tapes, cassettes have an inherently worse sound quality due to the limitations if the format, there's even less room for cover art, liner notes, lyrics, etc. So I can't really think of any reason for preferring tapes over CDs than retroism.

A lot of it is to do with tiny independent labels being priced out of the resurgent vinyl market. Plus excessively long waits for pressing plants for months around Record Store Day. CDs are pretty much seen as flimsy and disposable and not special, so what do you do if you want to put out a physical release as well as online? Go for tapes, they're still cheap and quick to make. There's definitely a bit of novelty value in there as well, but noize people have been consistently using tapes for a decade or so, so it's not even that novel.

― emil.y, Thursday, January 7, 2016 8:42 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I agree with this. I bought two or three new cassettes by indie bands last year (more than I bought on vinyl or (shudder) CD) and don't think it's got anything to do with retro fetishism. It's an aesthetic thing - local bands who want to design and create a physical object but vinyl is not so accessible or not marketable for one reason or another. I always liked cassettes and think they have a great sound. Plus my car has a cassette deck, as does my home system. Better than a digital download or bandcamp imo. Don't worry about it, it's fine.

Cassettes are certainly a nice car media because you can just pop them in/out and don't have to immediately shove them in a case.

So I can't really think of any reason for preferring tapes over CDs than retroism.

― Tuomas, Thursday, January 7, 2016 2:20 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i'm not a fan of cassettes at all, i don't own any anymore and i don't desire to. but i taped shit off the radio in the early- to mid-90s all the time and the limitations of them especially w/r/t skipping tracks actually made them somewhat appealing in terms of just putting something on and letting it go, we'd often have a shoebox of tapes in the car and you'd just shove it in and play it where it left off the last time, there was something appealing about just putting something on and ceding control and just listening. i had a rental car last month with an aux input and therefore access to 200 albums on my phone and it was a little chaotic finding something to listen to and stick with

but there's absolutely nothing that makes a cassette a better product than CD. CDs are not any flimsier than cassettes (cassettes can and do get damaged by the machines playing them, which never happens with CDs), CDRs are even easier and cheaper to produce than tapes, cassettes have an inherently worse sound quality due to the limitations if the format, there's even less room for cover art, liner notes, lyrics, etc. So I can't really think of any reason for preferring tapes over CDs than retroism.

they're not for listening to though. seems like a lot of younger people stream the record when they want to listen to it and buy the tape to show support.

i listen to the new tapes that come my way because we have a boombox in the bathroom, and a tape deck in my gf's car. if those broke, not sure if i would go to the trouble of buying a new tape-playing-device or not.

CDs are a hell of a lot less robust than CDs. Cassettes can lie out of their cases on the floor of the car for years and play fine. CDs scratch easily.

Don't want to open a can of worms but in some cases cassettes have much better sound quality than CDs. And I can cite examples.

Sorry, I mean CDs are less robust than *cassettes*.

Why not just buy a digital release then if you want show support? What's the point of owning a physical release that you don't do anything with? I don't get it.

(xpost)

You do do something with it. You play it. You look at it. You own it. If that's hard to comprehend then why own anything that is not completely practical?

I dunno about you, but when I buy an album of music that I like, I don't leave them lying for years on the floor, so I don't really get this flimsiness argument. It's not like you have to treat CDs with some special care, just put them back to their cases when you get them out of the player, or at least leave them lying with the data side up. It's not that hard.

And cassettes have a much narrower dynamic range than vinyl or CDs, so their worse sound quality is a scientific fact.

The 16-bit compact disc has a theoretical dynamic range of about 96 dB[12] for a triangle wave or 98 dB for sinusoidal signals[11] (see Quantization noise model). The perceived dynamic range of 16-bit audio can be as high as 120 dB with noise-shaped dither, taking advantage of the frequency response of the human ear.[13] Digital audio with undithered 20-bit digitization is also theoretically capable of 120 dB dynamic range. Similarly, 24-bit digital audio calculates to 144 dB dynamic range.[8] All digital audio recording and playback chains include input and output converters and associated analog circuitry, significantly limiting practical dynamic range. Observed 16-bit digital audio dynamic range is about 90 dB.[12]

Dynamic range in analog audio is the difference between low-level thermal noise in the electronic circuitry and high-level signal saturation resulting in increased distortion and, if pushed higher, clipping.[14] Multiple noise processes determine the noise floor of a system. Noise can be picked up from microphone self-noise, preamp noise, wiring and interconnection noise, media noise, etc.

Early 78 rpm phonograph discs had a dynamic range of up to 40 dB,[15] soon reduced to 30 dB and worse due to wear from repeated play. Vinyl microgroove phonograph records typically yield 55-65 dB, though the first play of the higher-fidelity outer rings can achieve a dynamic range of 70 dB.[16]

German magnetic tape in 1941 was reported to have had a dynamic range of 60 dB,[17] though modern day restoration experts of such tapes note 45-50 dB as the observed dynamic range.[18] Ampex tape recorders in the 1950s achieved 60 dB in practical usage,[17] though tape formulations such as Scotch 111 boasted 68 dB dynamic range.[19] In the 1960s, improvements in tape formulation processes resulted in 7 dB greater range,[19] and Ray Dolby developed the Dolby A-Type noise reduction system that increased low- and mid-frequency dynamic range on magnetic tape by 10 dB, and high-frequency by 15 dB, using companding (compression and expansion) of four frequency bands.[20] The peak of professional analog magnetic recording tape technology reached 90 dB dynamic range in the midband frequencies at 3% distortion, or about 80 dB in practical broadband applications.

slightly below CD, better than LP

LP - 70
cassette - 80
CD - 90

informal poll: how many of you just keep CDs on a spindle?

You do do something with it. You play it. You look at it. You own it. If that's hard to comprehend then why own anything that is not completely practical?

I totally get wanting to own something physical, my point was just that I don't see any point beyond retro fetishism why it has to be a tape and not a CD. And I can understand retro fetishism too, even tho it's not my thing, but for some reason many of these cassette people don't want to admit that's what it's about, instead citing reasons why cassettes are supposedly superior, even tho those same reasons apply to other formats as well.

what part of "cheap and fast and easy for a band to make" do you not understand?

cf. Adam's point above about duplication speed

give us more scientific facts plz tuomas

bands were using CDr's for a while but they were rotting so now smaller label's, noise bands, metal bands doing selling demo tapes will use them as they still last longer than most CD'rs.
There is hipster's buying them as I know a few record shops that sell old 80s tapes that were in warehouses for 25 years are now being sold for a fiver. (still cheaper than reissue lps) and 2nd hand vinyl prices have gone up too.

CD-R's turn into frisbees pretty quickly

Usually a noise act will trade sound quality for immediacy and portability. Easy to do field recordings on tape, you have an instant master.

I dunno, I still have 10 to 15 year old CD-Rs that play fine. I admit that tapes more likely last longer, that's probably the only aspect where they're not inferior.

what part of "cheap and fast and easy for a band to make" do you not understand?

― sleeve, Thursday, January 7, 2016 9:55 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

cf. Adam's point above about duplication speed

― sleeve, Thursday, January 7, 2016 9:56 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

As I already said, it's even easier and cheaper to burn CDs. As for the speed, maybe it's different with the sort of tape music you buy, but at least in here most tape releases are for small underground acts that typically press somewhere between 30 to 200 copies of the album. I doubt the copying speed is really a big factor in their choice of format, because at the maximum it would take them one afternoon and evening to burn the music on CDs.

(xpost)

if you are recording/releasing a band on tape, all you have to do is set up a boombox, pop in a tape, hit record. you now have a tape to sell. duplicating it is quick, you can make 3 copies every 2 minutes. it takes about 2 minutes to eject a CD tray, carefully insert your CDr, close the tray, click "burn", then wait for it to write, then wait for the lead-in, then maybe if you are verifying wait for that. not to mention recording in the first place, you will need either a laptop w a mic or an external digital recorder. then you need to connect that to your cdr-burning computer and transfer the file. then you need to master it, EQ it, save it as a WAV, etc.

nobody wants to sit around all afternoon burning CDs. you can pay tape/CD/media places to do that. but on a small scale, for one-of-a-kind releases, tape is by far and away the most convenient and durable way to go.

tapes look better on shelves too

how's the sound quality on tapes these days compared to LPs? there are several newish albums i'd like to purchase that are available on cassette as well as vinyl..

They will be from the same source so probably not that much different

i have a couple of torche cassettes and they are fine

I actually bought two copies of the same album this year on both cassette and vinyl and I have to say, the cassette version sounds better. Seriously.

informal poll: how many of you just keep CDs on a spindle?

― Philip Nunez, Thursday, 7 January 2016 19:49 (1 hour ago)

not me, i have never kept them in those travelcases (when I did do that if i was going somewhere i put them back in the cases when i got home) note i dont drive though and that is why most did that I think? Better than those who chucked the cds onto the backseat

Do tapes really copy that fast on boomboxes? All I remember is the option of either regular speed or high speed dubbing, and high speed was already lower quality I think.

In a lot of cities with a thriving scene there's usually some dude with a machine that copies multiple cassettes at the same time and he just does it for everyone.

They will be from the same source so probably not that much different

― Ted Nü-Djent (Cosmic Slop), Thursday, January 7, 2016 1:18 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah, no duh, i'm talking about the medium.

Do tapes really copy that fast on boomboxes? All I remember is the option of either regular speed or high speed dubbing, and high speed was already lower quality I think.

― on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Thursday, January 7, 2016 4:22 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41%2BjXB4LprL._SY355_.jpg

the 4 tape duplicator models go for under $200 on Amazon but there are some 1-to-1 models for under $50 on ebay.

xpost. Cassettes are good quality these days imo. And I'm not sure about the "same source" thing. The one I mentioned that I bought in both formats this year were on different labels from different countries - one label is a cassette-only label and the other is vinyl-only. Could quite easily have been mastered differently and I think they were.

These days I only record on gramaphone

I tried that, even got a record lathe last year, but it takes some seriously knowledge to cut records into any material.

anybody who can't tell the difference between loud 320 mp3s and loud CDs has shitty hearing.

tell it to the 'hoff

if you are recording/releasing a band on tape, all you have to do is set up a boombox, pop in a tape, hit record. you now have a tape to sell. duplicating it is quick, you can make 3 copies every 2 minutes.

Do people really want to buy albums that were recorded with a bloody boombox mic?! Because I can remember me and my friends recording our homemade audio plays on those when were kids, and the sound quality was, er, not that good.

it takes about 2 minutes to eject a CD tray, carefully insert your CDr, close the tray, click "burn", then wait for it to write, then wait for the lead-in, then maybe if you are verifying wait for that. not to mention recording in the first place, you will need either a laptop w a mic or an external digital recorder. then you need to connect that to your cdr-burning computer and transfer the file. then you need to master it, EQ it, save it as a WAV, etc.

Maybe this a question of aesthetics, but I would prefer to buy albums by artists who put some effort into mixing and mastering their music, so the album I buy actually sounds good. I mean, if the artist can't even be arsed to properly mix their tunes and spend one evening burning them on CDs, it kinda makes me question how much they really care about their music.

So yeah, if getting the music into a salable physical format as quickly as possible is the reason cassettes have made a comeback, I'll concede that's it not about retro fetishism but laziness, and I'm happy that I've stayed away from the tape scene.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lo-fi_music

i would rather buy an album that sounds the way the artist wants it to sound. could care less if they "put some effort into mixing and mastering their music". the world is already filled with wonderfully produced crap.

German magnetic tape in 1941 was reported to have had a dynamic range of 60 dB,[17] though modern day restoration experts of such tapes note 45-50 dB as the observed dynamic range.[18] Ampex tape recorders in the 1950s achieved 60 dB in practical usage,[17] though tape formulations such as Scotch 111 boasted 68 dB dynamic range.[19] In the 1960s, improvements in tape formulation processes resulted in 7 dB greater range,[19] and Ray Dolby developed the Dolby A-Type noise reduction system that increased low- and mid-frequency dynamic range on magnetic tape by 10 dB, and high-frequency by 15 dB, using companding (compression and expansion) of four frequency bands.[20] The peak of professional analog magnetic recording tape technology reached 90 dB dynamic range in the midband frequencies at 3% distortion, or about 80 dB in practical broadband applications

The data above refers to 1/4" reel-to-reel tape. Cassettes are 0.15" wide and have less range.

Compact Cassette tape performance ranges from 50 to 56 dB depending on tape formulation, with Metal Type IV tapes giving the greatest dynamic range, and systems such as XDR, dbx and Dolby noise reduction system increasing it further. Specialized bias and record head improvements by Nakamichi and Tandberg combined with Dolby C noise reduction yielded 72 dB dynamic range for the cassette

ah, thanks. still 2 dB better than vinyl...

Refocusing this back to the actual art, versus the medium, I'm not *exactly* a person who only likes the old and dismisses the new, but I'm in the ballpark. Trying to think of a new record I've enjoyed as much as the Greatest Hits of Dave Dee, Dozy, Beaky, Mick and Tich I've been listening to recently. Probably Shannon and the Clams, but they're pretty retro...

And next up in my Netflix queue: Three Against the House (1955)