[Scott Dorsey]

PStamler wrote:
On Monday, December 1, 2014 2:36:37 PM UTC-6, Don Pearce wrote:

One thing they didn't have back then, much to their musical
benefit, was the diabolical click track.

It was around, though. Wendy Carlos used it throughout "Switched-On Bach", which was released in 1968 but she'd been working on it for a few years. The liner notes to that album were the first time I heard of click tracks.

I worked with streamers back in the seventies, and at the time I was told
that the idea dated back to the coming of film sound back in the 1920s. The
conductor is watching the film on a screen above the orchestra and there are
sideways scratches in the print to mark the beat.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce wrote:

But artists like the Beatles didn't use it. I've seen some pacing
analysis of a few Beatles tracks, and they sort of breathe, metrically
as they progress - faster here, slower here. You don't actually hear
it, of course, because the tempo is simply the right one at each
point. To have constrained it to a click would have made the result
forced and unnatural.

The Beatles were a band, though. They played together, that's what they
were about.

Not every musical group is a band, and not everybody is playing music that
is intended to stand alone by itself.

Now, if your argument against clicks is that there are too few bands and too
many people playing music that isn't intended to stand alone, I would quite
completely agree with you on that one.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[John Williamson]

On 02/12/2014 14:51, flatfish+++ wrote:
However, nothing IMHO is as bad as what I'm hearing these days on
mainstream pop radio.
It's just pure noise to my ears.


That's a quote from my dad from my teenage years. He liked Jazz, which
his dad hated. I liked Pop, which he hated.

And it's probably what my kids will be saying in a generation or so.

Popular music has always been very much of its time, and is disliked by
people older and younger than its target audience. I find that peoples'
favourite pop music is from the years round about the time they started
going out to parties and clubs. Anything before or after is never as good.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 02/12/2014 15:17, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:

But artists like the Beatles didn't use it. I've seen some pacing
analysis of a few Beatles tracks, and they sort of breathe, metrically
as they progress - faster here, slower here. You don't actually hear
it, of course, because the tempo is simply the right one at each
point. To have constrained it to a click would have made the result
forced and unnatural.

The Beatles were a band, though. They played together, that's what they
were about.

It took them well over a thousand live performances together as a band
to become an overnight success.

If they'd had today's recording equipment, they'd have sounded less
distorted and noisy. What would have killed the music, IMHO, would have
been the current fashion for editing every single note of every single
song until it becomes technically perfect and lifeless.

For reference, take Jeff Wayne's War Of The Worlds original version,
which was recorded live in one take against the new version, which was
done using the normal modern studio techniques of overdubbing and take
compilation. I know which I prefer.

Now, if your argument against clicks is that there are too few bands and too
many people playing music that isn't intended to stand alone, I would quite
completely agree with you on that one.
--scott

You said it, kid.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Paul[_13_]]

On 11/29/2014 6:37 PM, Tobiah wrote:
The Beatles, Pink Floyd, The Stones, Led Zepp,

Or any band of the time. Say I go back and offer them
my $500 computer, along with a decent 8 channel audio interface
and say, Reaper. How would they react? How would their music
be different? How much would they pay for what I now have?
Why might this be a detriment to them (for me too much choice
sometimes constipates my creativity)?


What if we could transport today's equipment back to
Bach and Mozart's time?

Now THAT would be interesting!

We could get more definitive versions of the Goldberg Variations,
etc, etc!

[hank alrich]

Les Cargill wrote:


http://bb.steelguitarforum.com/userp...20533768519129
0_5206024126247158149_n_1.jpg


That skull thang be a nice band logo, for a jazz group.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

John Williamson wrote:

On 02/12/2014 14:51, flatfish+++ wrote:
However, nothing IMHO is as bad as what I'm hearing these days on
mainstream pop radio.
It's just pure noise to my ears.


That's a quote from my dad from my teenage years. He liked Jazz, which
his dad hated. I liked Pop, which he hated.

And it's probably what my kids will be saying in a generation or so.

Popular music has always been very much of its time, and is disliked by
people older and younger than its target audience. I find that peoples'
favourite pop music is from the years round about the time they started
going out to parties and clubs. Anything before or after is never as good.

This is all about marketing. So is "the generation gap". False
divisions among people, foisted on us by powerful Wll St. marketing
porces, intent on exploiting "the outrage!!"

My kids wound up loving the music we have around the house, and it's
lots of kinds of music. We didn't watch TV, and radio reception here is
terrible. Seperated by circumstance and proclivity from "the
mainstream", things turned out beautifully in many ways, including this
musical appreciation angle.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

Don Pearce wrote:

On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 20:48:29 -0800 (PST), PStamler
wrote:

On Monday, December 1, 2014 2:36:37 PM UTC-6, Don Pearce wrote:

One thing they didn't have back then, much to their musical
benefit, was the diabolical click track.

It was around, though. Wendy Carlos used it throughout "Switched-On
Bach", which was released in 1968 but she'd been working on it for a few
years. The liner notes to that album were the first time I heard of click
tracks.

Peace,
Paul

But artists like the Beatles didn't use it. I've seen some pacing
analysis of a few Beatles tracks, and they sort of breathe, metrically
as they progress - faster here, slower here. You don't actually hear
it, of course, because the tempo is simply the right one at each
point. To have constrained it to a click would have made the result
forced and unnatural.

d

There are many huge hits that wouldn't pay any attention to a click. The
Stones offer many examples.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
flatfish+++ wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:36:18 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
PStamler wrote:
On Monday, December 1, 2014 2:36:37 PM UTC-6, Don Pearce wrote:

One thing they didn't have back then, much to their musical
benefit, was the diabolical click track.

It was around, though. Wendy Carlos used it throughout "Switched-On
Bach", which was released in 1968 but she'd been working on it for a
few years. The liner notes to that album were the first time I heard
of click tracks.

And before, there was the metronome.

But in the "dark ages" (before 1990!) the metronome was used as a
teaching tool to teach timing. I don't remember ever seeing one in a
studio.

I do. For where the length of the piece was critical.

--
*It IS as bad as you think, and they ARE out to get you.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[flatfish+++[_3_]]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 09:12:19 -0700, Paul wrote:

On 11/29/2014 6:37 PM, Tobiah wrote:
The Beatles, Pink Floyd, The Stones, Led Zepp,

Or any band of the time. Say I go back and offer them
my $500 computer, along with a decent 8 channel audio interface
and say, Reaper. How would they react? How would their music
be different? How much would they pay for what I now have?
Why might this be a detriment to them (for me too much choice
sometimes constipates my creativity)?


What if we could transport today's equipment back to
Bach and Mozart's time?

Now THAT would be interesting!

We could get more definitive versions of the Goldberg Variations,
etc, etc!

+1
That would be fascinating !

--
flatfish+++

Linux: The Operating System That Put The City Of Munich Out Of
Business.
Before Switching To Linux Read This:
http://linuxfonts.narod.ru/why.linux...current.htm l

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
If they'd had today's recording equipment, they'd have sounded less
distorted and noisy. What would have killed the music, IMHO, would have
been the current fashion for editing every single note of every single
song until it becomes technically perfect and lifeless.

In one. ;-)

Also imagine what Sinatra would have sounded like if it hadn't been a more
or less all in one take.

--
*I got a job at a bakery because I kneaded dough.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/2/2014 11:56 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Also imagine what Sinatra would have sounded like if it hadn't been a more
or less all in one take.

He would have been cussing up a blue streak by the third take (and was
known to do so).

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 12:31:56 -0500, Mike Rivers
wrote:

On 12/2/2014 11:56 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Also imagine what Sinatra would have sounded like if it hadn't been a more
or less all in one take.

He would have been cussing up a blue streak by the third take (and was
known to do so).

But then we had Dusty Springfield - she was a nightmare. On most songs
virtually every word she sings is punched.

d

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/2/2014 11:56 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Also imagine what Sinatra would have sounded like if it hadn't been a more
or less all in one take.

He would have been cussing up a blue streak by the third take (and was
known to do so).

Sinatra did it all in one take... but the band behind him might well not have.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

On 3/12/2014 4:17 a.m., John Williamson wrote:
On 02/12/2014 14:51, flatfish+++ wrote:
However, nothing IMHO is as bad as what I'm hearing these days on
mainstream pop radio.
It's just pure noise to my ears.


That's a quote from my dad from my teenage years. He liked Jazz, which
his dad hated. I liked Pop, which he hated.

And it's probably what my kids will be saying in a generation or so.

Popular music has always been very much of its time, and is disliked by
people older and younger than its target audience. I find that peoples'
favourite pop music is from the years round about the time they started
going out to parties and clubs. Anything before or after is never as good.



Doesn't necessarily continue on like that. I mean, some degree of
compositional, instrumental and vocal technique was more common back
then, which wouldn't seem to be the case in today's Top 20.

geoff

[geoff]

On 2/12/2014 5:48 p.m., PStamler wrote:
On Monday, December 1, 2014 2:36:37 PM UTC-6, Don Pearce wrote:

One thing they didn't have back then, much to their musical
benefit, was the diabolical click track.

It was around, though. Wendy Carlos used it throughout "Switched-On Bach", which was released in 1968 but she'd been working on it for a few years. The liner notes to that album were the first time I heard of click tracks.

Peace,
Paul



Didn't hear it bleeding into the mics ;-)

geoff

[geoff]

On 2/12/2014 7:01 p.m., Trevor wrote:
On 2/12/2014 3:48 PM, PStamler wrote:
On Monday, December 1, 2014 2:36:37 PM UTC-6, Don Pearce wrote:

One thing they didn't have back then, much to their musical
benefit, was the diabolical click track.

It was around, though. Wendy Carlos used it throughout "Switched-On
Bach",
which was released in 1968 but she'd been working on it for a few years.
The liner notes to that album were the first time I heard of click
tracks.

Surely you mean Walter Carlos, he didn't become "Wendy" until much later!

Maybe the 'click' was the sound of the scissors ;-0


geoff

[geoff]

On 2/12/2014 8:16 p.m., Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 20:48:29 -0800 (PST), PStamler
wrote:

On Monday, December 1, 2014 2:36:37 PM UTC-6, Don Pearce wrote:

One thing they didn't have back then, much to their musical
benefit, was the diabolical click track.

It was around, though. Wendy Carlos used it throughout "Switched-On Bach", which was released in 1968 but she'd been working on it for a few years. The liner notes to that album were the first time I heard of click tracks.

Peace,
Paul

But artists like the Beatles didn't use it. I've seen some pacing
analysis of a few Beatles tracks, and they sort of breathe, metrically
as they progress - faster here, slower here. You don't actually hear
it, of course, because the tempo is simply the right one at each
point. To have constrained it to a click would have made the result
forced and unnatural.

Those less informed claim it was just that Ringo couldn't keep time.


geoff

[flatfish+++[_3_]]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 18:13:47 GMT, Don Pearce wrote:

On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 12:31:56 -0500, Mike Rivers
wrote:

On 12/2/2014 11:56 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Also imagine what Sinatra would have sounded like if it hadn't been a more
or less all in one take.

He would have been cussing up a blue streak by the third take (and was
known to do so).

But then we had Dusty Springfield - she was a nightmare. On most songs
virtually every word she sings is punched.

d

Is that true?
I never knew that. I love the way Dusty sings.

--
flatfish+++

Linux: The Operating System That Put The City Of Munich Out Of
Business.
Before Switching To Linux Read This:
http://linuxfonts.narod.ru/why.linux...current.htm l

[geoff]

On 3/12/2014 5:56 a.m., Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
If they'd had today's recording equipment, they'd have sounded less
distorted and noisy. What would have killed the music, IMHO, would have
been the current fashion for editing every single note of every single
song until it becomes technically perfect and lifeless.

In one. ;-)

Also imagine what Sinatra would have sounded like if it hadn't been a more
or less all in one take.



And auto-tuned to F#@&


geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

If they had today's equipment...

they'd sell it to buy more drugs.

--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

On 3/12/2014 5:12 a.m., Paul wrote:
On 11/29/2014 6:37 PM, Tobiah wrote:
The Beatles, Pink Floyd, The Stones, Led Zepp,

Or any band of the time. Say I go back and offer them
my $500 computer, along with a decent 8 channel audio interface
and say, Reaper. How would they react? How would their music
be different? How much would they pay for what I now have?
Why might this be a detriment to them (for me too much choice
sometimes constipates my creativity)?


What if we could transport today's equipment back to
Bach and Mozart's time?

Now THAT would be interesting!

We could get more definitive versions of the Goldberg Variations,
etc, etc!





Switched-on Bach maybe ?

geoff

[flatfish+++[_3_]]

On 2 Dec 2014 13:48:50 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:

In article , Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/2/2014 11:56 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Also imagine what Sinatra would have sounded like if it hadn't been a more
or less all in one take.

He would have been cussing up a blue streak by the third take (and was
known to do so).

Sinatra did it all in one take... but the band behind him might well not have.
--scott

I remember seeing a video of him recording some tune, don't remember
the name, but someone in the big band, a real big band, hit a wrong
note and he stopped, pointed it out and they did take # n+1.

I wish I could find it.
Might have been a PBS special.


--
flatfish+++

Linux: The Operating System That Put The City Of Munich Out Of
Business.
Before Switching To Linux Read This:
http://linuxfonts.narod.ru/why.linux...current.htm l

[flatfish+++[_3_]]

On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 09:21:45 +1300, geoff wrote:

On 2/12/2014 7:01 p.m., Trevor wrote:
On 2/12/2014 3:48 PM, PStamler wrote:
On Monday, December 1, 2014 2:36:37 PM UTC-6, Don Pearce wrote:

One thing they didn't have back then, much to their musical
benefit, was the diabolical click track.

It was around, though. Wendy Carlos used it throughout "Switched-On
Bach",
which was released in 1968 but she'd been working on it for a few years.
The liner notes to that album were the first time I heard of click
tracks.

Surely you mean Walter Carlos, he didn't become "Wendy" until much later!

Maybe the 'click' was the sound of the scissors ;-0


geoff

ROTFLMAO !!
That's funny!

--
flatfish+++

Linux: The Operating System That Put The City Of Munich Out Of
Business.
Before Switching To Linux Read This:
http://linuxfonts.narod.ru/why.linux...current.htm l

[flatfish+++[_3_]]

On 2 Dec 2014 15:24:06 -0500, Scott Dorsey wrote:

If they had today's equipment...

they'd sell it to buy more drugs.

--scott

Probably true......

Many people think drugs and music started in the 60's.
Bzzzzzzzzzzt.
Wrong answer.

It was just hidden better way back when.

--
flatfish+++

Linux: The Operating System That Put The City Of Munich Out Of
Business.
Before Switching To Linux Read This:
http://linuxfonts.narod.ru/why.linux...current.htm l

[Gray_Wolf]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 16:43:35 +1100, Trevor wrote:

On 30/11/2014 10:24 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
It would take them longer to make an LP. And, in that day, they'd
probably have to pay about 50 million dollars to get the same amount of
computer power as you have now.

Nah, *NO* amount of money could buy the computing power of todays
average PC back then. And that's ignoring software.

Trevor.


No kidding! In 1961 the IBM 7090, computed Pi to 20,000 decimal places
in 39 minutes.
Today, on my 7 year old desktop, I can compute Pi to 1 million decimal
places in 20 seconds.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 09:22:28 +1300, geoff
wrote:

On 2/12/2014 8:16 p.m., Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 20:48:29 -0800 (PST), PStamler
wrote:

On Monday, December 1, 2014 2:36:37 PM UTC-6, Don Pearce wrote:

One thing they didn't have back then, much to their musical
benefit, was the diabolical click track.

It was around, though. Wendy Carlos used it throughout "Switched-On Bach", which was released in 1968 but she'd been working on it for a few years. The liner notes to that album were the first time I heard of click tracks.

Peace,
Paul

But artists like the Beatles didn't use it. I've seen some pacing
analysis of a few Beatles tracks, and they sort of breathe, metrically
as they progress - faster here, slower here. You don't actually hear
it, of course, because the tempo is simply the right one at each
point. To have constrained it to a click would have made the result
forced and unnatural.

Those less informed claim it was just that Ringo couldn't keep time.


geoff

Well, drummers always play behind the beat. The bass guitar leads it,
so maybe we can blame Paul?

d

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/2/2014 3:21 PM, geoff wrote:
the diabolical click track.
Didn't hear it bleeding into the mics ;-)

The synthesizer mics?

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/2/2014 4:21 PM, Gray_Wolf wrote:
In 1961 the IBM 7090, computed Pi to 20,000 decimal places
in 39 minutes.
Today, on my 7 year old desktop, I can compute Pi to 1 million decimal
places in 20 seconds.

How do you know? Did you count them? And how do you know it was correct?

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Gray_Wolf]

On 1 Dec 2014 22:34:10 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

In article ,
=?us-ascii?Q?=09flatfish+++?= wrote:
On Mon, 01 Dec 2014 20:44:07 -0500, Mike Rivers wrote:



Today's "workflow" depends upon churning out the loudest, most
irritating, lack of talent, lack of production skills garbage that
one can possibly come up with.

Something is seriously wrong with today's music and the fault is on
both sides of the glass.

That's exactly what my parents said about rock music in the sixties!
--scott

Mind you, I am not sure they weren't right.

It seems me that the rock scene is regressive because each new
generation's music has to be something that their parents absolutely
can't stand.

[Tobiah]

On 12/2/2014 7:17 AM, John Williamson wrote:
On 02/12/2014 14:51, flatfish+++ wrote:
However, nothing IMHO is as bad as what I'm hearing these days on
mainstream pop radio.
It's just pure noise to my ears.


That's a quote from my dad from my teenage years. He liked Jazz, which
his dad hated. I liked Pop, which he hated.

And it's probably what my kids will be saying in a generation or so.

Popular music has always been very much of its time, and is disliked by
people older and younger than its target audience. I find that peoples'
favourite pop music is from the years round about the time they started
going out to parties and clubs. Anything before or after is never as good.


I fell hard for Pink Floyd, Led Zepplin, et. al. when I was in junior
high school.

[Tobiah]

On 12/2/2014 8:12 AM, Paul wrote:
On 11/29/2014 6:37 PM, Tobiah wrote:
The Beatles, Pink Floyd, The Stones, Led Zepp,

Or any band of the time. Say I go back and offer them
my $500 computer, along with a decent 8 channel audio interface
and say, Reaper. How would they react? How would their music
be different? How much would they pay for what I now have?
Why might this be a detriment to them (for me too much choice
sometimes constipates my creativity)?


What if we could transport today's equipment back to
Bach and Mozart's time?

Now THAT would be interesting!

We could get more definitive versions of the Goldberg Variations,
etc, etc!




Originally I was not thinking so much about how clean the tracks
would be or what punch-ins they could do. I was thinking more
about expanded horizons for creativity through effects, and
synthesizers, and unlimited routing complexity, etc.

[Gray_Wolf]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 17:11:15 -0500, Mike Rivers
wrote:

On 12/2/2014 4:21 PM, Gray_Wolf wrote:
In 1961 the IBM 7090, computed Pi to 20,000 decimal places
in 39 minutes.
Today, on my 7 year old desktop, I can compute Pi to 1 million decimal
places in 20 seconds.

How do you know? Did you count them? And how do you know it was correct?

There are apps that do this sort of thing. They are used to benchmark
a system. They are also popular with overclockers to check for system
errors in the CPU, RAM and such.

They know whether the results are correct by checksum validation. i.e.
By checking the output hash against a known correct file.
Here's one such app.

Publisher's Description
From Lucas Tsatiris:

System Stability Tester (64-Bit) tries to test the system's stability
by calculating up to 128 millions of Pi digits. It supports multiple
calculation algorithms and calculate up to 128 million digits of Pi.
It can recognize the CPU model, manufacturer and operational
frequency. Compare the calculation results of all the threads after
each step and issue a warning if something went wrong. Run
continuously for up to 50 turns and log the results after each step
and each turn and record the calculated digits of Pi in a human
readable text file. It also provides checksum validation over the
result.
http://download.cnet.com/System-Stab...-75337725.html

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

(hank alrich) wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:


http://bb.steelguitarforum.com/userp...20533768519129
0_5206024126247158149_n_1.jpg


That skull thang be a nice band logo, for a jazz group.


Ab. So. Lutely. 1920s commercial art is shockingly good.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Tobiah wrote:
On 12/2/2014 8:12 AM, Paul wrote:
On 11/29/2014 6:37 PM, Tobiah wrote:
The Beatles, Pink Floyd, The Stones, Led Zepp,

Or any band of the time. Say I go back and offer them
my $500 computer, along with a decent 8 channel audio interface
and say, Reaper. How would they react? How would their music
be different? How much would they pay for what I now have?
Why might this be a detriment to them (for me too much choice
sometimes constipates my creativity)?


What if we could transport today's equipment back to
Bach and Mozart's time?

Now THAT would be interesting!

We could get more definitive versions of the Goldberg Variations,
etc, etc!




Originally I was not thinking so much about how clean the tracks
would be or what punch-ins they could do. I was thinking more
about expanded horizons for creativity through effects, and
synthesizers, and unlimited routing complexity, etc.



Queen pretty much maxed that out while analog was still the standard.

--
Les Cargill

[jason]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 21:36:50 GMT "Don Pearce" wrote in
article



Well, drummers always play behind the beat. The bass guitar leads it,
so maybe we can blame Paul?

d

I was a drummer and played that kind of music long ago and Ringo could
NOT keep time. Some drummers lag the beat - Levon Helm comes to mind, but
some push it relentlessly - Bernard Purdie for example.

[hank alrich]

Jason wrote:

On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 21:36:50 GMT "Don Pearce" wrote in
article



Well, drummers always play behind the beat. The bass guitar leads it,
so maybe we can blame Paul?

d

I was a drummer and played that kind of music long ago and Ringo could
NOT keep time. Some drummers lag the beat - Levon Helm comes to mind, but
some push it relentlessly - Bernard Purdie for example.

Many truly great drummers today will list Ringo among their favorites.
He kept music. He plays half notes. A lot of interesting drum work. He
is criticized pretty relentlessly by the crwod looking for flashy
drumming. Some folks want to watch someone play the drums. Others are
delighted when a drummer plays the song.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[geoff]

On 3/12/2014 11:11 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/2/2014 4:21 PM, Gray_Wolf wrote:
In 1961 the IBM 7090, computed Pi to 20,000 decimal places
in 39 minutes.
Today, on my 7 year old desktop, I can compute Pi to 1 million decimal
places in 20 seconds.

How do you know? Did you count them? And how do you know it was correct?



..... and did you print it out ?!!!

geoff

[geoff]

On 3/12/2014 12:48 p.m., Tobiah wrote:
On 12/2/2014 7:17 AM, John Williamson wrote:
On 02/12/2014 14:51, flatfish+++ wrote:
However, nothing IMHO is as bad as what I'm hearing these days on
mainstream pop radio.
It's just pure noise to my ears.


That's a quote from my dad from my teenage years. He liked Jazz, which
his dad hated. I liked Pop, which he hated.

And it's probably what my kids will be saying in a generation or so.

Popular music has always been very much of its time, and is disliked by
people older and younger than its target audience. I find that peoples'
favourite pop music is from the years round about the time they started
going out to parties and clubs. Anything before or after is never as
good.


I fell hard for Pink Floyd, Led Zepplin, et. al. when I was in junior
high school.


Or was that "got" ?

geoff

[geoff]

On 3/12/2014 7:22 p.m., hank alrich wrote:
Jason wrote:

On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 21:36:50 GMT "Don Pearce" wrote in
article



Well, drummers always play behind the beat. The bass guitar leads it,
so maybe we can blame Paul?

d

I was a drummer and played that kind of music long ago and Ringo could
NOT keep time. Some drummers lag the beat - Levon Helm comes to mind, but
some push it relentlessly - Bernard Purdie for example.

Many truly great drummers today will list Ringo among their favorites.
He kept music. He plays half notes. A lot of interesting drum work. He
is criticized pretty relentlessly by the crwod looking for flashy
drumming. Some folks want to watch someone play the drums. Others are
delighted when a drummer plays the song.



He had/has way way of holding back that 'draws you in'. Bob Siebenberg
from Supertramp similarly.

geoff