What you buy to listen to music on....

[[email protected]]

....influences how music is produced:

http://personal.crocodoc.com/download/m/?uuid=4d9dee8a-d8e2-4404-9393-c8340e0cba2d&shortId=Uz7pslS&marked=80cab42c-e150-48cf-9bc3-2286b6dc4f67

[William Sommerwerck]

wrote in message ...

> ...influences how music is produced:

http://personal.crocodoc.com/download/m/?uuid=4d9dee8a-d8e2-4404-9393-c8340e0cba2d&shortId=Uz7pslS&marked=80cab42c-e150-48cf-9bc3-2286b6dc4f67

But this has always been broadly true. It was only in the late '40s (when tape
recording became commonplace), and in the '50s and '60s (when genuinely
high-fidelity playback equipment began to appear), that recording engineers
started to get serious about making recordings that actually sounded like the
musical source.

This lasted until multi-track recording arrived, at which point the sound of
the orchestra was dissected and reassembled to produce an "idealized" sound
that lacked a strong relationship to to the original.

Of course, the phonograph record itself had limited dynamic range, and the
mastering engineer would often pull up the quieter passages. (Bud Fried told
me on several occasions that the original masterings of the Solti "Ring" had a
dynamic range of barely 20dB.) If you've never heard a dbx II encoded LP,
you're in for a surprise.

The Compact Disk ought to have brought these musical "perversions" to an end,
but it didn't. The CD was a mass-market replacement for the LP and Compact
Cassette, so these atrocities continued. It wasn't until the SACD and BD-Audio
disk arrived that recording engineers started taking absolute fidelity
seriously * -- because they knew these recordings would be played on very good
equipment.

"A worrying trend: there is no place for neutrality and fidelity in today's
music business. Discuss."

No place? There is for classical music. I never thought I'd live to hear such
lifelike commercial recordings. The dynamic range is sometimes so wide that,
even if the level is up where the loudest passages blast you out of the room,
the quietest passages can be covered by nearby traffic.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter. On the one hand, most of this music doesn't
deserve "high-fidelity" recording. On the other hand, the recording engineers
are breeding a generation of listeners who have no idea what "fidelity" is
about. As long as classical listeners continue to get great sound, I couldn't
care less.

PS: Most SACDs have good-to-outstanding sound. But if you want to hear really
lifelike recordings, get some Linn recordings. Yes, from The Company That
Hates Digital. (I also like AliaVox.)

* No offense, Herr und Frau Fine.

[[email protected]]

Link expires after a while, go here: http://personal.crocodoc.com/Uz7pslS?embedded=true

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
William Sommerwerck > wrote:
> But this has always been broadly true. It was only in the late '40s
> (when tape recording became commonplace), and in the '50s and '60s
> (when genuinely high-fidelity playback equipment began to appear), that
> recording engineers started to get serious about making recordings that
> actually sounded like the musical source.

That's rather a broad statement. There are many fine recordings (within
the limits of the then current equipment) from perhaps the '30s onwards.
Across all types of music.

--
*Lottery: A tax on people who are bad at math.

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/29/2014 8:01 PM, wrote:
> ...influences how music is produced:

And so now we have books such as "Mastering for iTunes."


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

[William Sommerwerck]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...
In article >,
William Sommerwerck > wrote:

>> But this has always been broadly true. It was only in the late '40s
>> (when tape recording became commonplace), and in the '50s and '60s
>> (when genuinely high-fidelity playback equipment began to appear), that
>> recording engineers started to get serious about making recordings that
>> actually sounded like the musical source.

> That's rather a broad statement. There are many fine recordings (within
> the limits of the then current equipment) from perhaps the '30s onwards.
> Across all types of music.

"within the limits" is, I think, the qualifier. It was only in the late '40s
and early '50s that //true// high fidelity, without serious qualifications,
became possible.

Of course, the term "high fidelity" dates from the early '30s.

[[email protected]]

William Sommerwerck wrote: "Of course, the term "high fidelity" dates from the early '30s. "

Of course, the term "high fidelity", even in an early '30s context, would not accurately describe most new recordings from this century.

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: "And so now we have books such as "Mastering for iTunes."

Ahh yes, boutique - or, a la carte - mastering!

smh

A wonder we don't have 7 different masters for all the different outlets and playback formats.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/30/2014 9:52 PM, wrote:

> Ahh yes, boutique - or, a la carte - mastering!

It's quite common for a pop song to be mixed (and mastered) in several
different versions depending on where it's going. iTunes is just another
way of hearing a song, and it's not necessarily the same audience as a
radio or a TV audience, or a live audience in a dance club. Each has its
own "boutique" version.

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

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, August 30, 2014 10:48:52 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 8/30/2014 9:52 PM, .com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ahh yes, boutique - or, a la carte - mastering!
>
>
>
> It's quite common for a pop song to be mixed (and mastered) in several
>
> different versions depending on where it's going. iTunes is just another
>
> way of hearing a song, and it's not necessarily the same audience as a
>
> radio or a TV audience, or a live audience in a dance club. Each has its
>
> own "boutique" version.
>
>
>
> --
>
> For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

Ridiculous isn't it?

Back in the day mastering meant a track didn't throw the stylus on a record, and that the tracks were all *close enough* in volume that reaching for the knob wasn't necessary.

We didn't cater to fans listening on this or that device. It was up to the listener and their budget to afford a decent enough stereo to listen on. It wasn't like, "Oh, all the teeny boppers listen to music on http://cdn.radiolive.co.nz/radiolive/AM/2013/5/14/35374/wrist-radio2.jpg?width=800 - have the studio chop off all the bottom and top, and compress the rest!

You chose to listen on that thing, you got what you paid for.

[PStamler]

On Saturday, August 30, 2014 9:17:45 PM UTC-6, wrote:

> Back in the day mastering meant a track didn't throw the stylus on a record, and that the tracks were all *close enough* in volume that reaching for the knob wasn't necessary.
>
>
>
> We didn't cater to fans listening on this or that device. It was up to the listener and their budget to afford a decent enough stereo to listen on. It wasn't like, "Oh, all the teeny boppers listen to music on http://cdn.radiolive.co.nz/radiolive/AM/2013/5/14/35374/wrist-radio2.jpg?width=800 - have the studio chop off all the bottom and top, and compress the rest!
>
>
>
> You chose to listen on that thing, you got what you paid for.

Not so; there are multiple accounts of how Berry Gordy, president of Motown Records, insisted that their singles be mastered to sound best on the cheap little portable phonographs owned by many of their customers. Indeed, he'd audition test pressings on one.

Peace,
Paul

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, August 31, 2014 12:03:36 AM UTC-4, PStamler wrote:
> On Saturday, August 30, 2014 9:17:45 PM UTC-6, wrote:
>
>
>
> > Back in the day mastering meant a track didn't throw the stylus on a record, and that the tracks were all *close enough* in volume that reaching for the knob wasn't necessary.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > We didn't cater to fans listening on this or that device. It was up to the listener and their budget to afford a decent enough stereo to listen on. It wasn't like, "Oh, all the teeny boppers listen to music on http://cdn.radiolive.co.nz/radiolive/AM/2013/5/14/35374/wrist-radio2.jpg?width=800 - have the studio chop off all the bottom and top, and compress the rest!
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > You chose to listen on that thing, you got what you paid for.
>
>
>
> Not so; there are multiple accounts of how Berry Gordy, president of Motown Records, insisted that their singles be mastered to sound best on the cheap little portable phonographs owned by many of their customers. Indeed, he'd audition test pressings on one.
>
>
>
> Peace,
>
> Paul
_________________

Even if it was going on back then(not as rampant as is now), it doesn't meant it was right to do.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/31/2014 12:10 AM, wrote:
>> Not so; there are multiple accounts of how Berry Gordy, president of Motown Records, insisted that their singles be mastered to sound best on the cheap little portable phonographs owned by many of their customers. Indeed, he'd audition test pressings on one.
>> >Paul

> Even if it was going on back then(not as rampant as is now), it doesn't meant it was right to do.

When you own the record company, what sells the most records is right.
Often the version sent to radio stations was shortened to fit the
broadcast format, or was edited to avoid an offensive word, or dub in a
verse in Spanish for the border stations. All in the interest of selling
more records.

45 rpm records were always mastered for juke box play.


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

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers:

Shortening, editing swears, or language are all highly acceptable compared to f___ing with the dynamics.

[cjt]

On 08/31/2014 04:44 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 8/31/2014 12:10 AM, wrote:
>>> Not so; there are multiple accounts of how Berry Gordy, president of
>>> Motown Records, insisted that their singles be mastered to sound best
>>> on the cheap little portable phonographs owned by many of their
>>> customers. Indeed, he'd audition test pressings on one.
>>> >Paul
>
>> Even if it was going on back then(not as rampant as is now), it
>> doesn't meant it was right to do.
>
> When you own the record company, what sells the most records is right.
> Often the version sent to radio stations was shortened to fit the
> broadcast format, or was edited to avoid an offensive word, or dub in a
> verse in Spanish for the border stations. All in the interest of selling
> more records.
>
> 45 rpm records were always mastered for juke box play.
>
>
I seem to recall stories of the Rolling Stones listening to their stuff
on car radios before approving.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 8/31/2014 11:49 AM, cjt wrote:

> I seem to recall stories of the Rolling Stones listening to their stuff
> on car radios before approving.

Back when there were real studios, many of them had a low power FM
transmitter so the musicians could listen to their mixes on their own
car radios in the parking lot

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

[[email protected]]

Back when there were real studios, many of them had a low power FM
transmitter so the musicians could listen to their mixes on their own
car radios inFFFFWWHHHOOO-SHHHHHHHHHH! Glug-glug-glug... (toilet bowl flushing)


Ooohh Keee, enough justifying of present practices via past precedent. The facts remain - in general, recorded music, irrespective of genre, has become less dynamic over the past 30 years than it has ever been since Edison's first wax recording.

And a significant deal of that has a lot to do with the Tic-Tac-sized(I'm being generous here!) amps inside smart phones, tablets, etc, not to mention factory earbuds with the timbral characteristics of a mean teacher's fingernails on a blackboard.

[[email protected]]

Back when there were real studios, many of them had a low power FM
transmitter so the musicians could listen to their mixes on their own
car radios inFFFFWWHHHOOO-SHHHHHHHHHH! Glug-glug-glug... (toilet bowl flushing)


Ooohh Keee, enough justifying of present practices via past precedent. The facts remain - in general, recorded music, irrespective of genre, has become less dynamic over the past 30 years than it has ever been since Edison's first wax recording.

And a significant deal of that has a lot to do with the Tic-Tac-sized(I'm being generous here!) amps inside smart phones, tablets, etc, not to mention factory earbuds with the timbral characteristics of a mean teacher's fingernails on a blackboard.

[[email protected]]

Back when there were real studios, many of them had a low power FM
transmitter so the musicians could listen to their mixes on their own
car radios inFFFFWWHHHOOO-SHHHHHHHHHH! Glug-glug-glug... (toilet bowl flushing)


Ooohh Keee, enough justifying of present practices via past precedent. The facts remain - in general, recorded music, irrespective of genre, has become less dynamic over the past 30 years than it has ever been since Edison's first wax recording.

And a significant deal of that has a lot to do with the Tic-Tac-sized(I'm being generous here!) amps inside smart phones, tablets, etc, not to mention factory earbuds with the timbral characteristics of a mean teacher's fingernails on a blackboard.

[[email protected]]

Back when there were real studios, many of them had a low power FM
transmitter so the musicians could listen to their mixes on their own
car radios inFFFFWWHHHOOO-SHHHHHHHHHH! Glug-glug-glug... (toilet bowl flushing)


Ooohh Keee, enough justifying of present practices via past precedent. The facts remain - in general, recorded music, irrespective of genre, has become less dynamic over the past 30 years than it has ever been since Edison's first wax recording.

And a significant deal of that has a lot to do with the Tic-Tac-sized(I'm being generous here!) amps inside smart phones, tablets, etc, not to mention factory earbuds with the timbral characteristics of a mean teacher's fingernails on a blackboard.

[[email protected]]

Back when there were real studios, many of them had a low power FM
transmitter so the musicians could listen to their mixes on their own
car radios inFFFFWWHHHOOO-SHHHHHHHHHH! Glug-glug-glug... (toilet bowl flushing)


Ooohh Keee, enough justifying of present practices via past precedent. The facts remain - in general, recorded music, irrespective of genre, has become less dynamic over the past 30 years than it has ever been since Edison's first wax recording.

And a significant deal of that has a lot to do with the Tic-Tac-sized(I'm being generous here!) amps inside smart phones, tablets, etc, not to mention factory earbuds with the timbral characteristics of a mean teacher's fingernails on a blackboard.

[William Sommerwerck]

wrote in message ...

> We didn't cater to fans listening on this or that device. It was
> up to the listener and their budget to afford a decent enough
> stereo to listen on.

Ironically, even "cheap" audio equipment has gotten very good. Pioneer sells
$250/pair tower speakers that actually do justice to Mahler. I use a pair of
KLH Audio mini speakers on my TV. (They cost $15 total, due to a Best Buy
pricing error.) The sound is amazingly neutral, and they can play at high
volumes without "splattering".

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>
>Back in the day mastering meant a track didn't throw the stylus on a record=
>, and that the tracks were all *close enough* in volume that reaching for t=
>he knob wasn't necessary.

Depends. Sometimes that was the case, sometimes it wasn't.

>We didn't cater to fans listening on this or that device. It was up to the=
> listener and their budget to afford a decent enough stereo to listen on. =

Not at all! In fact, sometimes there would be different mixes made
altogether (or even different recordings) for stereo and mono versions
of a record issue.

It was very common for promo 45s to have different processing than 45s
cut for record store sale, or for jukebox sale. Jukebox discs would
often be equalized differently too, to allow them to be cut much hotter.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

PStamler > wrote:
>Not so; there are multiple accounts of how Berry Gordy, president of Motown=
> Records, insisted that their singles be mastered to sound best on the chea=
>p little portable phonographs owned by many of their customers. Indeed, he'=
>d audition test pressings on one.=20

The owner of the studio where I worked had a Close 'N Play on his desk. If
the recording couldn't be heard on a Close 'N Play, or even worse if it
SKIPPED on a Close 'N Play, it didn't go out the door.
--scott

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

[geoff]

On 30/08/2014 1:36 p.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:

>
> The Compact Disk ought to have brought these musical "perversions" to an
> end, but it didn't. The CD was a mass-market replacement for the LP and
> Compact Cassette, so these atrocities continued. It wasn't until the
> SACD and BD-Audio disk arrived that recording engineers started taking
> absolute fidelity seriously * -- because they knew these recordings
> would be played on very good equipment.

Absolute f'n bull**** !

geoff

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: On 30/08/2014 1:36 p.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:

>
> The Compact Disk ought to have brought these musical "perversions" to an
> end, but it didn't. The CD was a mass-market replacement for the LP and
> Compact Cassette, so these atrocities continued. It wasn't until the
> SACD and BD-Audio disk arrived that recording engineers started taking
> absolute fidelity seriously * -- because they knew these recordings
> would be played on very good equipment.

Absolute f'n bull**** !

geoff


Yeah, those higher res formats became just as prone to suitcase mastering as did formats preceding them.

[hank alrich]

geoff > wrote:

> On 30/08/2014 1:36 p.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
> >
> > The Compact Disk ought to have brought these musical "perversions" to an
> > end, but it didn't. The CD was a mass-market replacement for the LP and
> > Compact Cassette, so these atrocities continued. It wasn't until the
> > SACD and BD-Audio disk arrived that recording engineers started taking
> > absolute fidelity seriously * -- because they knew these recordings
> > would be played on very good equipment.
>
> Absolute f'n bull**** !
>
> geoff

Yeah, a bit much.

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

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers > wrote:

> On 8/29/2014 8:01 PM, wrote:
> > ...influences how music is produced:
>
> And so now we have books such as "Mastering for iTunes."

Don't waster your time on a book, dude, because there's an app for that.

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

[hank alrich]

> wrote:

> Back in the day mastering meant a track didn't throw the stylus on a
>record, and that the tracks were all *close enough* in volume that
>reaching for the knob wasn't necessary.
>
> We didn't cater to fans listening on this or that device. It was up to
>the listener and their budget to afford a decent enough stereo to
>listen on. It wasn't like, "Oh, all the teeny boppers listen to music
>on
>

Who the **** is the "we" you think you represent? You are unbelieveable
dense and arrogant. Tweny minutes _legitimate_ study of the subject
matter would allow you to disavow every ignorant thing you have written
above.

You goddamn right "we", as in people who have made _records_, catered to
this or that playback medium, with individual mixes tailored to the
anticpated playback system.

Have you ever considered talking about stuff you know something,
anything, about? Or is the situation so bad that adopting that approach
would leave you mute?

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

[Sean Conolly]

> wrote in message
...
> geoff wrote: On 30/08/2014 1:36 p.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>>
>> The Compact Disk ought to have brought these musical "perversions" to an
>> end, but it didn't. The CD was a mass-market replacement for the LP and
>> Compact Cassette, so these atrocities continued. It wasn't until the
>> SACD and BD-Audio disk arrived that recording engineers started taking
>> absolute fidelity seriously * -- because they knew these recordings
>> would be played on very good equipment.
>
> Absolute f'n bull**** !
>
> geoff
>
>
> Yeah, those higher res formats became just as prone to suitcase mastering
> as did formats preceding them.

To think that the industry went from producing good music depite the
hardware limits, to producing crap with no hardware limits. Can't blame the
gear for today's crud.

Been listening to Blue Eyes and Nelson Riddle in the car - 'I've got the
world on a string, sitting on a rainbow...'

Sean

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, August 31, 2014 6:11:37 PM UTC-4, hank alrich wrote:
> > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Back in the day mastering meant a track didn't throw the stylus on a
>
> >record, and that the tracks were all *close enough* in volume that
>
> >reaching for the knob wasn't necessary.
>
> >
>
> > We didn't cater to fans listening on this or that device. It was up to
>
> >the listener and their budget to afford a decent enough stereo to
>
> >listen on. It wasn't like, "Oh, all the teeny boppers listen to music
>
> >on
>
> >
>
>
>
> Who the **** is the "we" you think you represent? You are unbelieveable
>
> dense and arrogant. Tweny minutes _legitimate_ study of the subject
>
> matter would allow you to disavow every ignorant thing you have written
>
> above.
>
>
>
> You goddamn right "we", as in people who have made _records_, catered to
>
> this or that playback medium, with individual mixes tailored to the
>
> anticpated playback system.
>
>
>
> Have you ever considered talking about stuff you know something,
>
> anything, about? Or is the situation so bad that adopting that approach
>
> would leave you mute?
>
>
>
> --
>
> shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
>
> HankandShaidriMusic.Com
>
> YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

hank alrich = N0NE

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Sean Conolly > wrote:
> Been listening to Blue Eyes and Nelson Riddle in the car - 'I've got the
> world on a string, sitting on a rainbow...'

Quite. To suggest the only well recorded stuff is recent is crap.

--
*This message has been ROT-13 encrypted twice for extra security *

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

[William Sommerwerck]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...
In article >,
Sean Conolly > wrote:

>> Been listening to Blue Eyes and Nelson Riddle in the car --
>> 'I've got the world on a string, sitting on a rainbow...'

> Quite. To suggest the only well recorded stuff is recent is crap.

"Well-recorded" is meaningless, without some standard.

I'm talking about absolute fidelity -- fidelity to real, live sound.

[William Sommerwerck]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
On 30/08/2014 1:36 p.m., William Sommerwerck wrote:

>> The Compact Disk ought to have brought these musical "perversions" to an
>> end, but it didn't. The CD was a mass-market replacement for the LP and
>> Compact Cassette, so these atrocities continued. It wasn't until the
>> SACD and BD-Audio disk arrived that recording engineers started taking
>> absolute fidelity seriously * -- because they knew these recordings
>> would be played on very good equipment.

> Absolute f'n bull**** !

Near-absolute truth.

Most classical CDs have (on an absolute basis) poor sound, because they were
recorded and mastered with the same "attitudes" that controlled the LPs,
cassettes, etc.

Do you REALLY think the best SACDs and BD-Audio disks have such great sound
//by accident//? Like, wow, man, the Moon just happened to be in the seventh
house, and this amazing audio karma fell on us from, like out of nowhere.

I forgot to mention 2L, whose recordings are sonically comparable to Linn's.

[William Sommerwerck]

I'll throw this at all of you...

For those of you who //don't// listen to or record classical and jazz -- what,
exactly, is it that you use as your standard for a "good" recording? That's
not a rhetorical question.


I'll say it again... Once multi-track recording became commonplace, any
lingering belief that recordings should sound like a live performance went out
the window. The introduction of CD, which removed the limitations of LP and
CC, should have "reset" the industry to Living Stereo and Living Presence, but
it didn't -- presumably because recording engineers "knew" that multi-tracking
made a "better" recording.

It's interesting to listen to the Solti Ring in the order the operas were
recorded -- R, S, G, W -- because "Reingold" has the best sound. As Decca's
recording equipment got more complex, the sound became subtly less-natural.

The superb sound of the best SACD and BD recordings is partly due to the
improvement in recording equipment over the past 20 years, but is mostly the
deliberate result of engineers making recordings they know will be most-often
played on good equipment -- that do not need to be compromised for listening
on compromised equipment.

The title of this thread is "What you buy to listen to music on... [affects
the way the recording is made]". This has /always/ been true. The recording
industry (with a few exceptions -- mostly smaller labels) has /always/
pandered to the lowest common denominator of playback equipment.

[geoff]

On 1/09/2014 11:20 a.m., Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article >,
> Sean Conolly > wrote:
>> Been listening to Blue Eyes and Nelson Riddle in the car - 'I've got the
>> world on a string, sitting on a rainbow...'
>
> Quite. To suggest the only well recorded stuff is recent is crap.
>


Oscar Peterson "You look good to me" sound great on vinyl. And even
better on CD.

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>
>Most classical CDs have (on an absolute basis) poor sound, because they were
>recorded and mastered with the same "attitudes" that controlled the LPs,
>cassettes, etc.

Sadly, this is the truth. And sadly, it's mostly because listeners demand
it. Some of this is because people are listening under conditions where
they aren't able to properly experience the accurate sound of the orchestra.
Some of it is because people have in great part forgotten what real live
orchestral sound is like. They go to pops concerts where everything is close
miked and they expect the record to sound like that. DG is happy to provide
that sound for them.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[None]

< krissie kretin @gmail.com> wrote in message
...
> hank alrich = N0NE

Hehe. Do you remember screeching and whining and ordering people never
to refer to me? It really sucks that you can't tell the difference
between Alrich and me. Probably because you're an idiot.

He's right about you using "we" and pretending that you have something
to do with mastering. Nobody here is fooled; you've gone to great
lengths to prove that you're a drooling cretin. You don't know
anything about mastering, and you never will. You're not smart enough
to comprehend mastering.

It's no surprise to find you back here flogging your one-trick hobby
horse. And paving, yet again, that you have no idea what you're
yammering about.

[Sean Conolly]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
> ...
> In article >,
> Sean Conolly > wrote:
>
>>> Been listening to Blue Eyes and Nelson Riddle in the car --
>>> 'I've got the world on a string, sitting on a rainbow...'
>
>> Quite. To suggest the only well recorded stuff is recent is crap.
>
> "Well-recorded" is meaningless, without some standard.
>
> I'm talking about absolute fidelity -- fidelity to real, live sound.

I have plenty of live sound going on at all times. I'm listening for music,
the stuff that moves you and makes you want to dance or whatever.

Recordings are a means to an end, and by that standard I've heard a lot of
great music that was recorded long before digital or even multi-track tape
became common.

The engineer in me would love to make recordings that sound like a real live
performance. The musician in me says just shut up and listen.

Sean

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
William Sommerwerck > wrote:
> "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ...
> In article >,
> Sean Conolly > wrote:

> >> Been listening to Blue Eyes and Nelson Riddle in the car --
> >> 'I've got the world on a string, sitting on a rainbow...'

> > Quite. To suggest the only well recorded stuff is recent is crap.

> "Well-recorded" is meaningless, without some standard.

> I'm talking about absolute fidelity -- fidelity to real, live sound.

And you reckon that is the case today?

--
*There are two sides to every divorce: Yours and **** head's*

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

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
William Sommerwerck > wrote:
> Most classical CDs have (on an absolute basis) poor sound, because they
> were recorded and mastered with the same "attitudes" that controlled
> the LPs, cassettes, etc.

More crap.

--
*Support bacteria - they're the only culture some people have *

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

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
William Sommerwerck > wrote:
> I'll say it again... Once multi-track recording became commonplace, any
> lingering belief that recordings should sound like a live performance
> went out the window. The introduction of CD, which removed the
> limitations of LP and CC, should have "reset" the industry to Living
> Stereo and Living Presence, but it didn't -- presumably because
> recording engineers "knew" that multi-tracking made a "better"
> recording.

> It's interesting to listen to the Solti Ring in the order the operas
> were recorded -- R, S, G, W -- because "Reingold" has the best sound.
> As Decca's recording equipment got more complex, the sound became
> subtly less-natural.

> The superb sound of the best SACD and BD recordings is partly due to the
> improvement in recording equipment over the past 20 years, but is
> mostly the deliberate result of engineers making recordings they know
> will be most-often played on good equipment -- that do not need to be
> compromised for listening on compromised equipment.

The reasons that made multi-tracking 'the way to go' many years ago
haven't changed today. Nor have the disadvantages. It's a total red
herring.

--
*Eschew obfuscation *

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

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> I'll throw this at all of you...
>
> For those of you who //don't// listen to or record classical and jazz --
> what, exactly, is it that you use as your standard for a "good"
> recording? That's not a rhetorical question.
>
>

That's a good question. I'd say I listen for arrangement, with the
recording supporting that.

My musical perception was trained around radio, so whatever would work
on radio works for me.

> I'll say it again... Once multi-track recording became commonplace, any
> lingering belief that recordings should sound like a live performance
> went out the window.

It was a new toy. People tried to do things that could not easily be
done in live performance.

I was not around, but I imagine that Les Paul & Mary Ford's "How High
The Moon" caused quite a stir. And I think it sounds marvelous.

Records by Bing Crosby and Frank Sinatra used relatively close-micing
"crooner" vocals.

This has been going on for a while.

> The introduction of CD, which removed the
> limitations of LP and CC, should have "reset" the industry to Living
> Stereo and Living Presence, but it didn't -- presumably because
> recording engineers "knew" that multi-tracking made a "better" recording.
>

Should have? Not after people because accustomed to nonlive methods of
arrangement and production.

I'd say that CD eventually brought back live performance as a revenue
generator*. And that there are certainly DVDs of live performance where
the sound is of high caliber.

*CD plus home CD burners with the Innernets thrown in...

> It's interesting to listen to the Solti Ring in the order the operas
> were recorded -- R, S, G, W -- because "Reingold" has the best sound. As
> Decca's recording equipment got more complex, the sound became subtly
> less-natural.
>
> The superb sound of the best SACD and BD recordings is partly due to the
> improvement in recording equipment over the past 20 years, but is mostly
> the deliberate result of engineers making recordings they know will be
> most-often played on good equipment -- that do not need to be
> compromised for listening on compromised equipment.
>

I have no way of evaluating the truth or falsity of that.

> The title of this thread is "What you buy to listen to music on...
> [affects the way the recording is made]". This has /always/ been true.
> The recording industry (with a few exceptions -- mostly smaller labels)
> has /always/ pandered to the lowest common denominator of playback
> equipment.


Right. And I have no problem with that myself.

--
Les Cargill

[[email protected]]

My whole premise is that if people start buying "real" equipment again - stereo/surround components with 50-150 watts/channel and full-sized speakers, demand for squashed music could be offset by demand for higher fidelity material.

It won't happen overnight, but it will.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Les Cargill" wrote in message ...

>> The superb sound of the best SACD and BD recordings is partly due to the
>> improvement in recording equipment over the past 20 years, but is mostly
>> the deliberate result of engineers making recordings they know will be
>> most-often played on good equipment -- that do not need to be
>> compromised for listening on compromised equipment.

> I have no way of evaluating the truth or falsity of that.

And I admit I'm speculating. I just find it "interesting" that, since the
introduction of SACD and BD Audio, the number of really fine-sounding
recordings has significantly increased.


>> The title of this thread is "What you buy to listen to music on...
>> [affects the way the recording is made]". This has /always/ been true.
>> The recording industry (with a few exceptions -- mostly smaller labels)
>> has /always/ pandered to the lowest common denominator of playback
>> equipment.

> Right. And I have no problem with that myself.

And I acknowledge that it has often been a necessity. I'm bothered, though,
when necessities aren't abandoned because they are no longer needed.

[William Sommerwerck]

wrote in message ...

>> My whole premise is that if people start buying "real" equipment
>> again - stereo/surround components with 50-150 watts/channel
>> and full-sized speakers, demand for squashed music could be offset
>> by demand for higher fidelity material.

> It won't happen overnight, but it will.

Hard to say. Like many audiophiles, my system does double duty -- it's
primarily a six-channel audiophile surround system for music that handles
video as well. (There's an inexpensive KLH Audio subwoofer for N.1
recordings.)

Most people are set up the other way. Listening to music is secondary. Most
listeners refuse to spend more than a few hundred dollars for speakers, and
miss out on the major improvements they'd get from $2K to $4K worth of
speakers.

When someone says to me "Why should I spend $15K on an audio system, I say
"How much did you spend on your car?"

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

wrote:
> My whole premise is that if people start buying "real" equipment
> again - stereo/surround components with 50-150 watts/channel and
> full-sized speakers, demand for squashed music could be offset by
> demand for higher fidelity material.
>
> It won't happen overnight, but it will.
>


This will not happen.

1) The media vector for "hifi" outside hobbyists was... Playboy, which
is generally accepted as not just a skin mag, but also a magazine which
taught the farm kids who went into the military and into urban-center
jobs which fork to use, which suit to buy...

2) Eventually, magazines like Stereo Review spun out of Playboy ( I
don't know if this was direct or not; doesn't matter ). Are there
magazines like this now? I doubt it. I doubt any of my nephews know
what "total harmonics distortion" means at all. Well, one does, but
he's a pro.

3) If you had a wife and a pair of 10" stereo speakers on the TV, as the
TV got thinner you lost the place to put the 10" speakers. So here comes
the Bose Acoustimass.... please note that Direct TV is pushing the "no
wires" thing heavily in an ad campaign. I don't think guys mind wires
and when you see a mass ad campaign like that, there's survey
data under it.

4) People no longer think of electronics as being in a form factor
larger than a cell phone. There's a small backlash amongst the kids
with the invigoration of interest in vinyl, but we'll see if it
lasts. They buy "USB turntables". There are also guitar amp sims in
cell phone apps...

5) It could be that electronics will follow the pattern of transistor
radios becoming "stereos" ( with cell phones being the modern
"transistor radio" ) but that remains to be seen. 30 year olds
don't have the real estate consumption habits of people who want 15"
woofers.

6) If you hear what's on jukeboxes & radio these days, better
reproduction would not be a positive. You can reproduce obnoxious
triangle-wave Autotune vocals with anything. Next: dentist's drill
solos...

7) It remains to be seen what the Beats sale to Apple means. Probably,
it means more and different headphone offerings under the Apple brand,
but it could also mean the content catalog. Or both.

--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>My whole premise is that if people start buying "real" equipment again - stereo/surround components with 50-150 watts/channel and full-sized speakers, demand for squashed music could be offset by demand for higher fidelity material.

Not really, because you're missing whay people aren't buying full-sized systems
anymore. The way most people listen to music has changed, and that is a
consequence of what most people consider music as being for.

And that is a change that has been taking place since the phonograph came out.
I don't think it's a good one, but it is what it is, and Erik Satie predicted
it with his description of "music as furniture" a century ago.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>
>This lasted until multi-track recording arrived, at which point the sound of
>the orchestra was dissected and reassembled to produce an "idealized" sound
>that lacked a strong relationship to to the original.

This happened long before multitrack recording. The notion of spotmiking
orchestras to allow additional tonal control and to create a closer and
larger than life sound dates back to Toscanini.

>Of course, the phonograph record itself had limited dynamic range, and the
>mastering engineer would often pull up the quieter passages. (Bud Fried told
>me on several occasions that the original masterings of the Solti "Ring" had a
>dynamic range of barely 20dB.) If you've never heard a dbx II encoded LP,
>you're in for a surprise.

Not just the mastering engineer, often the recording engineer would be
doing some very aggressive gainriding.

But more than that, it was common especially in the early days of the LP
for orchestras to perform differently, with restricted dynamic range, just
for the recording.

>The Compact Disk ought to have brought these musical "perversions" to an end,
>but it didn't. The CD was a mass-market replacement for the LP and Compact
>Cassette, so these atrocities continued. It wasn't until the SACD and BD-Audio
>disk arrived that recording engineers started taking absolute fidelity
>seriously * -- because they knew these recordings would be played on very good
>equipment.

What happened was that in the 1950s we start getting some attention to
deliberately realistic recordings, with the work of Bert Whyte and Bob Fine
and those crew. But, these recordings were always a very limited item,
made for a very limited market. That continued throughout the CD era;
even as DG was making horribly multimiked recordings, there were cleaner
and more realistic recordings from labels like Telarc and Pope Music and
M-A and Sheffield Labs....and some of those labels changed as they grew and
some didn't.

>"A worrying trend: there is no place for neutrality and fidelity in today's
>music business. Discuss."

I think there is a place for neutrality and fidelity, but I don't think it is
a huge place and I don't think it has ever been. I think it will remain the
domain of small labels and while I think that's a shame (since it pays my
salary, I'd like to see it become as popular as possible), I don't see it
changing.
--scott

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

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

> > wrote:
>>My whole premise is that if people start buying "real" equipment again - stereo/surround components with 50-150 watts/channel and full-sized speakers, demand for squashed music could be offset by demand for higher fidelity material.

>Not really, because you're missing whay people aren't buying full-sized systems
>anymore. The way most people listen to music has changed, and that is a
>consequence of what most people consider music as being for.

>And that is a change that has been taking place since the phonograph came out.
>I don't think it's a good one, but it is what it is, and Erik Satie predicted
>it with his description of "music as furniture" a century ago.
>--scott

+1 many times over.

Underlying all of this is musical aesthetics (or a lack thereof). I've really seen
this contrasted in the new area where I've moved -- it's 70%+ LDS (Mormon).

I've gained an entirely new respect for these folks because music is so interwoven
with their culture. I've worked with several of the high school and college kids
here and they always surprise me in their musicallity. Most seem to understand tempo
and pitch, so much so that they can then deliver good, engaging performances. It's
been a breath of fresh air in that regard.

Music here is almost as woven into the daily cultural fabric as it is in Europe.
Makes a difference all the way around, in my estimation -- what you listen to and
how you listen to it.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[geoff]

On 2/09/2014 7:42 a.m., Frank Stearns wrote:

>
> Underlying all of this is musical aesthetics (or a lack thereof). I've really seen
> this contrasted in the new area where I've moved -- it's 70%+ LDS (Mormon).
>
> I've gained an entirely new respect for these folks because music is so interwoven
> with their culture. I've worked with several of the high school and college kids
> here and they always surprise me in their musicallity. Most seem to understand tempo
> and pitch, so much so that they can then deliver good, engaging performances. It's
> been a breath of fresh air in that regard.
>
> Music here is almost as woven into the daily cultural fabric as it is in Europe.
> Makes a difference all the way around, in my estimation -- what you listen to and
> how you listen to it.

Pity it has to be linked to a rather whacky take on a fairy-story rather
than something rational.

However the musicality of pretty much all the Pacifica people I deal
with is fantastic, and though usually with religious overtones as well
as general culture, still better than nothing.

I do find it galling when I deliver gear to my local mormons, who are
mostly Pacifica people, and see pictures of a european hippy on the walls.

geoff

[[email protected]]

Geoff: just curious. What 'Pacifica' people do you refer to?

[geoff]

On 2/09/2014 11:01 p.m., wrote:
> Geoff: just curious. What 'Pacifica' people do you refer to?
>


Mostly Samoans, but also Cook Islanders, Fijians, Tongans, and Kiribatis.

None of which look vaguely like European hippies, as neither would have
Jesus.

geoff

[John Williamson]

On 02/09/2014 13:26, Jeff Henig wrote:
> geoff > wrote:
>> On 2/09/2014 11:01 p.m., wrote:
>>> Geoff: just curious. What 'Pacifica' people do you refer to?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Mostly Samoans, but also Cook Islanders, Fijians, Tongans, and Kiribatis.
>>
>> None of which look vaguely like European hippies, as neither would have Jesus.
>>
>> geoff
>
> Jesus was a Jew and not a hippie (though certainly counter cultural), but I
> guess a lot of people aren't all that interested in accuracy.
>
> I've read the Gospels more times than I can count, and I never saw anything
> about long hair or a beard. Then again, He was a construction worker and an
> artist, so anything's possible.
>
What was the local fashion of the decade?

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
John Williamson > wrote:
> > I've read the Gospels more times than I can count, and I never saw
> > anything about long hair or a beard. Then again, He was a construction
> > worker and an artist, so anything's possible.
> >
> What was the local fashion of the decade?

Surely someone has a pic? After all plenty claim to be able to talk to him.

--
*Work is for people who don't know how to fish.

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

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: "On 2/09/2014 11:01 p.m., wrote:
> Geoff: just curious. What 'Pacifica' people do you refer to?
>


Mostly Samoans, but also Cook Islanders, Fijians, Tongans, and Kiribatis.

None of which look vaguely like European hippies, as neither would have
Jesus.

geoff "

Oh. Seriously I thought you meant Pacifica Radio - of which I am a loyal listener. lol!

[[email protected]]

Guys: 86 the religion & faith derail right now. Refer to Subject header for topic of this thread and let's keep it that way.

I'll start a separate "What God looked like" thread for those of you to go argue about it there.

THANK YOU

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff > wrote:
>On 2/09/2014 11:01 p.m., wrote:
>> Geoff: just curious. What 'Pacifica' people do you refer to?
>
>Mostly Samoans, but also Cook Islanders, Fijians, Tongans, and Kiribatis.
>
>None of which look vaguely like European hippies, as neither would have
>Jesus.

Don't be putting down European hippies. Why, some of my best friends..
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[John Williamson]

On 02/09/2014 15:08, Jeff Henig wrote:
> "Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote:
>> In article >,
>> John Williamson > wrote:
>>>> I've read the Gospels more times than I can count, and I never saw
>>>> anything about long hair or a beard. Then again, He was a construction
>>>> worker and an artist, so anything's possible.
>>>>
>>> What was the local fashion of the decade?
>>
>> Surely someone has a pic? After all plenty claim to be able to talk to him.
>
>
> I think anyone can speak to Him, but I doubt that many people are getting a
> direct audible answer.
>
I'm sure the right microphones, cables and preamps will be able to help.
Plus a compressor with a lot of make up gain.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 9/2/2014 10:08 AM, Jeff Henig wrote:
> "Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote:
>> In article >,
>> John Williamson > wrote:
>>>> I've read the Gospels more times than I can count, and I never saw
>>>> anything about long hair or a beard. Then again, He was a construction
>>>> worker and an artist, so anything's possible.
>>>>
>>> What was the local fashion of the decade?
>>
>> Surely someone has a pic? After all plenty claim to be able to talk to him.
>
>
> I think anyone can speak to Him, but I doubt that many people are getting a
> direct audible answer.
>
Hmm, don't know about "Him" but I have, at times, gotten direct
audible answers when talking to myself. :-) :-)

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[Sean Conolly]

"Jeff Henig" > wrote in message
...
> Scott Dorsey > wrote:
>> geoff > wrote:
>>> On 2/09/2014 11:01 p.m., wrote:
>>>> Geoff: just curious. What 'Pacifica' people do you refer to?
>>>
>>> Mostly Samoans, but also Cook Islanders, Fijians, Tongans, and
>>> Kiribatis.
>>>
>>> None of which look vaguely like European hippies, as neither would have
>>> Jesus.
>>
>> Don't be putting down European hippies. Why, some of my best friends..
>> --scott
>
> You owe me a keyboard, Scott. Coffee is a great drink, but it doesn't play
> well with electronics.


He's been known to do that.

Sean

[geoff]

On 3/09/2014 5:43 a.m., Ron C wrote:
> On 9/2/2014 10:08 AM, Jeff Henig wrote:
>> "Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> John Williamson > wrote:
>>>>> I've read the Gospels more times than I can count, and I never saw
>>>>> anything about long hair or a beard. Then again, He was a construction
>>>>> worker and an artist, so anything's possible.
>>>>>
>>>> What was the local fashion of the decade?
>>>
>>> Surely someone has a pic? After all plenty claim to be able to talk
>>> to him.
>>
>>
>> I think anyone can speak to Him, but I doubt that many people are
>> getting a
>> direct audible answer.
>>
> Hmm, don't know about "Him" but I have, at times, gotten direct
> audible answers when talking to myself. :-) :-)

Don't know about "him" either, but I know about "Hum".

In the various interest groups regarding The Hum, some people claim it
is god. But others also claim it is government mind-control beams,
chem-trails, parallel universes etc.

FWIW it is a LF form of tinnitus, and can have you chasing power
transformers, ground-loops, phantom diesel generators, a/c, etc, if you
are unfortunate enough to suffer.

geoff

[geoff]

On 3/09/2014 2:08 a.m., Jeff Henig wrote:

>
> Were I a betting man, I'd wager on John The Baptizer as the one with the
> beard and long hair,

He did in the movie !

geoff

[geoff]

On 3/09/2014 2:13 a.m., Jeff Henig wrote:
> > wrote:
>> geoff wrote: "On 2/09/2014 11:01 p.m., wrote:
>>> Geoff: just curious. What 'Pacifica' people do you refer to?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Mostly Samoans, but also Cook Islanders, Fijians, Tongans, and Kiribatis.
>>
>> None of which look vaguely like European hippies, as neither would have
>> Jesus.
>>
>> geoff "
>>
>> Oh. Seriously I thought you meant Pacifica Radio - of which I am a loyal listener. lol!
>
> My initial thought was a town close to the San Francisco Bay Area.
>

Generalised description of people of the Pacific Ocean islands.


geoff

[geoff]

On 3/09/2014 5:04 a.m., Jeff Henig wrote:
> Scott Dorsey > wrote:
>> geoff > wrote:
>>> On 2/09/2014 11:01 p.m., wrote:
>>>> Geoff: just curious. What 'Pacifica' people do you refer to?
>>>
>>> Mostly Samoans, but also Cook Islanders, Fijians, Tongans, and Kiribatis.
>>>
>>> None of which look vaguely like European hippies, as neither would have
>>> Jesus.
>>
>> Don't be putting down European hippies. Why, some of my best friends..
>> --scott
>
> You owe me a keyboard, Scott. Coffee is a great drink, but it doesn't play
> well with electronics.
>


Hot Chocolate is pretty bad too. And the drink ...

geoff

[None]

<kretin krissie trollerkoaster @gmail.com> wrote in message
...
> Guys: 86 the religion & faith derail right now. Refer to Subject
> header for topic of this thread and let's keep it that way.

LOL! You think you're in charge of Usenet?

> I'll start a separate "What God looked like" thread for those of you
> to go argue about it there.

Aren't you special! (In the short-bus sense.)

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Jeff Henig wrote:
> John Williamson > wrote:
>> On 02/09/2014 13:26, Jeff Henig wrote:
>>> geoff > wrote:
>>>> On 2/09/2014 11:01 p.m., wrote:
>>>>> Geoff: just curious. What 'Pacifica' people do you refer to?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mostly Samoans, but also Cook Islanders, Fijians, Tongans, and Kiribatis.
>>>>
>>>> None of which look vaguely like European hippies, as neither would have Jesus.
>>>>
>>>> geoff
>>>
>>> Jesus was a Jew and not a hippie (though certainly counter cultural), but I
>>> guess a lot of people aren't all that interested in accuracy.
>>>
>>> I've read the Gospels more times than I can count, and I never saw anything
>>> about long hair or a beard. Then again, He was a construction worker and an
>>> artist, so anything's possible.
>>>
>> What was the local fashion of the decade?
>
>
> The apostle Paul was a former Pharisee who wrote that men should keep their
> hair short because long hair was feminine fashion at that time--though
> there were certain exceptions to the standard fashions of the time, such as
> for Nazerite vows.
>
> I wouldn't absolutely rule out Jesus having had long hair--but Scripture
> has little to say about the matter.
>
> Were I a betting man, I'd wager on John The Baptizer as the one with the
> beard and long hair, being the wild man that he was.
>
> Now that I think of it though, it's all relative anyway: we don't really
> have a standard of what would be considered long hair, because even Paul
> didn't mention anything about specific measurements.
>


We have lots of marble busts from the period, and they all have short
hair.

--
Les Cargill

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 12:26:52 +0000 (UTC), Jeff Henig
> wrote:

>geoff > wrote:
>> On 2/09/2014 11:01 p.m., wrote:
>>> Geoff: just curious. What 'Pacifica' people do you refer to?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Mostly Samoans, but also Cook Islanders, Fijians, Tongans, and Kiribatis.
>>
>> None of which look vaguely like European hippies, as neither would have Jesus.
>>
>> geoff
>
>Jesus was a Jew and not a hippie (though certainly counter cultural), but I
>guess a lot of people aren't all that interested in accuracy.
>
>I've read the Gospels more times than I can count, and I never saw anything
>about long hair or a beard. Then again, He was a construction worker and an
>artist, so anything's possible.

Well, of course if we're talking accuracy, there isn't a shred of
evidence that he is anything but a made-up character in a cult.
Made-up characters can dress any way you like, no problem.

d

[Trevor]

On 2/09/2014 11:35 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:> In article
>,
>> John Williamson > wrote:
On 3/09/2014 12:06 AM, wrote:
>>>> I've read the Gospels more times than I can count, and I never saw
>>>> anything about long hair or a beard. Then again, He was a construction
>>>> worker and an artist, so anything's possible.
>>>
>>> What was the local fashion of the decade?
>
>> Surely someone has a pic? After all plenty claim to be able to talk
to him.

Many think they can talk to GOD (not Jesus) but I don't know any who
claim they have taken a photo of him.



> Guys: 86 the religion & faith derail right now. Refer to Subject
header for topic of this thread and let's keep it that way.
>
> I'll start a separate "What God looked like" thread for those of you to go argue about it there.

Most Christians who believe that crap don't think God and Jesus are the
same person, they think Jesus was the son of God.

Trevor.

[John Williamson]

On 04/09/2014 06:19, Don Pearce wrote:

> Well, of course if we're talking accuracy, there isn't a shred of
> evidence that he is anything but a made-up character in a cult.
> Made-up characters can dress any way you like, no problem.
>
>
Depending on whether you want to believe it, there is good documentary
evidence written down by the Roman authorities who were in charge of the
area at the time of a person called Jesus of Nazareth who was an
itinerant preacher. Being polytheistic, they didn't care what he was
preaching, as they were pretty tolerant of any form of religion as long
as it didn't cause them any problems.

The rest is either a confabulation or true, depending on your oown
belief system.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[geoff]

On 4/09/2014 8:02 p.m., John Williamson wrote:
> On 04/09/2014 06:19, Don Pearce wrote:
>
>> Well, of course if we're talking accuracy, there isn't a shred of
>> evidence that he is anything but a made-up character in a cult.
>> Made-up characters can dress any way you like, no problem.
>>
>>
> Depending on whether you want to believe it, there is good documentary
> evidence written down by the Roman authorities who were in charge of the
> area at the time of a person called Jesus of Nazareth who was an
> itinerant preacher. Being polytheistic, they didn't care what he was
> preaching, as they were pretty tolerant of any form of religion as long
> as it didn't cause them any problems.


Yeah - they didn't like commies though, so they killed him off.


geoff

[John Williamson]

On 04/09/2014 09:57, geoff wrote:
> On 4/09/2014 8:02 p.m., John Williamson wrote:
>> On 04/09/2014 06:19, Don Pearce wrote:
>>
>>> Well, of course if we're talking accuracy, there isn't a shred of
>>> evidence that he is anything but a made-up character in a cult.
>>> Made-up characters can dress any way you like, no problem.
>>>
>>>
>> Depending on whether you want to believe it, there is good documentary
>> evidence written down by the Roman authorities who were in charge of the
>> area at the time of a person called Jesus of Nazareth who was an
>> itinerant preacher. Being polytheistic, they didn't care what he was
>> preaching, as they were pretty tolerant of any form of religion as long
>> as it didn't cause them any problems.
>
>
> Yeah - they didn't like commies though, so they killed him off.
>
At the request of the locals, according to at least one source.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[None]

"John Williamson" > wrote in message
...
> Depending on whether you want to believe it, there is good
> documentary evidence written down by the Roman authorities who were
> in charge of the area at the time of a person called Jesus of
> Nazareth who was an itinerant preacher.

It's not a question of believing the "good documentary evidence". It's
more a question of whether any such evidence exists. If you know of
such documentation, you've got new information that would be important
historical evidence. But you don't actually know of it; it doesn't
exist. Josephus is about the closest you'll find, and that's not much
info, with dubious veracity, likely sourced from cult believers
anyway.

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff > wrote:
>On 4/09/2014 8:02 p.m., John Williamson wrote:
>>>
>> Depending on whether you want to believe it, there is good documentary
>> evidence written down by the Roman authorities who were in charge of the
>> area at the time of a person called Jesus of Nazareth who was an
>> itinerant preacher. Being polytheistic, they didn't care what he was
>> preaching, as they were pretty tolerant of any form of religion as long
>> as it didn't cause them any problems.
>
>Yeah - they didn't like commies though, so they killed him off.

I hate to add to the religious debate here, and my personal beliefs are
really not relevant to this discussion anyway.

However, I can say that Kris Kristofferson played this and it is just a
great, great song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DK8TSJuBMgM

Sadly the studio version doesn't do justice to his live performances, but
that IS relevant here.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

Don Pearce > wrote:

> On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 12:26:52 +0000 (UTC), Jeff Henig
> > wrote:
>
> >geoff > wrote:
> >> On 2/09/2014 11:01 p.m., wrote:
> >>> Geoff: just curious. What 'Pacifica' people do you refer to?
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Mostly Samoans, but also Cook Islanders, Fijians, Tongans, and
> >> Kiribatis.
> >>
> >> None of which look vaguely like European hippies, as neither would have
> >> Jesus.
> >>
> >> geoff
> >
> >Jesus was a Jew and not a hippie (though certainly counter cultural), but
> >I guess a lot of people aren't all that interested in accuracy.
> >
> >I've read the Gospels more times than I can count, and I never saw
> >anything about long hair or a beard. Then again, He was a construction
> >worker and an artist, so anything's possible.
>
> Well, of course if we're talking accuracy, there isn't a shred of
> evidence that he is anything but a made-up character in a cult.
> Made-up characters can dress any way you like, no problem.
>
> d

Clearly, your grasp of fantasy is questionable.

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

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 09:02:22 +0100, John Williamson
> wrote:

>On 04/09/2014 06:19, Don Pearce wrote:
>
>> Well, of course if we're talking accuracy, there isn't a shred of
>> evidence that he is anything but a made-up character in a cult.
>> Made-up characters can dress any way you like, no problem.
>>
>>
>Depending on whether you want to believe it, there is good documentary
>evidence written down by the Roman authorities who were in charge of the
>area at the time of a person called Jesus of Nazareth who was an
>itinerant preacher. Being polytheistic, they didn't care what he was
>preaching, as they were pretty tolerant of any form of religion as long
>as it didn't cause them any problems.
>
>The rest is either a confabulation or true, depending on your oown
>belief system.

No, there is no such writing by anyone contemporary with events. I
don't know who told you this, but they are simply wrong.

d

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 07:29:01 -0400, "None" > wrote:

>"John Williamson" > wrote in message
...
>> Depending on whether you want to believe it, there is good
>> documentary evidence written down by the Roman authorities who were
>> in charge of the area at the time of a person called Jesus of
>> Nazareth who was an itinerant preacher.
>
>It's not a question of believing the "good documentary evidence". It's
>more a question of whether any such evidence exists. If you know of
>such documentation, you've got new information that would be important
>historical evidence. But you don't actually know of it; it doesn't
>exist. Josephus is about the closest you'll find, and that's not much
>info, with dubious veracity, likely sourced from cult believers
>anyway.
>
>
Most of the claimed Josephus writings were revealed to be fake some
time around the 17th century. The one remaining document contains
nothing of relevance but the name Jeshua.

Of course Josephus was no more contemporary than any other source.
There is literally nothing.l It is a story entirely without
foundation.

d