gotta agree with White Rhino on this one JL - I was there and thought Scribe was feckin funny last week, he could have a career as a Stand Up for sure (haha!).
I'm sure Mr Zaoui would get the gag. the other digs were pretty hilarious too - wonder if he was gettin philosophical on our asses with the NZ music zenith angle? or more irony, more likely...
yeah Scribe was there when PNC bashed Phil, just another case of folks not handling their liquor... why's it always the ones who shouldn't drink who get the most pissed? (and why did Allah make Samoans so big? never noticed what a large unit Scribe is till I saw him on stage dwarfing Brooke and everybody except big Ollie)
;-)
Steriogram's second album's out and I'm doing an interview for National Radio tomorrow (Tuesday) - any fans out there got questions they want asked?
post em here or email me rwain@ak.radionz.co.nz.
feature to air next Monday after 11pm and maybe this Saturday afternoon on Music101 (2-5pm) too.
cheers!
I reckon Finn Andrews is a talented songwriter and very interesting singer. can get a bit histrionic but a bit of emotion's a welcome thing, at least his heart's in it, even if it is out there on his sleeve!
every critic (and me) has noted the Nick Cave thing - big improvement on his former Morrissey-isms. anyway... but remember how everyone said Coldplay sounded like Radiohead? say what you like about either band (me = Coldplay OK, Radiohead pretty good) but nobody says that anymore. Andrews is developing, hope he sticks with it.
funny how he can only write songs in Devonport, NZ! even if he records and tours them in the UK/Europe etc... must be an Aotearoan deep down eh?
I don't even have a working home computer - I use PC at work tho have always owned Mac.
so I'm just using work gear for this sort of thing - the other day I deleted 250 hours of recording to clear a bit of space.
lossless? I doubt it. must check it out properly though. I am talking audio compression more than file sizes, yup.
great posts!
my amp is my girlfriend's shitty old midi system. plus some old Pye speakers Mirs gave me. respect.
repeat: anyone know some place to get parts for a Roberts amp? the label says it's an STA-50, it's the selector switch on one channel. beautiful thing, 1970s but I got swindled on Trade Me so it's a bit broke right now. ..
look I guess this is my original point. and it's obviously not a popular one! but yes, removing any frequencies from music CHANGES it. you can debate how much you'll hear of it, but I'd just much rather know that what I'm listening to is the way it was intended to be.
I know that at this point all the analogue freaks are thinking 'well you never get that with digital anyway, with its step-based analogous sampling methods' (possibly not exactly how a true geek would put it!). . . but I'm like, why mess with the best representation you've got to hand AT ALL?
I dunno. I'm sitting in a studio mixing a feature for National Radio's Musical Chairs (this Saturday: 'A Question Of Publishing' 3.30pm on 101FM/radionz.co.nz FYI) and have just scanned in a tune from my producer's laptop, which being a Mac runs those tricky AIFF files. I ran it next to another track by the same artist, Salmonella Dub, and we couldn't say whether it definitely sounded inferior or not: the bass was way less pronounced but that could be the difference between the two different songs... or it could be the compression rates involved. (listening on beautiful Quested speakers for any geeks out there).
I guess comparing the same tune, one compressed AIFF style, the other not, is the only way to be sure of that one. if I get the chance to do that I'll report back - but anyways, I'm agin compression!
point made I guess...
well yes, I'm against compression - you're removing frequencies from music! why would you want to do that?
as for 'lossless' compression, if there's no loss, then surely there's no compression?
just to keep this going, and coz I'm waiting for stuff to do at work...
I did say "CD or greater level" - anything from CD up, ie, vinyl or better too. so any debate about CD quality's a bit redundant, I'm just saying nobody should settle for LESS than that. which lots of you seem happy to be doing!
yes, I have fantastic ears thanks! I work with sound in broadcasting, radio and TV, and have 100% hearing. plus great taste!
my stereo's pretty damn average actually at the moment - but I'm used to deliberately monitoring on shit gear - in radio you don't expect anyone to be listening on good gear so bad sound on bad gear sounds worse than good sound on bad gear. my amp's in the shop. . . actually come to think of it, has anyone got a spare Roberts (NZ made 70s amp) that I can cannabalise?
ok, cheers for that.
so it's too long you're saying, to do a decent download? even with a good connection? personally I wouldn't mind waiting 10 minutes, just set the computer to get busy while I'm doing something else.
but I guess I'll stop bemoaning the absence of the ideal for me, since it seems nobody else cares! (shaking his head...)
I don't really need this service myself, am just puzzled why everybody else who is downloading can stand to hear crappy music files. but enough from me.
/// fat files? will they be available, legitimately, ever (with good broadband)?
//if people want it, then yes.
Well, I want it - if I ever bother to actually get into downloading music in the future, that is. But right now there’s nothing to tempt me!
I buy music online but am happy to wait 2-3 days for the actual CD/LPs to arrive, rather than grabbing a file instantly... a file that's nothing like the actual song you get when you buy a CD. Which you can then make into a digital file and make your own compilations up, or I guess pop up on the interweb etc.
// You can still get the exact same files for free from p2p channels that you can get from Apple (and obviously many still do), but iTunes is pulling in the cash because of the ease-of-use/trust factor. The same would be true of a drm-less fat file - people will still pay for it if it's coming from a source they trust, as opposed to downloading it for free from somewhere they don't.
Exactly! But my point is, I can’t pay for it because it isn’t available.
And I don’t think record companies will be rushing to get nice big CD files of music available legitimately anytime soon, and not just because they’d lose any semblance of control over their product if the same fat files then (inevitably) ended up on P2P servers as well as on legit outlets – but also because it seems there isn’t a demand for a decent size file.
I guess I don’t understand why folks is now happy with shitty sounding music. Maybe the old adage, feed the people crap and they end up liking crap, is still true?
Sure broadband’s part of it – but all those suckers buying compressed crap from iTunes in the USA have got good broadband…
oops, I meant 44.1khz sampling rate, not mhz. see, I'm not a geek...
fair enough. may well be a label issue - funny how Apple took down their claim of being fair to artists though!
yeah my home broadband's a bit slow, good at work though. die Telecom, quickly!
but back to my original query: fat files? will they be available, legitimately, ever (with good broadband)? coz major labels would then have no control at all over the redistribution (once the DRM bull is gone/removed) of the songs - at the same quality as CD.
right now it seems to me that the interweb is radio and MPwhatevers are home taping. but the difference is, the net CAN act like one great big home stereo, playing LPs, CDs whatever. . . with decent connexions, natch!
radio but better. you choose what you want, when you want it.
the rub's who pays for it and how... eh, musicians?
well I work with pretty decent computers - and I guess I must be an audiophile if I find a retreat back from CD quality reprehensible! I mean, cassettes are better than a lot of MP3s!
I simply look forward to a digital music age with no added compression. I think iPods are a backward step in this respect, and also coz they don't use what is the standard, or should be: .wav files.
isn't this a bit of a no-brainer? I hear Apple are also tying artists who use their iTunes store to sell their work into old school contracts that rip them off, see
hi, interesting to hear about one of the major labels, Universal, getting into free downloads, albeit not in NZ and with major DRM/ad issues
http://thewireless.blogspot.com/
anyone picking the majors will ever, ever allow free (or paid, for that matter) downloads at FULL QUALITY, ie CD or greater level (44.1mhz sampling rate). . . that is, not compressed (iTunes, crappy MPwhatevers)??
Richard
C4: some of the info from presenters was good. advice: just keep it short, get in, say your bit (about the music - who cares about you slagging off your fellow hosts, it's not clever, just wasting time) then get out. still, music presenters, who needs em? obviously C4 and Juice think so - J2 doesn't!
overall I like having another music channel to flick through; some great stuff in there but Top 100 of all time? doubt it. and repeating the top 100 the next day was dumb.
my real gripe: Pacifier didn't do 'Home Again'. Or 'Pacifier'! quit trying to rewrite history - other channels do this too. Pacifier DIDN'T do those songs. Shihad did, we all know this. dumb dumb dumb. try buying a Pacifier CD with those songs on them, go on. can't be done.
who said that Shihad, whoops, Pacifier, have given up on the US?
my understanding is they're making the new album and plan to attack the US again when it's ready.
yeah, that post on the history of F Nun is obviously a bit out of date, ends in 1995. Paul McKessar's gone, working for Bounce in London. Hat's out too I hear - and he was the last dude really working for F Nun so far as I can work out. (as an outsider)
of course FMR has a number of staff who handle F Nun stuff now, and all very lovely and nice they iz too. but none of them worked for F Nun back in the day, except for big Dylan I think. so there's little institutional memory left there now. still some good acts though, Pan Am for instance.
my problem is with the whole CONCEPT of having presenters for non-specialist music TV. since Radio With Pictures the only shows to do it without merely taking up space (or Space - total garbage, why don't those two just sod off? pleeeeease!) are those dealing in areas that maybe actually need some comment, like Squeeze for example... Sir Vere for hiphop, no probs, maybe even a Retro host. but 'general hosts'? bad idea. just shut up and play the darned music, okay? what are video titles for anyway?
and for the record, I work in radio with music and don't have any problems with Jane Yee, she's a total spunk too. you go girl.
hi PeterM!
check out TV One news tonight..
Buzz Moller of Voom is interviewed after spotting a gunman strolling down Queen Street, practically swinging his rifle by the trigger...
great talent that Buzz.