Bands/artists that need to be listened to on a decent sound system
The Jesu thread got me thinking cos I think Jesu are one of those bands that you don't get anything out of by listening to on crappy laptop speakers: it's all about the texture of the sound, the low frequencies etc.
I guess Sunn O))) would be another good example.
WHat do you think? I guess it might be a bit divisive. I know a few people who're of the opinion that the question itself is bollocks and that if you 'need a good stereo to sound good' then the record itself ain't that great.
What do you think?
Tweet This
Share on Facebook- Relevant artist taggings:
- None
Thread not appearing correctly? Click here to rebuild | Report this
Last.fm
SoundCloud
MySpace
Friendster
RSS
i think that people who say
"if you 'need a good stereo to sound good' then the record itself ain't that great"
are fucking mongoloids, and under my regime they'd have their ears blocked up with boiling wax. Then they'd be shot
I'm fairly sure that the kissingkansas chap said pretty much exactly that the other day
so erm.... fight fight fight.
I'm hoping he doesn't take this comment the wrong way, dude seems fairly tightly wound.
but kansas is a silly man, who needs some education
preferably in one of my boiling wax education death camps
isn't he a moderator though???
he was talking about getting people banned, I'm sure. Careful there Mr Bag!
Anyway, back to topic, what's your favourite 'blasting out of a decent system' record?
he wishes!
anyway, me and him are tight bros from way back when
Donald Fagen - The Nightfly (although blasting isn't an option)
Steely Dan
although their records are all good, having a stereo that can pick out the nuances in their recordings is really worthwhile.
Looking forward to getting some of theirs on DVD-A at some point.
Slint
although i'd say better to listen on headphones anyway.
Erm, surely a good stereo makes everything sound better?
I can't think of anything I own which sounds better on a crap, tinny stereo.
BIG BLACK
sound pretty sweet on a shitty stereo
I think you misunderstand me
sure a better stereo makes everything sound better. But some things are still worth listening to on a rubbish stereo because the quality and texture (or subtlety) of the sound is not the main appeal. Sebadoh, for example.
Listen to Sunn O))) on laptop speakers though is pointless because it's all about the low frequencies and the textures of the sound.
Talk Talk
Spirit of Eden & Laughing Stock (and Mark Hollis' album, come to think of it) pretty much demand a decent stereo or headphones.
This is a good point, what wins in this situation
a good soudn system or good speakers.
I would say Ok Computer is infinitely more enjoyable on good headphones whereas Tilt by Scott Walker really benefits from a great system set up.
pfff....
music is often fucking painfully conceived to sound just the way the artist/producer wants it to sound through a studio system. I'd say have a little respect, and get some equipment.
bands that have developed their whole aesthetics on being extremely loud are a thing of their own, listening to Sunno))) doesn't really make sense with iPod headphones, does it?
all music surely ?
I don't agree
some music 'needs' a decent system better than others. For reasons outlined above ^
None really
These hi fi bores are just being spastics rly.
Of course.
It's like tv isn't it? Much better to watch a black & white 14" with no aerial.
Interesting dichotomy, innit
The TV becomes more and more advanced in terms of quality, with every man with a front room wanting a massive HD monster and every technological progression being picked up by the masses. Compared to music, where things went downhill a few years ago and have just stayed at that steady level of technological inferiority.
My conclusion: people like telly more than music
nah
it's more about mobility. TV is still largely consumed in a domestic context, and while it's always been the kind of thing that you could just listen to as much as watch (and thus move into other rooms, etc.) it's only quite recently that mobile TV has started to penetrate the market (esp. via youtube+iPhone).
By contrast, music consumption has long been tied to travel: from iPods back to walkmen back to the car radio. While sitting down with the sole purpose of just *listening* to music has a long history, since the advent of r'n'r (pretty much) music has been made to travel, and as a result technological advance in relation to mobility has taken precedence over advance in sound quality. But now that portable mp3 players — increasingly converged with mobile phones, etc. — have pretty much reached saturation point, mobile technology has kind of plateaued and we're starting to see advances in sound quality technologies (witness the move from 128kbs iTunes to 258kbs iTunes Plus).
Advances in sound quality!
really?
well, in a piecemeal and undirected fashion
yes.
When I say "advances in sound quality technologies", I don't necessarily mean it in the sense of someone invents some new technology that makes music sound better, but as much in the sense of the "market" starts to rate sound quality as a key criterion in purchasing decisions. So word spreads that 128kbs is shitty and 256kbs is where it's at, and that the buds bundled with your pod are dodgy and you wanna get some vsonics or whatever if you want to truly appreciate your music, etc., etc.
But
we had better sound quality than 256kbps in the seventies.
No, "we" had both good quality AND shit quality in the seventies
I don't know about you, but I'd take 256kbs MP3 over a mono AM radio with poor reception any day of the week. And if there were hifi set ups in the 70s that produced far superior sound than a shitty AM radio, it's true also that there are hifi set ups today that shit all over mp3 players with stock earbuds.
I'm not making some grand scale historical argument here, saying that the sound quality today is better than before or whatever. I'm talking about two possible relationships between technology and music, but of which there are many others.
My point is simply that, unlike TV, music has, since the 50s, been a cultural form that has *routinely* been consumed in non-domestic contexts (e.g. live shows, dance halls, the "milk bar", the car) and that — via the technology of the car radio — mobility has long been bound to our sense of the possibilities (indeed, standards) in terms of music consumption. Broadly speaking, "technological advance" (by which I mean also "technological uptake") has followed the path of improving technologies of mobility. The CD can be understood as an advance as much in mobility as in sound quality†, insofar as it (i) increased the potential durability of music, and (ii) allowed for the replacement of the cassette tape as the main *portable* format (i.e. from walkmen to discmen).
This path has continued with digitalisation allowing not only for easier distribution, but more compact and more efficient means of consuming music "on the go". But we've kind of reached a point where there doesn't seem much else to be done in that regard (excepting, perhaps, the refinement of mobile streaming technologies and services) and there's signs of increased market concern with sound quality.
None of that is to say that sound quality generally is better today than it was 40 years ago. Indeed, it's to say that it's ridiculous to think in terms of sound quality *generally*.
†yes, I know you're implying that CDs are a step back from vinyl in terms of sound quality. But I'm arguing that domestic consumption counts as probably a *minor* form of music consumption compared to mobile consumption, and so it's a mistake (in terms of a sociology of music and technology) to think about music as though the main or the "proper" way to listen to it is on a hifi in a domestic setting.
and none of the above was intended to address the OP
my first comment was in response solely to douchebag's observation re. the seeming opposite directions that TV and music techs have been taking.
I think as a society we value convenience
over everything or at least we seem to be heading that way.
Personally I find it a little strange how so many people listen to music on the go. I've never really been into walking around with headphones on. There is music on all the time at home and due to my current circumstances I am at home a lot, so thats enough really.
I have an Ipod nano that I've barely used,the only time I can imagine using it really is if I go on holiday.
Joy Orbison - Hyph Mngo
I didn't believe the hype until I heard this badboy on a proper system. Harmonic 313 dropped it and it really cut in above the rest. Superb.
Grizzly Bear
bands like Guillemots and Arcade Fire
who have all kinds of things going on around the music
does anything sound 'good' on laptops?
really?
no - but some things are much more bearable on laptops
e.g. early Mountain Goats - the joy is in the lyrics and the music is so pared down and shoddily recorded you don't lose much on rubbish speakers.
It doesn't sound 'good' or 'better' on rubbish speakers - it's just less of an issue than other bands.
Mogwai
Dubstep.
Indeed any bassy music really needs a decent system.
I agree
Dubstep or anything bassy sounds rubbish threw standard headphones
Also
in mp3 unless at high bit-rates like 320kbpps.
Tom Waits
says you sometimes get the 'best' sound from the most unexpected set-ups - he likes listening to things on a crackly car radio. Sometimes its just where and when something's played that makes the difference. I also used to love listening to Springsteen's 'The River' on tape on a really shit car radio.
I know what you mean about wanting to hear nuance, though sometimes you need a big system just to get enough power. Band of Horses sounds very good given enough watts.
Olivia Tremor Control
Ben Frost
Also Mogwai
Almost anything that hasn't been compressed to sound good on radio
decent soundsystems can improve a lot of different genres in good ways
artists like Tricky, Portishead, Massive Attack and Leftfield get a good reaction because you can feel the sticky, uneasy bass seeping out the speakers. The Knife get a boost too.
multi-layered acts like Arcade Fire, Animal Collective and sample-based acts like DJ Shadow get a better all-round feel where the individual elements come forth.
but then you have shit like Queens Of The Stone Age where you just want it to hit you hard in the chest with all its vigour. and that's cool too.