Tell Me :
Talk
Thanks Toru, great insight as usually.
This would be some cool wallpaper.
You are missing my point. It is that the SACD & the UMG waveforms above BOTH appear to be different MIXES than the 1994 Virgin waveform. It is easy to see the overall volume of both the SACD and the UMG waveforms creeping upward by the end of the song.
The process of transfering from original master tapes does not preclude the possibility of additional post production being done on them. I would love to give you guys some blind listening tests to show you just how subjective the whole analysis is.
Talking about frequencies around 100KHz in music with a straight face and saying they have proven to be audible is really going out on a limb. peace
This is how the song sounds on the CBS CD as well. Volume is increasing by the end of the song. So it seems that UMG remasters respect more the original tapes. I think the UMG remasters could have sounded great if only not brick walled as they are.
About the 60's albums I still find the 80's CD's sounding the best. Even better than the 2002 remasters. However when you listen to the 2002 remasters in high resolution (as it's available on HDTracks site), I must say they're quite breathtaking.
Well, no wonder suicide is such a virtue (of honor) in Japanese culture, then! If I saw this nonsense every time I listened to Brown Sugar (or any song in recorded or unrecorded history), I think I should make an honorous virtue of suicide also! Is this sort of mentally masturbatory bit of pseudo-EEG chicanory supposed to change or influence the way one hears music? Really!! I'll hear/see what I hear/see in my mind, and here's what I hear/see in my mind when confronted with something like this--BLOW ME!!!!
No need to be disrespectful towards someone's culture when you see something you don't understand...
Or find the Virgin reissues, which are the best sounding CDs anyway, overall.
The second line of your reply insinuates that those who favor an analog approach cannot be a serious musician. Of course Mick Jagger studies waveforms--he's always jumping on the latest trends. It was the same mentality that led him to bring in a whole coven of producers for Bridges To Babylon--but if it ain't broke, why fix it?
Too many microwave cooks in the kitchen these days. You hip, young trendies always think you're the last word in history, but you haven't heard the last of Analog Man. Enjoy your era of relevance, but the rest of us will not be going away.
Take music out of the hands of nerdy, wonky technicians and put it back in the hands of creative musicians--it'll sound a lot better. war
Creativity is all about embracing all the available tools at hand and coming up with something NEW and original. I'm all for the analog approach to recording and playing but when it come to editing I will be off creating another song while you are stuck with your scissors and tape trying to get it the way you want it.
Anybody who is serious about music production today cannot deny the advantages of digital. It's not all about wanking away on your instrument to produce a song, alot more goes into the final product. If you look at the version of Brown Sugar you are listening to I don't doubt there was some phase of the finished product that required digital production. Unless you are still listening to your original vinyl copy from 1968 and in that case unless you've kept it in pristine condition, I doubt fidelity is a part of your musical vocabulary.
To call waveforms digital gimmickry is about as ignorant of a statement as I've ever heard on this board. Pure musicians, digitally deluded technicians? what are you smoking? peace
What de hell!?
___________________________
The Brian Jones Experience
Not to get into a back-and-forth tit-a-tit with you on the subject, but I can actually deny the advantages of digital when it comes to music production. A year ago, I had a 4-track Tascam analog recorder that required cassette tape, but my former bass player wound up keeping it when the jamming died down. I'm not averse to using digital products--with what's out there at the moment, I really don't have a choice, do I?
I have a pocket size digital recorder so that I can transfer demos to my iTunes and burn onto CD and, yes, play on my iPod, where I can also listen to my CD collection.
But the difference between you and me is obviously one of age--I am old enough to remember the difference. I grew up in the 80s, and then as now, I still think the music from that decade is the most awful-sounding overproduced load of shite I've ever heard. I've always gone against the grain all the way back to the beginning of my music appreciation days at age 14. While my peers were listening to crappy Journey, Foreigner, and Asia records, I was listening to original vinyl of Stones, Beatles, Cream and et al., something you, young man, will never know the pleasure of. Your loss.
By the way, regarding the scratchy snap, crackle and pop of Olde-Worlde vinyl records, the Zen philosopher Alan Watts put it best: Just imagine you're sitting in front of a nice, warm fire and the music will sound fine. Cheers!
Yes, it is true that many Stones fans are older people. The only thing I am moaning about is the marked tendency for most of the younger musician's music to be trite, insignificant, and consisting of two or three chords at the most. The talent is not there, for the most part.
Jonny Lang, now there is an exception to the rule. He is 31 years old. Is that young enough?
You sound like someone moaning about the stones etc in 1964.
___________________________
The Brian Jones Experience
Then who posted Naturalust's old-man-voice Dead Flowers cover? Ismell sense taste a conspiracy monster mustard manchard chancre manchurd mayo munchousen Mancato Muenster Manchester.
The man is over50 30 and obviously knows nothing plenty about synovial drug perfusion profession[/s]
I was born post9/11 Civil War Boer Bundt Baer World baker's dozen animal haste.
Well, she said baby, Jazz, jazz ain't that bad since it was stoned and still am since 1964. Crotchfield farm, we need a medic by the pool, as the old gray affectionate frog test called it to keep on rolling here. peace.
Edited 45 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-12 07:19 by Sipuncula.
Don't know what you mean, sir! Yes, I grew up in the 80s and experienced the Stones and others for the first time on wonderful unremastered vinyl. So what's the prob? Millions of upon millions of listeners my age [and older] can say the same thing. It isn't a question of finished [and re-finished]] product at all. It's the music, and how it moves you. I was merely saying that when I first heard such music, there wasn't even such a thing as CDs. These digitally brainwashed youngsters will never understand that first analog encounter with music--and no one, back then, ever complained about the sound of vinyl or cassettes, saying, Oh, gee, I wish they would remarket this stuff so we could hear what it really sounds like. Get off of the super-polished product mentality, kiddies, because in fact the music whether on vinyl or cassette sounded just fine--otherwise, we still wouldn't be remembering and posting here, now would we?
By the way, NaturalPutz, why do you need to post under a different name? cheese
Yes, I'm from the 80s--born in '66. You quoted that particular part of my post--why? Please explain yourself. Are you trying to defend the Naturallust poster? What's your point, exactly? Do you have one? The term "peace" at the end of your post--that hip, young lingo crap always at the end of the Naturallust posts. It's at the end of your post, as well. A calling card, perhaps. Are you able to post coherently? Are you hiding? Are you older than me, and just posing? By the way, who care's about "Naturallust's old man Dead Flowers cover?" I'm a fan of the Rolling Stones, not some Naturaldust cover crap. Keep the self-promotion to yourself, sir. And stop pretending that the appreciation of music "product" never existed before the digital whiz kids came along to save it. Get yourself a nice little room, about 12 x 10 square at least, a couple of 2-foot speakers and a nice little turntable and some albums, sit back, you'll be surprised. Wish I could do the same. war
I think most people here will agree on the fact that vinyl (brand new at least) sounds 10 times better than CD and 100 times better than mp3. Vinyl sound has more warmth, more soul and more vibrations ; all things that were eluded when they started to put music on CD. And I guess that's the reason why people are still buying vinyls even today. However CD's are not such a bad thing. They have some advantages over vinyl which is clarity of sound, convenience and the fact they don't get used if you handle them carefully.
The problem with today's music is not a problem of vinyl vs. CD or CD vs. digital music. For example SACD, because of its higher resolution, can sound really great when mastered properly, just as good as vinyl.
Problem is music is mastered way too loud. So loud that it doesn't make any sense. When you have everything on a track that loud it means everything will have the same sound level : lead vocal, guitars, drums, background vocals... It just doesn't make any sense and it gives the listener an overall feeling of boredom and flatness. For instance you don't want the drums sound flat, you want them to kick. You want music to roll like it used to do. That's were good dynamic range is useful.
Old records used to rock. Nowadays records just don't. Not because of music quality or digital recording or support (CD, vinyl, mp3) but because they sell us music compressed in such way that it can't rock.
No, you have misunderstood my posts, as usual. I am not bigoted and it is a fact that in Japanese culture that suicide among the young is prevalent--when one has shamed one's family, one commits suicide, out of honor. That is a cultural fact, which you are obviously ignorant of.
As for waveforms, I don't need them. People made fine-sounding music before having to look at waveforms during the production process. I see colors and shapes in my mind when I listen to music, and if I needed to look at waveforms instead, I would just kill myself.
As for congratulating yourself over my alleged nod of your Dead Flowers cover, that just proves you read into the words of others what you want to hear. The nod came from Sipuncula, whose post I was responding to. I couldn't care less about your music, and I will happily leave this earth without ever once having listened.
Read the forum help and policies page. If you post here for self-promotion, you post here for the wrong reasons. I'm a fan of the Rolling Stones, not you. As for all of your personally insulting terms to describe myself and the decade I come from, we had a simple one-word saying to dismiss someone who talks crap--whatever. Later, punk! war
This mentality was mentioned in a thread a while back--you feel territorial about this forum, don't you NaturalPutz? You feel there's some sort of hierarchy about this little snippet of cyberspace, do you? You think you own this board because you've been posting longer, but you're wrong. Nobody owns the internet.
You keep responding to my posts because you are compelled to. If you really don't care what I think, then prove it by not responding. My difference of opinion obviously gets to you, and in your hierarchical self-importance, you just have to have the last word, for it's own sake. Your inevitable response to this post will prove that. Myself, I shall just ignore you--and your music--from here on.
I have better things to discuss--like the Stones, the Beatles--anything but a snooty, self-indulgent little punk like you.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Ot : Bob Ludwig (and other engineers) : "Why Does Today's Music Sound Like Sh*t?"
Posted by:
dcba
()
Date: June 10, 2012 11:13
So the record biz "brains" leave us with two options : buy the UMG crap CDs for a few monetary units or spend a huge amount of money on the SHM-SACD releases?
Where's my gun?
Where's my gun?
Re: Ot : Bob Ludwig (and other engineers) : "Why Does Today's Music Sound Like Sh*t?"
Posted by:
kowalski
()
Date: June 10, 2012 13:52
Quote
Toru A
Another deliberate interpretation by Andreas Koch will help.
Below is an excerpt from [www.positive-feedback.com]
Fig.2 below shows the typical dynamic range of a DSD signal sampled at 2.8224MHz which can be greater than 150db in the audio band below 20kHz.
The slowly rising noise floor at higher frequencies also follows to some degree our hearing threshold for transient signals that have been proven to be audible up to 100kHz.
Of course, DSD at double the rate (5.6448MHz) has an extended audio range of 0-40kHz above where the noise floor then starts to rise gently.
Fig. 2 also shows the theoretical dynamic ranges of high resolution PCM signals at various sample rates. Note the steep brickwalls that PCM signals typically have.
It is those brickwalls that can generate very audible side-effects such as pre-ringing, if not processed with special algorithms (such as in all Playback Designs products).
By design DSD signals do not generate these side effects.
As we can see from this, DSD is characterized by the following:
-great dynamic range in the audio band (0-20kHz)
-slowly rising noise floor in higher frequencies (no brickwalls)
-extended frequency range into MHz
This makes DSD a serious contender in the choices of high resolution audio formats. Sometimes DSD is criticized for its high frequency content (as shown in Fig. 2).
But all DACs limit the amount of noise that actually gets through to the analog side.
This noise is generally not correlated to the music signal and therefore is easy for our psychoacoustic hearing system to filter out, but most listeners do not even hear it.
Double rate DSD addresses this problem by pushing the ramp of the rising noise floor up on the frequency axis by about 20kHz
thus reducing the absolute noise floor in the higher frequencies quite dramatically.
Conclusion
While DSD continues being used on every SACD, it may also have an additional new growth life as a separate download format.
Its sonic performance makes it competitive with any high resolution PCM format, many listeners would argue it is even superior.
Its bit efficiency alone almost guarantees a success in that application.
Yesterday any audio format was strongly married to some type of hardware carrier (i.e. vinyl, CD, SACD etc.)
and that hindered the evolution of the encoding formats, be that in PCM or DSD.
But today we are entering an era where the hardware does not impose the same limitations. It is becoming flexible and upgradeable thanks to software control and computer platforms.
This is not only true for storage, processing, simple playback functionality, but also for physical links (i.e. USB ) all the way to the place where music is made, in the DAC.
When yesterday the encoding format had to adapt to the hardware carrier (packaged media), today the table is being turned: the hardware adapts to the encoding format.
In other words today's computer technology can grow with whatever format we may choose for today or tomorrow.
Today it may be a combination of high rate PCM and DSD, tomorrow it may be mostly DSD.
Thanks Toru, great insight as usually.
Re: Ot : Bob Ludwig (and other engineers) : "Why Does Today's Music Sound Like Sh*t?"
Posted by:
uhbuhgullayew
()
Date: June 10, 2012 21:01
Quote
Toru A
A Japanese guy made an interesting observation about Brown Sugar.
For your information.
1994 Virgin
2009 UMG
2010 SHM-SACD
This would be some cool wallpaper.
Re: Ot : Bob Ludwig (and other engineers) : "Why Does Today's Music Sound Like Sh*t?"
Posted by:
Wry Cooter
()
Date: June 10, 2012 21:31
Don't know much....
I don't like to make sweeping statements like "all current music sucks". But my tastes were formed in the analog era -- the 60s and 70s. I enjoy a great aural experience -- I remember lying on the floor and listening to quadrophonic sound on someone's great setup back in the day, or various enhanced headphones experiences -- all cool stuff. But I also remember the excitement of hearing "Surfin' USA" or "Have You Seen Your Mother Baby?" on 8 transistors or on the highway. Brian Wilson used to test mixes on a car radio I believe. And in some ways the Ipod is just going back to that.
There is a lack of warmth in most popular music for me that even predates the digital age by a few years , though digital recording seems to have exacerbated this. I liked Sandy Pearlman's comment that analog is forgiving -- I love the muddy mixes of the earlier Blue Oyster Cult LPs (produced by Pearlman) the same way I dig "Exile", or the way my 45's would sound. But to my ears and heart music has over time moved away from the ballrooms, porches, hotel rooms, basements, cramped studios, and echo chambers into the wires, megabytes, board rooms, bank statements, marketing strategies, and playlists of the modern world. It's no one thing and my perception is part of it. I accept it but I don't have to like it, whatever it is.
But give me a small orchestra cramped in with the band, singers, arrangers et al in the Motown studios, or the Beatles and George Martin doing a brigade to feed tape in backwards, or a Library of Congress field recording....
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-10 22:40 by Wry Cooter.
I don't like to make sweeping statements like "all current music sucks". But my tastes were formed in the analog era -- the 60s and 70s. I enjoy a great aural experience -- I remember lying on the floor and listening to quadrophonic sound on someone's great setup back in the day, or various enhanced headphones experiences -- all cool stuff. But I also remember the excitement of hearing "Surfin' USA" or "Have You Seen Your Mother Baby?" on 8 transistors or on the highway. Brian Wilson used to test mixes on a car radio I believe. And in some ways the Ipod is just going back to that.
There is a lack of warmth in most popular music for me that even predates the digital age by a few years , though digital recording seems to have exacerbated this. I liked Sandy Pearlman's comment that analog is forgiving -- I love the muddy mixes of the earlier Blue Oyster Cult LPs (produced by Pearlman) the same way I dig "Exile", or the way my 45's would sound. But to my ears and heart music has over time moved away from the ballrooms, porches, hotel rooms, basements, cramped studios, and echo chambers into the wires, megabytes, board rooms, bank statements, marketing strategies, and playlists of the modern world. It's no one thing and my perception is part of it. I accept it but I don't have to like it, whatever it is.
But give me a small orchestra cramped in with the band, singers, arrangers et al in the Motown studios, or the Beatles and George Martin doing a brigade to feed tape in backwards, or a Library of Congress field recording....
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-10 22:40 by Wry Cooter.
Re: Ot : Bob Ludwig (and other engineers) : "Why Does Today's Music Sound Like Sh*t?"
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: June 10, 2012 23:06
Quote
kowalski
Quote
Naturalust
I look at alot of wave files in a typical day and it appears to me that the above tune was obviously remixed for the UMG release and that the UMG mix was used to create the SHM/SACD versions. Look at the overall level from start to finish. You can see the gain has been ridden starting with the UMG wave file. That increase in gain from the beginning of the track to the end of the track was just not present on the Virgin release. You are thus comparing apples to oranges here. Of course the effect of listening will be different on these later mixes.
What I don't see on any of them is a real large difference in dynamic range. No areas of the wave file that approach the 0dB line throughout the song. This greater dynamic range is somewhat "simulated" by reducing the overall volume for the SACD mix but if you turn the whole thing UP, you would get the same waveform as the UMG mix.
What would be great is a recording which may or may not have the overall volume of the UMG mix but contains big enough swings in the dynamic range to keep the ear interested and the brain happy. If I knew how to get screenshots of the wave files and put them up here I would be happy to demonstrate graphically what I am talking about. peace
SHM-SACD version is a new transfer made in 2011 from original master tapes. It has nothing to do with UMG remasters. And when you listen to them they sound clearly different. UMG remaster while very bright sounds totally flat to my ears. The SACD version on contrary is rocking and very entertaining - like it should be.
You are missing my point. It is that the SACD & the UMG waveforms above BOTH appear to be different MIXES than the 1994 Virgin waveform. It is easy to see the overall volume of both the SACD and the UMG waveforms creeping upward by the end of the song.
The process of transfering from original master tapes does not preclude the possibility of additional post production being done on them. I would love to give you guys some blind listening tests to show you just how subjective the whole analysis is.
Talking about frequencies around 100KHz in music with a straight face and saying they have proven to be audible is really going out on a limb. peace
Re: Ot : Bob Ludwig (and other engineers) : "Why Does Today's Music Sound Like Sh*t?"
Posted by:
kowalski
()
Date: June 10, 2012 23:51
Quote
Naturalust
Quote
kowalski
Quote
Naturalust
I look at alot of wave files in a typical day and it appears to me that the above tune was obviously remixed for the UMG release and that the UMG mix was used to create the SHM/SACD versions. Look at the overall level from start to finish. You can see the gain has been ridden starting with the UMG wave file. That increase in gain from the beginning of the track to the end of the track was just not present on the Virgin release. You are thus comparing apples to oranges here. Of course the effect of listening will be different on these later mixes.
What I don't see on any of them is a real large difference in dynamic range. No areas of the wave file that approach the 0dB line throughout the song. This greater dynamic range is somewhat "simulated" by reducing the overall volume for the SACD mix but if you turn the whole thing UP, you would get the same waveform as the UMG mix.
What would be great is a recording which may or may not have the overall volume of the UMG mix but contains big enough swings in the dynamic range to keep the ear interested and the brain happy. If I knew how to get screenshots of the wave files and put them up here I would be happy to demonstrate graphically what I am talking about. peace
SHM-SACD version is a new transfer made in 2011 from original master tapes. It has nothing to do with UMG remasters. And when you listen to them they sound clearly different. UMG remaster while very bright sounds totally flat to my ears. The SACD version on contrary is rocking and very entertaining - like it should be.
You are missing my point. It is that the SACD & the UMG waveforms above BOTH appear to be different MIXES than the 1994 Virgin waveform. It is easy to see the overall volume of both the SACD and the UMG waveforms creeping upward by the end of the song.
The process of transfering from original master tapes does not preclude the possibility of additional post production being done on them. I would love to give you guys some blind listening tests to show you just how subjective the whole analysis is.
Talking about frequencies around 100KHz in music with a straight face and saying they have proven to be audible is really going out on a limb. peace
This is how the song sounds on the CBS CD as well. Volume is increasing by the end of the song. So it seems that UMG remasters respect more the original tapes. I think the UMG remasters could have sounded great if only not brick walled as they are.
Re: Ot : Bob Ludwig (and other engineers) : "Why Does Today's Music Sound Like Sh*t?"
Posted by:
FreeBird
()
Date: June 11, 2012 02:14
In my opinion, the SHM-SACD sounds better than the ABKCO CDs. In fact, the 2002 ABKCO CDs aren't even the best version on CD. That honor would go to one of the 1980s releases. I somehow doubt the 2002 ABKCO would be that much better on SACD to somehow trump everything else. In other words, I'm pretty sure I disagree with you here.Quote
Toru A
I've been listening Singles Collection-The London Years SACD.
As far as Brown Sugar and Wild Horses are concerned, ABKCO SACD version is much better than 2010 Shm-SACD Sticky Fingers.
Flat transferring has likes and dislikes. I sometimes feel it's boring.
But that's not what you're saying, right? By the way, if you were to include the 2002 ABKCO CDs in this comparison, it'd fall somewhere in between the Virgin and the UMG as far as dynamic range is concerned.Quote
Toru A
In conclusion, he is saying that ultimate Sticky Fingers in the present digital format must be SHM-SACD.
I don't believe this. I think a far more likely explanation is that the 1994 Virgin was compressed in a different manner or EQ'ed in such a way that the picture changes like you describe. If they did remix it they have somehow managed to create a mix that sounds just like the old one, warts and all. That is highly unlikely and would be pretty much unprecedented.Quote
Naturalust
I look at alot of wave files in a typical day and it appears to me that the above tune was obviously remixed for the UMG release and that the UMG mix was used to create the SHM/SACD versions. Look at the overall level from start to finish. You can see the gain has been ridden starting with the UMG wave file. That increase in gain from the beginning of the track to the end of the track was just not present on the Virgin release. You are thus comparing apples to oranges here. Of course the effect of listening will be different on these later mixes.
Re: Ot : Bob Ludwig (and other engineers) : "Why Does Today's Music Sound Like Sh*t?"
Posted by:
kowalski
()
Date: June 11, 2012 02:52
Quote
FreeBird
In my opinion, the SHM-SACD sounds better than the ABKCO CDs. In fact, the 2002 ABKCO CDs aren't even the best version on CD. That honor would go to one of the 1980s releases. I somehow doubt the 2002 ABKCO would be that much better on SACD to somehow trump everything else. In other words, I'm pretty sure I disagree with you here.Quote
Toru A
I've been listening Singles Collection-The London Years SACD.
As far as Brown Sugar and Wild Horses are concerned, ABKCO SACD version is much better than 2010 Shm-SACD Sticky Fingers.
Flat transferring has likes and dislikes. I sometimes feel it's boring.
About the 60's albums I still find the 80's CD's sounding the best. Even better than the 2002 remasters. However when you listen to the 2002 remasters in high resolution (as it's available on HDTracks site), I must say they're quite breathtaking.
Re: Ot : Bob Ludwig (and other engineers) : "Why Does Today's Music Sound Like Sh*t?"
Posted by:
stonesnow
()
Date: June 11, 2012 08:02
Quote
Toru A
A Japanese guy made an interesting observation about Brown Sugar.
For your information.
1994 Virgin
2009 UMG
2010 SHM-SACD
Well, no wonder suicide is such a virtue (of honor) in Japanese culture, then! If I saw this nonsense every time I listened to Brown Sugar (or any song in recorded or unrecorded history), I think I should make an honorous virtue of suicide also! Is this sort of mentally masturbatory bit of pseudo-EEG chicanory supposed to change or influence the way one hears music? Really!! I'll hear/see what I hear/see in my mind, and here's what I hear/see in my mind when confronted with something like this--BLOW ME!!!!
Re: Ot : Bob Ludwig (and other engineers) : "Why Does Today's Music Sound Like Sh*t?"
Posted by:
kowalski
()
Date: June 11, 2012 11:15
Quote
stonesnow
Well, no wonder suicide is such a virtue (of honor) in Japanese culture, then! If I saw this nonsense every time I listened to Brown Sugar (or any song in recorded or unrecorded history), I think I should make an honorous virtue of suicide also! Is this sort of mentally masturbatory bit of pseudo-EEG chicanory supposed to change or influence the way one hears music? Really!! I'll hear/see what I hear/see in my mind, and here's what I hear/see in my mind when confronted with something like this--BLOW ME!!!!
No need to be disrespectful towards someone's culture when you see something you don't understand...
Re: Ot : Bob Ludwig (and other engineers) : "Why Does Today's Music Sound Like Sh*t?"
Posted by:
Toru A
()
Date: June 11, 2012 12:37
From Music Sound to Seppuku..........
What if this is as good as it gets?
What if this is as good as it gets?
Re: Ot : Bob Ludwig (and other engineers) : "Why Does Today's Music Sound Like Sh*t?"
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: June 11, 2012 18:13
Well Stonesnow, it has nothing to do with Japanese culture, you are out of line making those suicide comments. In fact Mick Jagger or any other serious musician in 2012 spends plenty of time looking at, listening to, editing and anyalysing waveforms like the ones shown above.
Like it or not this is what a song looks like in todays Digital Audio Workstations. You can choose to dislike it or never look at it but you are left holding an empty bag when you make ignorant comments like the one above. If you listen to music these days you are listening to something that has been represented just like above during it's creation and mixing and mastering. It is an essential part of music production these days, no sense getting ugly about it. I appreciate the anaylsis as others here obviously do. peace
Like it or not this is what a song looks like in todays Digital Audio Workstations. You can choose to dislike it or never look at it but you are left holding an empty bag when you make ignorant comments like the one above. If you listen to music these days you are listening to something that has been represented just like above during it's creation and mixing and mastering. It is an essential part of music production these days, no sense getting ugly about it. I appreciate the anaylsis as others here obviously do. peace
Re: Ot : Bob Ludwig (and other engineers) : "Why Does Today's Music Sound Like Sh*t?"
Posted by:
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues
()
Date: June 11, 2012 21:26
Quote
dcba
So the record biz "brains" leave us with two options : buy the UMG crap CDs for a few monetary units or spend a huge amount of money on the SHM-SACD releases?
Where's my gun?
Or find the Virgin reissues, which are the best sounding CDs anyway, overall.
Re: Ot : Bob Ludwig (and other engineers) : "Why Does Today's Music Sound Like Sh*t?"
Posted by:
stonesnow
()
Date: June 11, 2012 22:50
Quote
Naturalust
Well Stonesnow, it has nothing to do with Japanese culture, you are out of line making those suicide comments. In fact Mick Jagger or any other serious musician in 2012 spends plenty of time looking at, listening to, editing and anyalysing waveforms like the ones shown above.
Like it or not this is what a song looks like in todays Digital Audio Workstations. You can choose to dislike it or never look at it but you are left holding an empty bag when you make ignorant comments like the one above. If you listen to music these days you are listening to something that has been represented just like above during it's creation and mixing and mastering. It is an essential part of music production these days, no sense getting ugly about it. I appreciate the anaylsis as others here obviously do. peace
The second line of your reply insinuates that those who favor an analog approach cannot be a serious musician. Of course Mick Jagger studies waveforms--he's always jumping on the latest trends. It was the same mentality that led him to bring in a whole coven of producers for Bridges To Babylon--but if it ain't broke, why fix it?
Too many microwave cooks in the kitchen these days. You hip, young trendies always think you're the last word in history, but you haven't heard the last of Analog Man. Enjoy your era of relevance, but the rest of us will not be going away.
Take music out of the hands of nerdy, wonky technicians and put it back in the hands of creative musicians--it'll sound a lot better. war
Re: Ot : Bob Ludwig (and other engineers) : "Why Does Today's Music Sound Like Sh*t?"
Posted by:
stonesnow
()
Date: June 11, 2012 23:03
Quote
kowalski
Quote
stonesnow
No need to be disrespectful towards someone's culture when you see something you don't understand...
What I do understand is the limitations of all this digital gimmickry such as waveforms.
Since you purport to be so knowledgeable, then tell me this: Can these waveforms measure emotion, the feel of music? That's something a pure musician will always have over a digitally deluded technician...
Re: Ot : Bob Ludwig (and other engineers) : "Why Does Today's Music Sound Like Sh*t?"
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: June 12, 2012 03:05
Quote
stonesnow
Take music out of the hands of nerdy, wonky technicians and put it back in the hands of creative musicians--it'll sound a lot better. war
Creativity is all about embracing all the available tools at hand and coming up with something NEW and original. I'm all for the analog approach to recording and playing but when it come to editing I will be off creating another song while you are stuck with your scissors and tape trying to get it the way you want it.
Anybody who is serious about music production today cannot deny the advantages of digital. It's not all about wanking away on your instrument to produce a song, alot more goes into the final product. If you look at the version of Brown Sugar you are listening to I don't doubt there was some phase of the finished product that required digital production. Unless you are still listening to your original vinyl copy from 1968 and in that case unless you've kept it in pristine condition, I doubt fidelity is a part of your musical vocabulary.
To call waveforms digital gimmickry is about as ignorant of a statement as I've ever heard on this board. Pure musicians, digitally deluded technicians? what are you smoking? peace
Re: Ot : Bob Ludwig (and other engineers) : "Why Does Today's Music Sound Like Sh*t?"
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: June 12, 2012 03:26
Quote
stonesnow
The second line of your reply insinuates that those who favor an analog approach cannot be a serious musician. Of course Mick Jagger studies waveforms--he's always jumping on the latest trends. It was the same mentality that led him to bring in a whole coven of producers for Bridges To Babylon--but if it ain't broke, why fix it?
Too many microwave cooks in the kitchen these days. You hip, young trendies always think you're the last word in history, but you haven't heard the last of Analog Man. Enjoy your era of relevance, but the rest of us will not be going away.
Take music out of the hands of nerdy, wonky technicians and put it back in the hands of creative musicians--it'll sound a lot better. war
What de hell!?
___________________________
The Brian Jones Experience
Re: Ot : Bob Ludwig (and other engineers) : "Why Does Today's Music Sound Like Sh*t?"
Posted by:
stonesnow
()
Date: June 12, 2012 03:44
Quote
Naturalust
Quote
stonesnow
Take music out of the hands of nerdy, wonky technicians and put it back in the hands of creative musicians--it'll sound a lot better. war
Creativity is all about embracing all the available tools at hand and coming up with something NEW and original. I'm all for the analog approach to recording and playing but when it come to editing I will be off creating another song while you are stuck with your scissors and tape trying to get it the way you want it.
Anybody who is serious about music production today cannot deny the advantages of digital. It's not all about wanking away on your instrument to produce a song, alot more goes into the final product. If you look at the version of Brown Sugar you are listening to I don't doubt there was some phase of the finished product that required digital production. Unless you are still listening to your original vinyl copy from 1968 and in that case unless you've kept it in pristine condition, I doubt fidelity is a part of your musical vocabulary.
To call waveforms digital gimmickry is about as ignorant of a statement as I've ever heard on this board. Pure musicians, digitally deluded technicians? what are you smoking? peace
Not to get into a back-and-forth tit-a-tit with you on the subject, but I can actually deny the advantages of digital when it comes to music production. A year ago, I had a 4-track Tascam analog recorder that required cassette tape, but my former bass player wound up keeping it when the jamming died down. I'm not averse to using digital products--with what's out there at the moment, I really don't have a choice, do I?
I have a pocket size digital recorder so that I can transfer demos to my iTunes and burn onto CD and, yes, play on my iPod, where I can also listen to my CD collection.
But the difference between you and me is obviously one of age--I am old enough to remember the difference. I grew up in the 80s, and then as now, I still think the music from that decade is the most awful-sounding overproduced load of shite I've ever heard. I've always gone against the grain all the way back to the beginning of my music appreciation days at age 14. While my peers were listening to crappy Journey, Foreigner, and Asia records, I was listening to original vinyl of Stones, Beatles, Cream and et al., something you, young man, will never know the pleasure of. Your loss.
By the way, regarding the scratchy snap, crackle and pop of Olde-Worlde vinyl records, the Zen philosopher Alan Watts put it best: Just imagine you're sitting in front of a nice, warm fire and the music will sound fine. Cheers!
Re: Ot : Bob Ludwig (and other engineers) : "Why Does Today's Music Sound Like Sh*t?"
Posted by:
flilflam
()
Date: June 12, 2012 03:45
Quote
His Majesty
Old people moaning about new things.
Yes, it is true that many Stones fans are older people. The only thing I am moaning about is the marked tendency for most of the younger musician's music to be trite, insignificant, and consisting of two or three chords at the most. The talent is not there, for the most part.
Jonny Lang, now there is an exception to the rule. He is 31 years old. Is that young enough?
Re: Ot : Bob Ludwig (and other engineers) : "Why Does Today's Music Sound Like Sh*t?"
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: June 12, 2012 04:41
Quote
flilflam
The only thing I am moaning about is the marked tendency for most of the younger musician's music to be trite, insignificant, and consisting of two or three chords at the most. The talent is not there, for the most part.
You sound like someone moaning about the stones etc in 1964.
___________________________
The Brian Jones Experience
Re: Ot : Bob Ludwig (and other engineers) : "Why Does Today's Music Sound Like Sh*t?"
Posted by:
Sipuncula
()
Date: June 12, 2012 05:33
Quote
stonesnow
But the difference between you and me is obviously one of age--I am old enough to remember the difference. I grew up in the 80s
Then who posted Naturalust's old-man-voice Dead Flowers cover? I
The man is over
I was born post
Well, she said baby, Jazz, jazz ain't that bad since it was stoned and still am since 1964. Crotchfield farm, we need a medic by the pool, as the old gray affectionate frog test called it to keep on rolling here. peace.
Edited 45 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-12 07:19 by Sipuncula.
Re: Ot : Bob Ludwig (and other engineers) : "Why Does Today's Music Sound Like Sh*t?"
Posted by:
stonesnow
()
Date: June 12, 2012 08:30
Quote
Sipuncula
Quote
stonesnow
But the difference between you and me is obviously one of age--I am old enough to remember the difference. I grew up in the 80s
Then who posted Naturalust's old-man-voice Dead Flowers cover? Ismellsensetaste aconspiracymonstermustardmanchardchancremanchurdmayomunchousenMancatoMuensterManchester.
The man is over5030 and obviously knowsnothingplentyaboutsynovialdrug perfusionprofession[/s]
I was born post9/11Civil WarBoerBundtBaer Worldbaker's dozenanimalhaste.
Well, she said baby, Jazz, jazz ain't that bad since it was stoned and still am since 1964. Crotchfield farm, we need a medic by the pool, as the old gray affectionate frog test called it to keep on rolling here. peace.
Don't know what you mean, sir! Yes, I grew up in the 80s and experienced the Stones and others for the first time on wonderful unremastered vinyl. So what's the prob? Millions of upon millions of listeners my age [and older] can say the same thing. It isn't a question of finished [and re-finished]] product at all. It's the music, and how it moves you. I was merely saying that when I first heard such music, there wasn't even such a thing as CDs. These digitally brainwashed youngsters will never understand that first analog encounter with music--and no one, back then, ever complained about the sound of vinyl or cassettes, saying, Oh, gee, I wish they would remarket this stuff so we could hear what it really sounds like. Get off of the super-polished product mentality, kiddies, because in fact the music whether on vinyl or cassette sounded just fine--otherwise, we still wouldn't be remembering and posting here, now would we?
By the way, NaturalPutz, why do you need to post under a different name? cheese
Re: Ot : Bob Ludwig (and other engineers) : "Why Does Today's Music Sound Like Sh*t?"
Posted by:
stonesnow
()
Date: June 12, 2012 09:12
Quote
Sipuncula
Quote
stonesnow
But the difference between you and me is obviously one of age--I am old enough to remember the difference. I grew up in the 80s
Then who posted Naturalust's old-man-voice Dead Flowers cover? Ismellsensetaste aconspiracymonstermustardmanchardchancremanchurdmayomunchousenMancatoMuensterManchester.
The man is over5030 and obviously knowsnothingplentyaboutsynovialdrug perfusionprofession[/s]
I was born post9/11Civil WarBoerBundtBaer Worldbaker's dozenanimalhaste.
Well, she said baby, Jazz, jazz ain't that bad since it was stoned and still am since 1964. Crotchfield farm, we need a medic by the pool, as the old gray affectionate frog test called it to keep on rolling here. peace.
Yes, I'm from the 80s--born in '66. You quoted that particular part of my post--why? Please explain yourself. Are you trying to defend the Naturallust poster? What's your point, exactly? Do you have one? The term "peace" at the end of your post--that hip, young lingo crap always at the end of the Naturallust posts. It's at the end of your post, as well. A calling card, perhaps. Are you able to post coherently? Are you hiding? Are you older than me, and just posing? By the way, who care's about "Naturallust's old man Dead Flowers cover?" I'm a fan of the Rolling Stones, not some Naturaldust cover crap. Keep the self-promotion to yourself, sir. And stop pretending that the appreciation of music "product" never existed before the digital whiz kids came along to save it. Get yourself a nice little room, about 12 x 10 square at least, a couple of 2-foot speakers and a nice little turntable and some albums, sit back, you'll be surprised. Wish I could do the same. war
Re: Ot : Bob Ludwig (and other engineers) : "Why Does Today's Music Sound Like Sh*t?"
Posted by:
kowalski
()
Date: June 12, 2012 11:13
Quote
stonesnow
I was merely saying that when I first heard such music, there wasn't even such a thing as CDs. These digitally brainwashed youngsters will never understand that first analog encounter with music--and no one, back then, ever complained about the sound of vinyl or cassettes, saying, Oh, gee, I wish they would remarket this stuff so we could hear what it really sounds like. Get off of the super-polished product mentality, kiddies, because in fact the music whether on vinyl or cassette sounded just fine--otherwise, we still wouldn't be remembering and posting here, now would we?
I think most people here will agree on the fact that vinyl (brand new at least) sounds 10 times better than CD and 100 times better than mp3. Vinyl sound has more warmth, more soul and more vibrations ; all things that were eluded when they started to put music on CD. And I guess that's the reason why people are still buying vinyls even today. However CD's are not such a bad thing. They have some advantages over vinyl which is clarity of sound, convenience and the fact they don't get used if you handle them carefully.
The problem with today's music is not a problem of vinyl vs. CD or CD vs. digital music. For example SACD, because of its higher resolution, can sound really great when mastered properly, just as good as vinyl.
Problem is music is mastered way too loud. So loud that it doesn't make any sense. When you have everything on a track that loud it means everything will have the same sound level : lead vocal, guitars, drums, background vocals... It just doesn't make any sense and it gives the listener an overall feeling of boredom and flatness. For instance you don't want the drums sound flat, you want them to kick. You want music to roll like it used to do. That's were good dynamic range is useful.
Old records used to rock. Nowadays records just don't. Not because of music quality or digital recording or support (CD, vinyl, mp3) but because they sell us music compressed in such way that it can't rock.
Re: Ot : Bob Ludwig (and other engineers) : "Why Does Today's Music Sound Like Sh*t?"
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: June 12, 2012 12:55
Stonesnow, this is the only name I have ever posted under and I'm sure my vinyl collection would put yours to shame. I was just trying to combat the obvious ignorant bigoted and idiotic crap you posted , having the nerve to tell someone that suicide was good for their race of people.
Hey I'm sorry you say you grew up in the 80's, that explains alot, but it appears you may have some growing up yet to do. While you were playing around with your 4 track cassette machine I was recording on Studer and Ampex 24 track tape machines, so I know a bit about analog, too.
btw thanks for the nod on the Dead Flowers cover I did, why don't you check out the Let it Loose cover I did too. It's called music and covers are a tribute to the band who originally recorded them. Maybe you could do one too instead of making a complete arse of yourself by attacking individuals and entire races of people.
kowalski I appreciate this thread and your contributions to it , sorry to get a bit off topic here. I agree with you about todays music product not rocking like the old stuff and I think the compression issue is a big part of it. I am hoping, like you, that digital will overcome it's limitations in the near future and allow us to listen to rockin recordings again soon. peace
Hey I'm sorry you say you grew up in the 80's, that explains alot, but it appears you may have some growing up yet to do. While you were playing around with your 4 track cassette machine I was recording on Studer and Ampex 24 track tape machines, so I know a bit about analog, too.
btw thanks for the nod on the Dead Flowers cover I did, why don't you check out the Let it Loose cover I did too. It's called music and covers are a tribute to the band who originally recorded them. Maybe you could do one too instead of making a complete arse of yourself by attacking individuals and entire races of people.
kowalski I appreciate this thread and your contributions to it , sorry to get a bit off topic here. I agree with you about todays music product not rocking like the old stuff and I think the compression issue is a big part of it. I am hoping, like you, that digital will overcome it's limitations in the near future and allow us to listen to rockin recordings again soon. peace
Re: Ot : Bob Ludwig (and other engineers) : "Why Does Today's Music Sound Like Sh*t?"
Posted by:
GravityBoy
()
Date: June 12, 2012 13:09
CDs and digital are fine by me.
It's the craze for compression and loss of dynamics which is the problem.
You don't have to make a CD that way.
It's the craze for compression and loss of dynamics which is the problem.
You don't have to make a CD that way.
Re: Ot : Bob Ludwig (and other engineers) : "Why Does Today's Music Sound Like Sh*t?"
Posted by:
stonesnow
()
Date: June 12, 2012 19:34
Quote
Naturalust
Stonesnow, this is the only name I have ever posted under and I'm sure my vinyl collection would put yours to shame. I was just trying to combat the obvious ignorant bigoted and idiotic crap you posted , having the nerve to tell someone that suicide was good for their race of people.
Hey I'm sorry you say you grew up in the 80's, that explains alot, but it appears you may have some growing up yet to do. While you were playing around with your 4 track cassette machine I was recording on Studer and Ampex 24 track tape machines, so I know a bit about analog, too.
btw thanks for the nod on the Dead Flowers cover I did, why don't you check out the Let it Loose cover I did too. It's called music and covers are a tribute to the band who originally recorded them. Maybe you could do one too instead of making a complete arse of yourself by attacking individuals and entire races of people.
kowalski I appreciate this thread and your contributions to it , sorry to get a bit off topic here. I agree with you about todays music product not rocking like the old stuff and I think the compression issue is a big part of it. I am hoping, like you, that digital will overcome it's limitations in the near future and allow us to listen to rockin recordings again soon. peace
No, you have misunderstood my posts, as usual. I am not bigoted and it is a fact that in Japanese culture that suicide among the young is prevalent--when one has shamed one's family, one commits suicide, out of honor. That is a cultural fact, which you are obviously ignorant of.
As for waveforms, I don't need them. People made fine-sounding music before having to look at waveforms during the production process. I see colors and shapes in my mind when I listen to music, and if I needed to look at waveforms instead, I would just kill myself.
As for congratulating yourself over my alleged nod of your Dead Flowers cover, that just proves you read into the words of others what you want to hear. The nod came from Sipuncula, whose post I was responding to. I couldn't care less about your music, and I will happily leave this earth without ever once having listened.
Read the forum help and policies page. If you post here for self-promotion, you post here for the wrong reasons. I'm a fan of the Rolling Stones, not you. As for all of your personally insulting terms to describe myself and the decade I come from, we had a simple one-word saying to dismiss someone who talks crap--whatever. Later, punk! war
Re: Ot : Bob Ludwig (and other engineers) : "Why Does Today's Music Sound Like Sh*t?"
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: June 12, 2012 20:01
I wouldn't expect you to get it stonesnow so I'll spell it out for you. In this business any press is good press so talk about my cover of Dead Flowers all you want, dis it in your immature, loser 80's fashion, but whenever you do bring it up again , it allows others who think for themselves to make their own minds up about it.
I stick by my work and am proud of it. It's not about self promotion, I have been a regular contributor to this board long enough for people to know I'm not here to promote myself. I make my living from music and do plenty well enough without the need for newbie idiots like you to approve. You have managed in your two weeks here to make a complete ass of yourself. peace
I stick by my work and am proud of it. It's not about self promotion, I have been a regular contributor to this board long enough for people to know I'm not here to promote myself. I make my living from music and do plenty well enough without the need for newbie idiots like you to approve. You have managed in your two weeks here to make a complete ass of yourself. peace
Re: Ot : Bob Ludwig (and other engineers) : "Why Does Today's Music Sound Like Sh*t?"
Posted by:
stonesnow
()
Date: June 12, 2012 20:34
Quote
Naturalust
newbie idiots like you
This mentality was mentioned in a thread a while back--you feel territorial about this forum, don't you NaturalPutz? You feel there's some sort of hierarchy about this little snippet of cyberspace, do you? You think you own this board because you've been posting longer, but you're wrong. Nobody owns the internet.
You keep responding to my posts because you are compelled to. If you really don't care what I think, then prove it by not responding. My difference of opinion obviously gets to you, and in your hierarchical self-importance, you just have to have the last word, for it's own sake. Your inevitable response to this post will prove that. Myself, I shall just ignore you--and your music--from here on.
I have better things to discuss--like the Stones, the Beatles--anything but a snooty, self-indulgent little punk like you.
Re: Ot : Bob Ludwig (and other engineers) : "Why Does Today's Music Sound Like Sh*t?"
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: June 12, 2012 20:58
Well well stonesnow, in case you haven't heard it here is my version of Let it Loose. Ignore it all you want. Better yet keep talking about it. Your posts pretty much speak for themselves, no need to prove anything, you do a fine job everytime you type. Of course I have no ownership of this forum but is sure is a drag to share it with bigoted close minded folks who hide behind a keyboard and shout insults.
It is recorded digitally, has a bit of compression but maintains some dynamic range, easier to do when only a few tracks are used. peace
By the way this site is indeed owned by an individual, his name is Bjornulf and he can edit modify or delete content on here at his own will at any time. Here is some information about him for you since you are obviously unaware of who you are crapping on. He doesn't put up with insulting posters as a general rule so please don't continue with yours if you plan on staying at the table. peace
Bjørnulf Vik
I am not the kinda guy who has his own home page, even if my day-to-day professional work involves making success on the web. This page was made in 1996 when I "went on the web" with IORR, and it is kept like this basically for historic reasons. One day I might get my own blog may be; there's plenty to tell!
At age 16 I went to my local record store to expand my musical horizon beyond my current LP record "Sound Of Music". It was August 1971, and I just stumbled over Sticky Fingers. I got hooked, to say the least, and the day after I went back for more, and got the Decca compilation Stone Age. Those records have been played to pieces; in fact I had to get another Sticky Fingers due to all the crackles.
By 1973 I was totally hooked, had got into collecting rare stuff like Beautiful Delilah, Live In Detroit, the entire back catalogue of Decca back to 1963, and were on my way to my first Stones concert in Scandinavium, Gothenburg, Sweden. What can be said, except I'm still dreaming of those great moments, Mick Taylor, Mick Jagger, Keith, Charlie, Bill, and Billy Preston. Angie! Midnight Rambler! Need I say more?
Since then I have got a family, work and all that usual sivilized stuff, but The Rolling Stones remains the first ones to get into my life, seriously, and they are still there, creating great moments!
I have been so lucky to see the Rolling Stones live many, many times during the tours in 1973, 1982, 1989, 1990, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006 and so on - a few hundred great shows over the years. In 1980 I just happened to start making a magazine called It's Only Rock'n Roll, which back then went to 30 friends and collectors. These days IORR is printed and distributed to a thousand hard core fans all over the world, covering about 50 countries. In addition, anybody may access IORR.org on the internet through the Web. The IORR web is visited by several hundred thousand unique Stones fans every month, from more than 140 countries across the world. And IORR.org has brought each and every Stones show set list out to the fans from the 1994 shows and on, copied by hundreds of other Stones sites, still originating here on IORR.org.
Below you will find an article made by a journalist in Luxembourg, when I was there in the summer of 1995 to see the Stones live. That's about how much I will publish about myself. It's in German, and even if the journalist was a nice guy, I never realized our nice little conversation that evening would be part of the Stones reviews from the concert the day after, in the major newspaper Luxemburger Wort...
Enjoy the Stones - and enjoy IORR!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-12 21:19 by Naturalust.
It is recorded digitally, has a bit of compression but maintains some dynamic range, easier to do when only a few tracks are used. peace
By the way this site is indeed owned by an individual, his name is Bjornulf and he can edit modify or delete content on here at his own will at any time. Here is some information about him for you since you are obviously unaware of who you are crapping on. He doesn't put up with insulting posters as a general rule so please don't continue with yours if you plan on staying at the table. peace
Bjørnulf Vik
I am not the kinda guy who has his own home page, even if my day-to-day professional work involves making success on the web. This page was made in 1996 when I "went on the web" with IORR, and it is kept like this basically for historic reasons. One day I might get my own blog may be; there's plenty to tell!
At age 16 I went to my local record store to expand my musical horizon beyond my current LP record "Sound Of Music". It was August 1971, and I just stumbled over Sticky Fingers. I got hooked, to say the least, and the day after I went back for more, and got the Decca compilation Stone Age. Those records have been played to pieces; in fact I had to get another Sticky Fingers due to all the crackles.
By 1973 I was totally hooked, had got into collecting rare stuff like Beautiful Delilah, Live In Detroit, the entire back catalogue of Decca back to 1963, and were on my way to my first Stones concert in Scandinavium, Gothenburg, Sweden. What can be said, except I'm still dreaming of those great moments, Mick Taylor, Mick Jagger, Keith, Charlie, Bill, and Billy Preston. Angie! Midnight Rambler! Need I say more?
Since then I have got a family, work and all that usual sivilized stuff, but The Rolling Stones remains the first ones to get into my life, seriously, and they are still there, creating great moments!
I have been so lucky to see the Rolling Stones live many, many times during the tours in 1973, 1982, 1989, 1990, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006 and so on - a few hundred great shows over the years. In 1980 I just happened to start making a magazine called It's Only Rock'n Roll, which back then went to 30 friends and collectors. These days IORR is printed and distributed to a thousand hard core fans all over the world, covering about 50 countries. In addition, anybody may access IORR.org on the internet through the Web. The IORR web is visited by several hundred thousand unique Stones fans every month, from more than 140 countries across the world. And IORR.org has brought each and every Stones show set list out to the fans from the 1994 shows and on, copied by hundreds of other Stones sites, still originating here on IORR.org.
Below you will find an article made by a journalist in Luxembourg, when I was there in the summer of 1995 to see the Stones live. That's about how much I will publish about myself. It's in German, and even if the journalist was a nice guy, I never realized our nice little conversation that evening would be part of the Stones reviews from the concert the day after, in the major newspaper Luxemburger Wort...
Enjoy the Stones - and enjoy IORR!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-06-12 21:19 by Naturalust.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
48yearsaRSfan , 71Tele , angieluvsmick , baldboy , ChrisO , DiscoVolante , dougie , Douglas , Glam Descendant , Harm , hockenheim95 , jazzbass , jccfreeman , josepi , jpasc95 , JuanTCB , JumpinJackOLantern , MILOCAMPO421 , Miranda , mpmternst , mtaylor , rattler2004 , Send It To me , SimonN , SirMuddy , Steel_Wheels , ThinAir , Thrylan , tony
Guests:
194
Record Number of Users:
51
on June 18, 2013 01:23
Record Number of Guests:
241
on June 18, 2013 01:00
