What percentage of recordings are enjoyable
- Thread starter DavidS
- Start date
Jonn
Tons of Trouble
95% enjoyable from all sources. The only ones I don't enjoy are the odd recording bought blind or on recommendation that turned out not to be of my liking and occasionally very poor mastering that makes the recording virtually unlistenable.
But isn't this the case for most people? Presumably most of the recordings in anybodies collection were bought because they "enjoy" the artist or album.
But isn't this the case for most people? Presumably most of the recordings in anybodies collection were bought because they "enjoy" the artist or album.
You'd need a modest collection to be able to make an honest and accurate reply.....
I have a modest 1500 or so LPs and CDs - played continuously that is 45-50 days of play time.
Most weeks I might get an opportunity to listen seriously for 5-6-7 hours or so.
In any one month, say, I might play just 5-10 LPs, one of those may be a blast from the past, others are recent and repeat performances. The next month a new record or two will appear and one or two drop off or way down the play list.
How many records are unlikely to get played at all? Perhaps 50? A wild guess though.
As for buying duds - that was common enough before YouTube........................
I have a modest 1500 or so LPs and CDs - played continuously that is 45-50 days of play time.
Most weeks I might get an opportunity to listen seriously for 5-6-7 hours or so.
In any one month, say, I might play just 5-10 LPs, one of those may be a blast from the past, others are recent and repeat performances. The next month a new record or two will appear and one or two drop off or way down the play list.
How many records are unlikely to get played at all? Perhaps 50? A wild guess though.
As for buying duds - that was common enough before YouTube........................
Tony L
Administrator
These days I only keep decent recordings with very few exceptions, so the overwhelming majority of my collection. I don't have enough knowledge or expertise with classcal to need the old historic stuff as it will have been done again perfectly well and with superb sound since. I learnt this lesson with Furtwangler etc; if there is something amazing about the performance it is largely lost on me and I can't see the point of listening to something that sounds like it was recorded using an old bakelite telephone. Give me a classic SXL, Living Stereo or modern recording every time. I do have a few old jazz 78s, but my main interest is after that era and actually coincides with the 'golden age' of recording in the late 50s onwards. I have limited interest in modern pop musc so if something is brick-walled and nasty I either won't buy it or flip it out again pretty fast. If people like Sufjan Stevens, Lambchop etc can produce stunning recordings I've no idea why so many others can't, but it is why you'll find no Amy Winehouse or whatever in my collection - if I can't sit through the hard compression I'm certainly not keeping it! On a very few occasions the brick-walled stuff is interesting and used for artistic effect, e.g. Flaming Lips, or stuff is recorded like crap as part of the effect (The Fall, obvs), but I can't think of much in my collection that isn't at least perfectly acceptable.
Cav
pfm Member
I listen to the music not the recording, so every CD or album brings joy. I have discarded quite a few that I bought but no longer appeal musically. Some of my favourite CDs have been copied to CD from LPs that were totally shagged having been played to death on cheap decks. If re-mastered CDs are available I buy those.
I like most of it other than the crap bootlegs that just sound awful. Then again I do listen to some early blues that was clearly recorded in a biscuit tin at the side of the road, but that was the technology then, so it's what you get. The only odd one I ever had was a U2 album from the 90s that sounded OK on cabinet speakers but awful on my then ESL63s, I never worked out why. Yes, I know, U2, but I was young.
davem
pfm Member
It's about the music for me, so like pretty much all of my stuff (vinyl and CDs) apart from one or two bootleg vinyl albums that sound like they were recorded in an up turned skip! One or two remastered CDs don't quite cut it either but I can live with them as the music always wins me over. I've also got a few old vinyl albums which I played to death as a teenager on a very basic Bush record player that had a cartridge that burrowed its way into the grooves! Should really buy replacements!
Tony L
Administrator
This is the sort of thing I mean. I'm an unrepentant music collector, and that means I'll always hunt good mastering. I never stop with a naff copy of something if there is better out there. I've gone through many swap-outs with many of my favourite albums to get the copy I want and still have a fair few I'm hunting down.
Rockmeister
pfm Member
I'd love to be so laid back that appalling engineering went right over my head, but I'm not, so maybe 50% of my collection is rarely played because it makes me weep 
I enjoy the music of 100% of what I own (love people who describe 4 figure collections as 'modest')..there never was a reason to buy stuff you hate. Remember listening booths in record shops? Then there was the Radio, and now we have you tube etc.
I enjoy the music of 100% of what I own (love people who describe 4 figure collections as 'modest')..there never was a reason to buy stuff you hate. Remember listening booths in record shops? Then there was the Radio, and now we have you tube etc.
George J
Herefordshire member
This is easy for me. Every recording I have is enjoyable, because I part with any that are not.
I refine a collection with occasional additions, and I work fairly much on the basis of one recording in and one out to compensate. I only buy recordings of favourite music by favourite performers. Sometimes I discover something new to me that eclipses what I already have and so out goes he!
I have a collection of about 700 CDs. That amounts to enough to guarantee that some become neglected, and so out goes he as well. If not played in the last two years I consider the recording for deletion ... One exception would be the Bach Cantatas, which are so numerous that few people would ever get to know all of them off by heart in a lifetime! So these survive as they remain a source of pleasure and discovery of new music for me!
Best wishes from George
PS: For music less precious but still enjoyable, I find the Radio and Youtube provide sufficient access.
I refine a collection with occasional additions, and I work fairly much on the basis of one recording in and one out to compensate. I only buy recordings of favourite music by favourite performers. Sometimes I discover something new to me that eclipses what I already have and so out goes he!
I have a collection of about 700 CDs. That amounts to enough to guarantee that some become neglected, and so out goes he as well. If not played in the last two years I consider the recording for deletion ... One exception would be the Bach Cantatas, which are so numerous that few people would ever get to know all of them off by heart in a lifetime! So these survive as they remain a source of pleasure and discovery of new music for me!
Best wishes from George
PS: For music less precious but still enjoyable, I find the Radio and Youtube provide sufficient access.
adamdea
You are not a sound quality evaluation device
The thread seems to have shifted to -how bad does a recording have to be to make it unpleasant to listen to, irrespective of merit?
A few data points
- for classical orchestral/opera music there's no excuse for any studio album after about 1955 to sound bad.
- I would love to be able to say that my favourite version of the ring was the 1950 Furtwangler la scala cycle but it would be a lie. I find it more or less unlistenable for pleasure but still interesting to hear the line and tempo that furtwangler used. His studio walkure is another story.
- pretty much the same goes for the Bruno Walter 1938 Mahler 9.
-I have a live Karajan Trovatore from Salzburg (somewhat later) which just about make it over the SQ line to the point that I listen to it for pleasure. Ditto the Krauss 1953 ring. The much hyped testament 1955 stereo one sounds scarcely better if at all and doesn't float my boat so much artistically, so I don't bother. I haven't found a modern set good enough to make me forsake Solti, Bohm and Krauss, although if Papanno and Terfel can kidnap Jonas Kaufman and force him to do Siegfried along with a proper Brunnhilde, I might.
-I recently bought a box set of covent garden live performances. about half are from the 1950s and are artistically interesting but sound awful.
-in terms of what really good restoration/. remastering can do, the Robert Johnson centennial edition
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B004OFWLO0/?tag=pinkfishmedia-21
was a revelation. Digital trickery can do wonders (as it was shown to be able to do fr Caruso in a 1970s early 80s Alan Oppenheim MIT lecture I found on itunes).
I reckon about 98% of my collection sounds ok and about 85% of it sounds good or better.
A few data points
- for classical orchestral/opera music there's no excuse for any studio album after about 1955 to sound bad.
- I would love to be able to say that my favourite version of the ring was the 1950 Furtwangler la scala cycle but it would be a lie. I find it more or less unlistenable for pleasure but still interesting to hear the line and tempo that furtwangler used. His studio walkure is another story.
- pretty much the same goes for the Bruno Walter 1938 Mahler 9.
-I have a live Karajan Trovatore from Salzburg (somewhat later) which just about make it over the SQ line to the point that I listen to it for pleasure. Ditto the Krauss 1953 ring. The much hyped testament 1955 stereo one sounds scarcely better if at all and doesn't float my boat so much artistically, so I don't bother. I haven't found a modern set good enough to make me forsake Solti, Bohm and Krauss, although if Papanno and Terfel can kidnap Jonas Kaufman and force him to do Siegfried along with a proper Brunnhilde, I might.
-I recently bought a box set of covent garden live performances. about half are from the 1950s and are artistically interesting but sound awful.
-in terms of what really good restoration/. remastering can do, the Robert Johnson centennial edition
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B004OFWLO0/?tag=pinkfishmedia-21
was a revelation. Digital trickery can do wonders (as it was shown to be able to do fr Caruso in a 1970s early 80s Alan Oppenheim MIT lecture I found on itunes).
I reckon about 98% of my collection sounds ok and about 85% of it sounds good or better.
This site contains affiliate links for which pink fish media may be compensated.
zekezebra
pfm Member
This is a difficult one. If the recording was butchered in the mastering stage, for example Death Magnetic / Californication, then for me I could not get past the first track.
However, one of my favorite albums of all time is The Texas Campfire Tapes by Michelle Shocked which I believe was recorded on a hand held device, in one take in a field and must be the lowest of LoFi that I have heard.
However, one of my favorite albums of all time is The Texas Campfire Tapes by Michelle Shocked which I believe was recorded on a hand held device, in one take in a field and must be the lowest of LoFi that I have heard.
Tony L
Administrator
A Sony Walkman Pro IIRC.
a.palfreyman
pfm Member
I must admit that some duff recordings make the music "unenjoyable" but I personally find that there are some pieces of music that when even heard on a crap transistor radio will always make you listen so I would agree that duff recording / mastering can really spoil some music, but there are certain pieces that transcend the recording.
AP
AP