>>recall, "combat rock" isn't that bad, but they definately make
>>better MUSIC than most hifi sludge.
No you didn't but at least one "pro" audio reviewer apparently discovered the Clash just this year.
I recall at some point being in agreement with your view on combat rock. But these days I don't consider it a good sounding record at all - though it does best fit what many rock fans seem to consider an audiophile kind of recording given the work of the Clash (at least that which I'm familiar with).
Personally I prefer the sound of the earlier recordings to combat rock and even to London Calling for that matter.
>>i'll take the kingsmen's version of "louie louie" over most of the
>>junk in the R2D4 list any day.
Um, yea probably, but what does this really mean? There seems to be a big difference in opinion in what a good rock recording actually is. I've concluded that what many would consider a bad rock recording due to low production values is actually a good recording - at the same time I would consider what many audiophiles consider to be a good rock recording to actually be a bad recording due to heavy handed production values.
Over time I've come to a conclusion that very often what is considered a good rock recording is simply a recording that doesn't sound bad on the average audiophile's stereo system.
>>poorly recorded (and even played) music that has a heart will
>>ALWAYS be better than ultrafi heartless tripe as far as i'm
>>concerned.
>>music 1st, fidelity second.
Sure I completely agree. Our differences would revolve around our definition of good recording and fidelity. I would consider Led Zeppelin I, the Stooges Raw Power and MC5 - Kick Out the Jams as great rock recordings regardless of how they fit the audiophiles definition of high-fidelity. I've heard audiophiles criticize the "quality" of these recordings time and time again - but the bottom line is they wouldn't be the great records that they are if they sounded differently than they do.
Many audiophiles talk about the great sound of say, the Eagles Live or Dire Straights Money for Nothing. WHATEVER!!!!! Yea I get the sound quality part but I believe the recordings are actually "worse" because of it not better. Maybe it's just me but that kind of squeaky clean sounding kind of stuff just leaves me searching for the next disk.
In many ways I think that the audiophile definition of a good recording is kind of off-putting to rock music fans. Add to that the general acceptence that this stuff is supposed to sound bad on a good stereo one's gotta wonder why how any rock fan could find his way in audiophiledom at all.
Sorry about the rant - guess I get tired of talking about music and having some "audiophile" butt in and comment "but it sounds like shit".
Give me rhythm or give me death!