Ligeti

Blimey, it's easier to mention artists than specific albums. Elvis Costello - I have most of what he's done (didn't like the last one, but it seems relatively popular). Alice Cooper - Everything up to From the Inside. Richard Thompson - Everything. Television/Tom Verlaine - Everything. Talking Heads/David Bryrne - Everything. Graham Parker - I've lost touch with him for a bit, but I have everything up to Don't Tell Columbus. Kate Bush - Everything up to Red Shoes. Black Sabbath - The Ozzy era. David Bowie - Everything. Individual albums.... Ten off the top of my head: Graham Parker - Mona Lisa's Sister Elvis Costello - North David Bowie - Low/Heroes. Steve Reich - Music for 18 Musicians (Nonesuch). Charlemaine Palestine - Strumming Music. Ultravox - Systems of Romance. The Vibrators - Pure Mania. Bill Nelson's Red Noise - Sound on Sound. Bob Dylan - Infidels. Jethro Tull - Songs from the Wood.

Grow thicker skin? How about you being more courteous. Your stated intent was not evident in the post I replied too. The thing is, what streaming is to me might be different for others. Shawn is an example of someone who handles it better (for him) than I was able to make it work for me. My music process goes something like this. I like artist A because I've heard them before. I will buy the discography of that artist. I will seek out albums person A plays on, because it is likely I will enjoy it. Let's say I find an album that looks promising. I will take a look at who is on the album. If I know them, then it might be something I just buy. If not I will go to Amazon and read the reviews (if there are any, sometimes there's not). I take all the reviews on advisement. Meaning I don't let the reviews put me off, different people like different things, after all. If I read some things I like the sound of - and the price is right - I may order it. If in doubt it's time to hop over to Youtube. I often find complete tracks on Youtube, and I sample it there. If not it's time for a Goggle search for the album - I usually find at least some kind of sample. If I like, I buy. If I like and don't have the funds right now - I add it to my wish list at Amazon. As it is - and this is just me, I understand - it is rare that i buy a CD that has no value to me. I don't have the experience Shawn mentions very often. It does sometimes happen that I get albums that I enjoy, but don't have legs. An example would be Floratone, a Frissell album. I liked the samples, and I liked the album on first spin. Subsequent spins gradfually drained the fascination for me. In the end I was simply bored of the music. It happens. I file it away. The thing is, I might find myself in a Frisell phase at some time in the future, and I'll be glad I've got the disc to try again. That's it for me. I buy much experimental music, It can be very dense at times, and conversely sometimes it's the exact opposite, and it very slight. It can take some time to extract pleasure from some of it. I enjoy the challenge, the adventure. An example would be the SHOCK series of discs from Cage's tour of Japan. Or the huge box set of David Tudor's electronic works. it's very abstract music, and at times it's missing its visual components (he wrote and performed much with Merce Cunningham's dance troupe). But it's fun to come to terms with it. At least for me. As for streaming..... I found it broke my method. I'm not saying it will affect everyone that way, but it did for me. I became less discerning. I'd listen to just about anything. It was all there. It was simple enough to download entire albums as MP3 files - but I only listen to them on the train. For me, my limited resources rein in over-indulgance. When i'm out of cash, I'm out of the market. When streaming the window never closed, and I felt a little lost. Call it self-control f you want. Now, reading this thread has actually led me to go back to Spotify. I reinstalled it last night, and went with the free model. A simple Google search led me to free tools to avoid hearing the ads (the ads are still served, but they're muted). I MIGHT use it periodically - but again, I found it a problem so will likely rarely go to it. Hey, I guess like every one here, I'm a music lover. There's worse things. And now I've given up alcohol I've even more to spend on my favorite hobby. That's news to me! I thought that my wishlist was long, but now I see that it is "only" 1,266 items. My wife would prefer I had your wish list. But yes, when you hit 2500 items you get a message that says there is a problem adding it to your wish list. The messages isn't clear, but what it really means is - you've reached the maximum number of items. You have to either delete some things, or create a new wish list.

Shame - big Brotzmann fan, but I only do CD's. Second time in a day that something I wanted isn't going to be on CD. Sign of the times.....

Wow, I'm not a person who posts on here often, so I have no idea if you're so judgmental about all things, or if you have just chosen me and this particular topic. Your opinion is one to which you're entitled, but it's based on almost too many assumptions to mention. Every CD I buy is a purposelessly chosen collection of music. It's not some random choice where I don't know if I like it or not. 6 CD's this week are titles I wanted to own and enjoy for as long as I'm on the planet. The CD's are part of my musical journey and are the results of my own judgment about whether I want to invest time and money in them. I shouldn't need to explain why this isn't at all like streaming. I also find it bizarre that you would be trying to put me down because I buy too much music. How is my buying CD's in any way like streaming? What's your point - that I buy too much? You then go off on some ridiculous tangent about your work and home life, with more judgments about the way people should listen. Why can't you see that your own way of listening may not suit others? I'm just happy people listen to music (I listen through my Linn, and often through my Shure SRH940's.) I think it's fair to say I've been willing to spend my money in maximizing my appreciation of music, I certainly don't need you to tell me that what I choose to do is "no way to truly consume music". Frankly, you have no idea what you're talking about. But then, your entire rant on this topic is pretty poor form all around - again, I'm doing something wrong by buying too much?!? WTF. So how about you roll up your guesswork and stop trying to lecture me about how much music I pay for, and offer feeble conjecture on how I listen. You know nothing about my personal circumstances at all, why do you feel qualified to offer guesses? I have been very open about how I spend my time. Do you ever watch television or listen to the radio? As I've said, I don't. Ever. That's time I can invest in whatever I choose. No facebook, no twitter, that's more time for me to do what i choose. No smartphone, so no constantly checking SMS and instant messenger nonsense - more time. We tend to sculpt our lives around the things of most value to us. I rank music way up my list. Not as high as the wife, but she's a music lover too. She has no need of a TV or radio either. But again, since when did anyone need an excuse to buy music? If I like something, or want to experience it, I buy it. Simple. I listen in great surroundings - such as my living room - and in non-optimal such as on the train. Music isn't anchored into one spot anymore, it has legs. While the venue can indeed be important, the primary importance is the LISTENING. Listening on a train is nothing to apologize for - better that than some ridiculous reality show on a tablet. Regardless - there was no need for the tone of your messages, you sound a little frustrated to me. Maybe you could get a second job so you can buy more for yourself.

Absolutely not, I'm most definately below you. Way below. My point is simply that I've made a conscious decision to not follow certain paths and trends. It's easy to get sucked into trends without ever making a truly conscious decision to do so. Still, I don't see this as an argument about superiority of one view over another. If we talk about music - I have thousands of discs. This week so far I've received 6 new ones I've bought, and I'm waiting on another 2. So my question is - how do you guys find time to listen to the music you buy, and to listen to music on a streaming service? I don't have enough time to digest everything as I'd like to - if I add a streaming service it would make the window even smaller. To be clear - I was a paid subscriber of Spotify for a month. I found it changed how I digested music. With a entire catalog to pull from, I became less discerning. Anything and everything was a least worth a partial listen. After a month I had a list of things to hear some 60 albums deep. In the mean time I was still buying physical media, but didn't have the time to enjoy it. Easy solution - I don't need Spotify, so I cancelled. That's all I'm saying. I'm most definately not superior to others - quite the opposite. For me it's just that I love music, I have a addiction to it. So, offered an endless stream - I consume it ravenously. In the end I found this detrimental to my overall appreciation - so I bailed out. I'm no better, perhaps just different.

    If I owned a car I'd be there - sadly Suffolk is a long old walk.....

I'm happily stone age. I don't have a Facebook account. I don't have a twitter account. I don't subscribe to anyone else's twitter accounts. I don't watch broadcast TV. I don't listen to music on the radio. I don't have a smartphone. Yet somehow I have thousands of CD's, and a wish list at Amazon that I blew up (turns out there's a maximum size of 2500 items, who knew?) Honestly, opting out of all that nonsense is not difficult at all, you've just got to want to do it. Oh, and I work - and have always worked - in IT. I'm not a luddite when it comes to new technology - but I find most of it is just noise.

Huh! Pro's and Con's isn't very friendly, is it? And Radio Kaos.... I have a soft spot for it because I was majorly into it on release - but the concept is excruiciating to the point of actually making you laugh at it, and the production suffers from that 80's sound. Still, some of the songs are good. However Amused to Death is outstanding. A worthy follow-up to Final Cut. After that all we've had are constant Wall live albums, and a naff opera.

Yeah, I'm just not understanding your point. The top 1% of the music business has always been about celebrity, fashion etc. Always. At least, it's never been about anything other than that for as long as I can remember. In fact, most of the music I buy today isn't even on major labels. Being a jazz fan, the majors aren't exactly much interested in selling me much beyond Miles Davis reissues. Although I must say, they have done a great job on some of those. And of course, record labels are about maximizing their investment. I don't have anything against capitalism. I expect them to try and make money, perhaps in ways that bug me. It's expected. I hate commercials on Youtube, and email blasts for the latest casino's. I deal with it. As is often quoted - correctly I think - a minority of releases on a major end up funding smaller projects one way or the other. If they're not interested in smaller acts then the technology will help us remain in the loop of things. Idol and Voice? I know what they are, but I don't watch them. In fact, I don't watch ANY television. Again, easy to avoid. Does Idol or Voice ever have avant garde jazz artists? How about string quartets playing contemporary composers? I'm going to guess not. As I must accept the majority of people aren't interested in the music I listen to, I accept that the majority of what the labels put out isn't of interest to me either. What is the music industry doing that any business wouldn't do?

Music is not about being seen. I think you're confusing music with celebrity. None of the musicians I enjoy and follow with my money are going to care about image - they make music, they don't have need for videos, sponsored hats, fizzy drinks, and movie tie-in's. This is precisely why I said that for anything meaningful to be done the top 1% need to be excluded. Hell, you could exclude the top 5% for all I care. Fortunately, they don't make any of the music I enjoy. Pop music has always been about image, at least as long I can remember anyway (I go back to the late 60's). But popular music is about fashion, trends, influence. Always has been. But I have no use for any of it. The artists I support don't seem to either.

The Final Cut is one of the few albums that truly tugs on my heart strings. My only gripe is the addition of "Tigers Run Free". Content wise, it fits. But to my ears, it's a jarring intrusion I'd rather have done without. Maybe I just like remembering the album the way it was on the day of release. It's certainly my most played Floyd album. Mind you, I'm partial to a little Animals.....

We're in a new paradigm where people won't buy music unless they've heard it first. The concept of an album is dying slowly. You can't beat free, and you can't appeal to the conscience of people who pirate, because they don't have any with regards to downloads. Artists have to find a way to connect to their fans like never before, which is an advantage of new technologies. I'm thinking of people like Kristen Hersh of Throwing Muses fame. Richard Thompson has a nice sideline in live recordings too - few of them every get distribution beyond his web site. I can only repeat though - we have a lot to thank the labels for as music lovers. To me, we won't ever be able to have a reasonable and fair discussion about the music business until be exclude the top 1% of earners. I'm so tired of reading about the likes of Taylor Swift removing herself from Spotify, I didn't know who she is, but having looked it up..... suffice to say that she doesn't relate to the musicians I cherish much at all. Forget the U2's, the Floyds, the Beatles etc. It's the small guys who need the largest voice - and they never get heard.

I certainly wasn't suggesting Waters should have had anything to do with it, I was referring only to the voice snippets at the beginning of the album, and the lyrics to the one song. It's an unfitting testamonial, imo. Waters is no doubt too busy playing another Wall concert somewhere. Mind you, I think The Final Cut was the best album Floyd ever made..... so you might want to dismiss my words out of hand.

Reunions. Yikes. Plant has made far better music outside of Led Zep than he ever made in it. And yes, I have all of the Led Zep output on several formats. But of course they shouldn't reform, it's done, finished. There is nothing more for Led Zep to achieve together other than generate a ton of cash and perhaps tattoo the memory of a facsimile for fans. Now, if only the Stones would stop it. And the idea that the Beatles might have reformed.... OMG no!!! Sorry, not a fan AT ALL.

I was pleasantly surprised by this. I may be alone, but I've found all of their post-Waters material to be pretty dire. For me it like listening to a slowly decaying cadaver of a band, with turgid droll lyrics and dirge like music. But this.... this is much better. My only issues with it are the opening voice snippets, and the lyrics to the only song. Is this really how they want the whole thing to end? How sad. I've seen fairly recent interviews with Waters, and he's very concilliatory. But this? It's long passed time they vuried the hachet somewhere other than in the back. Still, that aside the current album is fantastic.

I have a good number of CD's from Hunter. It's one of those imstances where I look at the shelf and nod my head because I like it all. But then again, there are three titles that for me stand out from the crowd, and that I play most often. In no particular order - the first one is the self-titled "Charlie Hunter". Fans of Ready Steady and recordings in that era will like this one. It has strong melodies and some great playing by all involved. The second is "Duo". Leon Parker joins in, playing a very small drum set. It's sparse and a little more edgy, but not so far out that it'll prove to be bothersome for some. The third - and frankly my most played - is "Latitude" by Groundruther, which is a collaboration with Bobby Previte with a rotating third person. This one is farther out, and may take time to get to grips with (unless avant garde is your thing, because then it's easy stuff). He made another great disc with Previte, "Come in Red Dog, This Is Tango Leader", which I also highly recommend if you like the more experimental work.

The reissue of the four Eno titles is pure evil - now I must buy them all again. Oh, wait - what a lovely evil! Of those the odd man out if, of course, Nerve Net, which has vocals and a dance-oriented soundtrack. I have loved it since buying the CD on the day of release. You know, I've a growing admiration for Eno. As I get older, and life naturally slows down, so my mind and heart has truly begun to open up to some of things he's done. I've always loved some of his recordings, Discreet Music, Music for Airports, Apollo etc. But despite surface appearances, i'm finding that deep listening exposes a lot of layers I'd hitherto failed to connect with. It's too easy to write he made ambiant music and it's slow and pastorial. Turns out it's so much more. I do follow him avidly, but don't own everything. While in collaboration he can do good things, I'm never totally swung by his vocal albums - Nerve Net being an exception. I also don't mind if he never innovates again - he cut his own path, there's no need to do so again. I can't even sit here and pick out only one or two albums - his catalog is so vast and fruitful. I will say that, for me, the only way to listen to the music is on CD. The remasters were tatefully done, and silence and purity of tone are so essential to much of what he's done. Still, each to their own, as long as you're listening it's all good. I also enjoy the fact that some are beginning to cover his works. Music for Airports has had at least two cover versions from Bang on a Can - Apollo was covered by Icebreaker etc. Which somehow reminds me that Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music was covered by Zeitkratzer....... Anyhoo-how, suffice to say, Eno is fantastic.

I am a fan of a certain period of his compositions. My primary interest is in his electrico-acoustic works. Clearly he made some fantatsic pieces in this sub-genre. I'd love to have that big box though - the music would never end!

What a thread to jump into. Is streaming saving the music industry? Clearly, no. We sometimes overlook the obvious - musicians are part of the music industry, and I've yet to read a single musician who has come out in support of the likes of Spotify. Seeing as half a million streams of a song generates £3000 (picked up this figure today from a new story on the BBC web site) it is safe to say that nobody is being saved. Spotify argue they give back 80% of revenues (in which case they're not charging even half as much as they should), and they at least give something while piracy gives nothing (a silly statement, since there is a lot of music that is not available even to pirates). They compare their numbers to radio - but that's a totally ridiculous comparison. Spotify is not like listening to the radio. I'm also going to upset some by my next statement. The legacy musica industry, defined at the major labels, have done some pretty evil things in the past. In fact they continue to. There's no excuse for it. They should be ashamed, and while you can never go back and correct wrongs, they could at least do things right from now on - which apparently isn't happening. BUT - let's pause for a moment and think about all the good they've done. If it were not for the major labels we wouldn't have all those great Miles Davis recordings, the lavish box sets, a historical record going back to the 1900's. A lot of music simply wouldn't have existed without record labels. Even if it did, we'd likely of never gotten a chance to hear it. Record labels need to shape up, but they have left an indelible mark on music that I personally applaud. I am not saying they're perfect, fair, or reasonable. As I say, they need to reverse some fo the things they've gotten used to - at the same time we all enjoy pristine recordings throughout the life of the labels - long before even tape recorders were affordable. So let's not wish them dead. Let's try to get them to do the right thing. Also, I really don't want to get involved in the discussion above, but it bothers me when someone exagerates in order to make a point. Every professional recording studio has a level of expertise and quality. Some good, some not so good, true. But home recording? Come on - how many home studios have been "acoustically treated, and professionally calibrated"? Come on. And why is it a good idea for ten people to have ten studios, when one would do? And who is producing this stuff? To what standard? I'm sure there are some very good examples of it, but let's not ignore the bad. Let's have respect for the art of sound reproduction, the engineers, the producers etc. It's silly to suggest it's easy to do at home, or even ultimately cost effective. I supposer Madonna can afford it - but everyone? Hardly. I am reminded of a time when I did some professional writing (meaning I was being paid to do it). You were never allowed to edit your own work. It made sense - you simply cannot edit your own work. Our brains overlook certain things, we don't see our flaws even if they're glaringly obvious to others. Musicians sometimes - even often - produce their own works. But if you read the liner notes as I assume we all do, they're rarely ever truly alone. And even if they are, are they really the best people for the job? Even at the higher end - take Peter Townsend. He admits to be partially deaf from years of playing. How do you think he'd due producing his own works? Maybe good, but maybe not. For all the ioppy-dippy flower waving, the "stick it to the man" rants, and people with other agenda's - the truth is I've yet to read a convincing alternative to the big label setup. I know artists who use crowd-funding, produce their own discs sold through their web sites etc. Yes, I know they're out there. At the same time, take someone like Tim Berne and Screwgun Records. Tim is on record (sic) as saying that he can't make money from Screwgun records any more due to piracy. Those records - most live - were completely made and distributed through his own web site, and he still can't make it pay. That's the reality. I think people over-do the benefits of home studios and self-made CD's - surely even the most devote can accept there are down sides? If not, then you're likely not worth debating the topic with. I mean, if all you see when you leave your home is that everything is light - but you never look up and see the sun - then you've clearly got blinders on.

No offense, but you can't any more downmarket than Rolling Stone. That's a magazine that exists only to create proposterous "Top 100" lists and to sell perfume to teenage boys. Or fashion. It's truly horrible. On another note - do you also hold other artists politcal beliefs, or actions, against them to this extent? If I was put off by crass things artists do, my life would be so much poorer....

I only own "What's New", the first Riddle album. It's good, but as you say, wasn't really my thing. When I go back to Ronstadt now it's not something I reach for - mainly because, for me, it's an anomoly. It's the country/rock thing she did so well.

Yeah, it's a bit unfair to point to the Riddle albums and use those to define Ronstadt. When all is said and done, they are a minor part of her legacy. She mostly spend time in the Country/Rock vein, where there are countless wonderful performances. Of course, some things didn't work as well as others, but that's to be expected. Flaws include Costello's Alison, and Newman's Sail Away. But the good outweighs the bad by a country mile, imo. I still think using terms such as "clueless" to be, well, clueless. I'd rather applaud the fact that she gave things a go. I mean, come on, how many singers really compare to Nat King Cole for goodness sakes. Still, each to their own. As I say, the Riddle albums are like choosing the most obtuse part of someones catalog, and then drawing career conclusions on it. A strange thing to do. Usually artists are remembered for their best work, not their middling or poorer releases. I see no reason to slap a negative label on the lady when, in reality, her catalog is chock full of heartfelt renditions of songs that did work well........

I will try to post some of my favorites. Coming at Classical as I do, my taste may seem a little strange. I tend not have too much respect for musical boundaries.

It's all just opinions, but accusations of being "clueless" and "shallow" don't at all come close to being meaningful - let alone true - descriptions of Ronstadt. Her voice is/was incredible. It wasn't just good, it's stunning, imo. Her choice of material was vaired, even on her rock albums. As a career, she sang standards through foreign language classics. She's got the kind of voice that stops you in your tracks. But that's just me, I guess. I don't dislike Miles Davis despite his drug problems. I don't judge musicians on their intelligence. It's all about the music, and in the end that's all that matters. A really smart person who makes bad music is still making bad music. If you're going to describe an artist as "clueless" it's probably wise to give an example of why that term applies, no? And what does how "bright" someone is matter, even a little? Ronstadts instrument was her voice, that's all you need to know to appreciate her gift.

You really can't beat Hasten Down the Wind, Prisoner in Disguise, Simple Dreams, and Get Closer. They are the ones I return to again and again. She's also one of those artists that had a brilliant Greatest Hits package.