Discussion:
Just How Bad Are Movies Now?
(too old to reply)
Mitchell Holman
2014-09-07 15:53:22 UTC
Permalink
In our local megaplexes we are
seeing feature presentations of
Ghostbusters (1984), Scarface (1983)
and Forrest Gump (1994), the latter
in IMAX format no less. And these
are not midnight fare at the local
art house, but major releases to the
biggest theater chains.

Given the dreck that constitutes
the current movies they will probably
be very well attended........
Olrik
2014-09-08 03:27:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
In our local megaplexes we are
seeing feature presentations of
Ghostbusters (1984), Scarface (1983)
and Forrest Gump (1994), the latter
in IMAX format no less. And these
are not midnight fare at the local
art house, but major releases to the
biggest theater chains.
And these three films are not even *that* good, at least not deserving
any sort of revival in megaplexes. Well, maybe Ghostbusters, in a campy
sort of ways.

But nowadays, thanks to the Internet, to DVD/Blu-ray, to cable film
channels, etc., it's easier than ever to get and watch the movies you
like, from every genre, origins, time or language you prefer.

It's freakishly mind-boggling, I tell you. I'm 58, and in the '70s I
almost wanted to delay a long trip to Europe so I could catch a very
rare showing of Orson Welles' The Trial.

Now, I have a fabulous Blu-ray copy of that masterpiece (and dozens of
others...) that I can watch whenever I want on my flat-screen TV.

On many levels, we live in a better sci-fi world than actual sci-fi
promised...
Post by Mitchell Holman
Given the dreck that constitutes
the current movies
It's *always* like that. Most movies are dreck, as is most music,
theatre, books, etc.

Between current exciting directors/writers like Wes Anderson, Tarantino,
the Coen brothers, Scorcese (here I'm only mentioning Americans), there
are very good films from elsewhere in the world, easily accessible via
Internet or Amazon or TV channels.

Truthfully, I don't have enough time to watch the good stuff...
Post by Mitchell Holman
they will probably be very well attended........
--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
Mike Duffy
2014-09-08 03:40:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Olrik
On many levels, we live in a better sci-fi world than actual sci-fi
promised...
The Internet was always envisioned as universal access to a repository of
scholarly wisdom, not as mostly porn, spam and banal facebook updates.
--
http://pages.videotron.com/duffym/index.htm
Jeanne Douglas
2014-09-08 05:15:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Duffy
Post by Olrik
On many levels, we live in a better sci-fi world than actual sci-fi
promised...
The Internet was always envisioned as universal access to a repository of
scholarly wisdom, not as mostly porn, spam and banal facebook updates.
And yet porn is what made the internet a huge success just as it made
VHS one.
--
JD

"Labor is prior to and independent of capital.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could
never have existed if labor had not first
existed. Labor is the superior of capital,
and deserves much the higher consideration."
--Abraham Lincoln
Tom McDonald
2014-09-08 22:15:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Mike Duffy
Post by Olrik
On many levels, we live in a better sci-fi world than actual sci-fi
promised...
The Internet was always envisioned as universal access to a repository of
scholarly wisdom, not as mostly porn, spam and banal facebook updates.
And yet porn is what made the internet a huge success just as it made
VHS one.
I was thinking about this today. Last night, I heard an old episode of
Quiz Kids, from the year I was born. The premise is sort of like 'Are
You Smarter Than A Fifth-Grader', but with no stupid adult celebrities,
really smart, well-educated and informed kids (some down to age 5!), and
truly tough questions. Those kids were amazing! I didn't know anything
like a quarter of the answers to the questions.

But I had the ability to find the answers right at my finger tips, which
would not have been the case in 1948, even if I'd had a complete set of
the Encyclopedia Britannica. (Side note: I misspelled 'Britannica', and
my spell checker didn't even have a suggestion for correcting it!)

The questions that stumped the Quiz Kids in that episode were a set a
three connected questions, all with the same answer. The first two were
locations, and the third was a sort of 'DOB', 776 BCE. I had no idea,
but the first thing that popped up in a google search was that that was
the year the first Olympic Games were said to have been played.

That put all the pieces together. As a kid, I'd have been totally unable
to answer this question absent going to a very specialized timeline of
ancient Western history. At the library. In the neared really big city.

While porn did make the internet a great success, it dragged along quite
a few other terrific improvements with it. I'd put the invention and
proliferation of the internet up alongside the invention of writing and
movable type in the history of human progress.
Mike Painter
2014-09-08 05:02:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Olrik
On many levels, we live in a better sci-fi world than actual sci-fi
promised...
History shows that in mot cases, when you graph of what "regular
people", scientists, science fiction writers, and reality, the reality
curve is much steeper.
A bit of exaggeration but the slide rule was *the* calculating
instrument until the day after multi function calculators hit the
market.

And we all know that analog computers are best at solving most real
world problems.
Dakota
2014-09-08 07:12:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Painter
Post by Olrik
On many levels, we live in a better sci-fi world than actual sci-fi
promised...
History shows that in mot cases, when you graph of what "regular
people", scientists, science fiction writers, and reality, the reality
curve is much steeper.
A bit of exaggeration but the slide rule was *the* calculating
instrument until the day after multi function calculators hit the
market.
And we all know that analog computers are best at solving most real
world problems.
The offices of many of the engineers I've worked with had a slide rule
in a glass faced frame hung on the wall. Suspended from the frame was a
small brass hammer. A sign read, "In case of emergency, break glass."

I regret not ever having one on my wall.
Tom McDonald
2014-09-08 22:21:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dakota
Post by Mike Painter
Post by Olrik
On many levels, we live in a better sci-fi world than actual sci-fi
promised...
History shows that in mot cases, when you graph of what "regular
people", scientists, science fiction writers, and reality, the reality
curve is much steeper.
A bit of exaggeration but the slide rule was *the* calculating
instrument until the day after multi function calculators hit the
market.
And we all know that analog computers are best at solving most real
world problems.
The offices of many of the engineers I've worked with had a slide rule
in a glass faced frame hung on the wall. Suspended from the frame was a
small brass hammer. A sign read, "In case of emergency, break glass."
I regret not ever having one on my wall.
I fondly remember slide rules. They were a bit of a status symbol in the
nerd circle I aspired to in high school. They were so much faster than
hand calculations, and that, for me, a math numpty, was a gods-send.
Dakota
2014-09-09 07:40:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Dakota
Post by Mike Painter
Post by Olrik
On many levels, we live in a better sci-fi world than actual sci-fi
promised...
History shows that in mot cases, when you graph of what "regular
people", scientists, science fiction writers, and reality, the reality
curve is much steeper.
A bit of exaggeration but the slide rule was *the* calculating
instrument until the day after multi function calculators hit the
market.
And we all know that analog computers are best at solving most real
world problems.
The offices of many of the engineers I've worked with had a slide rule
in a glass faced frame hung on the wall. Suspended from the frame was a
small brass hammer. A sign read, "In case of emergency, break glass."
I regret not ever having one on my wall.
I fondly remember slide rules. They were a bit of a status symbol in the
nerd circle I aspired to in high school. They were so much faster than
hand calculations, and that, for me, a math numpty, was a gods-send.
When I was a student in 1966, pledges to the math fraternity at the
University of Minnesota lugged a very large slide rule around campus for
a while. The rule was several feet long.
Tom McDonald
2014-09-10 00:20:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dakota
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Dakota
Post by Mike Painter
Post by Olrik
On many levels, we live in a better sci-fi world than actual sci-fi
promised...
History shows that in mot cases, when you graph of what "regular
people", scientists, science fiction writers, and reality, the reality
curve is much steeper.
A bit of exaggeration but the slide rule was *the* calculating
instrument until the day after multi function calculators hit the
market.
And we all know that analog computers are best at solving most real
world problems.
The offices of many of the engineers I've worked with had a slide rule
in a glass faced frame hung on the wall. Suspended from the frame was a
small brass hammer. A sign read, "In case of emergency, break glass."
I regret not ever having one on my wall.
I fondly remember slide rules. They were a bit of a status symbol in the
nerd circle I aspired to in high school. They were so much faster than
hand calculations, and that, for me, a math numpty, was a gods-send.
When I was a student in 1966, pledges to the math fraternity at the
University of Minnesota lugged a very large slide rule around campus for
a while. The rule was several feet long.
I wonder what the vernier scale on that puppy was like. It's get some
wicked precise numbers.
Dakota
2014-09-10 01:58:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Dakota
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Dakota
Post by Mike Painter
Post by Olrik
On many levels, we live in a better sci-fi world than actual sci-fi
promised...
History shows that in mot cases, when you graph of what "regular
people", scientists, science fiction writers, and reality, the reality
curve is much steeper.
A bit of exaggeration but the slide rule was *the* calculating
instrument until the day after multi function calculators hit the
market.
And we all know that analog computers are best at solving most real
world problems.
The offices of many of the engineers I've worked with had a slide rule
in a glass faced frame hung on the wall. Suspended from the frame was a
small brass hammer. A sign read, "In case of emergency, break glass."
I regret not ever having one on my wall.
I fondly remember slide rules. They were a bit of a status symbol in the
nerd circle I aspired to in high school. They were so much faster than
hand calculations, and that, for me, a math numpty, was a gods-send.
When I was a student in 1966, pledges to the math fraternity at the
University of Minnesota lugged a very large slide rule around campus for
a while. The rule was several feet long.
I wonder what the vernier scale on that puppy was like. It's get some
wicked precise numbers.
I know that the slide moved but I can't vouch for the accuracy of a rule
that looked like it was built by drunken frat boys.
Tom McDonald
2014-09-10 02:46:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dakota
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Dakota
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Dakota
Post by Mike Painter
Post by Olrik
On many levels, we live in a better sci-fi world than actual sci-fi
promised...
History shows that in mot cases, when you graph of what "regular
people", scientists, science fiction writers, and reality, the reality
curve is much steeper.
A bit of exaggeration but the slide rule was *the* calculating
instrument until the day after multi function calculators hit the
market.
And we all know that analog computers are best at solving most real
world problems.
The offices of many of the engineers I've worked with had a slide rule
in a glass faced frame hung on the wall. Suspended from the frame was a
small brass hammer. A sign read, "In case of emergency, break glass."
I regret not ever having one on my wall.
I fondly remember slide rules. They were a bit of a status symbol in the
nerd circle I aspired to in high school. They were so much faster than
hand calculations, and that, for me, a math numpty, was a gods-send.
When I was a student in 1966, pledges to the math fraternity at the
University of Minnesota lugged a very large slide rule around campus for
a while. The rule was several feet long.
I wonder what the vernier scale on that puppy was like. It's get some
wicked precise numbers.
I know that the slide moved but I can't vouch for the accuracy of a rule
that looked like it was built by drunken frat boys.
Sounds appropriate to purpose.
Jeanne Douglas
2014-09-08 10:03:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Painter
Post by Olrik
On many levels, we live in a better sci-fi world than actual sci-fi
promised...
History shows that in mot cases, when you graph of what "regular
people", scientists, science fiction writers, and reality, the reality
curve is much steeper.
A bit of exaggeration but the slide rule was *the* calculating
instrument until the day after multi function calculators hit the
market.
I think I still have my high school slide rule in a drawer somewhere.
Post by Mike Painter
And we all know that analog computers are best at solving most real
world problems.
--
JD

"Labor is prior to and independent of capital.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could
never have existed if labor had not first
existed. Labor is the superior of capital,
and deserves much the higher consideration."
--Abraham Lincoln
Alex W.
2014-09-08 15:01:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Painter
Post by Olrik
On many levels, we live in a better sci-fi world than actual sci-fi
promised...
History shows that in mot cases, when you graph of what "regular
people", scientists, science fiction writers, and reality, the reality
curve is much steeper.
A bit of exaggeration but the slide rule was *the* calculating
instrument until the day after multi function calculators hit the
market.
And we all know that analog computers are best at solving most real
world problems.
Slide rule ... isn't that a tool for Westerners too dumb to use an abacus?
:-P
Tom McDonald
2014-09-08 22:34:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Mike Painter
Post by Olrik
On many levels, we live in a better sci-fi world than actual sci-fi
promised...
History shows that in mot cases, when you graph of what "regular
people", scientists, science fiction writers, and reality, the reality
curve is much steeper.
A bit of exaggeration but the slide rule was *the* calculating
instrument until the day after multi function calculators hit the
market.
And we all know that analog computers are best at solving most real
world problems.
Slide rule ... isn't that a tool for Westerners too dumb to use an abacus?
:-P
I know that my fascination with slide rules in high school led me down
the garden path wrt the relative futures of analog and digital
computers. I was dead certain analog was the way to go.

Well, live and re-calculate along the way, I always say. Well, not
always, but when I say it, I say it.
Dakota
2014-09-09 07:42:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Alex W.
Post by Mike Painter
Post by Olrik
On many levels, we live in a better sci-fi world than actual sci-fi
promised...
History shows that in mot cases, when you graph of what "regular
people", scientists, science fiction writers, and reality, the reality
curve is much steeper.
A bit of exaggeration but the slide rule was *the* calculating
instrument until the day after multi function calculators hit the
market.
And we all know that analog computers are best at solving most real
world problems.
Slide rule ... isn't that a tool for Westerners too dumb to use an abacus?
:-P
I know that my fascination with slide rules in high school led me down
the garden path wrt the relative futures of analog and digital
computers. I was dead certain analog was the way to go.
Well, live and re-calculate along the way, I always say. Well, not
always, but when I say it, I say it.
Analog computers appealed to me as the more elegant.
Alex W.
2014-09-09 09:36:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dakota
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Alex W.
Post by Mike Painter
Post by Olrik
On many levels, we live in a better sci-fi world than actual sci-fi
promised...
History shows that in mot cases, when you graph of what "regular
people", scientists, science fiction writers, and reality, the reality
curve is much steeper.
A bit of exaggeration but the slide rule was *the* calculating
instrument until the day after multi function calculators hit the
market.
And we all know that analog computers are best at solving most real
world problems.
Slide rule ... isn't that a tool for Westerners too dumb to use an abacus?
:-P
I know that my fascination with slide rules in high school led me down
the garden path wrt the relative futures of analog and digital
computers. I was dead certain analog was the way to go.
Well, live and re-calculate along the way, I always say. Well, not
always, but when I say it, I say it.
Analog computers appealed to me as the more elegant.
The Antikythera mechanism and Babbage's machine spring to mind as
beautiful examples.....
Tom McDonald
2014-09-10 00:24:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dakota
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Alex W.
Post by Mike Painter
Post by Olrik
On many levels, we live in a better sci-fi world than actual sci-fi
promised...
History shows that in mot cases, when you graph of what "regular
people", scientists, science fiction writers, and reality, the reality
curve is much steeper.
A bit of exaggeration but the slide rule was *the* calculating
instrument until the day after multi function calculators hit the
market.
And we all know that analog computers are best at solving most real
world problems.
Slide rule ... isn't that a tool for Westerners too dumb to use an abacus?
:-P
I know that my fascination with slide rules in high school led me down
the garden path wrt the relative futures of analog and digital
computers. I was dead certain analog was the way to go.
Well, live and re-calculate along the way, I always say. Well, not
always, but when I say it, I say it.
Analog computers appealed to me as the more elegant.
Me too, though I don't recall enough about them to remember why. I
suspect it had to do with binary notation as well as the unappealing
prospect of calculating with on/off cycles. I suspect that seemed to be
too slow for me, with the vast number of switching needed for even
simple calculations. It would take much longer, in my untutored
intuition, to do all that work when using the full number set would do.
Dakota
2014-09-10 02:01:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Dakota
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Alex W.
Post by Mike Painter
Post by Olrik
On many levels, we live in a better sci-fi world than actual sci-fi
promised...
History shows that in mot cases, when you graph of what "regular
people", scientists, science fiction writers, and reality, the reality
curve is much steeper.
A bit of exaggeration but the slide rule was *the* calculating
instrument until the day after multi function calculators hit the
market.
And we all know that analog computers are best at solving most real
world problems.
Slide rule ... isn't that a tool for Westerners too dumb to use an abacus?
:-P
I know that my fascination with slide rules in high school led me down
the garden path wrt the relative futures of analog and digital
computers. I was dead certain analog was the way to go.
Well, live and re-calculate along the way, I always say. Well, not
always, but when I say it, I say it.
Analog computers appealed to me as the more elegant.
Me too, though I don't recall enough about them to remember why. I
suspect it had to do with binary notation as well as the unappealing
prospect of calculating with on/off cycles. I suspect that seemed to be
too slow for me, with the vast number of switching needed for even
simple calculations. It would take much longer, in my untutored
intuition, to do all that work when using the full number set would do.
I remember having an analogue computer when I was a kid. It probably
came from Edmund Scientific. My dad often bought scientific toys for us
from that company. All I can recall about it is that it had large dials.
Tom McDonald
2014-09-10 02:48:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dakota
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Dakota
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Alex W.
Post by Mike Painter
Post by Olrik
On many levels, we live in a better sci-fi world than actual sci-fi
promised...
History shows that in mot cases, when you graph of what "regular
people", scientists, science fiction writers, and reality, the reality
curve is much steeper.
A bit of exaggeration but the slide rule was *the* calculating
instrument until the day after multi function calculators hit the
market.
And we all know that analog computers are best at solving most real
world problems.
Slide rule ... isn't that a tool for Westerners too dumb to use an abacus?
:-P
I know that my fascination with slide rules in high school led me down
the garden path wrt the relative futures of analog and digital
computers. I was dead certain analog was the way to go.
Well, live and re-calculate along the way, I always say. Well, not
always, but when I say it, I say it.
Analog computers appealed to me as the more elegant.
Me too, though I don't recall enough about them to remember why. I
suspect it had to do with binary notation as well as the unappealing
prospect of calculating with on/off cycles. I suspect that seemed to be
too slow for me, with the vast number of switching needed for even
simple calculations. It would take much longer, in my untutored
intuition, to do all that work when using the full number set would do.
I remember having an analogue computer when I was a kid. It probably
came from Edmund Scientific. My dad often bought scientific toys for us
from that company. All I can recall about it is that it had large dials.
I had something very similar. The dials ring a bell. Mine was a
build-it-yourself kit, and I recall doing the wiring. Don't remember
much else about it, but it was fun and probably set me up for my later
attitude.
Dakota
2014-09-10 08:30:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Dakota
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Dakota
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Alex W.
Post by Mike Painter
Post by Olrik
On many levels, we live in a better sci-fi world than actual sci-fi
promised...
History shows that in mot cases, when you graph of what "regular
people", scientists, science fiction writers, and reality, the reality
curve is much steeper.
A bit of exaggeration but the slide rule was *the* calculating
instrument until the day after multi function calculators hit the
market.
And we all know that analog computers are best at solving most real
world problems.
Slide rule ... isn't that a tool for Westerners too dumb to use an abacus?
:-P
I know that my fascination with slide rules in high school led me down
the garden path wrt the relative futures of analog and digital
computers. I was dead certain analog was the way to go.
Well, live and re-calculate along the way, I always say. Well, not
always, but when I say it, I say it.
Analog computers appealed to me as the more elegant.
Me too, though I don't recall enough about them to remember why. I
suspect it had to do with binary notation as well as the unappealing
prospect of calculating with on/off cycles. I suspect that seemed to be
too slow for me, with the vast number of switching needed for even
simple calculations. It would take much longer, in my untutored
intuition, to do all that work when using the full number set would do.
I remember having an analogue computer when I was a kid. It probably
came from Edmund Scientific. My dad often bought scientific toys for us
from that company. All I can recall about it is that it had large dials.
I had something very similar. The dials ring a bell. Mine was a
build-it-yourself kit, and I recall doing the wiring. Don't remember
much else about it, but it was fun and probably set me up for my later
attitude.
I'm sure mine was a kit as well.
Tom McDonald
2014-09-10 14:38:14 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Dakota
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Dakota
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Dakota
Post by Tom McDonald
I know that my fascination with slide rules in high school led me down
the garden path wrt the relative futures of analog and digital
computers. I was dead certain analog was the way to go.
Well, live and re-calculate along the way, I always say. Well, not
always, but when I say it, I say it.
Analog computers appealed to me as the more elegant.
Me too, though I don't recall enough about them to remember why. I
suspect it had to do with binary notation as well as the unappealing
prospect of calculating with on/off cycles. I suspect that seemed to be
too slow for me, with the vast number of switching needed for even
simple calculations. It would take much longer, in my untutored
intuition, to do all that work when using the full number set would do.
I remember having an analogue computer when I was a kid. It probably
came from Edmund Scientific. My dad often bought scientific toys for us
from that company. All I can recall about it is that it had large dials.
I had something very similar. The dials ring a bell. Mine was a
build-it-yourself kit, and I recall doing the wiring. Don't remember
much else about it, but it was fun and probably set me up for my later
attitude.
I'm sure mine was a kit as well.
I pity kids today (In My Day... :-) ) who don't have much in the way of
hobbies where they get their hands dirty with wires and resisters
capacitors and project boards and soldering guns and the sweet, sweet
smell of lead vapor in their nostrils.

Wait, what was I saying? I forget...

Damned you kids, get off my lawn!
Dakota
2014-09-10 15:42:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom McDonald
<snip>
Post by Dakota
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Dakota
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Dakota
Post by Tom McDonald
I know that my fascination with slide rules in high school led me down
the garden path wrt the relative futures of analog and digital
computers. I was dead certain analog was the way to go.
Well, live and re-calculate along the way, I always say. Well, not
always, but when I say it, I say it.
Analog computers appealed to me as the more elegant.
Me too, though I don't recall enough about them to remember why. I
suspect it had to do with binary notation as well as the unappealing
prospect of calculating with on/off cycles. I suspect that seemed to be
too slow for me, with the vast number of switching needed for even
simple calculations. It would take much longer, in my untutored
intuition, to do all that work when using the full number set would do.
I remember having an analogue computer when I was a kid. It probably
came from Edmund Scientific. My dad often bought scientific toys for us
from that company. All I can recall about it is that it had large dials.
I had something very similar. The dials ring a bell. Mine was a
build-it-yourself kit, and I recall doing the wiring. Don't remember
much else about it, but it was fun and probably set me up for my later
attitude.
I'm sure mine was a kit as well.
I pity kids today (In My Day... :-) ) who don't have much in the way of
hobbies where they get their hands dirty with wires and resisters
capacitors and project boards and soldering guns and the sweet, sweet
smell of lead vapor in their nostrils.
Wait, what was I saying? I forget...
Damned you kids, get off my lawn!
Erector sets and chemistry sets were part of growing up for me. I can't
imagine anyone selling a kids' kit with an alcohol burner in it these days.
Tom McDonald
2014-09-10 20:49:44 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Dakota
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Dakota
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Dakota
I remember having an analogue computer when I was a kid. It probably
came from Edmund Scientific. My dad often bought scientific toys for us
from that company. All I can recall about it is that it had large dials.
I had something very similar. The dials ring a bell. Mine was a
build-it-yourself kit, and I recall doing the wiring. Don't remember
much else about it, but it was fun and probably set me up for my later
attitude.
I'm sure mine was a kit as well.
I pity kids today (In My Day... :-) ) who don't have much in the way of
hobbies where they get their hands dirty with wires and resisters
capacitors and project boards and soldering guns and the sweet, sweet
smell of lead vapor in their nostrils.
Wait, what was I saying? I forget...
Damned you kids, get off my lawn!
Erector sets and chemistry sets were part of growing up for me. I can't
imagine anyone selling a kids' kit with an alcohol burner in it these days.
I aspired to an Erector set, but never got one. I had Lincoln logs,
Tinker Toys, and some other stuff, plus my dad's tools and some help
from my grandpa on carpentry. Built some interesting toys, including a
number of quite passable tire tube loop pistols. Would have loved to
have made some machines from an Erector set, but you can't have
everything on a single nurse's salary.

I did a lot of chemistry experiments at home. (Not a joke or set-up for
a drug reference.) My local drug store had a section selling bottles of
chemicals and metals like strips of magnesium, along with alcohol
burners, test tubes and racks, stands, litmus paper, and lots of other
goodies.

I got up to experimenting with sulfur, charcoal and saltpeter, and got
some very, very convincing flashes burns and clouds of
gunpowder-smelling smoke. But never quite got the 'bang' stuff I was
going for.

Ah, well. Probably for the best.
Dakota
2014-09-10 22:01:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom McDonald
<snip>
Post by Dakota
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Dakota
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Dakota
I remember having an analogue computer when I was a kid. It probably
came from Edmund Scientific. My dad often bought scientific toys for us
from that company. All I can recall about it is that it had large dials.
I had something very similar. The dials ring a bell. Mine was a
build-it-yourself kit, and I recall doing the wiring. Don't remember
much else about it, but it was fun and probably set me up for my later
attitude.
I'm sure mine was a kit as well.
I pity kids today (In My Day... :-) ) who don't have much in the way of
hobbies where they get their hands dirty with wires and resisters
capacitors and project boards and soldering guns and the sweet, sweet
smell of lead vapor in their nostrils.
Wait, what was I saying? I forget...
Damned you kids, get off my lawn!
Erector sets and chemistry sets were part of growing up for me. I can't
imagine anyone selling a kids' kit with an alcohol burner in it these days.
I aspired to an Erector set, but never got one. I had Lincoln logs,
Tinker Toys, and some other stuff, plus my dad's tools and some help
from my grandpa on carpentry. Built some interesting toys, including a
number of quite passable tire tube loop pistols. Would have loved to
have made some machines from an Erector set, but you can't have
everything on a single nurse's salary.
I did a lot of chemistry experiments at home. (Not a joke or set-up for
a drug reference.) My local drug store had a section selling bottles of
chemicals and metals like strips of magnesium, along with alcohol
burners, test tubes and racks, stands, litmus paper, and lots of other
goodies.
I got up to experimenting with sulfur, charcoal and saltpeter, and got
some very, very convincing flashes burns and clouds of
gunpowder-smelling smoke. But never quite got the 'bang' stuff I was
going for.
Ah, well. Probably for the best.
I'm embarrassed that I didn't remember the Lincoln Logs and Tinkertoys.
Such toys taught us the common sense relationships between interlocking
objects. How do today's kids learn that sort of thing?

I spent much of a winter trying to build a banked, circular model
railroad track on which I could run my speedy no-name engine at full
speed. Sawing wooden wedges and trimming the inner rails was educational
even though I never accomplished my end goal. I probably couldn't do it
today either. Alas.
Tom McDonald
2014-09-10 22:25:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dakota
Post by Tom McDonald
<snip>
Post by Dakota
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Dakota
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Dakota
I remember having an analogue computer when I was a kid. It probably
came from Edmund Scientific. My dad often bought scientific toys for us
from that company. All I can recall about it is that it had large dials.
I had something very similar. The dials ring a bell. Mine was a
build-it-yourself kit, and I recall doing the wiring. Don't remember
much else about it, but it was fun and probably set me up for my later
attitude.
I'm sure mine was a kit as well.
I pity kids today (In My Day... :-) ) who don't have much in the way of
hobbies where they get their hands dirty with wires and resisters
capacitors and project boards and soldering guns and the sweet, sweet
smell of lead vapor in their nostrils.
Wait, what was I saying? I forget...
Damned you kids, get off my lawn!
Erector sets and chemistry sets were part of growing up for me. I can't
imagine anyone selling a kids' kit with an alcohol burner in it these days.
I aspired to an Erector set, but never got one. I had Lincoln logs,
Tinker Toys, and some other stuff, plus my dad's tools and some help
from my grandpa on carpentry. Built some interesting toys, including a
number of quite passable tire tube loop pistols. Would have loved to
have made some machines from an Erector set, but you can't have
everything on a single nurse's salary.
I did a lot of chemistry experiments at home. (Not a joke or set-up for
a drug reference.) My local drug store had a section selling bottles of
chemicals and metals like strips of magnesium, along with alcohol
burners, test tubes and racks, stands, litmus paper, and lots of other
goodies.
I got up to experimenting with sulfur, charcoal and saltpeter, and got
some very, very convincing flashes burns and clouds of
gunpowder-smelling smoke. But never quite got the 'bang' stuff I was
going for.
Ah, well. Probably for the best.
I'm embarrassed that I didn't remember the Lincoln Logs and Tinkertoys.
Such toys taught us the common sense relationships between interlocking
objects. How do today's kids learn that sort of thing?
Tetris. Alas.
Post by Dakota
I spent much of a winter trying to build a banked, circular model
railroad track on which I could run my speedy no-name engine at full
speed. Sawing wooden wedges and trimming the inner rails was educational
even though I never accomplished my end goal. I probably couldn't do it
today either. Alas.
I never thought of that. My Lionel O gauge was zippy enough to derail a
few times, but I never considered banking the tracks. Would have been fun.

Today, you could probably model the thing and even test it on a computer
with a physics package, and have it print out detailed cutting
directions for the shims and wedges. Might be fun to try still. Some HO
sets are pretty cheap.
Dakota
2014-09-10 23:01:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Dakota
Post by Tom McDonald
<snip>
Post by Dakota
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Dakota
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Dakota
I remember having an analogue computer when I was a kid. It probably
came from Edmund Scientific. My dad often bought scientific toys for us
from that company. All I can recall about it is that it had large dials.
I had something very similar. The dials ring a bell. Mine was a
build-it-yourself kit, and I recall doing the wiring. Don't remember
much else about it, but it was fun and probably set me up for my later
attitude.
I'm sure mine was a kit as well.
I pity kids today (In My Day... :-) ) who don't have much in the way of
hobbies where they get their hands dirty with wires and resisters
capacitors and project boards and soldering guns and the sweet, sweet
smell of lead vapor in their nostrils.
Wait, what was I saying? I forget...
Damned you kids, get off my lawn!
Erector sets and chemistry sets were part of growing up for me. I can't
imagine anyone selling a kids' kit with an alcohol burner in it these days.
I aspired to an Erector set, but never got one. I had Lincoln logs,
Tinker Toys, and some other stuff, plus my dad's tools and some help
from my grandpa on carpentry. Built some interesting toys, including a
number of quite passable tire tube loop pistols. Would have loved to
have made some machines from an Erector set, but you can't have
everything on a single nurse's salary.
I did a lot of chemistry experiments at home. (Not a joke or set-up for
a drug reference.) My local drug store had a section selling bottles of
chemicals and metals like strips of magnesium, along with alcohol
burners, test tubes and racks, stands, litmus paper, and lots of other
goodies.
I got up to experimenting with sulfur, charcoal and saltpeter, and got
some very, very convincing flashes burns and clouds of
gunpowder-smelling smoke. But never quite got the 'bang' stuff I was
going for.
Ah, well. Probably for the best.
I'm embarrassed that I didn't remember the Lincoln Logs and Tinkertoys.
Such toys taught us the common sense relationships between interlocking
objects. How do today's kids learn that sort of thing?
Tetris. Alas.
Post by Dakota
I spent much of a winter trying to build a banked, circular model
railroad track on which I could run my speedy no-name engine at full
speed. Sawing wooden wedges and trimming the inner rails was educational
even though I never accomplished my end goal. I probably couldn't do it
today either. Alas.
I never thought of that. My Lionel O gauge was zippy enough to derail a
few times, but I never considered banking the tracks. Would have been fun.
Today, you could probably model the thing and even test it on a computer
with a physics package, and have it print out detailed cutting
directions for the shims and wedges. Might be fun to try still. Some HO
sets are pretty cheap.
HO had esthetic appeal but O gauge provided a better hands on
experience. Lionel engines and cars more faithfully copied the look of
their real world counterparts than did my speedy red engine. IIRC, the
body was a single piece that surrounded an interior filled with motor.
The windows, headlight, and other details were painted on. Being sturdy
helped it survive my tabletop banked track project. The engine hit the
floor countless times each session.
Jeanne Douglas
2014-09-11 02:06:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dakota
Post by Tom McDonald
<snip>
Post by Dakota
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Dakota
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Dakota
I remember having an analogue computer when I was a kid. It probably
came from Edmund Scientific. My dad often bought scientific toys for us
from that company. All I can recall about it is that it had large dials.
I had something very similar. The dials ring a bell. Mine was a
build-it-yourself kit, and I recall doing the wiring. Don't remember
much else about it, but it was fun and probably set me up for my later
attitude.
I'm sure mine was a kit as well.
I pity kids today (In My Day... :-) ) who don't have much in the way of
hobbies where they get their hands dirty with wires and resisters
capacitors and project boards and soldering guns and the sweet, sweet
smell of lead vapor in their nostrils.
Wait, what was I saying? I forget...
Damned you kids, get off my lawn!
Erector sets and chemistry sets were part of growing up for me. I can't
imagine anyone selling a kids' kit with an alcohol burner in it these days.
I aspired to an Erector set, but never got one. I had Lincoln logs,
Tinker Toys, and some other stuff, plus my dad's tools and some help
from my grandpa on carpentry. Built some interesting toys, including a
number of quite passable tire tube loop pistols. Would have loved to
have made some machines from an Erector set, but you can't have
everything on a single nurse's salary.
I did a lot of chemistry experiments at home. (Not a joke or set-up for
a drug reference.) My local drug store had a section selling bottles of
chemicals and metals like strips of magnesium, along with alcohol
burners, test tubes and racks, stands, litmus paper, and lots of other
goodies.
I got up to experimenting with sulfur, charcoal and saltpeter, and got
some very, very convincing flashes burns and clouds of
gunpowder-smelling smoke. But never quite got the 'bang' stuff I was
going for.
Ah, well. Probably for the best.
I'm embarrassed that I didn't remember the Lincoln Logs and Tinkertoys.
Such toys taught us the common sense relationships between interlocking
objects. How do today's kids learn that sort of thing?
Legos?
Post by Dakota
I spent much of a winter trying to build a banked, circular model
railroad track on which I could run my speedy no-name engine at full
speed. Sawing wooden wedges and trimming the inner rails was educational
even though I never accomplished my end goal. I probably couldn't do it
today either. Alas.
--
JD

³Labor is prior to and independent of capital.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could
never have existed if labor had not first
existed. Labor is the superior of capital,
and deserves much the higher consideration.²
--Abraham Lincoln
Alex W.
2014-09-11 08:56:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Dakota
Post by Tom McDonald
I got up to experimenting with sulfur, charcoal and saltpeter, and got
some very, very convincing flashes burns and clouds of
gunpowder-smelling smoke. But never quite got the 'bang' stuff I was
going for.
Ah, well. Probably for the best.
I'm embarrassed that I didn't remember the Lincoln Logs and Tinkertoys.
Such toys taught us the common sense relationships between interlocking
objects. How do today's kids learn that sort of thing?
Legos?
In Britain, we had Meccano. It taught basic engineering to whole
generations of kids, and its decline as a toy is sometimes blamed for
the decline in British engineering:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meccano
Dakota
2014-09-11 10:27:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Dakota
Post by Tom McDonald
I got up to experimenting with sulfur, charcoal and saltpeter, and got
some very, very convincing flashes burns and clouds of
gunpowder-smelling smoke. But never quite got the 'bang' stuff I was
going for.
Ah, well. Probably for the best.
I'm embarrassed that I didn't remember the Lincoln Logs and Tinkertoys.
Such toys taught us the common sense relationships between interlocking
objects. How do today's kids learn that sort of thing?
Legos?
In Britain, we had Meccano. It taught basic engineering to whole
generations of kids, and its decline as a toy is sometimes blamed for
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meccano
When I saw the steam engine I became convinced that Meccano was several
steps up from Erector. We had a tabletop steam engine but it came
already assembled.

A link found at your link led me to these Lego links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lego_Technic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lego_pneumatics

If we can get those toys into the hands of creative kids, there's still
hope for mankind.
Dreamer In Colore
2014-09-11 12:56:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dakota
Post by Alex W.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Dakota
Post by Tom McDonald
I got up to experimenting with sulfur, charcoal and saltpeter, and got
some very, very convincing flashes burns and clouds of
gunpowder-smelling smoke. But never quite got the 'bang' stuff I was
going for.
Ah, well. Probably for the best.
I'm embarrassed that I didn't remember the Lincoln Logs and Tinkertoys.
Such toys taught us the common sense relationships between interlocking
objects. How do today's kids learn that sort of thing?
Legos?
In Britain, we had Meccano. It taught basic engineering to whole
generations of kids, and its decline as a toy is sometimes blamed for
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meccano
When I saw the steam engine I became convinced that Meccano was several
steps up from Erector. We had a tabletop steam engine but it came
already assembled.
A link found at your link led me to these Lego links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lego_Technic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lego_pneumatics
If we can get those toys into the hands of creative kids, there's still
hope for mankind.
The Lego Robotics kits are amazing. I've got the Star Wars version,
and my son says I get a little too obsessive about it.

I still have all the Lego from when I was a kid; I still haven't
decided whether I want to break open the big one..

http://lego.wikia.com/wiki/10179_Ultimate_Collector%27s_Millennium_Falcon

Wife was LESS than impressed when I brought this home, and even less
happy when she saw the $500 charge on the Visa.

I keep pointing out that its worth has multiplied by a factor of 10 on
ebay, but this is falling on deaf ears.

I regret not buying the Ferari 599GTB kit; it retailed for $199 when
it first came out, but now it's $1200 on ebay.

Perhaps this should be the retirement strategy...

Cheers,
Dreamer
Alex W.
2014-09-11 13:44:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dreamer In Colore
Post by Dakota
Post by Alex W.
In Britain, we had Meccano. It taught basic engineering to whole
generations of kids, and its decline as a toy is sometimes blamed for
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meccano
When I saw the steam engine I became convinced that Meccano was several
steps up from Erector. We had a tabletop steam engine but it came
already assembled.
A link found at your link led me to these Lego links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lego_Technic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lego_pneumatics
If we can get those toys into the hands of creative kids, there's still
hope for mankind.
The Lego Robotics kits are amazing. I've got the Star Wars version,
and my son says I get a little too obsessive about it.
My brother's son is on the autistic spectrum (high-functioning), and
those Lego sets are a real life-saver: he absolutely adores them and
will spend hours and hours constructing them. It's close to the perfect
toy, Lego.
Post by Dreamer In Colore
I still have all the Lego from when I was a kid; I still haven't
decided whether I want to break open the big one..
http://lego.wikia.com/wiki/10179_Ultimate_Collector%27s_Millennium_Falcon
Wife was LESS than impressed when I brought this home, and even less
happy when she saw the $500 charge on the Visa.
I keep pointing out that its worth has multiplied by a factor of 10 on
ebay, but this is falling on deaf ears.
I regret not buying the Ferari 599GTB kit; it retailed for $199 when
it first came out, but now it's $1200 on ebay.
Perhaps this should be the retirement strategy...
Perhaps it should.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11053507/Thieves-target-Lego-sets-as-value-soars.html

If you have a few hours to spare one of these days, just browse ebay and
speciality dealers looking at current collectors' prices of all those
toys and comic books you happily enjoyed and played with in your
childhood. I did once, and the shock was considerable. Some toys
(remember Matchbox cars?), when unplayed-with and still boxed, can be
worth five-figure sums these days.
Dakota
2014-09-11 15:52:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Dreamer In Colore
Post by Dakota
Post by Alex W.
In Britain, we had Meccano. It taught basic engineering to whole
generations of kids, and its decline as a toy is sometimes blamed for
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meccano
When I saw the steam engine I became convinced that Meccano was several
steps up from Erector. We had a tabletop steam engine but it came
already assembled.
A link found at your link led me to these Lego links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lego_Technic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lego_pneumatics
If we can get those toys into the hands of creative kids, there's still
hope for mankind.
The Lego Robotics kits are amazing. I've got the Star Wars version,
and my son says I get a little too obsessive about it.
My brother's son is on the autistic spectrum (high-functioning), and
those Lego sets are a real life-saver: he absolutely adores them and
will spend hours and hours constructing them. It's close to the perfect
toy, Lego.
Post by Dreamer In Colore
I still have all the Lego from when I was a kid; I still haven't
decided whether I want to break open the big one..
http://lego.wikia.com/wiki/10179_Ultimate_Collector%27s_Millennium_Falcon
Wife was LESS than impressed when I brought this home, and even less
happy when she saw the $500 charge on the Visa.
I keep pointing out that its worth has multiplied by a factor of 10 on
ebay, but this is falling on deaf ears.
I regret not buying the Ferari 599GTB kit; it retailed for $199 when
it first came out, but now it's $1200 on ebay.
Perhaps this should be the retirement strategy...
Perhaps it should.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11053507/Thieves-target-Lego-sets-as-value-soars.html
If you have a few hours to spare one of these days, just browse ebay and
speciality dealers looking at current collectors' prices of all those
toys and comic books you happily enjoyed and played with in your
childhood. I did once, and the shock was considerable. Some toys
(remember Matchbox cars?), when unplayed-with and still boxed, can be
worth five-figure sums these days.
One of my co-workers bought several of each of the Star Wars posters,
toys, and anything else he could find when the movie came out. He
considered them to be investments. We thought he was nuts. I wonder if
he remembers us now that he's ensconced in a mansion someplace.
Dreamer In Colore
2014-09-11 12:58:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Dakota
Post by Tom McDonald
I got up to experimenting with sulfur, charcoal and saltpeter, and got
some very, very convincing flashes burns and clouds of
gunpowder-smelling smoke. But never quite got the 'bang' stuff I was
going for.
Ah, well. Probably for the best.
I'm embarrassed that I didn't remember the Lincoln Logs and Tinkertoys.
Such toys taught us the common sense relationships between interlocking
objects. How do today's kids learn that sort of thing?
Legos?
In Britain, we had Meccano. It taught basic engineering to whole
generations of kids, and its decline as a toy is sometimes blamed for
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meccano
I had the wood kind and the metal kind as well. These, together with
"Escape from Colditz", are still happily being used 40+ years after
their original purchase. I laugh at Transformers.

Cheers,
Dreamer
Teresita
2014-09-11 02:58:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dakota
I'm embarrassed that I didn't remember the Lincoln Logs and Tinkertoys.
Such toys taught us the common sense relationships between interlocking
objects. How do today's kids learn that sort of thing?
They put Ken's head on Barbie's body.
Don Martin
2014-09-11 23:14:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Teresita
Post by Dakota
I'm embarrassed that I didn't remember the Lincoln Logs and Tinkertoys.
Such toys taught us the common sense relationships between interlocking
objects. How do today's kids learn that sort of thing?
They put Ken's head on Barbie's body.
Below the navel, what difference would it make?
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
Jeanne Douglas
2014-09-11 02:05:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dakota
Post by Tom McDonald
<snip>
Post by Dakota
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Dakota
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Dakota
Post by Tom McDonald
I know that my fascination with slide rules in high school led me down
the garden path wrt the relative futures of analog and digital
computers. I was dead certain analog was the way to go.
Well, live and re-calculate along the way, I always say. Well, not
always, but when I say it, I say it.
Analog computers appealed to me as the more elegant.
Me too, though I don't recall enough about them to remember why. I
suspect it had to do with binary notation as well as the unappealing
prospect of calculating with on/off cycles. I suspect that seemed to be
too slow for me, with the vast number of switching needed for even
simple calculations. It would take much longer, in my untutored
intuition, to do all that work when using the full number set would do.
I remember having an analogue computer when I was a kid. It probably
came from Edmund Scientific. My dad often bought scientific toys for us
from that company. All I can recall about it is that it had large dials.
I had something very similar. The dials ring a bell. Mine was a
build-it-yourself kit, and I recall doing the wiring. Don't remember
much else about it, but it was fun and probably set me up for my later
attitude.
I'm sure mine was a kit as well.
I pity kids today (In My Day... :-) ) who don't have much in the way of
hobbies where they get their hands dirty with wires and resisters
capacitors and project boards and soldering guns and the sweet, sweet
smell of lead vapor in their nostrils.
Wait, what was I saying? I forget...
Damned you kids, get off my lawn!
Erector sets and chemistry sets were part of growing up for me. I can't
imagine anyone selling a kids' kit with an alcohol burner in it these days.
People (kids & adults) are doing amazing things with Legos nowadays.

Of course, they don't do anything, other than look cool.
--
JD

³Labor is prior to and independent of capital.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could
never have existed if labor had not first
existed. Labor is the superior of capital,
and deserves much the higher consideration.²
--Abraham Lincoln
Dakota
2014-09-11 09:18:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Dakota
Post by Tom McDonald
<snip>
Post by Dakota
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Dakota
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Dakota
Post by Tom McDonald
I know that my fascination with slide rules in high school led me down
the garden path wrt the relative futures of analog and digital
computers. I was dead certain analog was the way to go.
Well, live and re-calculate along the way, I always say. Well, not
always, but when I say it, I say it.
Analog computers appealed to me as the more elegant.
Me too, though I don't recall enough about them to remember why. I
suspect it had to do with binary notation as well as the unappealing
prospect of calculating with on/off cycles. I suspect that seemed to be
too slow for me, with the vast number of switching needed for even
simple calculations. It would take much longer, in my untutored
intuition, to do all that work when using the full number set would do.
I remember having an analogue computer when I was a kid. It probably
came from Edmund Scientific. My dad often bought scientific toys for us
from that company. All I can recall about it is that it had large dials.
I had something very similar. The dials ring a bell. Mine was a
build-it-yourself kit, and I recall doing the wiring. Don't remember
much else about it, but it was fun and probably set me up for my later
attitude.
I'm sure mine was a kit as well.
I pity kids today (In My Day... :-) ) who don't have much in the way of
hobbies where they get their hands dirty with wires and resisters
capacitors and project boards and soldering guns and the sweet, sweet
smell of lead vapor in their nostrils.
Wait, what was I saying? I forget...
Damned you kids, get off my lawn!
Erector sets and chemistry sets were part of growing up for me. I can't
imagine anyone selling a kids' kit with an alcohol burner in it these days.
People (kids & adults) are doing amazing things with Legos nowadays.
Of course, they don't do anything, other than look cool.
I never played with Legos but they would seem to encourage creativity
while teaching about interlocking parts.
Alex W.
2014-09-09 09:37:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Alex W.
Post by Mike Painter
Post by Olrik
On many levels, we live in a better sci-fi world than actual sci-fi
promised...
History shows that in mot cases, when you graph of what "regular
people", scientists, science fiction writers, and reality, the reality
curve is much steeper.
A bit of exaggeration but the slide rule was *the* calculating
instrument until the day after multi function calculators hit the
market.
And we all know that analog computers are best at solving most real
world problems.
Slide rule ... isn't that a tool for Westerners too dumb to use an abacus?
:-P
I know that my fascination with slide rules in high school led me down
the garden path wrt the relative futures of analog and digital
computers. I was dead certain analog was the way to go.
Well, live and re-calculate along the way, I always say. Well, not
always, but when I say it, I say it.
And when it comes to music, I would still agree with you....
Tom McDonald
2014-09-10 00:42:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Alex W.
Post by Mike Painter
Post by Olrik
On many levels, we live in a better sci-fi world than actual sci-fi
promised...
History shows that in mot cases, when you graph of what "regular
people", scientists, science fiction writers, and reality, the reality
curve is much steeper.
A bit of exaggeration but the slide rule was *the* calculating
instrument until the day after multi function calculators hit the
market.
And we all know that analog computers are best at solving most real
world problems.
Slide rule ... isn't that a tool for Westerners too dumb to use an abacus?
:-P
I know that my fascination with slide rules in high school led me down
the garden path wrt the relative futures of analog and digital
computers. I was dead certain analog was the way to go.
Well, live and re-calculate along the way, I always say. Well, not
always, but when I say it, I say it.
And when it comes to music, I would still agree with you....
Depends on what quality of analog player you have and the quality of the
vinyl you play on it. To my ears*, the lack of scratching and skips and
the clearer sound is sufficient to requirements.

I knew some audiophiles while in college that had really top-end vinyl
players, and heard some supposedly exquisite recordings of top artists
in a number of genera. I couldn't hear enough of a difference to justify
the multi-thousand dollar systems they were using--and this was in the
60s and 70s, when a dollar was a dollar.

Now my computer's CD/DVD player is much more than adequate, and to my
ears, blows the highest-quality analog out of the water.

*You will note the repeated caveat about my untutored ears. While they
are perfect and shapely shells of perfection on the outside, I am
willing to concede that a Brit or a twit or a true audiophile might,
upon seeing them and reading this, consider it a beautiful package
hiding a dull and ugly gift of no value beyond the merest pedestrian.

If you are two or more of the above categories, I would expect nothing
less than a wewwy wuff wodgewing in the reply to this missive.
Dakota
2014-09-10 02:06:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Alex W.
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Alex W.
Post by Mike Painter
Post by Olrik
On many levels, we live in a better sci-fi world than actual sci-fi
promised...
History shows that in mot cases, when you graph of what "regular
people", scientists, science fiction writers, and reality, the reality
curve is much steeper.
A bit of exaggeration but the slide rule was *the* calculating
instrument until the day after multi function calculators hit the
market.
And we all know that analog computers are best at solving most real
world problems.
Slide rule ... isn't that a tool for Westerners too dumb to use an abacus?
:-P
I know that my fascination with slide rules in high school led me down
the garden path wrt the relative futures of analog and digital
computers. I was dead certain analog was the way to go.
Well, live and re-calculate along the way, I always say. Well, not
always, but when I say it, I say it.
And when it comes to music, I would still agree with you....
Depends on what quality of analog player you have and the quality of the
vinyl you play on it. To my ears*, the lack of scratching and skips and
the clearer sound is sufficient to requirements.
I knew some audiophiles while in college that had really top-end vinyl
players, and heard some supposedly exquisite recordings of top artists
in a number of genera. I couldn't hear enough of a difference to justify
the multi-thousand dollar systems they were using--and this was in the
60s and 70s, when a dollar was a dollar.
Now my computer's CD/DVD player is much more than adequate, and to my
ears, blows the highest-quality analog out of the water.
*You will note the repeated caveat about my untutored ears. While they
are perfect and shapely shells of perfection on the outside, I am
willing to concede that a Brit or a twit or a true audiophile might,
upon seeing them and reading this, consider it a beautiful package
hiding a dull and ugly gift of no value beyond the merest pedestrian.
If you are two or more of the above categories, I would expect nothing
less than a wewwy wuff wodgewing in the reply to this missive.
CDs reproduce music much more accurately these days than when first
introduced.

Today's abomination is the mp3.
Alex W.
2014-09-10 09:16:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dakota
CDs reproduce music much more accurately these days than when first
introduced.
Today's abomination is the mp3.
That depends very much on the technology employed during the recording
(number, positioning and quality of the microphones, as well as the
actual recording software) and the type of CD used. A SACD, for
example, is miles better than a standard CD.
Dakota
2014-09-10 11:57:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Dakota
CDs reproduce music much more accurately these days than when first
introduced.
Today's abomination is the mp3.
That depends very much on the technology employed during the recording
(number, positioning and quality of the microphones, as well as the
actual recording software) and the type of CD used. A SACD, for
example, is miles better than a standard CD.
The expertise of recording engineers and the quality of the studio setup
continues to make a difference.

I listened to SACDs when they came out and didn't think them worth the
expense of buying a player. The limited selection available in that
format was also and influence. I did like the multichannel capability
but the sound quality seemed about the same as that of a standard CD. I
was very big into vinyl at the time and had some high quality playback
gear. I didn't care much for CD sound back then.

The SACD wiki suggests I'm not alone in being unimpressed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD
Alex W.
2014-09-11 09:15:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dakota
Post by Alex W.
Post by Dakota
CDs reproduce music much more accurately these days than when first
introduced.
Today's abomination is the mp3.
That depends very much on the technology employed during the recording
(number, positioning and quality of the microphones, as well as the
actual recording software) and the type of CD used. A SACD, for
example, is miles better than a standard CD.
The expertise of recording engineers and the quality of the studio setup
continues to make a difference.
Oh, absolutely!
Post by Dakota
I listened to SACDs when they came out and didn't think them worth the
expense of buying a player. The limited selection available in that
format was also and influence. I did like the multichannel capability
but the sound quality seemed about the same as that of a standard CD. I
was very big into vinyl at the time and had some high quality playback
gear. I didn't care much for CD sound back then.
The SACD wiki suggests I'm not alone in being unimpressed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD
All recording formats tend to evoke strong reactions. Remember DAT or
Betamax? IME, the average production standards of both CD and SACD have
improved considerably in the past decade, not least because of the
competition from the devil's work, mp3. Like with vinyl, the format has
to compete on quality as it can only lose competing on convenience or
price.

Vinyl, BTW, is making a bit of a comeback.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/12850886/1/vinyl-is-the-only-way-to-buy-music.html?cm_ven=RSSFeed

Admittedly, it's a bit of a niche market these days, but I consider it
an encouraging sign that not all of humanity is persuaded by the tyranny
of the bits and bytes.
Dakota
2014-09-11 10:30:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Dakota
Post by Alex W.
Post by Dakota
CDs reproduce music much more accurately these days than when first
introduced.
Today's abomination is the mp3.
That depends very much on the technology employed during the recording
(number, positioning and quality of the microphones, as well as the
actual recording software) and the type of CD used. A SACD, for
example, is miles better than a standard CD.
The expertise of recording engineers and the quality of the studio setup
continues to make a difference.
Oh, absolutely!
Post by Dakota
I listened to SACDs when they came out and didn't think them worth the
expense of buying a player. The limited selection available in that
format was also and influence. I did like the multichannel capability
but the sound quality seemed about the same as that of a standard CD. I
was very big into vinyl at the time and had some high quality playback
gear. I didn't care much for CD sound back then.
The SACD wiki suggests I'm not alone in being unimpressed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD
All recording formats tend to evoke strong reactions. Remember DAT or
Betamax? IME, the average production standards of both CD and SACD have
improved considerably in the past decade, not least because of the
competition from the devil's work, mp3. Like with vinyl, the format has
to compete on quality as it can only lose competing on convenience or
price.
Vinyl, BTW, is making a bit of a comeback.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/12850886/1/vinyl-is-the-only-way-to-buy-music.html?cm_ven=RSSFeed
Admittedly, it's a bit of a niche market these days, but I consider it
an encouraging sign that not all of humanity is persuaded by the tyranny
of the bits and bytes.
I've bought about a dozen vinyl records over the past year or so.
Alex W.
2014-09-11 13:33:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dakota
Post by Alex W.
Post by Dakota
Post by Alex W.
Post by Dakota
CDs reproduce music much more accurately these days than when first
introduced.
Today's abomination is the mp3.
That depends very much on the technology employed during the recording
(number, positioning and quality of the microphones, as well as the
actual recording software) and the type of CD used. A SACD, for
example, is miles better than a standard CD.
The expertise of recording engineers and the quality of the studio setup
continues to make a difference.
Oh, absolutely!
Post by Dakota
I listened to SACDs when they came out and didn't think them worth the
expense of buying a player. The limited selection available in that
format was also and influence. I did like the multichannel capability
but the sound quality seemed about the same as that of a standard CD. I
was very big into vinyl at the time and had some high quality playback
gear. I didn't care much for CD sound back then.
The SACD wiki suggests I'm not alone in being unimpressed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD
All recording formats tend to evoke strong reactions. Remember DAT or
Betamax? IME, the average production standards of both CD and SACD have
improved considerably in the past decade, not least because of the
competition from the devil's work, mp3. Like with vinyl, the format has
to compete on quality as it can only lose competing on convenience or
price.
Vinyl, BTW, is making a bit of a comeback.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/12850886/1/vinyl-is-the-only-way-to-buy-music.html?cm_ven=RSSFeed
Admittedly, it's a bit of a niche market these days, but I consider it
an encouraging sign that not all of humanity is persuaded by the tyranny
of the bits and bytes.
I've bought about a dozen vinyl records over the past year or so.
Congrats!
I wish I could do the same, but I know myself well enough to know that
if I started down this path, I would not rest until I had also acquired
valve amps, valve tuner, horn speakers and all the other paraphernalia.
Audiophilia is a quick way to financial ruin -- faster than a fake
blonde with expensive tastes, IME.
Dakota
2014-09-11 15:47:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Dakota
Post by Alex W.
Post by Dakota
Post by Alex W.
Post by Dakota
CDs reproduce music much more accurately these days than when first
introduced.
Today's abomination is the mp3.
That depends very much on the technology employed during the recording
(number, positioning and quality of the microphones, as well as the
actual recording software) and the type of CD used. A SACD, for
example, is miles better than a standard CD.
The expertise of recording engineers and the quality of the studio setup
continues to make a difference.
Oh, absolutely!
Post by Dakota
I listened to SACDs when they came out and didn't think them worth the
expense of buying a player. The limited selection available in that
format was also and influence. I did like the multichannel capability
but the sound quality seemed about the same as that of a standard CD. I
was very big into vinyl at the time and had some high quality playback
gear. I didn't care much for CD sound back then.
The SACD wiki suggests I'm not alone in being unimpressed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD
All recording formats tend to evoke strong reactions. Remember DAT or
Betamax? IME, the average production standards of both CD and SACD have
improved considerably in the past decade, not least because of the
competition from the devil's work, mp3. Like with vinyl, the format has
to compete on quality as it can only lose competing on convenience or
price.
Vinyl, BTW, is making a bit of a comeback.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/12850886/1/vinyl-is-the-only-way-to-buy-music.html?cm_ven=RSSFeed
Admittedly, it's a bit of a niche market these days, but I consider it
an encouraging sign that not all of humanity is persuaded by the tyranny
of the bits and bytes.
I've bought about a dozen vinyl records over the past year or so.
Congrats!
I wish I could do the same, but I know myself well enough to know that
if I started down this path, I would not rest until I had also acquired
valve amps, valve tuner, horn speakers and all the other paraphernalia.
Audiophilia is a quick way to financial ruin -- faster than a fake
blonde with expensive tastes, IME.
I never went for vacuum tube hifi equipment. I did have a pair of
Speakerlab K speakers. They were clones of Klipschorns and were sold in
kits.

<http://tinyurl.com/nq49jur>

They were huge, folded bass horn boxes that used the corners of the room
as the final flares. A horn midrange and tweeter completed each speaker.

IIRC, the bass horn driver was a 15" conventional speaker that sent it's
energy through a narrow slot into the horn.

They took up a lot of space. The corner behind the speaker was well
beyond reach. Each one weighed about 170 lbs.

My rear speakers were a short lived brand that I don't recall but were
on the cover of Audio magazine at the time I decided to try a pair.
Among the many ways they differed from the Ks is that the individual
speakers were phase aligned with each other. The K's folded horn, by
contrast, had an effective length of about eight feet so the mid and
treble sounds arrived at the ears a tiny fraction of a second sooner.

I was into quadraphonic at the time. SQ and CD-4. CD-4 required a
stylus/pickup capable of around 40 KHz response.

The Doobie Brother's Black Water in CD-4 was my quad showoff choice.
Each speaker carried a distinct vocal for the last verse. I really miss
that.
Alex W.
2014-09-12 15:42:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dakota
Post by Alex W.
Post by Dakota
I've bought about a dozen vinyl records over the past year or so.
Congrats!
I wish I could do the same, but I know myself well enough to know that
if I started down this path, I would not rest until I had also acquired
valve amps, valve tuner, horn speakers and all the other paraphernalia.
Audiophilia is a quick way to financial ruin -- faster than a fake
blonde with expensive tastes, IME.
I never went for vacuum tube hifi equipment. I did have a pair of
Speakerlab K speakers. They were clones of Klipschorns and were sold in
kits.
Uh-oh, kits. Not for me, I'm afraid. Give me a soldering iron, and I
inevitably end up at the ER with hands looking as if I had been tortured
by the North Koreans. Possibly after having burned down the house.
Post by Dakota
<http://tinyurl.com/nq49jur>
They were huge, folded bass horn boxes that used the corners of the room
as the final flares. A horn midrange and tweeter completed each speaker.
IIRC, the bass horn driver was a 15" conventional speaker that sent it's
energy through a narrow slot into the horn.
They took up a lot of space. The corner behind the speaker was well
beyond reach. Each one weighed about 170 lbs.
Lovely design, and excellent sound. Not for use in apartments, though:
neighbours tend to object to people using the shared apartment wall to
reflect sound....
Post by Dakota
My rear speakers were a short lived brand that I don't recall but were
on the cover of Audio magazine at the time I decided to try a pair.
Among the many ways they differed from the Ks is that the individual
speakers were phase aligned with each other. The K's folded horn, by
contrast, had an effective length of about eight feet so the mid and
treble sounds arrived at the ears a tiny fraction of a second sooner.
I was into quadraphonic at the time. SQ and CD-4. CD-4 required a
stylus/pickup capable of around 40 KHz response.
The Doobie Brother's Black Water in CD-4 was my quad showoff choice.
Each speaker carried a distinct vocal for the last verse. I really miss
that.
See? Quality really does matter. Even for my PC, I invested in some
LS3/5A speakers from KEF, and the benefits are quite amazing.
Dakota
2014-09-12 16:36:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Dakota
Post by Alex W.
Post by Dakota
I've bought about a dozen vinyl records over the past year or so.
Congrats!
I wish I could do the same, but I know myself well enough to know that
if I started down this path, I would not rest until I had also acquired
valve amps, valve tuner, horn speakers and all the other paraphernalia.
Audiophilia is a quick way to financial ruin -- faster than a fake
blonde with expensive tastes, IME.
I never went for vacuum tube hifi equipment. I did have a pair of
Speakerlab K speakers. They were clones of Klipschorns and were sold in
kits.
Uh-oh, kits. Not for me, I'm afraid. Give me a soldering iron, and I
inevitably end up at the ER with hands looking as if I had been tortured
by the North Koreans. Possibly after having burned down the house.
I bought mine used and pre-assembled. I don't thing there was any
soldering involved but building the complicated box would have been a
chore.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Dakota
<http://tinyurl.com/nq49jur>
They were huge, folded bass horn boxes that used the corners of the room
as the final flares. A horn midrange and tweeter completed each speaker.
IIRC, the bass horn driver was a 15" conventional speaker that sent it's
energy through a narrow slot into the horn.
They took up a lot of space. The corner behind the speaker was well
beyond reach. Each one weighed about 170 lbs.
neighbours tend to object to people using the shared apartment wall to
reflect sound....
My apartment at the time was atop a commercial building in downtown
Fairbanks, Alaska. My nearest neighbor at night was blocks away. I did
get one noise complaint though. We thought that was pretty cool.

The apartment was built for the building's original owner and his wife
to live in. It had a 12 x 48' balcony and a 28 x 28 living room so the
sound had room to develop. (The stairwell intruded a bit into it though.)

The building was heated by free steam from the nearby coal fired power
plant so the freestanding fireplace's heat losses were easily overcome.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Dakota
My rear speakers were a short lived brand that I don't recall but were
on the cover of Audio magazine at the time I decided to try a pair.
Among the many ways they differed from the Ks is that the individual
speakers were phase aligned with each other. The K's folded horn, by
contrast, had an effective length of about eight feet so the mid and
treble sounds arrived at the ears a tiny fraction of a second sooner.
I was into quadraphonic at the time. SQ and CD-4. CD-4 required a
stylus/pickup capable of around 40 KHz response.
The Doobie Brother's Black Water in CD-4 was my quad showoff choice.
Each speaker carried a distinct vocal for the last verse. I really miss
that.
See? Quality really does matter. Even for my PC, I invested in some
LS3/5A speakers from KEF, and the benefits are quite amazing.
Quality indeed matters. My PC speakers are from Altec Lansing. Living in
a building with paper thin walls prevents me from using a subwoofer. I
wish my neighbors shared that concern.
Alex W.
2014-09-10 22:56:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Alex W.
Post by Tom McDonald
I know that my fascination with slide rules in high school led me down
the garden path wrt the relative futures of analog and digital
computers. I was dead certain analog was the way to go.
Well, live and re-calculate along the way, I always say. Well, not
always, but when I say it, I say it.
And when it comes to music, I would still agree with you....
Depends on what quality of analog player you have and the quality of the
vinyl you play on it. To my ears*, the lack of scratching and skips and
the clearer sound is sufficient to requirements.
IME, clearer sound is not always what it is cracked up to be. I did
once own a high-end system that was extremely clear and analytical
(Linn) and found listening to music a tiring and even stressful
experience. Basically, the clearer the sound the clearer the mistakes,
the more obvious the mechanical noises of the instruments, and the more
jarring the skips where the sound engineers have spliced together the
different takes.

I also find that ambient noises can enhance the musical experience
(within reason -- the arsehole in row 3 who insists on sneezing ought to
be hanged). It provides a context, a soundscape for the music to
inhabit. The crackle of vinyl can be an acceptable substitute for the
real thing there.

But YMMV...
Dakota
2014-09-10 23:20:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Alex W.
Post by Tom McDonald
I know that my fascination with slide rules in high school led me down
the garden path wrt the relative futures of analog and digital
computers. I was dead certain analog was the way to go.
Well, live and re-calculate along the way, I always say. Well, not
always, but when I say it, I say it.
And when it comes to music, I would still agree with you....
Depends on what quality of analog player you have and the quality of the
vinyl you play on it. To my ears*, the lack of scratching and skips and
the clearer sound is sufficient to requirements.
IME, clearer sound is not always what it is cracked up to be. I did
once own a high-end system that was extremely clear and analytical
(Linn) and found listening to music a tiring and even stressful
experience. Basically, the clearer the sound the clearer the mistakes,
the more obvious the mechanical noises of the instruments, and the more
jarring the skips where the sound engineers have spliced together the
different takes.
I also find that ambient noises can enhance the musical experience
(within reason -- the arsehole in row 3 who insists on sneezing ought to
be hanged). It provides a context, a soundscape for the music to
inhabit. The crackle of vinyl can be an acceptable substitute for the
real thing there.
But YMMV...
Direct-to-disk recordings remain the pinnacle of quality for vinyl. When
I first came to understand that the very faint pre-play of a mass
produced record's content was used to automatically adjust the cutting
lathes' groove width, I realized that the distortion thus introduced
continued until the last fraction of a second of the disks sound.

Dolby noise reduction technology was a clever development during the
cassette tape era. The system boosted the level of the quiet passages
during the recording process then reduced it during playback. The noise
introduced by the recording process was thereby lowered in level during
playback. Very clever indeed.
Tom McDonald
2014-09-11 00:01:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Alex W.
Post by Tom McDonald
I know that my fascination with slide rules in high school led me down
the garden path wrt the relative futures of analog and digital
computers. I was dead certain analog was the way to go.
Well, live and re-calculate along the way, I always say. Well, not
always, but when I say it, I say it.
And when it comes to music, I would still agree with you....
Depends on what quality of analog player you have and the quality of the
vinyl you play on it. To my ears*, the lack of scratching and skips and
the clearer sound is sufficient to requirements.
IME, clearer sound is not always what it is cracked up to be. I did
once own a high-end system that was extremely clear and analytical
(Linn) and found listening to music a tiring and even stressful
experience. Basically, the clearer the sound the clearer the mistakes,
the more obvious the mechanical noises of the instruments, and the more
jarring the skips where the sound engineers have spliced together the
different takes.
I also find that ambient noises can enhance the musical experience
(within reason -- the arsehole in row 3 who insists on sneezing ought to
be hanged). It provides a context, a soundscape for the music to
inhabit. The crackle of vinyl can be an acceptable substitute for the
real thing there.
But YMMV...
I get what you mean about 'clearer' not necessarily being the end-all of
music recording. And I take your point about the ambient noise issue.
Sometimes the best recordings are live, and the energy from the audience
and the performer being 'on' right then and there can make magic, even
if the sound is not crystal clear and pitch-perfect.

To me, vinyl is nostalgic, but not for quality so much as the memories
and emotions it can elicit, what with the scratches, pops, skips, etc.
Kids today (there's that old foggie again--where'd he come from?) don't
have much in the way of music being anything other than relatively
perfectly recorded.

Same with radio. In my day (FUCK! Go away, you smelly old fart!), only
AM stations had the power to reach the sticks where I lived, and we got
to deal with signal fade, interference, and all that went with it.
Traveling was a real chore, as you'd often lose a station in the middle
of something really sweet. With higher-power FM stations, that's greatly
reduced. Again, a loss the kids won't appreciate, and I only do because
it's a reminder of good times in the past.
Jeanne Douglas
2014-09-11 02:02:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Alex W.
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Alex W.
Post by Tom McDonald
I know that my fascination with slide rules in high school led me down
the garden path wrt the relative futures of analog and digital
computers. I was dead certain analog was the way to go.
Well, live and re-calculate along the way, I always say. Well, not
always, but when I say it, I say it.
And when it comes to music, I would still agree with you....
Depends on what quality of analog player you have and the quality of the
vinyl you play on it. To my ears*, the lack of scratching and skips and
the clearer sound is sufficient to requirements.
IME, clearer sound is not always what it is cracked up to be. I did
once own a high-end system that was extremely clear and analytical
(Linn) and found listening to music a tiring and even stressful
experience. Basically, the clearer the sound the clearer the mistakes,
the more obvious the mechanical noises of the instruments, and the more
jarring the skips where the sound engineers have spliced together the
different takes.
I also find that ambient noises can enhance the musical experience
(within reason -- the arsehole in row 3 who insists on sneezing ought to
be hanged). It provides a context, a soundscape for the music to
inhabit. The crackle of vinyl can be an acceptable substitute for the
real thing there.
But YMMV...
I get what you mean about 'clearer' not necessarily being the end-all of
music recording. And I take your point about the ambient noise issue.
Sometimes the best recordings are live, and the energy from the audience
and the performer being 'on' right then and there can make magic, even
if the sound is not crystal clear and pitch-perfect.
To me, vinyl is nostalgic, but not for quality so much as the memories
and emotions it can elicit, what with the scratches, pops, skips, etc.
Kids today (there's that old foggie again--where'd he come from?) don't
have much in the way of music being anything other than relatively
perfectly recorded.
Same with radio. In my day (FUCK! Go away, you smelly old fart!), only
AM stations had the power to reach the sticks where I lived, and we got
to deal with signal fade, interference, and all that went with it.
Traveling was a real chore, as you'd often lose a station in the middle
of something really sweet. With higher-power FM stations, that's greatly
reduced. Again, a loss the kids won't appreciate, and I only do because
it's a reminder of good times in the past.
Most kids aren't listening to the radio, either.
--
JD

³Labor is prior to and independent of capital.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could
never have existed if labor had not first
existed. Labor is the superior of capital,
and deserves much the higher consideration.²
--Abraham Lincoln
Alex W.
2014-09-11 09:47:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Alex W.
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Alex W.
Post by Tom McDonald
I know that my fascination with slide rules in high school led me down
the garden path wrt the relative futures of analog and digital
computers. I was dead certain analog was the way to go.
Well, live and re-calculate along the way, I always say. Well, not
always, but when I say it, I say it.
And when it comes to music, I would still agree with you....
Depends on what quality of analog player you have and the quality of the
vinyl you play on it. To my ears*, the lack of scratching and skips and
the clearer sound is sufficient to requirements.
IME, clearer sound is not always what it is cracked up to be. I did
once own a high-end system that was extremely clear and analytical
(Linn) and found listening to music a tiring and even stressful
experience. Basically, the clearer the sound the clearer the mistakes,
the more obvious the mechanical noises of the instruments, and the more
jarring the skips where the sound engineers have spliced together the
different takes.
I also find that ambient noises can enhance the musical experience
(within reason -- the arsehole in row 3 who insists on sneezing ought to
be hanged). It provides a context, a soundscape for the music to
inhabit. The crackle of vinyl can be an acceptable substitute for the
real thing there.
But YMMV...
I get what you mean about 'clearer' not necessarily being the end-all of
music recording. And I take your point about the ambient noise issue.
Sometimes the best recordings are live, and the energy from the audience
and the performer being 'on' right then and there can make magic, even
if the sound is not crystal clear and pitch-perfect.
Plus, of course, live recordings (or live performances) are one-take
affairs. There is a risk of getting it wrong, and there are the rewards
when they get it right.
Post by Tom McDonald
To me, vinyl is nostalgic, but not for quality so much as the memories
and emotions it can elicit, what with the scratches, pops, skips, etc.
Kids today (there's that old foggie again--where'd he come from?) don't
have much in the way of music being anything other than relatively
perfectly recorded.
"Relatively" being a relative term... :-)

See my response elsewhere: vinyl is making a comeback. Even
old-technology hardware is very much back in fashion: valve (tube)
amplifiers are common and popular, even for strictly digital music
media. Frex, there's a valve amp custom-built for the iPod that I have
been hankering after and will buy as soon as I can justify the toy to
myself....
Post by Tom McDonald
Same with radio. In my day (FUCK! Go away, you smelly old fart!), only
AM stations had the power to reach the sticks where I lived, and we got
to deal with signal fade, interference, and all that went with it.
Plus the often fairly limited programming! Travelling through the
Australian outback, AM is the only radio that reaches, and all they seem
to broadcast is Christian propaganda, horse racing results and repeats
of classic Cricket matches...
Post by Tom McDonald
Traveling was a real chore, as you'd often lose a station in the middle
of something really sweet. With higher-power FM stations, that's greatly
reduced. Again, a loss the kids won't appreciate, and I only do because
it's a reminder of good times in the past.
I don't much like FM these days because too many stations over here have
switched to digital broadcasting. They compress the hell out of the
music to make it louder and improve reception, but the sound quality
goes right out the window. This may not be a great loss when listening
to Miley Cyrus or similar dross, but it is *very* noticeable with jazz,
blues and particularly classical music.
Dreamer In Colore
2014-09-11 13:07:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Alex W.
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Alex W.
Post by Tom McDonald
I know that my fascination with slide rules in high school led me down
the garden path wrt the relative futures of analog and digital
computers. I was dead certain analog was the way to go.
Well, live and re-calculate along the way, I always say. Well, not
always, but when I say it, I say it.
And when it comes to music, I would still agree with you....
Depends on what quality of analog player you have and the quality of the
vinyl you play on it. To my ears*, the lack of scratching and skips and
the clearer sound is sufficient to requirements.
IME, clearer sound is not always what it is cracked up to be. I did
once own a high-end system that was extremely clear and analytical
(Linn) and found listening to music a tiring and even stressful
experience. Basically, the clearer the sound the clearer the mistakes,
the more obvious the mechanical noises of the instruments, and the more
jarring the skips where the sound engineers have spliced together the
different takes.
I also find that ambient noises can enhance the musical experience
(within reason -- the arsehole in row 3 who insists on sneezing ought to
be hanged). It provides a context, a soundscape for the music to
inhabit. The crackle of vinyl can be an acceptable substitute for the
real thing there.
But YMMV...
I get what you mean about 'clearer' not necessarily being the end-all of
music recording. And I take your point about the ambient noise issue.
Sometimes the best recordings are live, and the energy from the audience
and the performer being 'on' right then and there can make magic, even
if the sound is not crystal clear and pitch-perfect.
Plus, of course, live recordings (or live performances) are one-take
affairs. There is a risk of getting it wrong, and there are the rewards
when they get it right.
Post by Tom McDonald
To me, vinyl is nostalgic, but not for quality so much as the memories
and emotions it can elicit, what with the scratches, pops, skips, etc.
Kids today (there's that old foggie again--where'd he come from?) don't
have much in the way of music being anything other than relatively
perfectly recorded.
"Relatively" being a relative term... :-)
See my response elsewhere: vinyl is making a comeback. Even
old-technology hardware is very much back in fashion: valve (tube)
amplifiers are common and popular, even for strictly digital music
media. Frex, there's a valve amp custom-built for the iPod that I have
been hankering after and will buy as soon as I can justify the toy to
myself....
Post by Tom McDonald
Same with radio. In my day (FUCK! Go away, you smelly old fart!), only
AM stations had the power to reach the sticks where I lived, and we got
to deal with signal fade, interference, and all that went with it.
Plus the often fairly limited programming! Travelling through the
Australian outback, AM is the only radio that reaches, and all they seem
to broadcast is Christian propaganda, horse racing results and repeats
of classic Cricket matches...
Post by Tom McDonald
Traveling was a real chore, as you'd often lose a station in the middle
of something really sweet. With higher-power FM stations, that's greatly
reduced. Again, a loss the kids won't appreciate, and I only do because
it's a reminder of good times in the past.
I don't much like FM these days because too many stations over here have
switched to digital broadcasting. They compress the hell out of the
music to make it louder and improve reception, but the sound quality
goes right out the window. This may not be a great loss when listening
to Miley Cyrus or similar dross, but it is *very* noticeable with jazz,
blues and particularly classical music.
FM is for cars. Maybe for jogging. Besides, I've always viewed radio
as the sampler; you hear a snippet of a song, and then go find an mp3
to listen to before you buy the damn thing on CD or vinyl.

The one thing that mp3 has going for it is convenience. There is a
plethora of records and CDs in my collection that I bought for a song
or two, and that's just a waste. Few whole albums merit the expense,
so being able to pick and choose a playlist is a reasonable
enhancement.

Cheers,
Dreamer
Alex W.
2014-09-11 14:13:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dreamer In Colore
FM is for cars. Maybe for jogging. Besides, I've always viewed radio
as the sampler; you hear a snippet of a song, and then go find an mp3
to listen to before you buy the damn thing on CD or vinyl.
The one thing that mp3 has going for it is convenience. There is a
plethora of records and CDs in my collection that I bought for a song
or two, and that's just a waste. Few whole albums merit the expense,
so being able to pick and choose a playlist is a reasonable
enhancement.
A good argument, but I tend not to follow it myself. Too large is the
number of albums that I did not like at first or second or even third
listening but that have grown on me over time. Of course, I have spent
money on duds, who hasn't? I have bought albums which did not pan out
except for those one or two tracks. But I have also acquired music I
would never have found if I hadn't bought the whole album, and that
makes the expense worthwhile to me. Good music that stands the test of
time is not all that common, IME. Consider also this: on any list of
truly classic albums, how many would have made it to that status if
buyers back then had been able to buy just the one or two tracks they
heard on the radio or in the club?
Dakota
2014-09-11 15:56:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Dreamer In Colore
FM is for cars. Maybe for jogging. Besides, I've always viewed radio
as the sampler; you hear a snippet of a song, and then go find an mp3
to listen to before you buy the damn thing on CD or vinyl.
The one thing that mp3 has going for it is convenience. There is a
plethora of records and CDs in my collection that I bought for a song
or two, and that's just a waste. Few whole albums merit the expense,
so being able to pick and choose a playlist is a reasonable
enhancement.
A good argument, but I tend not to follow it myself. Too large is the
number of albums that I did not like at first or second or even third
listening but that have grown on me over time. Of course, I have spent
money on duds, who hasn't? I have bought albums which did not pan out
except for those one or two tracks. But I have also acquired music I
would never have found if I hadn't bought the whole album, and that
makes the expense worthwhile to me. Good music that stands the test of
time is not all that common, IME. Consider also this: on any list of
truly classic albums, how many would have made it to that status if
buyers back then had been able to buy just the one or two tracks they
heard on the radio or in the club?
Good points. I've bought a record or CD for a song or two and found some
that were even better but never got airplay.

It seems obvious to me that mp3 are intentionally low quality so that
people will buy the CDs. Unfortunately, mp3s have become so popular that
many kids will probably never know what music is supposed to sound like.
Alex W.
2014-09-12 15:35:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dakota
Post by Alex W.
Post by Dreamer In Colore
FM is for cars. Maybe for jogging. Besides, I've always viewed radio
as the sampler; you hear a snippet of a song, and then go find an mp3
to listen to before you buy the damn thing on CD or vinyl.
The one thing that mp3 has going for it is convenience. There is a
plethora of records and CDs in my collection that I bought for a song
or two, and that's just a waste. Few whole albums merit the expense,
so being able to pick and choose a playlist is a reasonable
enhancement.
A good argument, but I tend not to follow it myself. Too large is the
number of albums that I did not like at first or second or even third
listening but that have grown on me over time. Of course, I have spent
money on duds, who hasn't? I have bought albums which did not pan out
except for those one or two tracks. But I have also acquired music I
would never have found if I hadn't bought the whole album, and that
makes the expense worthwhile to me. Good music that stands the test of
time is not all that common, IME. Consider also this: on any list of
truly classic albums, how many would have made it to that status if
buyers back then had been able to buy just the one or two tracks they
heard on the radio or in the club?
Good points. I've bought a record or CD for a song or two and found some
that were even better but never got airplay.
It seems obvious to me that mp3 are intentionally low quality so that
people will buy the CDs. Unfortunately, mp3s have become so popular that
many kids will probably never know what music is supposed to sound like.
That is true to a large extent, but there is a sign of hope: the
popularity of live performances has never been greater, to the extent
that acts may now earn a third or more of their revenues through live
shows rather than CD sales or downloads. Frex, between 1996 and 2009,
revenues from concert ticket sales tripled, from $1.5 billion to $4.6
billion. Between 2012 and 2013, the live music market in Britain grew
by a quarter to $1.7billion, plus half that again in sales of food,
drink and memorabilia. To me, this is a goo indicator that there is an
awareness out there of the shortcomings of consuming music digitally.
People want and appreciate real performances.
Dakota
2014-09-12 16:23:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Dakota
Post by Alex W.
Post by Dreamer In Colore
FM is for cars. Maybe for jogging. Besides, I've always viewed radio
as the sampler; you hear a snippet of a song, and then go find an mp3
to listen to before you buy the damn thing on CD or vinyl.
The one thing that mp3 has going for it is convenience. There is a
plethora of records and CDs in my collection that I bought for a song
or two, and that's just a waste. Few whole albums merit the expense,
so being able to pick and choose a playlist is a reasonable
enhancement.
A good argument, but I tend not to follow it myself. Too large is the
number of albums that I did not like at first or second or even third
listening but that have grown on me over time. Of course, I have spent
money on duds, who hasn't? I have bought albums which did not pan out
except for those one or two tracks. But I have also acquired music I
would never have found if I hadn't bought the whole album, and that
makes the expense worthwhile to me. Good music that stands the test of
time is not all that common, IME. Consider also this: on any list of
truly classic albums, how many would have made it to that status if
buyers back then had been able to buy just the one or two tracks they
heard on the radio or in the club?
Good points. I've bought a record or CD for a song or two and found some
that were even better but never got airplay.
It seems obvious to me that mp3 are intentionally low quality so that
people will buy the CDs. Unfortunately, mp3s have become so popular that
many kids will probably never know what music is supposed to sound like.
That is true to a large extent, but there is a sign of hope: the
popularity of live performances has never been greater, to the extent
that acts may now earn a third or more of their revenues through live
shows rather than CD sales or downloads. Frex, between 1996 and 2009,
revenues from concert ticket sales tripled, from $1.5 billion to $4.6
billion. Between 2012 and 2013, the live music market in Britain grew
by a quarter to $1.7billion, plus half that again in sales of food,
drink and memorabilia. To me, this is a goo indicator that there is an
awareness out there of the shortcomings of consuming music digitally.
People want and appreciate real performances.
Whether it's for the music or because of the excitement of being in a
huge crowd is open to debate. There was a thread here a while back that
discussed the difficulty of hearing the music when so many girls are
screaming during the entire performance because there's a heartthrob on
stage.
Alex W.
2014-09-13 07:21:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dakota
Post by Alex W.
Post by Dakota
Post by Alex W.
Post by Dreamer In Colore
FM is for cars. Maybe for jogging. Besides, I've always viewed radio
as the sampler; you hear a snippet of a song, and then go find an mp3
to listen to before you buy the damn thing on CD or vinyl.
The one thing that mp3 has going for it is convenience. There is a
plethora of records and CDs in my collection that I bought for a song
or two, and that's just a waste. Few whole albums merit the expense,
so being able to pick and choose a playlist is a reasonable
enhancement.
A good argument, but I tend not to follow it myself. Too large is the
number of albums that I did not like at first or second or even third
listening but that have grown on me over time. Of course, I have spent
money on duds, who hasn't? I have bought albums which did not pan out
except for those one or two tracks. But I have also acquired music I
would never have found if I hadn't bought the whole album, and that
makes the expense worthwhile to me. Good music that stands the test of
time is not all that common, IME. Consider also this: on any list of
truly classic albums, how many would have made it to that status if
buyers back then had been able to buy just the one or two tracks they
heard on the radio or in the club?
Good points. I've bought a record or CD for a song or two and found some
that were even better but never got airplay.
It seems obvious to me that mp3 are intentionally low quality so that
people will buy the CDs. Unfortunately, mp3s have become so popular that
many kids will probably never know what music is supposed to sound like.
That is true to a large extent, but there is a sign of hope: the
popularity of live performances has never been greater, to the extent
that acts may now earn a third or more of their revenues through live
shows rather than CD sales or downloads. Frex, between 1996 and 2009,
revenues from concert ticket sales tripled, from $1.5 billion to $4.6
billion. Between 2012 and 2013, the live music market in Britain grew
by a quarter to $1.7billion, plus half that again in sales of food,
drink and memorabilia. To me, this is a goo indicator that there is an
awareness out there of the shortcomings of consuming music digitally.
People want and appreciate real performances.
Whether it's for the music or because of the excitement of being in a
huge crowd is open to debate. There was a thread here a while back that
discussed the difficulty of hearing the music when so many girls are
screaming during the entire performance because there's a heartthrob on
stage.
That's true, of course, but don't you think it's a hopeful sign that so
many kids know and enjoy the live experience of music being performed?
In most, cases, I would assume that the same kids know the comparative
perfection of listening to the same songs in the isolation of their own
heads, with no ambient noise (one hopes). And still they pay a *lot* of
money to experience all that screaming.
Tom McDonald
2014-09-11 20:41:21 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Alex W.
Post by Tom McDonald
I get what you mean about 'clearer' not necessarily being the end-all of
music recording. And I take your point about the ambient noise issue.
Sometimes the best recordings are live, and the energy from the audience
and the performer being 'on' right then and there can make magic, even
if the sound is not crystal clear and pitch-perfect.
Plus, of course, live recordings (or live performances) are one-take
affairs. There is a risk of getting it wrong, and there are the rewards
when they get it right.
Thus live albums aren't made at every concert. Except Springsteen's, but
then, I've never heard, or heard of, him fucking up so badly it would
make a song bad.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Tom McDonald
To me, vinyl is nostalgic, but not for quality so much as the memories
and emotions it can elicit, what with the scratches, pops, skips, etc.
Kids today (there's that old foggie again--where'd he come from?) don't
have much in the way of music being anything other than relatively
perfectly recorded.
"Relatively" being a relative term... :-)
See my response elsewhere: vinyl is making a comeback. Even
old-technology hardware is very much back in fashion: valve (tube)
amplifiers are common and popular, even for strictly digital music
media. Frex, there's a valve amp custom-built for the iPod that I have
been hankering after and will buy as soon as I can justify the toy to
myself....
I've heard of valves. So you're saying you have ancient transistors in
your heart?

It might be fun to get into vinyl again, if I actually listened to that
much music. I don't, not on any regular basis, and I'd probably only be
able to afford a box store turntable and amp, so I guess it's digital
for me until I win some sort of multi-million dollar lottery.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Tom McDonald
Same with radio. In my day (FUCK! Go away, you smelly old fart!), only
AM stations had the power to reach the sticks where I lived, and we got
to deal with signal fade, interference, and all that went with it.
Plus the often fairly limited programming! Travelling through the
Australian outback, AM is the only radio that reaches, and all they seem
to broadcast is Christian propaganda, horse racing results and repeats
of classic Cricket matches...
Are there, do you remember, many trees big enough to hang oneself on, in
the Outback? Or are you limited to asphyxiating in your vehicle? I have
a friend in Oz, and would like to know whether to bring rope or a rubber
hose if I ever visit and he wants to take me to the Big Red Empty.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Tom McDonald
Traveling was a real chore, as you'd often lose a station in the middle
of something really sweet. With higher-power FM stations, that's greatly
reduced. Again, a loss the kids won't appreciate, and I only do because
it's a reminder of good times in the past.
I don't much like FM these days because too many stations over here have
switched to digital broadcasting. They compress the hell out of the
music to make it louder and improve reception, but the sound quality
goes right out the window. This may not be a great loss when listening
to Miley Cyrus or similar dross, but it is *very* noticeable with jazz,
blues and particularly classical music.
I don't listen to music on radio anymore, except when driving sometimes
when out of range of my local Wisconsin Public Radio station. (Or a
sports station, when the Brewers or Packers are playing.) I think my
local WPR station broadcasts in digital.

)r do you need a digital radio to pick up digital radio signals? Hmm.
Gonna have to check.) It may be they send out their signals in both
modes, given that lots of WPR listeners are not into the newest gear.
Dakota
2014-09-11 21:35:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom McDonald
<snip>
Post by Alex W.
Post by Tom McDonald
I get what you mean about 'clearer' not necessarily being the end-all of
music recording. And I take your point about the ambient noise issue.
Sometimes the best recordings are live, and the energy from the audience
and the performer being 'on' right then and there can make magic, even
if the sound is not crystal clear and pitch-perfect.
Plus, of course, live recordings (or live performances) are one-take
affairs. There is a risk of getting it wrong, and there are the rewards
when they get it right.
Thus live albums aren't made at every concert. Except Springsteen's, but
then, I've never heard, or heard of, him fucking up so badly it would
make a song bad.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Tom McDonald
To me, vinyl is nostalgic, but not for quality so much as the memories
and emotions it can elicit, what with the scratches, pops, skips, etc.
Kids today (there's that old foggie again--where'd he come from?) don't
have much in the way of music being anything other than relatively
perfectly recorded.
"Relatively" being a relative term... :-)
See my response elsewhere: vinyl is making a comeback. Even
old-technology hardware is very much back in fashion: valve (tube)
amplifiers are common and popular, even for strictly digital music
media. Frex, there's a valve amp custom-built for the iPod that I have
been hankering after and will buy as soon as I can justify the toy to
myself....
I've heard of valves. So you're saying you have ancient transistors in
your heart?
It might be fun to get into vinyl again, if I actually listened to that
much music. I don't, not on any regular basis, and I'd probably only be
able to afford a box store turntable and amp, so I guess it's digital
for me until I win some sort of multi-million dollar lottery.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Tom McDonald
Same with radio. In my day (FUCK! Go away, you smelly old fart!), only
AM stations had the power to reach the sticks where I lived, and we got
to deal with signal fade, interference, and all that went with it.
Plus the often fairly limited programming! Travelling through the
Australian outback, AM is the only radio that reaches, and all they seem
to broadcast is Christian propaganda, horse racing results and repeats
of classic Cricket matches...
Are there, do you remember, many trees big enough to hang oneself on, in
the Outback? Or are you limited to asphyxiating in your vehicle? I have
a friend in Oz, and would like to know whether to bring rope or a rubber
hose if I ever visit and he wants to take me to the Big Red Empty.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Tom McDonald
Traveling was a real chore, as you'd often lose a station in the middle
of something really sweet. With higher-power FM stations, that's greatly
reduced. Again, a loss the kids won't appreciate, and I only do because
it's a reminder of good times in the past.
I don't much like FM these days because too many stations over here have
switched to digital broadcasting. They compress the hell out of the
music to make it louder and improve reception, but the sound quality
goes right out the window. This may not be a great loss when listening
to Miley Cyrus or similar dross, but it is *very* noticeable with jazz,
blues and particularly classical music.
I don't listen to music on radio anymore, except when driving sometimes
when out of range of my local Wisconsin Public Radio station. (Or a
sports station, when the Brewers or Packers are playing.) I think my
local WPR station broadcasts in digital.
)r do you need a digital radio to pick up digital radio signals? Hmm.
Gonna have to check.) It may be they send out their signals in both
modes, given that lots of WPR listeners are not into the newest gear.
You need a digital radio to pick up digital broadcasts. I listen to SDPB
(South Dakota) and MPR (Minnesota) in standard FM. They each offer
digital but I haven't yet felt a need.
Tom McDonald
2014-09-11 23:41:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dakota
Post by Tom McDonald
<snip>
Post by Alex W.
Post by Tom McDonald
I get what you mean about 'clearer' not necessarily being the end-all of
music recording. And I take your point about the ambient noise issue.
Sometimes the best recordings are live, and the energy from the audience
and the performer being 'on' right then and there can make magic, even
if the sound is not crystal clear and pitch-perfect.
Plus, of course, live recordings (or live performances) are one-take
affairs. There is a risk of getting it wrong, and there are the rewards
when they get it right.
Thus live albums aren't made at every concert. Except Springsteen's, but
then, I've never heard, or heard of, him fucking up so badly it would
make a song bad.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Tom McDonald
To me, vinyl is nostalgic, but not for quality so much as the memories
and emotions it can elicit, what with the scratches, pops, skips, etc.
Kids today (there's that old foggie again--where'd he come from?) don't
have much in the way of music being anything other than relatively
perfectly recorded.
"Relatively" being a relative term... :-)
See my response elsewhere: vinyl is making a comeback. Even
old-technology hardware is very much back in fashion: valve (tube)
amplifiers are common and popular, even for strictly digital music
media. Frex, there's a valve amp custom-built for the iPod that I have
been hankering after and will buy as soon as I can justify the toy to
myself....
I've heard of valves. So you're saying you have ancient transistors in
your heart?
It might be fun to get into vinyl again, if I actually listened to that
much music. I don't, not on any regular basis, and I'd probably only be
able to afford a box store turntable and amp, so I guess it's digital
for me until I win some sort of multi-million dollar lottery.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Tom McDonald
Same with radio. In my day (FUCK! Go away, you smelly old fart!), only
AM stations had the power to reach the sticks where I lived, and we got
to deal with signal fade, interference, and all that went with it.
Plus the often fairly limited programming! Travelling through the
Australian outback, AM is the only radio that reaches, and all they seem
to broadcast is Christian propaganda, horse racing results and repeats
of classic Cricket matches...
Are there, do you remember, many trees big enough to hang oneself on, in
the Outback? Or are you limited to asphyxiating in your vehicle? I have
a friend in Oz, and would like to know whether to bring rope or a rubber
hose if I ever visit and he wants to take me to the Big Red Empty.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Tom McDonald
Traveling was a real chore, as you'd often lose a station in the middle
of something really sweet. With higher-power FM stations, that's greatly
reduced. Again, a loss the kids won't appreciate, and I only do because
it's a reminder of good times in the past.
I don't much like FM these days because too many stations over here have
switched to digital broadcasting. They compress the hell out of the
music to make it louder and improve reception, but the sound quality
goes right out the window. This may not be a great loss when listening
to Miley Cyrus or similar dross, but it is *very* noticeable with jazz,
blues and particularly classical music.
I don't listen to music on radio anymore, except when driving sometimes
when out of range of my local Wisconsin Public Radio station. (Or a
sports station, when the Brewers or Packers are playing.) I think my
local WPR station broadcasts in digital.
)r do you need a digital radio to pick up digital radio signals? Hmm.
Gonna have to check.) It may be they send out their signals in both
modes, given that lots of WPR listeners are not into the newest gear.
You need a digital radio to pick up digital broadcasts. I listen to SDPB
(South Dakota) and MPR (Minnesota) in standard FM. They each offer
digital but I haven't yet felt a need.
Ah. That must be what WPR is doing. Thanks. Don't want to have to buy a
new radio.
Alex W.
2014-09-12 15:22:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom McDonald
<snip>
Post by Alex W.
Post by Tom McDonald
I get what you mean about 'clearer' not necessarily being the end-all of
music recording. And I take your point about the ambient noise issue.
Sometimes the best recordings are live, and the energy from the audience
and the performer being 'on' right then and there can make magic, even
if the sound is not crystal clear and pitch-perfect.
Plus, of course, live recordings (or live performances) are one-take
affairs. There is a risk of getting it wrong, and there are the rewards
when they get it right.
Thus live albums aren't made at every concert. Except Springsteen's, but
then, I've never heard, or heard of, him fucking up so badly it would
make a song bad.
Data storage is so cheap these days, I wouldn't bet against all concerts
to be recorded and put into deep storage for the moment when the
marketing guys decide they need a live album (often the day after the
death of one or more band members).
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Alex W.
Post by Tom McDonald
To me, vinyl is nostalgic, but not for quality so much as the memories
and emotions it can elicit, what with the scratches, pops, skips, etc.
Kids today (there's that old foggie again--where'd he come from?) don't
have much in the way of music being anything other than relatively
perfectly recorded.
"Relatively" being a relative term... :-)
See my response elsewhere: vinyl is making a comeback. Even
old-technology hardware is very much back in fashion: valve (tube)
amplifiers are common and popular, even for strictly digital music
media. Frex, there's a valve amp custom-built for the iPod that I have
been hankering after and will buy as soon as I can justify the toy to
myself....
I've heard of valves. So you're saying you have ancient transistors in
your heart?
Hardly. You can't lubricate transistors with Valvoline....
Post by Tom McDonald
It might be fun to get into vinyl again, if I actually listened to that
much music. I don't, not on any regular basis, and I'd probably only be
able to afford a box store turntable and amp, so I guess it's digital
for me until I win some sort of multi-million dollar lottery.
A complete turntable-based system can be had for around $1,000 or so,
entry-level. Most anything can be had second-hand at decent prices, but
I would counsel against buying anything but new pickups. Of course, if
you ever get serious about it, then you really will have to marry that
rich widow with the dicky ticker...
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Alex W.
Post by Tom McDonald
Same with radio. In my day (FUCK! Go away, you smelly old fart!), only
AM stations had the power to reach the sticks where I lived, and we got
to deal with signal fade, interference, and all that went with it.
Plus the often fairly limited programming! Travelling through the
Australian outback, AM is the only radio that reaches, and all they seem
to broadcast is Christian propaganda, horse racing results and repeats
of classic Cricket matches...
Are there, do you remember, many trees big enough to hang oneself on, in
the Outback? Or are you limited to asphyxiating in your vehicle? I have
a friend in Oz, and would like to know whether to bring rope or a rubber
hose if I ever visit and he wants to take me to the Big Red Empty.
One reason why they call it the Big Red Empty: no trees. Plus, native
eucalypts are known for throwing off branches rather than leaves during
winter, so even if you could find a tree the branch you fasten the rope
to might well not hold your weight.

An alternative would be to drive during dawn and dusk when kangaroos are
active, undo the seatbelt and then race the 'roos. Sooner or later, one
will do a 90-degree jump right in front of your car and solve all your
radio programming concerns.
Tom McDonald
2014-09-12 16:33:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Tom McDonald
<snip>
Post by Alex W.
Post by Tom McDonald
I get what you mean about 'clearer' not necessarily being the end-all of
music recording. And I take your point about the ambient noise issue.
Sometimes the best recordings are live, and the energy from the audience
and the performer being 'on' right then and there can make magic, even
if the sound is not crystal clear and pitch-perfect.
Plus, of course, live recordings (or live performances) are one-take
affairs. There is a risk of getting it wrong, and there are the rewards
when they get it right.
Thus live albums aren't made at every concert. Except Springsteen's, but
then, I've never heard, or heard of, him fucking up so badly it would
make a song bad.
Data storage is so cheap these days, I wouldn't bet against all concerts
to be recorded and put into deep storage for the moment when the
marketing guys decide they need a live album (often the day after the
death of one or more band members).
Sounds like a sound marketing plan!
Post by Alex W.
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Alex W.
Post by Tom McDonald
To me, vinyl is nostalgic, but not for quality so much as the memories
and emotions it can elicit, what with the scratches, pops, skips, etc.
Kids today (there's that old foggie again--where'd he come from?) don't
have much in the way of music being anything other than relatively
perfectly recorded.
"Relatively" being a relative term... :-)
See my response elsewhere: vinyl is making a comeback. Even
old-technology hardware is very much back in fashion: valve (tube)
amplifiers are common and popular, even for strictly digital music
media. Frex, there's a valve amp custom-built for the iPod that I have
been hankering after and will buy as soon as I can justify the toy to
myself....
I've heard of valves. So you're saying you have ancient transistors in
your heart?
Hardly. You can't lubricate transistors with Valvoline....
:-)
Post by Alex W.
Post by Tom McDonald
It might be fun to get into vinyl again, if I actually listened to that
much music. I don't, not on any regular basis, and I'd probably only be
able to afford a box store turntable and amp, so I guess it's digital
for me until I win some sort of multi-million dollar lottery.
A complete turntable-based system can be had for around $1,000 or so,
entry-level. Most anything can be had second-hand at decent prices, but
I would counsel against buying anything but new pickups. Of course, if
you ever get serious about it, then you really will have to marry that
rich widow with the dicky ticker...
How about a rich young, hot, intelligent, funny and tolerant widow? Or
just such a woman who made it on her own? I'm not fussy, but I'd prefer
to leech off the originator of the pile.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Tom McDonald
Post by Alex W.
Post by Tom McDonald
Same with radio. In my day (FUCK! Go away, you smelly old fart!), only
AM stations had the power to reach the sticks where I lived, and we got
to deal with signal fade, interference, and all that went with it.
Plus the often fairly limited programming! Travelling through the
Australian outback, AM is the only radio that reaches, and all they seem
to broadcast is Christian propaganda, horse racing results and repeats
of classic Cricket matches...
Are there, do you remember, many trees big enough to hang oneself on, in
the Outback? Or are you limited to asphyxiating in your vehicle? I have
a friend in Oz, and would like to know whether to bring rope or a rubber
hose if I ever visit and he wants to take me to the Big Red Empty.
One reason why they call it the Big Red Empty: no trees. Plus, native
eucalypts are known for throwing off branches rather than leaves during
winter, so even if you could find a tree the branch you fasten the rope
to might well not hold your weight.
An alternative would be to drive during dawn and dusk when kangaroos are
active, undo the seatbelt and then race the 'roos. Sooner or later, one
will do a 90-degree jump right in front of your car and solve all your
radio programming concerns.
So it's the Yugo without the 'roo guards, then. Thanks! Much more
dramatic and fulfilling than the hose pipe method.
Jeanne Douglas
2014-09-08 23:16:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Mike Painter
Post by Olrik
On many levels, we live in a better sci-fi world than actual sci-fi
promised...
History shows that in mot cases, when you graph of what "regular
people", scientists, science fiction writers, and reality, the reality
curve is much steeper.
A bit of exaggeration but the slide rule was *the* calculating
instrument until the day after multi function calculators hit the
market.
And we all know that analog computers are best at solving most real
world problems.
Slide rule ... isn't that a tool for Westerners too dumb to use an abacus?
:-P
I would love to learn how to use an abacus.
--
JD

³Labor is prior to and independent of capital.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could
never have existed if labor had not first
existed. Labor is the superior of capital,
and deserves much the higher consideration.²
--Abraham Lincoln
David Harmon
2014-09-12 18:26:29 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 08 Sep 2014 17:01:08 +0200 in alt.atheism, "Alex W."
Post by Alex W.
Slide rule ... isn't that a tool for Westerners too dumb to use an abacus?
:-P
No, no it isn't. An abacus is a tool for bean counters who need to
add and subtract and never drop a bean.

A slide rule is a tool for scientists and engineers who need to do
complex computations and don't need more than three digits of
accuracy, because you are lucky to get three digits in the original
measurements you are working from in the first place.

The requirements are very different.
Teresita
2014-09-13 03:05:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Harmon
On Mon, 08 Sep 2014 17:01:08 +0200 in alt.atheism, "Alex W."
Post by Alex W.
Slide rule ... isn't that a tool for Westerners too dumb to use an abacus?
:-P
No, no it isn't. An abacus is a tool for bean counters who need to
add and subtract and never drop a bean.
Only if they've been patched for the BC2AD bug.
JTEM
2014-09-08 08:04:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Olrik
It's *always* like that. Most movies are dreck, as is most music,
theatre, books, etc.
No, it's NOT always like that. Movies aren't made the way
they used to be made. The way scripts get picked, stars
get signed -- everything! -- is different.

The sequels that ruled the 70s are now supplanted by
the "Reboot"...

King Kong, Mighty Joe Young, War of The Worlds, Star Trek,
The Longest Yard, Rollerball, etc, etc, etc... All remade.

NOTE: Supposedly they already signed a "Ghostbusters"
reboot!

Hollywood has long since STOPPED driving film production.
The "Investors" are. In a very real sense the cinema
audiences are no longer Hollywood's customer. A major
feature film these days is like $70 million or more, but
there's enormous profit built into that! The investors
come up with the cash, and the cash covers everyone's
salary, everyone's fees... equipment rentals... everything.

Hollywood is VASTLY more conservative today than in the
past. Investors won't take chances. Nobody wants to
pump money into a highly risky venture starring an unknown.
But tell them that they're investing in the next Brad
Pitt film and they write the checks.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/96922974553
Alex W.
2014-09-09 09:39:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Olrik
Post by Mitchell Holman
In our local megaplexes we are
seeing feature presentations of
Ghostbusters (1984), Scarface (1983)
and Forrest Gump (1994), the latter
in IMAX format no less. And these
are not midnight fare at the local
art house, but major releases to the
biggest theater chains.
And these three films are not even *that* good, at least not deserving
any sort of revival in megaplexes. Well, maybe Ghostbusters, in a campy
sort of ways.
But nowadays, thanks to the Internet, to DVD/Blu-ray, to cable film
channels, etc., it's easier than ever to get and watch the movies you
like, from every genre, origins, time or language you prefer.
It's freakishly mind-boggling, I tell you. I'm 58, and in the '70s I
almost wanted to delay a long trip to Europe so I could catch a very
rare showing of Orson Welles' The Trial.
Now, I have a fabulous Blu-ray copy of that masterpiece (and dozens of
others...) that I can watch whenever I want on my flat-screen TV.
Which is convenient but it isn't the same. Watching a movie on DVD is to
a cinema experience what listening to a CD is to attending a live
concert. We lose context, information and atmosphere, and we do not
experience the performance in the way they were intended to be consumed
by the creator.
Post by Olrik
On many levels, we live in a better sci-fi world than actual sci-fi
promised...
Depends what sci-fi you are thinking of...
Post by Olrik
Post by Mitchell Holman
Given the dreck that constitutes
the current movies
It's *always* like that. Most movies are dreck, as is most music,
theatre, books, etc.
Between current exciting directors/writers like Wes Anderson, Tarantino,
the Coen brothers, Scorcese (here I'm only mentioning Americans), there
are very good films from elsewhere in the world, easily accessible via
Internet or Amazon or TV channels.
Or simply wait until Hollywood steals the idea and does a remake.
:-/
Olrik
2014-09-10 03:46:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
Post by Mitchell Holman
In our local megaplexes we are
seeing feature presentations of
Ghostbusters (1984), Scarface (1983)
and Forrest Gump (1994), the latter
in IMAX format no less. And these
are not midnight fare at the local
art house, but major releases to the
biggest theater chains.
And these three films are not even *that* good, at least not deserving
any sort of revival in megaplexes. Well, maybe Ghostbusters, in a campy
sort of ways.
But nowadays, thanks to the Internet, to DVD/Blu-ray, to cable film
channels, etc., it's easier than ever to get and watch the movies you
like, from every genre, origins, time or language you prefer.
It's freakishly mind-boggling, I tell you. I'm 58, and in the '70s I
almost wanted to delay a long trip to Europe so I could catch a very
rare showing of Orson Welles' The Trial.
Now, I have a fabulous Blu-ray copy of that masterpiece (and dozens of
others...) that I can watch whenever I want on my flat-screen TV.
Which is convenient but it isn't the same.
Nor did I pretend it would.
Post by Alex W.
Watching a movie on DVD is to
a cinema experience what listening to a CD is to attending a live
concert.
Very wrong, as a movie is always the same, there's no «live» component
to it. Maybe you meant theatre.
Post by Alex W.
We lose context, information and atmosphere, and we do not
experience the performance in the way they were intended to be consumed
by the creator.
There's no such thing in movies. It's just a projection.

But I'll say this: watching a *comedy* with hundreds of persons can be
exhilarating. For pretty much all other genres, well, you're alone in
the dark.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
On many levels, we live in a better sci-fi world than actual sci-fi
promised...
Depends what sci-fi you are thinking of...
Think about it. No, not time travel, or FTL spaceships. AFAIK, and
please correct me if I'm wrong, but even something as «boring» as our
iPhones were not envisioned in traditional sci-fi.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
Post by Mitchell Holman
Given the dreck that constitutes
the current movies
It's *always* like that. Most movies are dreck, as is most music,
theatre, books, etc.
Between current exciting directors/writers like Wes Anderson, Tarantino,
the Coen brothers, Scorcese (here I'm only mentioning Americans), there
are very good films from elsewhere in the world, easily accessible via
Internet or Amazon or TV channels.
Or simply wait until Hollywood steals the idea and does a remake.
:-/
--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
Alex W.
2014-09-10 22:26:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Olrik
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
Post by Mitchell Holman
In our local megaplexes we are
seeing feature presentations of
Ghostbusters (1984), Scarface (1983)
and Forrest Gump (1994), the latter
in IMAX format no less. And these
are not midnight fare at the local
art house, but major releases to the
biggest theater chains.
And these three films are not even *that* good, at least not deserving
any sort of revival in megaplexes. Well, maybe Ghostbusters, in a campy
sort of ways.
But nowadays, thanks to the Internet, to DVD/Blu-ray, to cable film
channels, etc., it's easier than ever to get and watch the movies you
like, from every genre, origins, time or language you prefer.
It's freakishly mind-boggling, I tell you. I'm 58, and in the '70s I
almost wanted to delay a long trip to Europe so I could catch a very
rare showing of Orson Welles' The Trial.
Now, I have a fabulous Blu-ray copy of that masterpiece (and dozens of
others...) that I can watch whenever I want on my flat-screen TV.
Which is convenient but it isn't the same.
Nor did I pretend it would.
Post by Alex W.
Watching a movie on DVD is to
a cinema experience what listening to a CD is to attending a live
concert.
Very wrong, as a movie is always the same, there's no «live» component
to it. Maybe you meant theatre.
I meant *watching* a movie. The live component is the experience of
watching. How you consume something is as important a factor as what
you consume. It even makes a difference whether you are alone or in
company when you pop that DVD in the player.
Post by Olrik
Post by Alex W.
We lose context, information and atmosphere, and we do not
experience the performance in the way they were intended to be consumed
by the creator.
There's no such thing in movies. It's just a projection.
Go see Lawrence of Arabia or Psycho on your TV. Then go and see it on
the big screen. Then tell me there is no difference.
Post by Olrik
But I'll say this: watching a *comedy* with hundreds of persons can be
exhilarating. For pretty much all other genres, well, you're alone in
the dark.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
On many levels, we live in a better sci-fi world than actual sci-fi
promised...
Depends what sci-fi you are thinking of...
Think about it. No, not time travel, or FTL spaceships. AFAIK, and
please correct me if I'm wrong, but even something as «boring» as our
iPhones were not envisioned in traditional sci-fi.
Star Trek did famously come up with transponders which are pretty much
what smartphones are today.

Aside from that, while we do not have FTL or time travel, neither do we
have the end of the world. No post-apocalyptic societies or total
global dictatorships. There are as many dystopian sci-fi visions as
there are utopian ones.
Dakota
2014-09-10 23:04:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
Post by Mitchell Holman
In our local megaplexes we are
seeing feature presentations of
Ghostbusters (1984), Scarface (1983)
and Forrest Gump (1994), the latter
in IMAX format no less. And these
are not midnight fare at the local
art house, but major releases to the
biggest theater chains.
And these three films are not even *that* good, at least not deserving
any sort of revival in megaplexes. Well, maybe Ghostbusters, in a campy
sort of ways.
But nowadays, thanks to the Internet, to DVD/Blu-ray, to cable film
channels, etc., it's easier than ever to get and watch the movies you
like, from every genre, origins, time or language you prefer.
It's freakishly mind-boggling, I tell you. I'm 58, and in the '70s I
almost wanted to delay a long trip to Europe so I could catch a very
rare showing of Orson Welles' The Trial.
Now, I have a fabulous Blu-ray copy of that masterpiece (and dozens of
others...) that I can watch whenever I want on my flat-screen TV.
Which is convenient but it isn't the same.
Nor did I pretend it would.
Post by Alex W.
Watching a movie on DVD is to
a cinema experience what listening to a CD is to attending a live
concert.
Very wrong, as a movie is always the same, there's no «live» component
to it. Maybe you meant theatre.
I meant *watching* a movie. The live component is the experience of
watching. How you consume something is as important a factor as what
you consume. It even makes a difference whether you are alone or in
company when you pop that DVD in the player.
Post by Olrik
Post by Alex W.
We lose context, information and atmosphere, and we do not
experience the performance in the way they were intended to be consumed
by the creator.
There's no such thing in movies. It's just a projection.
Go see Lawrence of Arabia or Psycho on your TV. Then go and see it on
the big screen. Then tell me there is no difference.
Post by Olrik
But I'll say this: watching a *comedy* with hundreds of persons can be
exhilarating. For pretty much all other genres, well, you're alone in
the dark.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
On many levels, we live in a better sci-fi world than actual sci-fi
promised...
Depends what sci-fi you are thinking of...
Think about it. No, not time travel, or FTL spaceships. AFAIK, and
please correct me if I'm wrong, but even something as «boring» as our
iPhones were not envisioned in traditional sci-fi.
Star Trek did famously come up with transponders which are pretty much
what smartphones are today.
Aside from that, while we do not have FTL or time travel, neither do we
have the end of the world. No post-apocalyptic societies or total
global dictatorships. There are as many dystopian sci-fi visions as
there are utopian ones.
Distopian Visions would be a good name for the Republican Party's platforms.
Olrik
2014-09-11 04:01:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
Post by Mitchell Holman
In our local megaplexes we are
seeing feature presentations of
Ghostbusters (1984), Scarface (1983)
and Forrest Gump (1994), the latter
in IMAX format no less. And these
are not midnight fare at the local
art house, but major releases to the
biggest theater chains.
And these three films are not even *that* good, at least not deserving
any sort of revival in megaplexes. Well, maybe Ghostbusters, in a campy
sort of ways.
But nowadays, thanks to the Internet, to DVD/Blu-ray, to cable film
channels, etc., it's easier than ever to get and watch the movies you
like, from every genre, origins, time or language you prefer.
It's freakishly mind-boggling, I tell you. I'm 58, and in the '70s I
almost wanted to delay a long trip to Europe so I could catch a very
rare showing of Orson Welles' The Trial.
Now, I have a fabulous Blu-ray copy of that masterpiece (and dozens of
others...) that I can watch whenever I want on my flat-screen TV.
Which is convenient but it isn't the same.
Nor did I pretend it would.
Post by Alex W.
Watching a movie on DVD is to
a cinema experience what listening to a CD is to attending a live
concert.
Very wrong, as a movie is always the same, there's no «live» component
to it. Maybe you meant theatre.
I meant *watching* a movie. The live component is the experience of
watching. How you consume something is as important a factor as what
you consume. It even makes a difference whether you are alone or in
company when you pop that DVD in the player.
Post by Olrik
Post by Alex W.
We lose context, information and atmosphere, and we do not
experience the performance in the way they were intended to be consumed
by the creator.
There's no such thing in movies. It's just a projection.
Go see Lawrence of Arabia or Psycho on your TV. Then go and see it on
the big screen. Then tell me there is no difference.
I'm 58.

I saw these movies on the big screen, in repertoire cinemas, before the
advent of VHS, DVD, Blu-ray, On-Demand HD, etc.

A lot of times, the copies were horrible, scratchy and the switch
between reels were approximate at best. Sound was crappy.

Growing up, we had a 15 inch TV. A saw masterpieces on it that I
remember vividly to this day.

Then I bought an 11 inch B&W TV when I was 13. Only 4 channels, but I
was free to watch TV until the wee hours (much to my mother's
chagrin...). Those are still the best memories of my life as a kid: The
Saint, The Prisoner (in French, of course!), or a good flick, with a
snack of either a Stouffer's Chicken Pie, a pizza or a BBQ half-chicken.

Some films I saw on that 11 inch TV that I don't want to watch again
because they were too powerful. Try to watch Umberto D. on any fucking
screen size without shedding a bucket of tears.

And then I spent a couple of years commuting to a new job (40 minutes),
and spent that time watching movies on my iPhone.

Well, as bizarre as it may sound, I developed quite an affection and a
"proximity" with a lot of the films I saw that way.

Now, my commute time is only 15 minutes, so I switched from movies to
books. Even though I read a lot of books in 10 minutes increments
(sometimes more when I lunch alone), I still enjoy and remember them
just as if I was spending more time with them. Currently reading
«Cooked», by Michael Pollan.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
But I'll say this: watching a *comedy* with hundreds of persons can be
exhilarating. For pretty much all other genres, well, you're alone in
the dark.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
On many levels, we live in a better sci-fi world than actual sci-fi
promised...
Depends what sci-fi you are thinking of...
Think about it. No, not time travel, or FTL spaceships. AFAIK, and
please correct me if I'm wrong, but even something as «boring» as our
iPhones were not envisioned in traditional sci-fi.
Star Trek did famously come up with transponders which are pretty much
what smartphones are today.
Aside from that, while we do not have FTL or time travel, neither do we
have the end of the world. No post-apocalyptic societies or total
global dictatorships. There are as many dystopian sci-fi visions as
there are utopian ones.
--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
Alex W.
2014-09-11 09:10:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Olrik
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
Post by Alex W.
We lose context, information and atmosphere, and we do not
experience the performance in the way they were intended to be consumed
by the creator.
There's no such thing in movies. It's just a projection.
Go see Lawrence of Arabia or Psycho on your TV. Then go and see it on
the big screen. Then tell me there is no difference.
I'm 58.
Condolences.
:-)
Post by Olrik
I saw these movies on the big screen, in repertoire cinemas, before the
advent of VHS, DVD, Blu-ray, On-Demand HD, etc.
A lot of times, the copies were horrible, scratchy and the switch
between reels were approximate at best. Sound was crappy.
This has all improved today. Especially the old films: copies have been
cleaned up and remastered, projection technology now allows for perfect
playback, and cinemas are far cleaner and more comfortable. I remember
clearly my moment of conversion (as it were). The BFI (British Film
Institute) had put on a complete showing of Hitchcock films in their own
cinema, and I experienced all those classics on the big screen that I
thought I knew well from the telly. It was a revelation. Detail
suddenly jumped out. Scenes had far more impact -- the shower scene
from "Psycho" is still dead scary on the big screen.
Post by Olrik
Growing up, we had a 15 inch TV. A saw masterpieces on it that I
remember vividly to this day.
Then I bought an 11 inch B&W TV when I was 13. Only 4 channels, but I
was free to watch TV until the wee hours (much to my mother's
chagrin...). Those are still the best memories of my life as a kid: The
Saint, The Prisoner (in French, of course!), or a good flick, with a
snack of either a Stouffer's Chicken Pie, a pizza or a BBQ half-chicken.
Which are good experiences, to be sure. But those examples you cited
were all made especially for television, created for that specific medium.
Post by Olrik
Some films I saw on that 11 inch TV that I don't want to watch again
because they were too powerful. Try to watch Umberto D. on any fucking
screen size without shedding a bucket of tears.
And then I spent a couple of years commuting to a new job (40 minutes),
and spent that time watching movies on my iPhone.
Well, your eyes at least aren't 58 -- I can't watch anything for any
length of time on my iPhone, and I am 10 years younger than you.
Post by Olrik
Well, as bizarre as it may sound, I developed quite an affection and a
"proximity" with a lot of the films I saw that way.
Now, my commute time is only 15 minutes, so I switched from movies to
books. Even though I read a lot of books in 10 minutes increments
(sometimes more when I lunch alone), I still enjoy and remember them
just as if I was spending more time with them. Currently reading
«Cooked», by Michael Pollan.
Each to their own, I suppose. I could never read a book in 10-15 minute
snatches.
Dreamer In Colore
2014-09-11 13:02:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
Post by Alex W.
We lose context, information and atmosphere, and we do not
experience the performance in the way they were intended to be consumed
by the creator.
There's no such thing in movies. It's just a projection.
Go see Lawrence of Arabia or Psycho on your TV. Then go and see it on
the big screen. Then tell me there is no difference.
I'm 58.
Condolences.
:-)
Post by Olrik
I saw these movies on the big screen, in repertoire cinemas, before the
advent of VHS, DVD, Blu-ray, On-Demand HD, etc.
A lot of times, the copies were horrible, scratchy and the switch
between reels were approximate at best. Sound was crappy.
This has all improved today. Especially the old films: copies have been
cleaned up and remastered, projection technology now allows for perfect
playback, and cinemas are far cleaner and more comfortable. I remember
clearly my moment of conversion (as it were). The BFI (British Film
Institute) had put on a complete showing of Hitchcock films in their own
cinema, and I experienced all those classics on the big screen that I
thought I knew well from the telly. It was a revelation. Detail
suddenly jumped out. Scenes had far more impact -- the shower scene
from "Psycho" is still dead scary on the big screen.
Post by Olrik
Growing up, we had a 15 inch TV. A saw masterpieces on it that I
remember vividly to this day.
Then I bought an 11 inch B&W TV when I was 13. Only 4 channels, but I
was free to watch TV until the wee hours (much to my mother's
chagrin...). Those are still the best memories of my life as a kid: The
Saint, The Prisoner (in French, of course!), or a good flick, with a
snack of either a Stouffer's Chicken Pie, a pizza or a BBQ half-chicken.
Which are good experiences, to be sure. But those examples you cited
were all made especially for television, created for that specific medium.
Oh..... "Callan". I loved that show, even though watching it again now
it's horribly dated.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
Some films I saw on that 11 inch TV that I don't want to watch again
because they were too powerful. Try to watch Umberto D. on any fucking
screen size without shedding a bucket of tears.
And then I spent a couple of years commuting to a new job (40 minutes),
and spent that time watching movies on my iPhone.
Well, your eyes at least aren't 58 -- I can't watch anything for any
length of time on my iPhone, and I am 10 years younger than you.
The iPhone screen is way too small. My son has a new Sony Xperia,
though, and short videos are actually surprisingly watchable.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
Well, as bizarre as it may sound, I developed quite an affection and a
"proximity" with a lot of the films I saw that way.
Now, my commute time is only 15 minutes, so I switched from movies to
books. Even though I read a lot of books in 10 minutes increments
(sometimes more when I lunch alone), I still enjoy and remember them
just as if I was spending more time with them. Currently reading
«Cooked», by Michael Pollan.
Each to their own, I suppose. I could never read a book in 10-15 minute
snatches.
Ahhhh... you don't have kids. You have the luxury of time!

Cheers,
Dreamer
Alex W.
2014-09-11 14:07:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dreamer In Colore
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
Now, my commute time is only 15 minutes, so I switched from movies to
books. Even though I read a lot of books in 10 minutes increments
(sometimes more when I lunch alone), I still enjoy and remember them
just as if I was spending more time with them. Currently reading
«Cooked», by Michael Pollan.
Each to their own, I suppose. I could never read a book in 10-15 minute
snatches.
Ahhhh... you don't have kids. You have the luxury of time!
That's right -- I have no kids. I still have a life!
:-)
Alex W.
2014-09-12 15:04:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
A lot of times, the copies were horrible, scratchy and the switch
between reels were approximate at best. Sound was crappy.
This has all improved today. Especially the old films: copies have been
cleaned up and remastered, projection technology now allows for perfect
playback, and cinemas are far cleaner and more comfortable.
You have not watched a film in America, I take it, where a layer of
semi-dried Coca-Cola serves in place of cheap linoleum on the
auditorium floor and where "patrons" have no idea of how to behave as
an audience.
Ah, but the semi-dried Coca-Cola has the security function of preventing
anyone from sneaking around unnoticed during the performance!

Of course, experiences may vary across the pond, but IME those cinemas
that show re-runs of classic movies tend to be better appointed (the
closest such place to me has no seats but sofas!), much cleaner, with a
far better selection of refreshments (why drink syrupy Coke when you can
have a decent chardonnay?) and above all attracts an audience that is
older, better behaved and more appreciative. Your average
multiplex-going teenage yob wouldn't know a Maltese Falcon if you
wrapped him in celluloid and set fire to him. They wouldn't know the
difference between Clark Gable, Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart if you bent
them over a able and had them gang-raped by lookalikes. IOW, they
wouldn't be seen dead in a place that showed North By North West or
Harvey or Double Indemnity or Casablanca or Some Like It Hot, to name
but a very few.
Dakota
2014-09-12 15:13:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
A lot of times, the copies were horrible, scratchy and the switch
between reels were approximate at best. Sound was crappy.
This has all improved today. Especially the old films: copies have been
cleaned up and remastered, projection technology now allows for perfect
playback, and cinemas are far cleaner and more comfortable.
You have not watched a film in America, I take it, where a layer of
semi-dried Coca-Cola serves in place of cheap linoleum on the
auditorium floor and where "patrons" have no idea of how to behave as
an audience.
Ah, but the semi-dried Coca-Cola has the security function of preventing
anyone from sneaking around unnoticed during the performance!
Of course, experiences may vary across the pond, but IME those cinemas
that show re-runs of classic movies tend to be better appointed (the
closest such place to me has no seats but sofas!), much cleaner, with a
far better selection of refreshments (why drink syrupy Coke when you can
have a decent chardonnay?) and above all attracts an audience that is
older, better behaved and more appreciative. Your average
multiplex-going teenage yob wouldn't know a Maltese Falcon if you
wrapped him in celluloid and set fire to him. They wouldn't know the
difference between Clark Gable, Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart if you bent
them over a able and had them gang-raped by lookalikes. IOW, they
wouldn't be seen dead in a place that showed North By North West or
Harvey or Double Indemnity or Casablanca or Some Like It Hot, to name
but a very few.
Give the kids a break. It's tough to pay attention to what's on the
screen when you're tweeting, posting on Facebook, texting with your
friends, and watching cat videos on YouTube. Then there's the difficulty
in hearing dialog while their earbuds are slamming the latest mp3s into
your head. It's amazing to me that they can get manage to get their
homework done with all that going on.
Olrik
2014-09-13 03:29:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
Post by Alex W.
We lose context, information and atmosphere, and we do not
experience the performance in the way they were intended to be consumed
by the creator.
There's no such thing in movies. It's just a projection.
Go see Lawrence of Arabia or Psycho on your TV. Then go and see it on
the big screen. Then tell me there is no difference.
I'm 58.
Condolences.
:-)
Well, I truly hope you reach 58! I almost died of a massive heart attack
when I was 52, so each year is a bonus!
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
I saw these movies on the big screen, in repertoire cinemas, before the
advent of VHS, DVD, Blu-ray, On-Demand HD, etc.
A lot of times, the copies were horrible, scratchy and the switch
between reels were approximate at best. Sound was crappy.
This has all improved today.
*You* tell me?

;-)
Post by Alex W.
Especially the old films: copies have been
cleaned up and remastered, projection technology now allows for perfect
playback, and cinemas are far cleaner and more comfortable. I remember
clearly my moment of conversion (as it were). The BFI (British Film
Institute) had put on a complete showing of Hitchcock films in their own
cinema, and I experienced all those classics on the big screen that I
thought I knew well from the telly. It was a revelation. Detail
suddenly jumped out. Scenes had far more impact -- the shower scene
from "Psycho" is still dead scary on the big screen.
I saw it as a teen, on my 11 inch TV. Scary. Now, of course, when I saw
it last year on the Blu-ray version, I wasn't scared (it was probably
the fifth time I saw the film), but I was most impressed with the level
of details on the images.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
Growing up, we had a 15 inch TV. A saw masterpieces on it that I
remember vividly to this day.
Then I bought an 11 inch B&W TV when I was 13. Only 4 channels, but I
was free to watch TV until the wee hours (much to my mother's
chagrin...). Those are still the best memories of my life as a kid: The
Saint, The Prisoner (in French, of course!), or a good flick, with a
snack of either a Stouffer's Chicken Pie, a pizza or a BBQ half-chicken.
Which are good experiences, to be sure. But those examples you cited
were all made especially for television, created for that specific medium.
Well, yeah, but I also saw hundreds of films, but TV serials came to
mind first, them being, well, serial!
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
Some films I saw on that 11 inch TV that I don't want to watch again
because they were too powerful. Try to watch Umberto D. on any fucking
screen size without shedding a bucket of tears.
And then I spent a couple of years commuting to a new job (40 minutes),
and spent that time watching movies on my iPhone.
Well, your eyes at least aren't 58 -- I can't watch anything for any
length of time on my iPhone, and I am 10 years younger than you.
I wear expensive glasses!

Besides, I didn't watch Lawrence of Arabia, nor War and Peace. But
comedy and dramas are quite OK on a small screen because the rely more
on acting and dialogue than action and set pieces.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
Well, as bizarre as it may sound, I developed quite an affection and a
"proximity" with a lot of the films I saw that way.
Now, my commute time is only 15 minutes, so I switched from movies to
books. Even though I read a lot of books in 10 minutes increments
(sometimes more when I lunch alone), I still enjoy and remember them
just as if I was spending more time with them. Currently reading
«Cooked», by Michael Pollan.
Each to their own, I suppose. I could never read a book in 10-15 minute
snatches.
I never thought I could, either, but here I am, hooked and eager to sit
down in a café, and open either my iPhone or my iPad Mini and read the
next chapter!
--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
Alex W.
2014-09-14 08:23:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Olrik
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
Post by Alex W.
We lose context, information and atmosphere, and we do not
experience the performance in the way they were intended to be consumed
by the creator.
There's no such thing in movies. It's just a projection.
Go see Lawrence of Arabia or Psycho on your TV. Then go and see it on
the big screen. Then tell me there is no difference.
I'm 58.
Condolences.
:-)
Well, I truly hope you reach 58! I almost died of a massive heart attack
when I was 52, so each year is a bonus!
I'm sure it is.
Mes fèlicitations!
Post by Olrik
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
I saw these movies on the big screen, in repertoire cinemas, before the
advent of VHS, DVD, Blu-ray, On-Demand HD, etc.
A lot of times, the copies were horrible, scratchy and the switch
between reels were approximate at best. Sound was crappy.
This has all improved today.
*You* tell me?
;-)
Amazing, isn't it?
:-)
Post by Olrik
Post by Alex W.
Especially the old films: copies have been
cleaned up and remastered, projection technology now allows for perfect
playback, and cinemas are far cleaner and more comfortable. I remember
clearly my moment of conversion (as it were). The BFI (British Film
Institute) had put on a complete showing of Hitchcock films in their own
cinema, and I experienced all those classics on the big screen that I
thought I knew well from the telly. It was a revelation. Detail
suddenly jumped out. Scenes had far more impact -- the shower scene
from "Psycho" is still dead scary on the big screen.
I saw it as a teen, on my 11 inch TV. Scary. Now, of course, when I saw
it last year on the Blu-ray version, I wasn't scared (it was probably
the fifth time I saw the film), but I was most impressed with the level
of details on the images.
Question is, do we always *want* the detail? Until a few years ago, the
visual medium -- celluloid or digital -- wasn't good enough for minute
detail, so film-makers wouldn't have bothered to take it into account.
So is it actually an advantage to be able to see things that were never
intended to be seen?
Post by Olrik
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
Growing up, we had a 15 inch TV. A saw masterpieces on it that I
remember vividly to this day.
Then I bought an 11 inch B&W TV when I was 13. Only 4 channels, but I
was free to watch TV until the wee hours (much to my mother's
chagrin...). Those are still the best memories of my life as a kid: The
Saint, The Prisoner (in French, of course!), or a good flick, with a
snack of either a Stouffer's Chicken Pie, a pizza or a BBQ half-chicken.
Which are good experiences, to be sure. But those examples you cited
were all made especially for television, created for that specific medium.
Well, yeah, but I also saw hundreds of films, but TV serials came to
mind first, them being, well, serial!
They are really quite different forms of media, IMO. Production
methods, directing techniques, technology -- it's all different. When I
read interviews with actors who do work in film, TV and the theatre,
they will often comment on how big a leap it is from one form to
another. So I am not sure to what extent a direct comparison will help.
Post by Olrik
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
Some films I saw on that 11 inch TV that I don't want to watch again
because they were too powerful. Try to watch Umberto D. on any fucking
screen size without shedding a bucket of tears.
And then I spent a couple of years commuting to a new job (40 minutes),
and spent that time watching movies on my iPhone.
Well, your eyes at least aren't 58 -- I can't watch anything for any
length of time on my iPhone, and I am 10 years younger than you.
I wear expensive glasses!
As do I!
Post by Olrik
Besides, I didn't watch Lawrence of Arabia, nor War and Peace. But
comedy and dramas are quite OK on a small screen because the rely more
on acting and dialogue than action and set pieces.
I'd have trouble seeing facial expressions on a screen that small.
Post by Olrik
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
Well, as bizarre as it may sound, I developed quite an affection and a
"proximity" with a lot of the films I saw that way.
Now, my commute time is only 15 minutes, so I switched from movies to
books. Even though I read a lot of books in 10 minutes increments
(sometimes more when I lunch alone), I still enjoy and remember them
just as if I was spending more time with them. Currently reading
«Cooked», by Michael Pollan.
Each to their own, I suppose. I could never read a book in 10-15 minute
snatches.
I never thought I could, either, but here I am, hooked and eager to sit
down in a café, and open either my iPhone or my iPad Mini and read the
next chapter!
Well, chacun à son plaisir, I suppose. For me, the long form -- whether
literature or music -- requires dedication and attention. Dipping into
something here and there doesn't work.
Olrik
2014-09-15 04:10:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
Post by Alex W.
We lose context, information and atmosphere, and we do not
experience the performance in the way they were intended to be consumed
by the creator.
There's no such thing in movies. It's just a projection.
Go see Lawrence of Arabia or Psycho on your TV. Then go and see it on
the big screen. Then tell me there is no difference.
I'm 58.
Condolences.
:-)
Well, I truly hope you reach 58! I almost died of a massive heart attack
when I was 52, so each year is a bonus!
I'm sure it is.
Mes fèlicitations!
Thanks. Try to type : é, as in «félicitations».

Here's a few é's you can borrow:

ééééééééééééééééééééééééééééééééééééééé

Enjoy!

;-)
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
I saw these movies on the big screen, in repertoire cinemas, before the
advent of VHS, DVD, Blu-ray, On-Demand HD, etc.
A lot of times, the copies were horrible, scratchy and the switch
between reels were approximate at best. Sound was crappy.
This has all improved today.
*You* tell me?
;-)
Amazing, isn't it?
:-)
Post by Olrik
Post by Alex W.
Especially the old films: copies have been
cleaned up and remastered, projection technology now allows for perfect
playback, and cinemas are far cleaner and more comfortable. I remember
clearly my moment of conversion (as it were). The BFI (British Film
Institute) had put on a complete showing of Hitchcock films in their own
cinema, and I experienced all those classics on the big screen that I
thought I knew well from the telly. It was a revelation. Detail
suddenly jumped out. Scenes had far more impact -- the shower scene
from "Psycho" is still dead scary on the big screen.
I saw it as a teen, on my 11 inch TV. Scary. Now, of course, when I saw
it last year on the Blu-ray version, I wasn't scared (it was probably
the fifth time I saw the film), but I was most impressed with the level
of details on the images.
Question is, do we always *want* the detail? Until a few years ago, the
visual medium -- celluloid or digital -- wasn't good enough for minute
detail, so film-makers wouldn't have bothered to take it into account.
So is it actually an advantage to be able to see things that were never
intended to be seen?
Now that you bring that up...

I watched a Blu-ray version of Blade Runner last year.

I was completely floored by the level of details that went into every
aspects of that film: decor, textures, props, what have you.

Then it suddenly hit me: there was no way that the level of details I
was seeing *were* visible by the filmmakers at the time!

Film editing was done on machines that had a very small screen, with
shitty prints.

Even the premieres, with a good copy, couldn't do justice to the visual
qualities of the film.

So: artists, technicians and all the others pros in film-making take
real pride in their work, so that more that 30-odds years in the future,
their work look gorgeous on our big HD TV screens!
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
Growing up, we had a 15 inch TV. A saw masterpieces on it that I
remember vividly to this day.
Then I bought an 11 inch B&W TV when I was 13. Only 4 channels, but I
was free to watch TV until the wee hours (much to my mother's
chagrin...). Those are still the best memories of my life as a kid: The
Saint, The Prisoner (in French, of course!), or a good flick, with a
snack of either a Stouffer's Chicken Pie, a pizza or a BBQ
half-chicken.
Which are good experiences, to be sure. But those examples you cited
were all made especially for television, created for that specific medium.
Well, yeah, but I also saw hundreds of films, but TV serials came to
mind first, them being, well, serial!
They are really quite different forms of media, IMO. Production
methods, directing techniques, technology -- it's all different. When I
read interviews with actors who do work in film, TV and the theatre,
they will often comment on how big a leap it is from one form to
another. So I am not sure to what extent a direct comparison will help.
Post by Olrik
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
Some films I saw on that 11 inch TV that I don't want to watch again
because they were too powerful. Try to watch Umberto D. on any fucking
screen size without shedding a bucket of tears.
And then I spent a couple of years commuting to a new job (40 minutes),
and spent that time watching movies on my iPhone.
Well, your eyes at least aren't 58 -- I can't watch anything for any
length of time on my iPhone, and I am 10 years younger than you.
I wear expensive glasses!
As do I!
Post by Olrik
Besides, I didn't watch Lawrence of Arabia, nor War and Peace. But
comedy and dramas are quite OK on a small screen because the rely more
on acting and dialogue than action and set pieces.
I'd have trouble seeing facial expressions on a screen that small.
Post by Olrik
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
Well, as bizarre as it may sound, I developed quite an affection and a
"proximity" with a lot of the films I saw that way.
Now, my commute time is only 15 minutes, so I switched from movies to
books. Even though I read a lot of books in 10 minutes increments
(sometimes more when I lunch alone), I still enjoy and remember them
just as if I was spending more time with them. Currently reading
«Cooked», by Michael Pollan.
Each to their own, I suppose. I could never read a book in 10-15 minute
snatches.
I never thought I could, either, but here I am, hooked and eager to sit
down in a café, and open either my iPhone or my iPad Mini and read the
next chapter!
Well, chacun à son plaisir, I suppose. For me, the long form -- whether
literature or music -- requires dedication and attention. Dipping into
something here and there doesn't work.
--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
Dakota
2014-09-11 09:29:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Olrik
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
Post by Mitchell Holman
In our local megaplexes we are
seeing feature presentations of
Ghostbusters (1984), Scarface (1983)
and Forrest Gump (1994), the latter
in IMAX format no less. And these
are not midnight fare at the local
art house, but major releases to the
biggest theater chains.
And these three films are not even *that* good, at least not deserving
any sort of revival in megaplexes. Well, maybe Ghostbusters, in a campy
sort of ways.
But nowadays, thanks to the Internet, to DVD/Blu-ray, to cable film
channels, etc., it's easier than ever to get and watch the movies you
like, from every genre, origins, time or language you prefer.
It's freakishly mind-boggling, I tell you. I'm 58, and in the '70s I
almost wanted to delay a long trip to Europe so I could catch a very
rare showing of Orson Welles' The Trial.
Now, I have a fabulous Blu-ray copy of that masterpiece (and dozens of
others...) that I can watch whenever I want on my flat-screen TV.
Which is convenient but it isn't the same.
Nor did I pretend it would.
Post by Alex W.
Watching a movie on DVD is to
a cinema experience what listening to a CD is to attending a live
concert.
Very wrong, as a movie is always the same, there's no «live» component
to it. Maybe you meant theatre.
I meant *watching* a movie. The live component is the experience of
watching. How you consume something is as important a factor as what
you consume. It even makes a difference whether you are alone or in
company when you pop that DVD in the player.
Post by Olrik
Post by Alex W.
We lose context, information and atmosphere, and we do not
experience the performance in the way they were intended to be consumed
by the creator.
There's no such thing in movies. It's just a projection.
Go see Lawrence of Arabia or Psycho on your TV. Then go and see it on
the big screen. Then tell me there is no difference.
I'm 58.
I saw these movies on the big screen, in repertoire cinemas, before the
advent of VHS, DVD, Blu-ray, On-Demand HD, etc.
A lot of times, the copies were horrible, scratchy and the switch
between reels were approximate at best. Sound was crappy.
Growing up, we had a 15 inch TV. A saw masterpieces on it that I
remember vividly to this day.
Then I bought an 11 inch B&W TV when I was 13. Only 4 channels, but I
was free to watch TV until the wee hours (much to my mother's
chagrin...). Those are still the best memories of my life as a kid: The
Saint, The Prisoner (in French, of course!), or a good flick, with a
snack of either a Stouffer's Chicken Pie, a pizza or a BBQ half-chicken.
Some films I saw on that 11 inch TV that I don't want to watch again
because they were too powerful. Try to watch Umberto D. on any fucking
screen size without shedding a bucket of tears.
And then I spent a couple of years commuting to a new job (40 minutes),
and spent that time watching movies on my iPhone.
Well, as bizarre as it may sound, I developed quite an affection and a
"proximity" with a lot of the films I saw that way.
Now, my commute time is only 15 minutes, so I switched from movies to
books. Even though I read a lot of books in 10 minutes increments
(sometimes more when I lunch alone), I still enjoy and remember them
just as if I was spending more time with them. Currently reading
«Cooked», by Michael Pollan.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
But I'll say this: watching a *comedy* with hundreds of persons can be
exhilarating. For pretty much all other genres, well, you're alone in
the dark.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
On many levels, we live in a better sci-fi world than actual sci-fi
promised...
Depends what sci-fi you are thinking of...
Think about it. No, not time travel, or FTL spaceships. AFAIK, and
please correct me if I'm wrong, but even something as «boring» as our
iPhones were not envisioned in traditional sci-fi.
Star Trek did famously come up with transponders which are pretty much
what smartphones are today.
Aside from that, while we do not have FTL or time travel, neither do we
have the end of the world. No post-apocalyptic societies or total
global dictatorships. There are as many dystopian sci-fi visions as
there are utopian ones.
I remember buying my first TV at the age of 26. I was sitting in a
restaurant in Lincoln, Nebraska, when I noticed that the store selling
the 19" B$W TV in the newspaper ad was across the street. After
finishing my supper, I brought the TV to my apartment, plugged it in,
extended the rabbit ear antenna, and soon saw 'I Love Lucy' appear on
the screen. Quickly realizing that the TV was cursed, I shut it off,
shoved in the antenna arms, pulled the plug, and put the damned picture
box in my closet. I never turned it on again. I gave it to my young
nieces a couple of years later.
Alex W.
2014-09-11 10:13:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dakota
Post by Olrik
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
Post by Mitchell Holman
In our local megaplexes we are
seeing feature presentations of
Ghostbusters (1984), Scarface (1983)
and Forrest Gump (1994), the latter
in IMAX format no less. And these
are not midnight fare at the local
art house, but major releases to the
biggest theater chains.
And these three films are not even *that* good, at least not deserving
any sort of revival in megaplexes. Well, maybe Ghostbusters, in a campy
sort of ways.
But nowadays, thanks to the Internet, to DVD/Blu-ray, to cable film
channels, etc., it's easier than ever to get and watch the movies you
like, from every genre, origins, time or language you prefer.
It's freakishly mind-boggling, I tell you. I'm 58, and in the '70s I
almost wanted to delay a long trip to Europe so I could catch a very
rare showing of Orson Welles' The Trial.
Now, I have a fabulous Blu-ray copy of that masterpiece (and dozens of
others...) that I can watch whenever I want on my flat-screen TV.
Which is convenient but it isn't the same.
Nor did I pretend it would.
Post by Alex W.
Watching a movie on DVD is to
a cinema experience what listening to a CD is to attending a live
concert.
Very wrong, as a movie is always the same, there's no «live» component
to it. Maybe you meant theatre.
I meant *watching* a movie. The live component is the experience of
watching. How you consume something is as important a factor as what
you consume. It even makes a difference whether you are alone or in
company when you pop that DVD in the player.
Post by Olrik
Post by Alex W.
We lose context, information and atmosphere, and we do not
experience the performance in the way they were intended to be consumed
by the creator.
There's no such thing in movies. It's just a projection.
Go see Lawrence of Arabia or Psycho on your TV. Then go and see it on
the big screen. Then tell me there is no difference.
I'm 58.
I saw these movies on the big screen, in repertoire cinemas, before the
advent of VHS, DVD, Blu-ray, On-Demand HD, etc.
A lot of times, the copies were horrible, scratchy and the switch
between reels were approximate at best. Sound was crappy.
Growing up, we had a 15 inch TV. A saw masterpieces on it that I
remember vividly to this day.
Then I bought an 11 inch B&W TV when I was 13. Only 4 channels, but I
was free to watch TV until the wee hours (much to my mother's
chagrin...). Those are still the best memories of my life as a kid: The
Saint, The Prisoner (in French, of course!), or a good flick, with a
snack of either a Stouffer's Chicken Pie, a pizza or a BBQ half-chicken.
Some films I saw on that 11 inch TV that I don't want to watch again
because they were too powerful. Try to watch Umberto D. on any fucking
screen size without shedding a bucket of tears.
And then I spent a couple of years commuting to a new job (40 minutes),
and spent that time watching movies on my iPhone.
Well, as bizarre as it may sound, I developed quite an affection and a
"proximity" with a lot of the films I saw that way.
Now, my commute time is only 15 minutes, so I switched from movies to
books. Even though I read a lot of books in 10 minutes increments
(sometimes more when I lunch alone), I still enjoy and remember them
just as if I was spending more time with them. Currently reading
«Cooked», by Michael Pollan.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
But I'll say this: watching a *comedy* with hundreds of persons can be
exhilarating. For pretty much all other genres, well, you're alone in
the dark.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
On many levels, we live in a better sci-fi world than actual sci-fi
promised...
Depends what sci-fi you are thinking of...
Think about it. No, not time travel, or FTL spaceships. AFAIK, and
please correct me if I'm wrong, but even something as «boring» as our
iPhones were not envisioned in traditional sci-fi.
Star Trek did famously come up with transponders which are pretty much
what smartphones are today.
Aside from that, while we do not have FTL or time travel, neither do we
have the end of the world. No post-apocalyptic societies or total
global dictatorships. There are as many dystopian sci-fi visions as
there are utopian ones.
I remember buying my first TV at the age of 26. I was sitting in a
restaurant in Lincoln, Nebraska, when I noticed that the store selling
the 19" B$W TV in the newspaper ad was across the street. After
finishing my supper, I brought the TV to my apartment, plugged it in,
extended the rabbit ear antenna, and soon saw 'I Love Lucy' appear on
the screen. Quickly realizing that the TV was cursed, I shut it off,
shoved in the antenna arms, pulled the plug, and put the damned picture
box in my closet. I never turned it on again. I gave it to my young
nieces a couple of years later.
But isn't it positively un-American not to love "I Love Lucy"? Might as
well declare you don't like apple pie or baseball!
Dakota
2014-09-11 10:33:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Dakota
Post by Olrik
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
Post by Mitchell Holman
In our local megaplexes we are
seeing feature presentations of
Ghostbusters (1984), Scarface (1983)
and Forrest Gump (1994), the latter
in IMAX format no less. And these
are not midnight fare at the local
art house, but major releases to the
biggest theater chains.
And these three films are not even *that* good, at least not deserving
any sort of revival in megaplexes. Well, maybe Ghostbusters, in a campy
sort of ways.
But nowadays, thanks to the Internet, to DVD/Blu-ray, to cable film
channels, etc., it's easier than ever to get and watch the movies you
like, from every genre, origins, time or language you prefer.
It's freakishly mind-boggling, I tell you. I'm 58, and in the '70s I
almost wanted to delay a long trip to Europe so I could catch a very
rare showing of Orson Welles' The Trial.
Now, I have a fabulous Blu-ray copy of that masterpiece (and dozens of
others...) that I can watch whenever I want on my flat-screen TV.
Which is convenient but it isn't the same.
Nor did I pretend it would.
Post by Alex W.
Watching a movie on DVD is to
a cinema experience what listening to a CD is to attending a live
concert.
Very wrong, as a movie is always the same, there's no «live» component
to it. Maybe you meant theatre.
I meant *watching* a movie. The live component is the experience of
watching. How you consume something is as important a factor as what
you consume. It even makes a difference whether you are alone or in
company when you pop that DVD in the player.
Post by Olrik
Post by Alex W.
We lose context, information and atmosphere, and we do not
experience the performance in the way they were intended to be consumed
by the creator.
There's no such thing in movies. It's just a projection.
Go see Lawrence of Arabia or Psycho on your TV. Then go and see it on
the big screen. Then tell me there is no difference.
I'm 58.
I saw these movies on the big screen, in repertoire cinemas, before the
advent of VHS, DVD, Blu-ray, On-Demand HD, etc.
A lot of times, the copies were horrible, scratchy and the switch
between reels were approximate at best. Sound was crappy.
Growing up, we had a 15 inch TV. A saw masterpieces on it that I
remember vividly to this day.
Then I bought an 11 inch B&W TV when I was 13. Only 4 channels, but I
was free to watch TV until the wee hours (much to my mother's
chagrin...). Those are still the best memories of my life as a kid: The
Saint, The Prisoner (in French, of course!), or a good flick, with a
snack of either a Stouffer's Chicken Pie, a pizza or a BBQ half-chicken.
Some films I saw on that 11 inch TV that I don't want to watch again
because they were too powerful. Try to watch Umberto D. on any fucking
screen size without shedding a bucket of tears.
And then I spent a couple of years commuting to a new job (40 minutes),
and spent that time watching movies on my iPhone.
Well, as bizarre as it may sound, I developed quite an affection and a
"proximity" with a lot of the films I saw that way.
Now, my commute time is only 15 minutes, so I switched from movies to
books. Even though I read a lot of books in 10 minutes increments
(sometimes more when I lunch alone), I still enjoy and remember them
just as if I was spending more time with them. Currently reading
«Cooked», by Michael Pollan.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
But I'll say this: watching a *comedy* with hundreds of persons can be
exhilarating. For pretty much all other genres, well, you're alone in
the dark.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Olrik
On many levels, we live in a better sci-fi world than actual sci-fi
promised...
Depends what sci-fi you are thinking of...
Think about it. No, not time travel, or FTL spaceships. AFAIK, and
please correct me if I'm wrong, but even something as «boring» as our
iPhones were not envisioned in traditional sci-fi.
Star Trek did famously come up with transponders which are pretty much
what smartphones are today.
Aside from that, while we do not have FTL or time travel, neither do we
have the end of the world. No post-apocalyptic societies or total
global dictatorships. There are as many dystopian sci-fi visions as
there are utopian ones.
I remember buying my first TV at the age of 26. I was sitting in a
restaurant in Lincoln, Nebraska, when I noticed that the store selling
the 19" B$W TV in the newspaper ad was across the street. After
finishing my supper, I brought the TV to my apartment, plugged it in,
extended the rabbit ear antenna, and soon saw 'I Love Lucy' appear on
the screen. Quickly realizing that the TV was cursed, I shut it off,
shoved in the antenna arms, pulled the plug, and put the damned picture
box in my closet. I never turned it on again. I gave it to my young
nieces a couple of years later.
But isn't it positively un-American not to love "I Love Lucy"? Might as
well declare you don't like apple pie or baseball!
I've never been much of a conformist. It seems reasonable to assume that
nonconformity would be common among atheists. Hmm. Did I just suggest
that atheists conform? Alas.
Teresita
2014-09-11 11:17:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
But isn't it positively un-American not to love "I Love Lucy"? Might as
well declare you don't like apple pie or baseball!
CHEVROLET: Can Hear Every Valve Rattle On Long Extended Trips
Dakota
2014-09-11 13:09:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Teresita
Post by Alex W.
But isn't it positively un-American not to love "I Love Lucy"? Might as
well declare you don't like apple pie or baseball!
CHEVROLET: Can Hear Every Valve Rattle On Long Extended Trips
CHEVROLET: Shove it or leave it.

FORD: Fix Or Repair Daily
Jeanne Douglas
2014-09-08 05:13:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
In our local megaplexes we are
seeing feature presentations of
Ghostbusters (1984), Scarface (1983)
and Forrest Gump (1994), the latter
in IMAX format no less. And these
are not midnight fare at the local
art house, but major releases to the
biggest theater chains.
Given the dreck that constitutes
the current movies they will probably
be very well attended........
Don't know about Scarface (though it IS a major cult favorite), but
the other 2 are celebrating anniversaries--30th and 20th, respectively.
--
JD

"Labor is prior to and independent of capital.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could
never have existed if labor had not first
existed. Labor is the superior of capital,
and deserves much the higher consideration."
--Abraham Lincoln
Mitchell Holman
2014-09-08 12:10:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
In our local megaplexes we are
seeing feature presentations of
Ghostbusters (1984), Scarface (1983)
and Forrest Gump (1994), the latter
in IMAX format no less. And these
are not midnight fare at the local
art house, but major releases to the
biggest theater chains.
Given the dreck that constitutes
the current movies they will probably
be very well attended........
Don't know about Scarface (though it IS a major cult favorite), but
the other 2 are celebrating anniversaries--30th and 20th, respectively.
This is also the anniversary of
Mask, Ace Ventura, Shawshank Redemption,
Dumb and Dumber, Speed, Clerks and Ed
Wood. I just think it is waste of screen
space to show oldies when there are scads
of indie and foreign films in current
release that audiences might like to see.

Perhaps the tacit admission that the
current hollywood releases are not very
good will prove helpful later on.....;)
Jeanne Douglas
2014-09-08 23:18:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Mitchell Holman
In our local megaplexes we are
seeing feature presentations of
Ghostbusters (1984), Scarface (1983)
and Forrest Gump (1994), the latter
in IMAX format no less. And these
are not midnight fare at the local
art house, but major releases to the
biggest theater chains.
Given the dreck that constitutes
the current movies they will probably
be very well attended........
Don't know about Scarface (though it IS a major cult favorite), but
the other 2 are celebrating anniversaries--30th and 20th, respectively.
This is also the anniversary of
Mask, Ace Ventura, Shawshank Redemption,
Dumb and Dumber, Speed, Clerks and Ed
Wood. I just think it is waste of screen
space to show oldies when there are scads
of indie and foreign films in current
release that audiences might like to see.
Perhaps the tacit admission that the
current hollywood releases are not very
good will prove helpful later on.....;)
Well, there's also the issue of multiplexes with gazillions of screens,
Especially in areas where there are far too few people who are willing
to watch a movie that requires reading (and dubbed foreign films are an
abomination) or interested in most indie films. Here in LA, the major
multiplexes include both the indie/foreign films AND the big re-releases.
--
JD

"Labor is prior to and independent of capital.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could
never have existed if labor had not first
existed. Labor is the superior of capital,
and deserves much the higher consideration."
--Abraham Lincoln
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...