I'm not able to listen, but I thought this was pretty slick:
"United Socialist States of America / Don't ya just love that name? I'll keep the U.S.A. and ya'll can keep the change."
"Keep the change." That's a nice line, you know, in an alternate universe where Hank Jr. isn't a useless prick.
Without HW, Jr., as the benchmark, how will we know who is and who is not ready for some football?
and ya'll can keep the change."
"Ya'll"? Tsk. The TPM liberal media establishment needs to spend some time around literate Southerners.
Dude, that's like four dactyls right there.
Unfogged's a music desert right now, isn't it? This on one thread and Belle and Sebastian on the other. Obviously time for a round of Ukfogged hi hat madness. Barbara Tucker, with a pretty obvious mix into this MaW track.
I will say, the whole controversy strikes me as stupid. It was a shitty analogy from a semi-literate windbag. So what?
Dude, that's like four dactyls right there.
Dude.
Any fairly practised writer, with the slightest ear for rhythm, could compose, for hours together, in that easy running metre.
a semi-literate windbag
As I've said elsewhere, HWJr. has always struck me as borderline retarded but I suppose that's a risk for anybody who has split their head open sufficiently that the frontal lobes of their brain were exposed to the elements.
Depends on your pronunciation of "united," Shirley.
2: Who among us does not remain steadfastly ready for some football?
7: I hadn't realized that we were taking degree of difficulty into account.
re: 5
On what other? I didn't see any reference to B&S.
Okay, in the actual recording, the scansion of the relevant phrase does, in fact, suck. Dude.
I think it works OK if you sing it like "subliminal mind-fuck America" in that one Green Day song.
@12: the jokes thread, or rather the thread on whether or not there should be jokes. Looks like I pulled off the unfogged equivalent of clearing the floor.
Unfogged's a music desert right now, isn't it?
I just say this fun lady Gaga video. Kind of entertaining to see her playing around with (and enjoying) a style of theatricality that's different from her normal style.
Re 15
Ah, missed that.
Re music
Would there be any Unfogged interest in a pre-rock'n'roll mix? All stuff from 56 or earlier?
How much Louis Jordan would be involved?
I'd be interested. Meanwhile, didja know Frankie Knuckles remixed Michael Jackson's "Rock With You"?
18: Me! I grew up with that stuff (this is me) and would like to see what else there is.
Absolutely. Are you thinking mostly jazz, or blues, or older pop? Music hall? Or a smorgasbord? Whatever, I'm interested.
re: 23
All of the above. Maybe not so much music hall. Some classical/avant-garde stuff,* some jazz, maybe some 'Western' type stuff, older pop, whatever. I've been listening to a lot of stuff from that period, but haven't really thought exactly what I'll put on, just that it'd be fun to do. Slightly restricted because some of the stuff is on vinyl, and so I can't MP3 it.
* although if I do that I may have to go with modern-ish recordings of pre-56 pieces as I don't have, I think, any period recordings of a couple of the things I fancy.
I've been enjoying 8tracks for mixes. Streaming only, commercial free, can't really pick individual songs (by license-specified design). Some here have mentioned technical problems trying to use it, but both browser and iphone access works fine for me. Anyway, here's a set of old blues songs I picked, likely disjoint from the direction ttaM's going;
http://8tracks.com/lw208xx/acoustic-blues
I piss in the washing machine on his front porch. That's about all his deep thinking is worth, I think.
I've been listening to the Judy Collins tribute album, Born To The Breed and two of the songs are astonishingly good, "Albatross" sung by Rufus Wainwright and "Since You've Asked" sung by Joan Baez.
I now want to get one of Joan Baez's recent albums -- who knew that she was still this good?
You know who is surprisingly good? Hank III.
Without appropriate context (such as having heard Hank III's music), it's hard to tell that 29 is sarcasm.
28: I have iTunes playing her older works right now. {sigh} Thanks for the upcoming hit to the credit card.
With the appropriate context (such as having heard Hank III's music), it's easy to tell that 30 is out to lunch. Hank III in fact ranges from perfectly good to excellent country music, and comes far closer to his hallowed grandfather's standard than any of the cliched bullshit Hank, Jr. has always churned out. (Hence Hank III has an audience outside of Moron-America, and Hank, Jr. does not.)
Of course if you don't like country, all of that's irrelevant.
28:I can't stand what Wainwright did to Cohen but he gets this Collins song. It is a very close cover, and I don't think he adds anything.
The Collins had the Joshua Rifkin string arrangements, which I also think were better. Wildflowers is my very favorite Collins, and one of my favorite albums, because of its consistency of tone and mood.
Listened to it since it came out. I consider it perfect.
Who Knows may be better, but not as pure.
On that topic here is a great song by Justin Townes Earle.
I haven't listened to his latest but this review is positive (and I would agree with it that his first two albums were good efforts but not completely successful) and has this unforgettable and unfogged-appropriate line:
"Move Over Mama" is a scorching rockabilly-and-reverb number, full of erotic bravado à la Warren Smith or Billy Lee Riley. (And does that bass ever get slapped!)
28:I can't stand what Wainwright did to Cohen but he gets this Collins song. It is a very close cover, and I don't think he adds anything.
This was the first Wainwright recording that I've heard that I unequivocally liked. I think he has talent, but I find most of his songs hard to get into, for whatever reason, but I found this one riveting.
I don't know the original well enough to compare, but his voice sounds great in that recording.
Hank III in fact ranges from perfectly good to excellent country music
As well as hardcore punk and thrash metal. Pretty interesting guy, too.
35: Harlem River Blues is great, and "Move Over Mama" made it onto this mix of mine.
The Collins had the Joshua Rifkin string arrangements
By the way, Bob, have you listened to much Scott Walker?
I recently watched the documentary 30 Century Man (very good) and I thought the brief interview with the woman who did several of his string arrangements was interesting and the arrangements themselves are impressive.
"Move Over Mama" made it onto this mix of mine.
I will say that I thought of you as soon as I read that description.
Link in 16 delights and depresses me. I'd just adore it if it didn't remind me that she will nonetheless continue to record music that makes scant to no use of her estimable musical talent. Yeah I know, run this through google translator and it comes out "get off my lawn." But I really think she's great when she's not submitted to endless studio knob-twiddling and I really don't care much about her fucking costumes and teen-provocative self-presentation or music that sounds like it was written by a committee of sober but nostalgic 30-something homosexuals.
Okay, I've only heard about 3 Hank III songs, but they were all just about unlistenable. Like Hank Jr.^2. And I just spent a few minutes on youtube and didn't find anything that even came close to changing my mind. (His punk stuff may be better than his country stuff, but I'm not enough of a fan of that genre to judge.)
Is there a Lady Gaga song that hasn't been submitted to endless studio knob-twiddling? That's like saying "I thought Andy Warhol was great when he was doing ink sketches of cats and shoes".
Here's Sisters of Mercy off Wildflowers to show what Rifkin did. Pretty minimal and tasteful, maybe a little precious. Is that a plucked cello?
This isn't from Wildflowers Albatross, but here is Collins singing "Albatross" to piano accompaniment. The voice sounds very close, and the drama, the momentum is captured in this rendition.
I think he has talent, but I find most of his songs hard to get into, for whatever reason, but I found this one riveting.
(R. Wainwright.)
He tends to gild the lily, to put it mildly, at least on the albums after "Poses"--which has some lovely songs if you're not put off by confessional lyrics. In some light-hearted songs, this translates to campy fun ("Oh, what a world.") In others, it's for your ears to choke on. It's also hard to enjoy him if you've heard him talk about much of anything.
42: On a few albums' acquaintance I've never heard a Hank III song that struck me as "unlistenable" -- though I'd categorize a few as "unremarkable" -- so I suppose we may be listening across a vast gulf of musical taste.
43: She sang her numbing, sports-drink-commercial-ready dance anthem "Edge of Glory" unplugged on Howard Stern that I find totes enjoyable (reminds me of that moment in a first hearing of "I'm Gonna be Strong" where you realize that Cyndi Lauper has terrific vocal technique) and did a much-linked but later purged from youtube set on SNL that was similarly impressive and made me think I was going to like her. And then, you know, did you watch the link above? It's quite charming.
18 et. al. How about proto rock: see, e.g. this or
Hmm, the second like got disappeared, so it is here
I once wrote a qualified defense of Hank Williams, Jr., of which I am now deeply, deeply ashamed. No, it's actually worse than that. I wrote a qualified defense of the politics of Hank Williams, Jr. The fact that this work was published, and can be found on google in association with my RL name, makes me cringe.
5: hey, fuck off, alex.
Who among us does not remain steadfastly ready for some football?
regardless of jr.'s mental difficulties and lack of rudimentary musical skills, I think we can all say that we will, ever, remain ready for some football. (except parsimon, I bet she's totes unprepared. LB, too, seems unlikely to have everything arranged.) me; it's the wrong side of the earth, the wrong time of day, plus it's wednesday or some shit--but I'd watch some live NFL right now.anytime, anyplace, I'm ready for some motherfucking football. I don't need no bocephus to tell me that.
robert, I'll to be honest with you here, you got more embarrassing shit to be worried about.
except parsimon, I bet she's totes unprepared. LB, too
And Jesus McQueen.
For non-football fans Super Bowl day is like Christmas for Jews. Weird sounds coming from your neighbours and empty streets.
51: Don't worry about it. I once wrote a paper entitled "Robert Mugabe: The best protection against inflation."
51 -- all you need to do is update it slightly, give it an appropriate headline,* and you've got yourself a contrarian article for Slate. They probably pay, what, $250/article?
"The Country Boy Should Survive: Why Hank Williams, Jr.'s Politics Are Better, and Leftier, Than You Think"
55 is funny.
Otherwise, huh? Meanwhile, the Republican debate appears to be more foolish than I might ever have imagined. Whoa.
"The Country Boy Should Survive: Why Hank Williams, Jr.'s Politics Are Better, and Leftier, Than You Think"
This is uncomfortably close to the actual title.
56: Apparently, if you have a couch on your porch, fans of a Super Bowl winning team will really want to burn that couch.
61: I confirmed that the sad couch I left behind at my previous house has become porch furniture they tend to keep there. I did not inform them that, in my experience, the city doesn't take much time to identify such mildewy delights, photograph them, and send you a nasty letter about needing to remove it, including said photo.
They do that here now, but before the Super Bowl arson spree (which involved a junior volunteer fireman as it was stereotype-reinforcement week), they didn't care if your neighbors didn't.
since I said the same to alex in the other thread, hey, fuck off sifu! also, your favorite band sucks.
not that tubthumping wasn't catchy in it's own way, but...
You know it is on my mind since I just finished 600 pages on English folk rock, and bringing Judy Collins up, who isn't mentioned at all in Electric Eden except for her cover of the Denny...
...but Pretty Polly
precedes "Sailor's Life" and "Tam Lin" by at least a year.
With James Burton and Stills trading licks on guitars, that fucker rocks hard. Collins is making a fucking statement.
...
story of the book is in part, that the 60s freaks tore folk music from the neo-Edwardian twits and out of the commie hands of Peggy Seeger and Ewan MacColl and washed it in the blood of the dark English forests where it belonged.
"Back to the garden" in England was to where the human sacrifices were buried.
Collins is in tune.
also, your favorite band suck
I'm beyond hurt that anybody would say that about Newcleus.
my favorite band sells drugs to your favorite band.
It's hard out there for a wussy scotsman.
My favorite band made the Honor roll!
Belle and Sebastian is horrible.
Are horrible, surely? Plural name and plural entity. You wouldn't say "The Rolling Stones is playing tonight."
67 shows he is not fully committed, the implication being [belle and sebastian] "suck," plural.
My grasp of verb agreement was lost in a fog of misty tweeness.
My grasp of verb agreement was lost in a fog of misty tweeness.
It's a British-English American-English thing. Keep on keeping on.
I am so not down with the twee but the greatness of Belle and Sebastian just can't be denied. Also (this may undercut the previous sentence) they provide excellent music for road trips with small kids when you want your kids to fall asleep in the car.
the greatness of Belle and Sebastian just can't be denied.
I refute you thus: I deny the greatness of Belle And Sebastian (*kicks rock*).
Is this the music thread now? Somewhere in the archives there is a post, I believe by ogged but possibly by FL, about a stereo receiver that was, based on some product review excerpted in the post, supposed to be of an quality far in excess of its objectively-expensive-but-by-audiophile-standards-modestly-priced price. It was an odd tube-looking thing, if I recall correctly. I think this was in 2007 or early 2008. Google isn't getting me anything. Does anyone know what I'm talking about?
Alternatively: I'd like to spend a modest amount of money on a home stereo. Currently my only music-listening devices are a cd player/boombox from 1995 and a computer (with the speakers that are built into the monitor). Any recommendations? I don't want a home theatre system, just a home stereo. I think I need speakers and a receiver (or just amplifier, b/c I don't care about AM/FM radio). And I guess maybe a CD player and a turntable. It would be nice if it had some sort of itunes/iphone compatibility, but that isn't required.
Belle and Sebastian? Isn't that the name that all of that unreleased Beatles material is being put out under?
I don't really know what FL would have been talking about. A while ago there was a lot of buzz about chip-amps and 'class-T'/'class-D', so maybe it was that? There are relatively inexpensive Chinese made tube amps these days, too. Although if it was me I'd just get something solid state rather than tube.
I'd bet that someone like Tweety who knows the US market more probably has recommendations. Out of interest, how much are you planning to spend?
There's quite a lot of decent-ish budget turntables out there from people like Pro-Ject, Rega and (I think in the US) Music Hall.
Is this the music thread now?
If so, I am really enjoying the new Cymbals Eat Guitars album. Also, my four-year-old daughter now requests this song every morning during the drive to the daycare.
Music streamers are quite a handy alternative to CD players, too, if you already have your music on your computer.
Somewhere in the archives there is a post, I believe by ogged but possibly by FL, about a stereo receiver that was, based on some product review excerpted in the post, supposed to be of an quality far in excess of its objectively-expensive-but-by-audiophile-standards-modestly-priced price. It was an odd tube-looking thing, if I recall correctly. I think this was in 2007 or early 2008.
That was this product. I passed the review along to ogged, because I found it interesting, but a variety of people commented that there were better options available. I'd trust the opinions of people here over stereophile any day, but it could be checking to see if there are cheap ones floating around anywhere.
re: 79
More the guise under which the Hazey Jane II out-takes have been released. Ahem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSZ9oX0rLgg
Are horrible, surely? Plural name and plural entity. You wouldn't say "The Rolling Stones is playing tonight."
Singular entity. The Stones get a pass because the name could also be taken to refer to the members individually.
Here is the thread (reading it again, I see that the review is as thoroughly panned as I had remembered. Ouch.)
I dunno, "Belle and Sebastian" is an anagram of "Beatles and Lesbian" after all. Given the clues they put out there after Paul McCartney died in that car crash, I think it should be taken seriously.
Thanks--that's what I was looking for. Although it's uglier than I remember. I'll have to re-read the thread.
85: I put it to you that common usage is to refer to bands with plural names in the plural. The Beatles are, the Stone Roses are, the White Stripes are etc. Therefore Belle and Sebastian are.
I refute you thus: I deny the greatness of Belle And Sebastian (*kicks rock*).
Surely (*kicks twee guitar pop*), no?
I'd bet you could get something decent cheaper, yeah. As per the comments at the time. I'd also second what I said at the time, that money spent on speakers is money well-spent.
Right, re speakers. In retrospect, that review is awful enough that I'm basically uninterested in that product, even apart from its ugliness.
. In retrospect, that review is awful enough that I'm basically uninterested in that product . . .
Now I'm feeling embarrassed again for having wanted to share it. Come on, say something nice. . . .
(at this point I would like to something that seemed better, but I still don't follow the hi-fi press. Though, if anybody needs custom built stereo equipment, I do still have a connection for that.)
I used to read a lot of hifi websites and forums, but I more or less finished my hifi a year or so back,* so haven't for a while. I was never that impressed with some of the magazines, though. Everywhere seems increasingly geared towards AV and 5.1 sound, which isn't my thing.
* it's not perfect, but it's good enough that I know I can't improve it except in tiny incremental ways without spending money I don't have.
92: Well, it was interesting enough that I remembered it 3.5 years later and wanted to revisit it as I'm currently contemplating a purchase. And really, the only thing wrong with the review is the suggestion that cheap speakers and this receiver would be a good combination. (And the only thing wrong with that is that it's the opposite of everything else I've ever heard--who knows, maybe it's actually right, but I just don't trust it.)
I've always been a fan of these speakers but there are those who would vociferously disagree with me.
All of our stereo equipment is old and oddball, so I might not be a very good source of information on modern stereo equipment.
Also I just got ripped off for a broken preamp on ebay, so yeah. Don't trust me!
re: 94
You get methodological wars among hif-fi buffs. One group telling you that the source is the key thing, and the other group telling you that the speakers are the main thing. I expect both sides of that particular debate have a point. And then another group of insane deluded and-or-corrupt maniacs telling you you need to budget some insane amount of money on cables, and mains conditioners, and bloody supports.
re: 95.last
Yeah, mine is all second hand. It's all pretty good quality British made* 'classic' stuff that was fairly high-end-ish when new but I bought it second hand for a fraction of the original price. I've never had a lot of money to spend, so I've replaced one bit at a time whenever a really good bargain has come up on ebay, or locally.
* Quad, Linn, and Meridian.
The one thing I tried to buy new recently was a total disaster. I bought a new power amp, and it was really really awful. Took it straight back and bought a second hand one for less money. So I'm also maybe not the best guide to new things.
And really, the only thing wrong with the review is the suggestion that cheap speakers and this receiver would be a good combination.
The thing about that system is that it's very low power. So it isn't so much that you would specifically want to pair it with cheap speakers, but rather than decent quality high-efficiency bookshelf (or smaller) speakers are likely to be cheaper than larger decent quality speakers.
That's the charitable read, anyway.
98: right, mine is "classic" in the sense that it's a couple of decades old, but is solid state and so on. Also, right now my system consists of speakers, an amp, and a DJ mixer, so it's all pretty minimal. I could certainly use a preamp
re: 101
If I recall, though, you have some ridiculous speakers? 9ft high electrostatics or something?
Mine also have the optional concrete-filled base. So impractical.
Out of interest, how much are you planning to spend?
As much as necesary but as little as possible. I don't really have a fixed budget. I do want to reach the "sounds decent" threshold, which I understand is highly subjective, but which at least for me an old $50 boombox definitely doesn't reach. After looking around a little I'm guessing I'll end up in the neighborhood of $1-2,000 by the time all is said and done (which means I probably won't end up getting everything at once). I could probably be convinced to spend more than that; I'd love to spend less.
I'm guessing I'll end up in the neighborhood of $1-2,000 by the time all is said and done
If you're willing to poke around and especially if you're willing to buy used you could buy an absolutely fantastic system for this much.
Is there a good source for used audio equipment? I should check craigslist, I guess.
If you're willing to poke around and especially if you're willing to buy used you could buy an absolutely fantastic system for this much.
What do you need in the system? Speakers and Amp obviously, do you want a CD player? Turntable?
re: 103
I have [in a different wood finish]:
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_6_4/castle-inversion-50-speakers.html
which are, I think, about as big as I'd want in an apartment/flat.
OT: Frank Kameny died. My experience of him as an activist in D.C. is that he was an irascible pain in the ass, in a good way.
Talking Heads was. Also Carpenters.
Ok, audiophilish types, what is the best way to get good sound from music that's mostly on a computer? I use iTunes and AirPlay and stream to a bunch of fairly high end computer speakers, which works fine, but is there something else I should be doing?
Also, do you have aesthetic requirements.
Looking quickly on ebay I saw this listing which could be worth it, depending on the final price (though don't take my word for it) but I feel like the appearance would disqualify that for some people.
Were! Fucking were! I wonder if this is another transatlantic divide? Since ajay seems to feel the same as me.
112: if you have an airport express, probably the best thing you can do is get an external preamp and use the digital out on the airport; the DAC in the wall-wart is very noisy.
I am with Ttam and Ajay. In legal writing, it tracks the plural nature of the band name: "the beatles were," etc.
re: 112
I do something similar. Computer to an ancient Squeezebox which then connects into my normal hifi pre-amp. Sounds good to me. I think, absent something being actually wrong with the streaming technology, the main thing is going to be: is it easy to use? I may have low-ish standards, there, though. I tried using a fancy-ish DAC and some other things, but the basic Squeezebox [which I paid 50 quid for] still sounds pretty good to me.
114: There's a transatlantic distinction with companies/corporations: US treats them as singular, and I'm pretty sure UK as plural. I notice this one because the UK way of doing it feels much more sensible to me, and I'm always fixing it in my writing to the US norm.
I'm mostly there. Blind Faith was. The Rolling Stones were. The pretentious plurals-without-the-definite-article bands I propose follow the former.
The only rational way is to treat them as a singual entity. Nosflow shall now explain why.
117: apple streaming products (like the airport express) as well as (some) apple computers have a combination output; it looks like a regular headphone jack, but you can also use it as an optical (digital) output. If you get a modern preamp that has s/pdif (digital (optical)) in, you can run a digital signal from the airport (or computer) to that and use the (larger, quieter) digital-analog-converter in the preamp.
You heathens probably still masturbate to REM.
re: DACs in general. I have had a couple, and in both cases sound coming directly from my PC sounded much better via the DAC, i.e. taking a digital/optical out from the PC into the DAC. However, sound from the music streamer, my DVD/SACD player, and various CD players I tried definitely sounded slightly different, but it wasn't really a massive difference and I could live quite comfortably with the sound from the original device.
I expect that's a long-winded way of saying that things that already had reasonably OK DACs in them didn't really need one added. My PC(s), however, were night and day. Which probably just indicates that Creative Labs soundcards are shite.
118: This is what we do at Chez CA. There's a Squeezebox and a couple Squeezebooms and a mini-computer and a pre-amp and speakers and all the music ripped to FLAC.
Also, do you have aesthetic requirements.
Minimalist. The appearance of the thing you linked is fine, and far better than the appearance of a lot of the stuff I see.
Singular entity. The Stones get a pass because the name could also be taken to refer to the members individually.
There's no transatlantic divide (re: bands, anyway). nosflow is on crack.
re: 126
I have the music on my ordinary PC in a different room, but use a wired network [via those little powerline adapters] to take it to the Squeezebox, which is fine and avoids wires/computer stuff being in the living room.
124:
Buy the sky and sell the sky
And bleed the sky and tell the sky
Don't masturbate to me-ee-ee.
There are a disturbing number of words and other letter combinations in this thread that are gibberish to me.
nosflow is describing the general usage guide thing, which indeed does have a US/commonwealth divide (not sure about Canada): Americans are supposed to treat collective nouns as singular, Brits and plural. Americans, however, are not very consistent about this, myself included.
Part of what makes it hard is that I have no idea what would be a reasonable amount to pay for something like the thing linked in 113.
re:136
As a first approximation, take a look at what the completed listings for the same item are. Also, sometimes ebay can be more expensive than craigslist or forums where people sell hifi gear.
I will concede that if we are talking about the Rolling Stones as a commercial enterprise then the singular should be used. Lehman Brothers is (or rather was) singular. Marks & Spencer is singular.
But bands with plural names, like sports teams, are surely plural in common usage even in the States. You don't say "The Pittsburgh Penguins is surely the worst ice hockey team in history", do you? Or, disagreeing, do you say "Hell no! The Penguins rocks!"
Part of what makes it hard is that I have no idea what would be a reasonable amount to pay for something like the thing linked in 113.
I have no idea what speakers to recommend, or how much you should expect to spend. For preamp, amplifier and CD player I would expect that they would be in a similar price range (roughly speaking $100 would get you something decent but with some limitations and you shouldn't spend more than $500 on anything) preamp would be the cheapest, and the amplifier would be about the same or a little more expensive than a equivalent CD player.
I just looked and saw that Marantz has a current (2010) integrated amp (combined amp and pre-amp) for $449 new which looks plausible. I know that integrated amps are generally frowned upon, but I think that would be fine for you (assuming it was a good quality product, I haven't really looked into it). So that gives some baseline -- if you decide that's a reasonable option then there wouldn't be any reason to spend much more than that on a separate preamp and amp combined.
Lots of good integrated amps around. Personally I only have a separate pre- and power- because I overpaid for a pre-amp that matched my tuner [which I liked the look and sound of] and then was forced to get a power-amp.
There's no transatlantic divide (re: bands, anyway). nosflow is on crack.
This is something I go back and forth about, ACTUALLY.
Since there is neither a Belle nor a Sebastian in Belle & Sebastian, it seems obviously right to take it as the name of a singular entity and treat it as a singular. To me. On the other hand, I wouldn't find it off-putting to hear "Belle & Sebastian are really good/bad/awful/transcendent/twee" coming from someone's flapping tongue.
And YET, "The Rolling Stones is …" is clearly disgusting and abhorrent. I really think this comes down to the plural count-nouniness of it, which the article emphasizes. (That is one could easily say "Rolling Stones is a bad band", but "rolling stones" could be a singular term, the way people thought "Smashing Pumpkins" (n.b. not the name of the band) was. "THE Rolling Stones" makes it clear that we're talking about a multiplicity of stones which roll and not the act of setting stones in motion.)
My belief is that even apparently singular terms would be, in this context, treated as plurals by UKites. Is that so, question mark.
In conclusion, I'm right.
138: Hey, this isn't about me. I live in a fallen state.
Lots of good integrated amps around.
That's good to hear.
I think the complaint is that they're noisier than a dedicated preamp, but that may not be an important factor, practically speaking.
Since there is neither a Belle
There was at one time,* although that's not the source of the name.
* someone referred to, sometimes, by that name, among their members.
Well, fine. There was a Belle, but only per accidens.
re: 143
In my experience most amps aren't very noisy, integrated or not. I've owned a dozen or so. A couple were slightly noisy -- although even then not objectionably so -- but they were both cheap crap.
Americans are supposed to treat collective nouns as singular, Brits and plural.
I just wanted to see that again.
re: 143
Put it this way, for a good few years I had a mid-priced late 70s/early 80s integrated which, even when cranked, was basically noiseless.
Think about the way Muddy Waters sang the line "I'm a rolling stone."
if we are talking about the Rolling Stones as a commercial enterprise then the singular should be used.
Not, in fact, the case for people who deal with the Rolling Stones as a commercial enterprise.
123 -- OK, that makes sense, thanks. What is your collective sense of the difference that set up (airport express - preamp - amp - regular speakers) makes versus my current (airport express - high end computer speakers)?
Actually, 150 makes it sound as though I've actually dealt with the Stones as a commercial enterprise, which isn't true. But plural band names get treated as plural, singular as singular, in writing about them as a business: The Eagles are, No Doubt is.
149: OK, I'm thinking about it, what next?
123: you should get more clarity and a better signal to noise ratio with the preamp setup. If you ever hear a hiss through your speakers that would probably be eliminated. In general, the preamp chip in the airport express has a reputation for being pretty shitty and pretty noisy (and of course, it's not isolated from the power at all, so it gets bleedover electrical noise).
Obviously legal writing should just adopt the convention of saying something like: "The corporate entity known as ________ (henceforth [something indisputably singular such as "THE BAND"]) is...".
Ta-da!
My belief is that even apparently singular terms would be, in this context, treated as plurals by UKites. Is that so, question mark.
Yes, you see things like "the team are" and "the family are" all the time. Even according to Wikipedia, "Liverpool are" (when that means a sports team).
and of course, it's not isolated from the power at all
I'm so isolated from power that I can't even vote.
153 -- Your day is improved, isn't it. That's all I was going for here, nothing with those Brits.
Go ahead and think about Jimmy Rogers and Junior Wells too, if you want to have a really nice time.
Uh, CC, it hasn't been kosher to have a really nice time while thinking about Junior Wells for over a decade.
If you're willing to poke around and especially if you're willing to buy used you could buy an absolutely fantastic system for this much.
Wait, I'd missed this. (Believe it or not, 107 was a follow-on to 105, not a response to this.) Does this mean I can safely spend less? "Absolutely fantastic" sounds better than I need. Spending less would be very good.
There's a Hendrix version out there from 1964, but the announcer thinks he's singing the Bo Diddly song to which Muddy Waters was singing a response.
Our sound system is little speakers stuck on a base that you can set your old-type iPod into.
160: well, it all depends how much hassle you're willing to deal with. If you're willing to join audiophile forums and check the classifieds and do a bunch of research, you could probably spend less for something nice, sure. If you'd like to just, like, buy things that are modern and work, that's probably a good budget.
Oh, damn. I'm up for very little hassle.
The only thing I think I know about audio equipment is that it seems likely that anything made by Bose is massively overpriced. Is that right?
165: yes. Cambridge SoundWorks is often still overpriced, but is generally a much better choice.
165: Yes, but not nearly as overpriced as a major label recording act's music purchased on a CD or download.
147: Look if you're going to start mocking my copy-editing, you're never going to get anything else done.
anything made by Bose is massively overpriced
And, generally speaking, poor quality.
I've heard good things about their noise-cancelling headphones, but only negative things about their speakers.
Mine also have the optional concrete-filled base. So impractical.
If this sells for under $400 it would almost certainly be the best sounding CD player that you could get for that price, as well as being a top of the line DVD player.
Of course you'd have to be okay with having a 40-pound CD player. . . .
And if you want to have a bad day, read this article, and then some whiny screed from a libertarian about how they had to stand in line at the DMV.
"The Rolling Stones is ..." is clearly disgusting and abhorrent.
Well okay then.
re: 170
If it was me, I'd not spend that much on a CD player. But I've not really spent a lot of time with top of the line players - maybe if I tried a really good one, I'd like it. I'm happy with my $200-$250 universal player [although CDs are a distant third in my listening media, after stuff streamed from my computer, and vinyl].
I suppose it depends in what format urple owns most of his music.
If it was me, I'd not spend that much on a CD player
I wasn't really trying to recommend it.
I think that there's good value to be had in picking up some of the audiophile DVD players which are often cheaper than a dedicated CD player with the same DAC -- because they're out of fashion at the moment. AV people don't want them because they don't play blu-ray and audiophiles don't want them because they're "AV" components.
In that category there are probably cheaper ones to look at, but that one just amuses me because it is 40 points and somewhat absurd.
re: 174
Yeah. Mine is a DVD player with a good reputation for audio, also plays SACDs, DVD-A, etc. I'm happy enough with it.
174 is a good recommendation. I wouldn't even have looked at them, because I'd have assumed they were more expensive, since they have DVD-playing capabilities that I don't need (or, alternatively, that the ones that weren't more expensive weren't as good).
The Plurals is in the building.
AV is one of those things that's totally passed me by. I have a decent enough telly -- and I've have bought smaller if I could -- and the afore-mentioned DVD player. But no interest at all in surround sound, or all of that.
You have to have a TV big enough to use Wii Fit and make it worth your while to watch the animated yoga lady.
Regarding outboard DACs in general, I've heard minor differences ("the opening of the soundstage", or whatever, where you can envision the drumkit right there in front of you slightly better). I currently long for an outboard DAC/preamp combo that connects right from my computer's USB to the combo unit and then to some small powered speakers.
I certainly doubt urple really needs to spend money on an outboard DAC.
re: 181
Yeah, I definitely heard differences, but except with my crappy PC sound-card [where it was dramatic], the differences were minor. Definitely better [than CD/DVD player], in the case of one DAC, less clearly better in the case of the other (although still audibly different).
Check it out, Yglesias just found five dollars.
It's a good post, on public choice theory -- if I'd seen it at home I'd have written more about it.
That last paragraph, about the five dollars, is particularly wonderful.
184: Yes! We aren't all bad, after all!
185: I had a brief moment of idealism and hope which was immediately drowned by a fresh wave of cynicism. Matt made that story up, didn't he?