Pono seems totally irrelevant

[gmgraves]

I hate to say this, but you sound like an angry old man looking at this from a very narrow perspective- yours...

 

For starters, was it not you that said in this thread that only 1% of people listen to classical music. Is that truly standing the test of time or speaking to the masses? Was Bach herald as "fresh", or panned by the powers that be of the era.

 

Since every major and many minor cities in the world have symphony orchestras and play this music, I'd say so.

 

Popular music from the 1900-1910 that didn't survive: Was it ever written or recorded? Could it be that what we think of as classical music was simply that which was written and played often because some aristocrat or church payed for it? Hildegard Von Bingen anyone?

 

Of course it was. Before recording, sheet music was the music business. And yes, the phonograph was well established by 1900. And yes, some of what we call classical music was written and played often because some aristocrat or church payed for it. But the circumstances are irrelevant. What is relevant is that it is still around today, hundreds of years after that "aristocrat" payed for it.

 

Folk songs have and will withstand the test of time. They ARE the voices of the people, and remain so. What is deemed "classical" was done so by an academic, not the people. Let's be real here, the people support pop music by paying for it. Organizations support classical by hiring orchestras.

 

I'm not talking about a popularity contest. I'm talking about art being remembered, revered and accessed by civilization as a whole. This is not about how many listen to any musical genre. It's the difference between the music being utterly forgotten like almost all of the pop songs from the 100 years ago, and music and their composers being household names 200 years later, like Beethoven.

[Allan F]

I simply refuse to believe that 20th and 21st century popular music, produced so cynically, and commercially, and being totally devoid of any content any thinking human being would want as an example of his time on this earth, could possibly, ultimately be canonized for the ages. Many of us might love it, might consider it important, but I cannot believe that future generations will see it as anything other than an aberration. I could be wrong, but I certainly hope I'm not. We live in the "Golden Age of Garbage" and it will be best forgotten by the future like the bell-bottom trousers and disco of the 1970's.

 

You are letting your personal tastes cloud your judgment. You also paint with far too wide a brush when you refer to "20th and 21st century popular music". What do you include in the latter category? IMO, there is no question that the blues and jazz will live on. The creativity of The Beatles was on a par of great composers of the past and surely will not be forgotten. One can already see a resurgence of their music fifty years after it was recorded. The singer/songwriters of the 1970's produced some beautiful music that is simply "classic". I could go on.

[gmgraves]

The fact that your friends' kids have no musical points of reference or taste has no bearing on what contemporary music will be remembered as important in the future. Robert Johnson, and many of his peers, were obscure blues artists in the early part of the 20th century. However, his influence today on blues, rock, soul, and even jazz is incalculable, whether or not these genres interest you personally.

 

 

Well, yes, it does. If these kids have already discarded the pop music of just 20 years ago, what does that say about their kids and their kids, kids? It says that generational music has no lasting worth. It speaks to the generation at whom it was aimed, and when they become irrelevant as a sales demographic or die off, the music dies off too.

[TimArruda]

Well, yes, it does.

 

Well, no, it doesn't. My own daughters are 21 & 19. Guess what, they love the Beatles, The Cars, James Taylor, The Eagles, Phish, etc, etc. along with all kinds of music that is of their generation. So now you have another set of kids that have not discarded the music of 20 years ago. I have no doubt that it changes nothing about your certainty in regards to what serious art is, and what will be remembered in the future. Me personally, I haven't the faintest idea, and I have no doubt it will be determined long after I am gone. And yes, you seriously come across as the angry old man.

[orgel]

Not important. I didn't put Fenimore Cooper on the list of great American literature. That was done well before my time.

 

But my point was that if you poll people in the lit-crit game today, you'll find significantly fewer of them put Fenimore Cooper on the list of great American novelists than if you'd done that same poll in the 1890's, or whenever it was that FC was actually popular -- he's hardly read at all these days. So when it comes to artistic celebrity, even in the context of the "big picture," one day you're up and the next day you're down, as the Blues Magoos once said.

 

--David

[orgel]

Actually, I'm not all that interested in the "American Songbook" but those songs have already outlived the generation for which they were written. That they won't be forgotten is a fait accompli and doesn't need my interest (or yours) to guarantee that those songs will be remembered through the ages.

 

...

 

But I'm right about rock. It seems to me that the more generation specific a musical-genre is, the quicker it is relegated to the dust bin. Also, the more performer-specific a musical type is, the quicker it become irrelevant. As an example, anybody can take a song like Cole Porter's "Anything Goes" and make a successful performance from it. But can you see anybody other than the 'Stones singing "(I can't get no) Satisfaction"? I can't.

 

Hmm. I am interested in the American Songbook, but I can't for the life of me figure out how you can be certain that songs by Rogers and Hart or George and Ira Gershwin or Cole Porter (or Arthur Hamilton and other somewhat lesser lights?) will be remembered, but songs by Lennon and McCartney or Van Morrison or Billy Joel — just some examples of latter-day composers whose songs have been widely covered across genres — will be forgotten.

 

I do agree with you that a song that's more or less inextricably intertwined with the original singer's stage persona is more difficult to cover, but that goes more to the song itself rather than the genre, and it still doesn't preclude the song's being covered. (For example, I'm always astonished when I hear a new cover of Joe Zawinul's "Birdland," but it seems to keep on happening.) While I personally may think, oh, Mose Allison was a better songwriter than, say, Bono is, I'm not really ready to superimpose my personal judgment on the proverbial test of time.

 

--David

[new_media]

My 11-year-old daughter plays piano and flute, and her instructor holds two recitals every year for the kids to show off their skills. My daughter plays mostly classical pieces and gets polite applause just like all of the other kids do.

 

At last year's summer recital, two 12-year-old boys brought the house down with an acoustic performance of Hey Jude. They had everyone, myself included, clapping and singing along.

 

Just sayin'.

[mav52]

[email protected];340689]I'm not talking about a popularity contest. I'm talking about art being remembered, revered and accessed by civilization as a whole. This is not about how many listen to any musical genre. It's the difference between the music being utterly forgotten like almost all of the pop songs from the 100 years ago, and music and their composers being household names 200 years later, like Beethoven.

 

Art of any kind be it music or a painting etc.. is in the ear or eye the of the beholder. Young kids today are digging Elvis, old blues, Elmore James, Muddy Waters and jazz and the Beatles and yes classical.

 

 

Well, yes, it does. If these kids have already discarded the pop music of just 20 years ago, what does that say about their kids and their kids, kids? It says that generational music has no lasting worth. It speaks to the generation at whom it was aimed, and when they become irrelevant as a sales demographic or die off, the music dies off too.

 

Not all of the young kids of today have discarded rock music of the last 20 years, maybe in your neighborhood. My kids 33 and 27 both like Elvis, both really enjoy BB King, Tom Petty, the Stones , Albert King, the Doors I could go on.. Who knows how long music of any kind will survive but I have to ask since your so set on it, is how do you know that Classical will survive throughout the world. Maybe in California and New York or Boston or Philadelphia where they have concerts but you would be hard pressed to find those concerts in the small towns in the US, where I would assume these people are listening to country, country Rock, or Rock and Roll or Metal of some sort.

 

Heck me personally, I hope all music survives for all to enjoy 200 years from now.

[mayhem13]

There's other ways to look at this in a greater relevance and that would be classical composers with household names who've lived in the past 100 years. I can think of only four. Now compare that to all other genres who's names are commonplace within the past 100 years. The Beatles, Elvis, Johnny Cash, Madonna, The Stones, Greatful Dead, Jimmmy Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, Beyoncé, Marvin Gaye, Michael Jackson, U2, GunsNRoses,.........and on and on and on. Ask even a 75 year old that's not a music lover or audiophile to name both Beatles songs and Great classical works or symphonies. Which list do you suppose will be longer? While decades or generational musical genres do seem to not stand the tests of time, classical music hasn't had pop star for nearly a century either.

[gmgraves]

There's other ways to look at this in a greater relevance and that would be classical composers with household names who've lived in the past 100 years. I can think of only four. Now compare that to all other genres who's names are commonplace within the past 100 years. The Beatles, Elvis, Johnny Cash, Madonna, The Stones, Greatful Dead, Jimmmy Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, Beyoncé, Marvin Gaye, Michael Jackson, U2, GunsNRoses,.........and on and on and on. Ask even a 75 year old that's not a music lover or audiophile to name both Beatles songs and Great classical works or symphonies. Which list do you suppose will be longer? While decades or generational musical genres do seem to not stand the tests of time, classical music hasn't had pop star for nearly a century either.

 

 

Like I said, you rock apologists might well be right, but I sincerely hope not.

[mav52]

Like I said, you rock apologists might well be right, but I sincerely hope not.

 

It's not just rock and roll, it's blues, jazz and who knows what else. I just hope it's not rap.

[wwaldmanfan]

I have ~300 artists represented in my music library. I have chosen 25 which I am confident will be remembered 100 years from now:

 

Aretha Franklin

B.B. King

The Beatles

Bill Monroe

Billie Holliday

Bob Dylan

Buddy Holly

Chuck Berry

Ella Fitzgerald

Elvis Presley

Hank Williams, Sr.

Jimi Hendrix

Jimmie Rodgers

Johnny Cash

Lead Belly

Led Zeppelin

Les Paul

Louis Armstrong

Muddy Waters

Otis Redding

Paul Simon

Ray Charles

Robert Johnson

The Rolling Stones

The Who

[mayhem13]

.....and I would concede to George's point that that list will include Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Wagner, Schubert, Debussy, Tchaikovsky, Bach, Brahms and maybe a few more. What's more important as a reverence to classical is the influence and timeless remembrance of some of the greatest melodies ever created developed from pure inspiration.

[wisnon]

I have ~300 artists represented in my music library. I have chosen 25 which I am confident will be remembered 100 years from now:

 

Aretha Franklin

B.B. King

The Beatles

Bill Monroe

Billie Holliday

Bob Dylan

Buddy Holly

Chuck Berry

Ella Fitzgerald

Elvis Presley

Hank Williams, Sr.

Jimi Hendrix

Jimmie Rodgers

Johnny Cash

Lead Belly

Led Zeppelin

Les Paul

Louis Armstrong

Muddy Waters

Otis Redding

Paul Simon

Ray Charles

Robert Johnson

The Rolling Stones

The Who

What, no Bob Marley?????

[gmgraves]

I have ~300 artists represented in my music library. I have chosen 25 which I am confident will be remembered 100 years from now:

 

Aretha Franklin

B.B. King

The Beatles

Bill Monroe

Billie Holliday

Bob Dylan

Buddy Holly

Chuck Berry

Ella Fitzgerald

Elvis Presley

Hank Williams, Sr.

Jimi Hendrix

Jimmie Rodgers

Johnny Cash

Lead Belly

Led Zeppelin

Les Paul

Louis Armstrong

Muddy Waters

Otis Redding

Paul Simon

Ray Charles

Robert Johnson

The Rolling Stones

The Who

 

 

Well it will help future generations plot the decline of Western civilization if nothing else - that's assuming, of course, that the entropy isn't so deep that people will no longer be sophisticated enough to be interested in plotting their own decline. And at the rate it's happening, that wouldn't surprise me in the least.

[mayhem13]

Well it will help future generations plot the decline of Western civilization if nothing else - that's assuming, of course, that the entropy isn't so deep that people will no longer be sophisticated enough to be interested in plotting their own decline. And at the rate it's happening, that wouldn't surprise me in the least.

 

I would have never expected such a response from you George. Sophisticated?.....really? Imagine the world without the un refined.....who'd do all the manual labor?......the sophisticated Mozart toting aristocrats?

[gmgraves]

I would have never expected such a response from you George. Sophisticated?.....really? Imagine the world without the un refined.....who'd do all the manual labor?......the sophisticated Mozart toting aristocrats?

 

 

I think you have misinterpreted what I've said. The entire culture is devolving. I'm making no class distinction here. At some point, when a culture devolves, everybody is so busy trying to survive, that there is no time or impetus to move forward culturally, economically or technologically. I was engaging in a bit of hyperbole, or, to be more precise, reducto ad absurdem to make a point.

[mav52]

I think you have misinterpreted what I've said. The entire culture is devolving. I'm making no class distinction here. At some point, when a culture devolves, everybody is so busy trying to survive, that there is no time or impetus to move forward culturally, economically or technologically. I was engaging in a bit of hyperbole, or, to be more precise, reducto ad absurdem to make a point.

 

more like argumentum ad absurdum

[mayhem13]

I think you have misinterpreted what I've said. The entire culture is devolving. I'm making no class distinction here. At some point, when a culture devolves, everybody is so busy trying to survive, that there is no time or impetus to move forward culturally, economically or technologically. I was engaging in a bit of hyperbole, or, to be more precise, reducto ad absurdem to make a point.

 

Devolve?.....not likely. Evolve in a direction that you're not in favor of.......probobly. And that's ok.....no need to justify your position, but be equally prepared to accept criticism of it as it involves judgement on multiple levels.

[James1776]

I tend to agree that this is a product that is not needed. One can buy an app like USB audio Player pro and load and play high rez files on ones phone through the USB port to a small DAC like the Dragonfly...SD card, small, great sound and not requiring a singe purpose device join the phone in ones pocket.

[James1776]

4. The Pono is intended to be portable, your home stereo, DAC, computer and USB drive is not - or at least not so much.

 

My setup is an HTC One (M8) phone...64GB in the SD slot...USB Audio Player Pro App and a Dragonfly DAC...Add phones of your choice and you have real high rez in a very portable system

 

 

Excuse the poor photo please

[James1776]

It appears, it's not that some have not heard a "good dac" I think some of these young people would rather enjoy the music experience of playing a LP, some like the sound. The same thing can be said about people with DACS, some have never heard a good turntable and cartridge. To me, it's all about the enjoyment of the music anyway I can get it and it appears these young people I met feel the same way.

 

To me it is simple...good digital, with a good DAC, can be had for under $1000. Vinyl needs a lot more money to hit that digital sound quality BUT, after perhaps $5-10K vinyl sounds better (to me) as it does when compared to MP3 based sound.

[James1776]

I should care, why? I wouldn't know "Snoop Dogg" from Justin Bieber.

 

And both are doomed to the ash heap of history....

[James1776]

It's not just rock and roll, it's blues, jazz and who knows what else. I just hope it's not rap.

 

Rap is to music what graffiti is to art....disposable at best and vandalism always

[orgel]

Rap is to music what graffiti is to art....disposable at best and vandalism always

 

Admittedly, I'm not much of a rap fan, but you ought to watch this:

 

Exit Through the Gift Shop (2010) - IMDb

 

It might cause to re-evaluate your views on graffiti. Again, we each might "know what we like," but that doesn't mean we're correct in any sort of absolute sense.

 

--David