Pono seems totally irrelevant

[gmgraves]

Use of phrases like "very cynically produced music" only serve to emphasize your personal bias and provide no independent evidence to support your thesis. You, who openly admit your distaste for most most popular music, are certainly no position to judge what popular music will or will not live on. You may offer your opinion, of course, but there is no reason to believe that is equivalent to "no reason to believe".

 

 

What would you call music produced and disseminated SOLELY to make record companies rich, if not commercial and cynical? Pop music, whatever else it might be to those who listen to it, is, and has been, since before commercial recording began, merely grist for the huge machine known as the record industry (and before the record industry it was Tin Pan Alley's sheet music publishers). There is very much reason for me to believe that the popular music of the second half of the 20th Century will, largely, not outlive the generations that value it. You? Well, Allan, you and everyone else are free to believe what you want to believe too.

 

Why don't we just agree to disagree and end this portion of this thread? You are not going to convince me that trash* of any kind has any real legs and certainly the trashy, mediocre pop (and classical and jazz) music of the past has borne that out. So you go on believing that the Who, Pink Floyd or the 'Stones are immortal. That's your right.

 

* There are exceptions, of course, to any rule of thumb. To me, for instance, Picasso was a fraud. He was a talented artist as his early work shows, but he decided to do controversial junk and get famous. Another was Marc Chagall. This ex-Bolshevik "Commisar of the Arts" under Lenin, was a real no-talent IMHO.

[orgel]

I suspect that Jolson singing "Mammy" was very popular in 1927. Who can whistle or hum it today? Not many I'd wager. This would be especially true of people under 50.

 

Actually, I have "Mammy," plus a number of other Jolson hits, permanently in my head. My dad was enamored of him and liked to play Jolson tunes at high volume, as some kind of weird break from his usual fare of Italian opera. Jolson's an interesting character — he's similar in some ways to Elvis, as he did a lot to popularize black music with a white, mainstream audience. (Blackface didn't have quite the stigma then that it does now.) Jolson also had early hits with tunes I think a lot of people are familiar with — e.g., "April Showers," "Blue Skies," "You Made Me Love You." And he made a couple of significant films (and some insignificant ones), so he might be remembered for longer than we can imagine.

 

--David

[mav52]

What would you call music produced and disseminated SOLELY to make record companies rich, if not commercial and cynical? Pop music, whatever else it might be to those who listen to it, is, and has been, since before commercial recording began, merely grist for the huge machine known as the record industry (and before the record industry it was Tin Pan Alley's sheet music publishers). There is very much reason for me to believe that the popular music of the second half of the 20th Century will, largely, not outlive the generations that value it. You? Well, Allan, you and everyone else are free to believe what you want to believe too.

 

Why don't we just agree to disagree and end this portion of this thread? You are not going to convince me that trash* of any kind has any real legs and certainly the trashy, mediocre pop (and classical and jazz) music of the past has borne that out. So you go on believing that the Who, Pink Floyd or the 'Stones are immortal. That's your right.

 

* There are exceptions, of course, to any rule of thumb. To me, for instance, Picasso was a fraud. He was a talented artist as his early work shows, but he decided to do controversial junk and get famous. Another was Marc Chagall. This ex-Bolshevik "Commisar of the Arts" under Lenin, was a real no-talent IMHO.

 

Everyone is entailed to their opinion. You can believe what you want, we can believe what we want, no one is right or wrong since you can't prove it and we can't either. After all we will be dead by then, so it really doesn't matter what art or music will be around in 2214 and we don;t have a clue if any one else will be here.

 

Pretty much time to put this thread back on track don't you think,,, like do you feel Pono is irrelevant ? like to hear your thoughts on that

[orgel]

To me, for instance, Picasso was a fraud. He was a talented artist as his early work shows, but he decided to do controversial junk and get famous. Another was Marc Chagall. This ex-Bolshevik "Commisar of the Arts" under Lenin, was a real no-talent IMHO.

 

Wow. I guess it's your right to have strong opinions, and it's true that in Picasso's later years, he was generating a lot of crap (e.g., that pottery) mainly to make money, but it's hard, I think, to support the notion that cubism is "controversial junk." Would you say something similar about Stravinsky? I've always thought Picasso and Stravinsky — friends and collaborators (with Diaghilev) in their youth — played a similar, iconoclastic role in their respective media.

 

--David

[wwaldmanfan]

Why don't we just agree to disagree and end this portion of this thread? You are not going to convince me that trash* of any kind has any real legs and certainly the trashy, mediocre pop (and classical and jazz) music of the past has borne that out. So you go on believing that the Who, Pink Floyd or the 'Stones are immortal. That's your right.

 

* There are exceptions, of course, to any rule of thumb. To me, for instance, Picasso was a fraud. He was a talented artist as his early work shows, but he decided to do controversial junk and get famous. Another was Marc Chagall. This ex-Bolshevik "Commisar of the Arts" under Lenin, was a real no-talent IMHO.

 

This is becoming absurd. Picasso and Chagall frauds? Al Jolson relegated to obscurity? Don't you remember that he starred (and sang, "Mammy") in the first sychronized-sound feature film, "The Jazz Singer"? A watershed in the history of motion pictures that will never be forgotten.

 

You have made your opinions quite clear. As the instigator of this discussion, your suggestion that we agree to disagree and put this thread to rest, lest it go on ad infinitum, is a good one.

[DarrenMc]

What would you call music produced and disseminated SOLELY to make record companies rich, if not commercial and cynical?

 

That describes the circumstances of creation of much of the "popular music" of the last 50 years. (These days, they even have computer algorithms that try to evaluate the "hit potential" of songs). But it doesn't describe all of it, and I think that's what you're missing.

 

You are correct that popularity will not ensure longevity (Al Jolson), but popularity is not necessarily begat from cynicism either.

 

Do you think the Beatles were sitting around in Abbey Road studios bouncing tracks for "Sgt. Pepper" on a 4-track because they needed the money? (They were already "bigger than Jesus" by that point.) Because they wanted to make Capitol Record rich(er)? Of course not. They were artists, making art, and they made the art they wanted to make. Whether it was "good" or "bad" art is of course up to the listener, and future generations will decide whether it lasts. But please don't tell me Sgt. Pepper came from a cynical place, because that's patent nonsense.

 

BTW, Al Jolson is not the only one vulnerable to shifting cultural sensibilities. It is undeniable that Bach lasts partly because it's a class-marker. People often listen to Bach because they like to think of themselves as the sort of upper class people who listen to Bach. (Those piano students aren't being made to slave away over the classics because they, or their parents, like the classics). We'll see whether that lasts.

[orgel]

(Those piano students aren't being made to slave away over the classics because they, or their parents, like the classics). We'll see whether that lasts.

 

Here I must take issue. The reason why serious music students study classical music is because it's a good way — likely the best way — to master one's instrument. A lot of classically trained musicians go on to great success in other genres, and I think that by and large, musicians who start out being classically trained maintain a lot of respect and and affection for the music that made them into accomplished musicians.

 

That approach to musical training may not last, but if it doesn't, virtuosi are going to be thin on the ground.

 

--David

[Blake]

Thread Synopsis: "Hey you kids, get the hell off my lawn!!!"

[beetlemania]

Thread Synopsis: "Hey you kids, get the hell off my lawn!!!"

 

I thought it was "Let's talk about anything except Pono"

[Blake]

Ok, a slight adjustment...

 

Thread Synopsis: "We don't want to talk about Pono. We want to talk about kids getting the hell off of our lawns!!!"

[InfernoSTi]

I thought it was purposeful irony on the original topic that Pono seems totally irrelevant, thus proving through the use of pretend ignorance that Pono is irrelevant (a position I disagree with, for the record).

 

It never struck me until now that the ignorance wasn't feigned...

 

Best,

John

[mayhem13]

Well John, I'll disagree with you here from my usual soapbox. Entertainment media for ownership is dead. Pay streaming services are the future for sure. It's the only thing that can save the music industry.....period. Think about it for a minute

 

......and I know what scares most (myself included) that all that will be made available is 320 mp3 as the quality or standard resolution......which just might be what happens. It's market demand that will be the determining factor. If streaming service XYZ wants to offer higher resolution content at a premium, it will have to be profitable. That won't just come from consumer audiophile demand. An added expense will be pressure put on the labels from the big boy streamers on the block to charge streamer XYZ an exhorbitant rate making the business model unjustifiable from a profitibility standpoint. That's the essence of corporate competition today.....swinging the bigger stick.

 

We could hope that audio streaming will go the way of video, catering to the demand for more 1080 content. People have been shown to be willing to pay extra for HiDef video but will they for audio? A question I don't care to answer other than I would.

 

So to answer the question put forth in this thread....Yes, PONO is too late to the party and irrelevant IMO.

[InfernoSTi]

Well John, I'll disagree with you here from my usual soapbox. Entertainment media for ownership is dead. Pay streaming services are the future for sure. It's the only thing that can save the music industry.....period. Think about it for a minute

 

......and I know what scares most (myself included) that all that will be made available is 320 mp3 as the quality or standard resolution......which just might be what happens. It's market demand that will be the determining factor. If streaming service XYZ wants to offer higher resolution content at a premium, it will have to be profitable. That won't just come from consumer audiophile demand. An added expense will be pressure put on the labels from the big boy streamers on the block to charge streamer XYZ an exhorbitant rate making the business model unjustifiable from a profitibility standpoint. That's the essence of corporate competition today.....swinging the bigger stick.

 

We could hope that audio streaming will go the way of video, catering to the demand for more 1080 content. People have been shown to be willing to pay extra for HiDef video but will they for audio? A question I don't care to answer other than I would.

 

So to answer the question put forth in this thread....Yes, PONO is too late to the party and irrelevant IMO.

 

@Meyhem13,

 

Very good points...I almost agree with you. It seems that inventions and progress is rarely in one single step. Instead, it takes some steps forward, some sideways, some even backwards before real change is made. I think of this much like a Hegelian dialectic in terms of how things move forward. I also believe that this is a parallel progress with the interweaved timelines of many things at play rather than one single linear path being followed. I think of progress as an ebb and flow conversation at a cocktail party, not a lecture by a professor at the front of the class.

 

So for me the concept of Pono is not too late. It may be that Pono goes the way of betamax but that doesn't mean affordable portable high quality audio players are obsolete. This is just the latest version of the Sony Walkman and the iPod. This doesn't mean that streaming isn't the future of audio.

 

The power of Pono is the idea of higher quality sound, not the delivery method. Do I hope that Wimp can take a strong hold? Yes. Do I think Pono can adjust as a Wimp streamer? Yes, absolutely. Look at the Sony Walkman and the Apple iPod...the Walkman went from cassette to CD to mp3 effortlessly. Yet for twenty plus years you called your portable device "a Walkman" regardless of brand or media it played. Then look at iPods. They started out as a Mac OS only portable device, then they became a Windows and Mac OS device, then they added video, then they added cell phone connectivity...all an iPod.

 

So if we were to judge the Walkman by the fact that Generation 1 was a cassette player and that technology died or iPods by the fact that Generation 1 could only be linked to a Mac OS and didn't have video or cell connections, then we would be missing the entire point of both products and their undisputed success. I believe a device like Pono can have such success and can grow. Do I hope it is Pono, I hope so for Neil's sake because that would be cool. If it another device like Pono that wins out but does essentially the same thing, so be it.

 

Pono, for me, is not irrelevant.

 

Best,

John

[DarrenMc]

Here I must take issue. The reason why serious music students study classical music is because it's a good way — likely the best way — to master one's instrument. A lot of classically trained musicians go on to great success in other genres, and I think that by and large, musicians who start out being classically trained maintain a lot of respect and and affection for the music that made them into accomplished musicians.

 

That approach to musical training may not last, but if it doesn't, virtuosi are going to be thin on the ground.

 

Fair point. Some of my favourite rock musicians have classical chops and I love them for it. However, I'm thinking about what I've heard about the Asian "Tiger Moms", chaining their children to the piano (it is said) in order that their children learn discipline (whether the child shows any enthusiasm for music or not). Bach seems to be one of the cudgels of choice in these cases. FWIW, I've seen online comments from the graduates of this method, who say "it made me good at math, but I couldn't care less about music". If the enthusiasm for this child-rearing practice wanes, the clientele for Bach sheet music diminishes.

 

As for Pono, there's little to talk about (those who think the device is destined to be a pointless commercial failure have made their case), so IMHO little is lost by diverting this thread into a genuinely interesting philosophical direction.

[DarrenMc]

People have been shown to be willing to pay extra for HiDef video but will they for audio? A question I don't care to answer other than I would.

 

It is apparent to me that the vast majority would not, and I think the differences are instructive. HD video is an clear and unambiguous upgrade over SD in theory (ie: the differences should be immediately discernable by the human eye); and in practice the difference is in fact immediately apparent to everyone with normal eyesight and a $600 TV. No eye training or five figure systems required. DBT is a tool for convincing skeptics, but in this case there are no skeptics, so DBT is never mentioned.

[wwaldmanfan]

Some of my favourite rock musicians have classical chops and I love them for it.

 

Parrish Ellis, former guitarist for the Brooklyn-based jug band, "The Wiyos", is a brilliant, classically-trained guitarist. You can see it in his style, but this music is a far cry from anything resembing "classical music", and certainly more to my liking.

 

[gmgraves]

Actually, I have "Mammy," plus a number of other Jolson hits, permanently in my head. My dad was enamored of him and liked to play Jolson tunes at high volume, as some kind of weird break from his usual fare of Italian opera. Jolson's an interesting character — he's similar in some ways to Elvis, as he did a lot to popularize black music with a white, mainstream audience. (Blackface didn't have quite the stigma then that it does now.) Jolson also had early hits with tunes I think a lot of people are familiar with — e.g., "April Showers," "Blue Skies," "You Made Me Love You." And he made a couple of significant films (and some insignificant ones), so he might be remembered for longer than we can imagine.

 

--David

 

It's funny, but I actually like the way Jolson sang. I can't tell you why, but when I hear the old ham (and he was a ham) sing "Swanee", I get a smile on my face.

[Audio_ELF]

Parrish Ellis, former guitarist for the Brooklyn-based jug band, "The Wiyos", is a brilliant, classically-trained guitarist. You can see it in his style, but this music is a far cry from anything resembing "classical music", and certainly more to my liking.

 

Interesting (semi-related) story: Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull never learned to play the flute "properly" until his daughter (I think it was his daughter) was learning and told him he was doing it all wrong. Apparently he relearned and realises how much better / easier to play correctly.

 

Eloise

[gmgraves]

Everyone is entailed to their opinion. You can believe what you want, we can believe what we want, no one is right or wrong since you can't prove it and we can't either. After all we will be dead by then, so it really doesn't matter what art or music will be around in 2214 and we don;t have a clue if any one else will be here.

 

Pretty much time to put this thread back on track don't you think,,, like do you feel Pono is irrelevant ? like to hear your thoughts on that

 

 

Oh, I agree!

[gmgraves]

Everyone is entailed to their opinion. You can believe what you want, we can believe what we want, no one is right or wrong since you can't prove it and we can't either. After all we will be dead by then, so it really doesn't matter what art or music will be around in 2214 and we don;t have a clue if any one else will be here.

 

Pretty much time to put this thread back on track don't you think,,, like do you feel Pono is irrelevant ? like to hear your thoughts on that

 

 

Well, I think that the Pono's form factor is going to pretty much severely limit it's appeal, for one thing. It might sound great (can't say, I haven't heard it) and if it's anywhere near as good sounding as the Ayre QB-9 to which I've seen it compared (apparently the guy who designed the Ayre DAC also designed the DAC in the Pono), it just might sound great, but I don't see the audience at which it's aimed really caring all that much. It would be nice if it were a hit and if it turned a lot of young people on to great sound, what a shot in the arm it would be to the high-end community - with new blood and all that. I don't see the "iPod generation" flocking to it though. While kids love their "music", they also love texting and web access and other things that smart-phones do. I think the new Harmon-Kardon HTC-1 phone:

 

HTC One (M8) Harman Kardon Edition Specs and Reviews | HTC United States

 

is probably closer to the mark, targeted audience-wise. Of course I haven't heard that device either and I certainly have no idea how the Pono would fare vs the H-K HTC-1 sound wise, but certainly from "usefulness" point of view, the H-K looks to be the more salable product.

[gmgraves]

That describes the circumstances of creation of much of the "popular music" of the last 50 years. (These days, they even have computer algorithms that try to evaluate the "hit potential" of songs). But it doesn't describe all of it, and I think that's what you're missing.

 

Since I have said this very thing in more than one post, I don't really think that I'm missing anything.

 

You are correct that popularity will not ensure longevity (Al Jolson), but popularity is not necessarily begat from cynicism either.

 

Popularity comes from many places. Cynicism and crass commercialism is but one source. But I think the entire modus operandi of the commercial music business shows conclusively that manufacturing "stars" and "hits" for profit is their entire raison d'être.

 

Do you think the Beatles were sitting around in Abbey Road studios bouncing tracks for "Sgt. Pepper" on a 4-track because they needed the money? (They were already "bigger than Jesus" by that point.) Because they wanted to make Capitol Record rich(er)? Of course not. They were artists, making art, and they made the art they wanted to make. Whether it was "good" or "bad" art is of course up to the listener, and future generations will decide whether it lasts. But please don't tell me Sgt. Pepper came from a cynical place, because that's patent nonsense.

 

You are being entirely too short-sighted here. I daresay that money is probably not the only thing that drives young musicians to do what it is that they do, although at some point, I'm sure it's high on the list. No, the Beatles weren't sitting around in Abbey Road studios bouncing tracks for "Sgt. Pepper" on a 4-track because they needed the money. But EMI was! Not that they might have needed the money, but believe me they wanted it! That's why they were in business. Don't confuse the composers and musicians with the record company producers that handle them.

 

BTW, Al Jolson is not the only one vulnerable to shifting cultural sensibilities. It is undeniable that Bach lasts partly because it's a class-marker. People often listen to Bach because they like to think of themselves as the sort of upper class people who listen to Bach. (Those piano students aren't being made to slave away over the classics because they, or their parents, like the classics). We'll see whether that lasts.

 

I seriously doubt that. Bach has lasted because he was a true genius whose music speaks to people across the centuries. He also invented musical forms that strongly influenced those who came after him. There are many people (including yours, truly, here) who think that his music is gorgeous. If you think that the main reason he has lasted is because of some form of elitism or snobbery, then you have a lot to learn about classical music and those who love it.

 

Jolson is obscure for the reason that any performer's work becomes obscure. People generally don't listen to him or the type of songs he sang any more. I suspect that he would be totally forgotten now were it not for the fact that he was the star of the first "talking" picture, and any retrospective of Hollywood history is going to show scenes from that movie. That insures some exposure to today's audiences. I.E. most people have least heard of him and many have heard him sing from scenes in that film. But there are many more pop singers (and songwriters) of that era who have been totally forgotten in the public consciousness. That doesn't mean, you understand, that their work is lost. You can find it in many museums, libraries and archives, but one has to look for it, and the names won't sound familiar to most people. I'm sure that this phenomenon will continue, going forward.

[Boris75]

I think the new Harmon-Kardon HTC-1 phone:

 

HTC One (M8) Harman Kardon Edition Specs and Reviews | HTC United States

 

is probably closer to the mark, targeted audience-wise. Of course I haven't heard that device either and I certainly have no idea how the Pono would fare vs the H-K HTC-1 sound wise, but certainly from "usefulness" point of view, the H-K looks to be the more salable product.

 

Mark Waldrep came up with a very similar conclusion to yours in one of his recent newsletters, after listening to the HK HTC-1, of which the sound impressed him.

[James1776]

Sorry, but I can't substitute a legal definition of pornography for art. I believe sometimes the greatest art of all is the kind you don't know when you see it...

 

Best,

John

 

Ah, the Emperor's new Clothes' argument...

[Audio_ELF]

Sorry, but I can't substitute a legal definition of pornography for art. I believe sometimes the greatest art of all is the kind you don't know when you see it...

Ah, the Emperor's new Clothes' argument...

Just cause the Emporer is naked doesn't make the scene pornographic...

[gmgraves]

Mark Waldrep came up with a very similar conclusion to yours in one of his recent newsletters, after listening to the HK HTC-1, of which the sound impressed him.

 

Well, the Pono is something else to carry, isn't it? And it was clearly not designed with carrying in mind (it looks to me like it was designed specifically to sit on someone's desk, but I don't know that for sure. I'm just saying that it looks that way.). Even the Astell & Kern players are "single taskers" and must be carried along with one's smartphone. So much more practical to have a smartphone that has great sound along with it's other smartphone features. I guess players like the A&K are good for iPhone owners because Apple seems to refuse to make their phones (or even iTunes) hi-res compatible. That and the fact that Apple i Devices can't have storage added to them or the battery easily replaced kind of keeps them off my future short-list, even though I know that iOS is much better than Android (I have an older iPod Touch that can't have it's OS updated and won't run any recent apps. I also have an iPod Nano (the square one) and even though it's really neat to be so small and provide 16 gigs of storage, a really good FM radio, and one's choice of watch faces as well as a stop watch and count-down timer, it sounds merely OK). This closed architecture crap has bit Apple in the arse before (remember the original Mac?) and they seemed to have learned nothing from it!