So the younger set prefers to download instead of buy CDs; easier to
shop, easier to use. Not necessarily better or better sounding, just
easier. That's one thing I liked about CDs over LPs, that they lasted
longer, didn't wear or scratch given reasonably careful treatment, but I
set the limit there. I still don't like MP3 files if I have a choice and
I like owning CDs. Like just about everyone else in my generation.
On 12/8/2010 1:16 PM, Tom Fine wrote:
> Not sure what you're saying that's that much different from what I'm
> saying. My main point is that the younger generation seems not to mind a
> lower-quality experience with media (and many other things) as long as
> it's cheap, plentiful and convenient.
> That said, when I was a young-un, the typical teenager had a Walkman of
> one Japanese brand or another and a pile of really bad sounding
> fast-duped cassettes. Those of us who made our own cassettes from
> better-sounding LPs were in the small minority. And believe me, if there
> had been pre-recorded cassettes priced comparable to LPs that sounded as
> good as LPs, I'd have stopped buying LPs immediately. Why? Cassettes
> were more convenient and portable. So perhaps it's been ever thus.
> -- Tom Fine
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "[log in to unmask]"
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 12:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] The TV thread...
>> There is another viewpoint to this argument. Wine drinkers want what
>> Tom has defined or simply to numb their senses. There are different
>> kinds of wines. Young people may want a caffeine buzz. Different
>> There are plenty of young people at movie theatres, which is one
>> reason I don't go there much anymore. I dislike crowds, cell phones
>> shining in my eyes, and people talking or smacking on popcorn while I
>> try to watch a movie that I paid too much to see in the first place.
>> In the day of real film (not digital projectors) add to this list the
>> wretched condition of the print after it has been run for a while. And
>> the lousy sound quality of some theatres. I learned a long time ago
>> that all the arguments for film being superior to TV jut don't hold up
>> so well in the real world.
>> joe salerno
>> On 12/8/2010 9:18 AM, Tom Fine wrote:
>>> It's all about convenience and ubiquity with the younger generations.
>>> They don't really care about media quality as much as they care about
>>> media quantity and accessibility at all times and in all places. It's
>>> like thinking about fine wine (here made akin to high-resolution media
>>> played back on good equipment in a comfortable but not necessarily
>>> convenient location) vs. Coca-Cola from a vending machine. It's are you
>>> thirsty or do you wish for a deeper sensation of taste and feeling? I
>>> think younger people don't even know the deeper experience is out there
>>> because they are drowning in a sea of thirst-slaking. This argument is
>>> made by high-end audio mags and dealers all the time. They say if you
>>> expose your average younger kid to better sound and video, they'll want
>>> it, they just didn't know it was out there. I haven't seen any
>>> large-number evidence of exposure translating to desire, however. The
>>> sea of junk-media is time-sucking and all-encompassing, so when is there
>>> time to enjoy "fine wine"?
>>> -- Tom Fine