FORUMS
60 recordings and only about a dozen of them worth listening to. Without a doubt this edition proves that R2D4 is dead and needs to be laid to rest. Publish one last "Best of R2D4" and kill this beast before it does any more damage to the musical credibility of Stereophile's review staff.
Or perhaps one can view things in a different way, namely that Stereophile's reviewers must have some pretty awesome audio equipment if their stereos can manage to make these recordings worth listening to.
A segment idea...A list of music recommended by the readers, with only items listed by more than one fellow listed.
I normally have at least one or two of the recordings listed but this time not a one.
60 recordings and only about a dozen of them worth listening to.
You've listened to all 60 recordings, and know this for a fact?
is that good music triumphs a bad recording.
Jazzfan, do you only listen to jazz and are complaining that music other than jazz was included?
Trey
...your point of view with the point of R2D4
Here's the deal.
At the beginning of the R2D4 feature there were many, many recordings listed which were indeed worth "dying" for but now the listing is more like records worth hearing at least once. And as I said there are still a handful of very worthwhile recordings listed but the amount of worthwhile recordings becomes smaller with each new edition of R2D4. So let the beast die.
The use of hyperbole is no longer needed for what has become a merely an outlet where for the Stereophile reviewing staff to tell about a few worthwhile recordings that we may have missed since there are fewer and fewer actual R2D4's with each passing year.
So for the sake of Stereophile's credibility at least consider changing the name to something like "Good Recordings You May Have Missed" or anything else which better reflects what's really going on.
To answer Jason's question: no I haven't listen to all 60 of the listed recordings because life is too short to listen to bad music!
as hyperbole does.
It reminds me of someone saying "I have told you a thousand times to stop exaggerating."
Trey
And I don't want any part of this part - "...since there are fewer and fewer actual R2D4's with each passing year."
Did you ever wonder why people in each generation feel exactly this same way about "new" music? I have and I'd guess part of it has to do with aging ungracefully ("life is too short" = a clue).
And I hate to ask but I feel compelled - how do you know music is "bad" if you've never heard it?
So how come hyperbole from Stereophile is okay (as in naming an annual feature about some fairly good recordings "Records To Die For") but hyperbole from me (as in calling R2D4 "Records To Die From") is not okay?
Jazzfan, I bet there is much we can enjoy and agree on. And I look forward to those conversations. But it is not OK to use hyperbole in criticism of hyperbole. That is hypocricy.
At least as I see it, you are grinding an axe about something.
But enough about that, you deserve the last word.
Trey
Trey,
All I'm saying is that R2D4 has run it's course and it's time to move on. It was fun while it lasted but let's face there just all that 5 star recordings. Which is not to say that aren't plenty of good recording well worth hearing but as good as they may they're just not worth dying for.
"But it is not OK to use hyperbole in criticism of hyperbole. That is hypocricy." - No it's not, it's hyperbole squared:)
All I'm saying is that R2D4 has run it's course and it's time to move on. It was fun while it lasted but let's face there just all that 5 star recordings.
I fully accept that not everyone will find every recording listed of equal value - personal taste is not transportable - but the point of the listing, Jazzfan, is that every one of those recordings means something special to the writer who nominated it.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
I fully accept that not everyone will find every recording listed of equal value - personal taste is not transportable - but the point of the listing, Jazzfan, is that every one of those recordings means something special to the writer who nominated it.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Okay I give up! I've said my piece and while it did not fall upon deaf ears, it didn't get any traction either. So I guess that the popular R2D4 feature will continue without any major changes, which is really not that big a deal. The only thing that will change, at least for me, is that instead of considering the recordings listed "to die for" I will just mentally consider them to be recordings to get mildly excited about.
"Records worth killing your mother-in-law for." But, then they would have to include Hannah Montana music.
So I guess that the popular R2D4 feature will continue without any major changes, which is really not that big a deal.
I'm still confused. If you haven't listened to all the recordings on the list, how can you make the assumption that they are not worth dieing for?
**and also as JA pointed out, these are records that the writers feels ARE worth dieing for.
its basically up to you to listen and decide if you like it (but you still can't assume that the record is not worth dieing for, as it seems to be to the respective writers)
I guess I am in the minority. I always look forward to this issue as there are always a few gems that I otherwise would not have known about. Or, it reminds me to go back and listen to a few artists that have been put "on the back shelf" such as Pat Metheny and the L.A. Four just to mention a couple.
I hope you always continue this annual issue!
**and also as JA pointed out, these are records that the writers feels ARE worth dieing for.
Even before I wrote for Stereophile, I took this figuratively.
Kal
all we need to say in disagreement jazzfan. Which records did you like? I do not have the issue in front of me, and I tend to savor reading it so I am not there yet! I have made it through Sam's column and that is as far as that goes.
But it was nice having a civil disagreement with you and I look forward to hearing your recommended recordings.
Trey
I like getting recommendations for new music and must confess to feeling a little smugly satisfied when a record I love and own is included.
I am not at all certain that we are in the minority on this!
Trey
I scan the listings into two categories, music I would never buy (different interests) and music to lust after...I figure that is reason enough to provide the list.
Fountains of Wayne, The Vivian Girls, Cassandra Wilson, pre-disco Bee Gees, Alison Kraus, and many many other musicians who have given me lots of pleasure over the years.
And then there is one of my favorite Christmas albums, A String Quartet CHristmas.
Who did they expose you guys to?
Trey
**and also as JA pointed out, these are records that the writers feels ARE worth dieing for.
Even before I wrote for Stereophile, I took this figuratively.
Kal
Given that I live in the ghetto in Oakland, CA, here's hoping that I won't be put to the test. I can just imagine myself, found dead on the living room floor, clutching my old Joan Sutherland lps to my breast. Mikey, for one, would surely shed a tear. And it would make for fabulous copy. But I'd rather live, and see those tears saved for those who do not find the majority of recordings in our latest R2D4 exciting.
Music is a passionate thing and passion begets hyperbole. Who hasn't gone a little over the top when describing or better still recommending a new discovery or an old favourite. Besides, I don't think I'd bother to read your "Records We Are Really Rather Enjoying At The Moment" column and it doesn't remind me of Star Wars one bit.
My 2c.
RS
Fountains of Wayne, The Vivian Girls, Cassandra Wilson, pre-disco Bee Gees, Alison Kraus, and many many other musicians who have given me lots of pleasure over the years.
And then there is one of my favorite Christmas albums, A String Quartet CHristmas.
Who did they expose you guys to?
Trey
Stereophile's writer/contributor Jonathan Scull introduced me to Dead Can Dance, and The Holly Cole Trio. A huge thanks to J-10! :-)
Mark
Dead Can Dance, Stereophile turned me on to them too Mark.
JAZZFAN?????? We are waiting for your recommended recordings!!!!!! Surely you were not just trolling and wanted to complain then drift into the shadows when asked to contribute something! Say it ain't so!
Trey
Sorry for the delay in adding to the discussion but I've been busy archiving my CD collection. I have finally managed to rip all of jazz and most of my other CDs onto external hard drives (fully backed up) for streaming via my various Squeezebox devices. Now I'm removing the CDs and the booklets from their hard plastic cases and putting them into thin plastic sleeves. I can now fit my entire CD collection into between 1/4 and 1/3 as much space. The hard plastic cases are going into the garbage.
So I was asked which of the 60 R2D4s I felt were worthwhile and here's my list:
Nat King Cole - After Midnight
Hank Mobley - Soul Station
Nick Lowe - Labour of Lust
Warren Zevon - Warren Zevon
David Bowie - Station To Station
Ornette Coleman - Shape of Jazz to Come
Wyatt/Atzmon/Stephen - For the Ghosts Within
Laurie Anderson - Homeland
Tom Petty - Live Anthology
Van Morrison - His Band and Street Choir
Emmylou Harris - Wrecking Ball
Gil Evans - Live at Sweet Basil
Grant Green - Grantstand
Now all of these recordings are very good and also very enjoyable but worth dying for or even worthy of inclusion on a Desert Island Disc list, I don't think so and for a varity of reasons. First some of them are too new and need to pass the test of time (which perhaps they will), others are good but there are superior recordings available from the same artist.
Of this year's remaining R2D4 discs I can, and most cases will, live a full life of music listening without needing to hear them. Will I miss out some good music? Sure but can easily find plenty of other very worthwhile recordings to listen to in their stead.
As for the other topic of discussion on this thread, i.e. worthwhile recordings and artists discovered via Stereophile, I have found out about many good artists over my years of reading Stereophile and I have often commented on these forums when I come across a particularly worthwhile recording mentioned in Stereophile. I have noticed that Stereophile's musical coverage has fallen off somewhat over the years and wish that it would return to the glory days of the late 1980's.
Here are two recent recordings which I can recommend, one jazz and one rock:
"R.E.M. - Live At The Olympia In Dublin 39 Songs" unlike 2007's "R.E.M. Live" this collection is chock full of the lesser known songs that any hard core R.E.M. fan would consider essential. But what really makes this recording special is the energy and genuine feeling that the band puts into each performance. No big hits and still great.
"The Vandermark Five Special Edition - The Horse Jumps / The Ship Is Gone" The special edition refers to the addition of Norwegian pianist Håvard Wiik and Swedish trumpeter Magnus Broo to the standard quintet. Ken Vandermark doesn't often record with piano or brass (The Vandermark 5 usually consists of two saxes with bass, drums and cello/guitar/trombone) but that doesn't stop this septet from working as one very cohesive unit. Modern jazz that is very listenable and yet still manages to stretch the boundaries of jazz.
Wyatt/Atzmon/Stephen - For the Ghosts WithinThis is one of my selections, my very favorite record of 2010.
So, here's a little of what went into my choice:
1. The record is outstanding -- adventurous, exciting, delicate, beautiful, and emotionally charged, with fantastic playing, inimitable singing, and great arrangements. It sounds free from time and place. It's everywhere and always.
2. Sonically, the record is also very fine.
3. More important, though, for our "Records to Die For" list, the record is special to me because I clearly remember how and why I became aware of the album, who I was with when I purchased it, and who I was with and where I was when I initially listened to it. All of those things add up to a special record for me. And it's a privilege to be able to share a bit of my enthusiasm for the record with the reader. The reader may or may not care -- I hope the reader does care, of course -- but my job, as a writer, is to communicate effectively, to share, to entertain, inform, and, hopefully, expand the reader's view of the world and the self.
This is one of my selections, my very favorite record of 2010.
Thanks for the helpful insight into what may constitute a writer's selection for inclusion into the R2D4 list.
However back to my original assertion that the name "Records To Die For" rarely applies to the recordings currently listed, your description of "For the Ghosts Within" as being your "very favorite record of 2010" exactly illustrates my point. A "very favorite record" may or not be a R2D4, just a very good record.
Perhaps an analogy might help. Let's say that picking the greatest baseball players of all time. Picking the starting line-up would be very easy, as would filling out the bench. But once is asked to pick a team of players, year after year, without repeating any players, the team will quickly go from the greatest team ever to a team of very good players. That's what has happened to R2D4 - sure the first 4 or 5 years the lists were filled with truly spectacular recordings worthy of inclusion in any music lover's collection. Now it's a somewhat different story - this year's R2D4 list is a ragtag collection of good to very good recordings that wouldn't have made the cut in prior years. So change the name to something which more properly reflects what's going on, something like "Pulling Coattails".
Perhaps an analogy might help. Let's say that picking the greatest baseball players of all time. Picking the starting line-up would be very easy, as would filling out the bench. But once is asked to pick a team of players, year after year, without repeating any players, the team will quickly go from the greatest team ever to a team of very good players. That's what has happened to R2D4 - sure the first 4 or 5 years the lists were filled with truly spectacular recordings worthy of inclusion in any music lover's collection. Now it's a somewhat different story - this year's R2D4 list is a ragtag collection of good to very good recordings that wouldn't have made the cut in prior years.That's just not true. Your premise is ridiculous.
First of all, there's no rule which says one writer cannot select an album chosen by another writer. I've written about records that were selected in the past, for instance. We simply ask that each writer choose records that that writer never selected before.
Second, you talk as if there's a finite amount of great recordings in the world, or a finite amount of love to give. Just like with beautiful women, delicious food, and great hi-fi, there is no shortage of wonderful music in this world. I think your point of view is the problem, not our list or its name. I think you lack imagination, scope, and feeling.
However back to my original assertion that the name "Records To Die For" rarely applies to the recordings currently listed, your description of "For the Ghosts Within" as being your "very favorite record of 2010" exactly illustrates my point. A "very favorite record" may or not be a R2D4, just a very good record.And it now occurs to me that this statement supports my view that you lack imagination, scope, and feeling. Did you miss my explanation of why it's my favorite record, and how that relates to "Records to Die For"? I am telling you what "Records to Die For" is about for me, and you continue to see it in your own, distorted way. I represent Stereophile and what we are trying to do, yet you tell me that I'm misguided. Interesting.
Make your own list, jazzfan. Give it whatever name you want. Start your own magazine, your own website, your own forum and blog, and distribute it all to yourself.
Now now Stephen there's no need to get personal. And I pretty much agree with you (except for the beautiful women - there most definitely is a finite amount of those, well actually a very small of amount of them if I only consider those that are willing to give me the time of day) which of course begs the question - why the is "Infidels" even on the list?
As I keep on repeating, I actually like the idea of an annual list of recordings worth hearing chosen by the Stereophile writers, my only issue is with the name and I seem to be completely outnumbered, based on the responses to my complaint. So as I stated in post #12, in the future I'll just consider R2D4 as recordings to get mildly excited about.
And thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding of how the recordings may be chosen.
Remember what Duke Ellington was fond of saying: There are only two kinds of music - good and bad.
BTW, your R2D4 write-up of "For The Ghosts Within" was superb!
I quote: "Listen, for instance, as Wyatt's voice rises with the violins and clarinet, holding on to his words...as if they were the tail ends of dreams, until he no longer can and lets them fall...as if each syllable were a step back down to earth."
Stephen, this is artful, inspired writing.
The problem jazzfan and some others are having with R2D4: so many of the records were pop! Not as much jazz or clasical as in the past I think. For me, this was a boon, but if your tastes run elsewhere, it would be a bust.
But any R2D4 which includes Paranoid and Labor of Lust is really happening as far as I am concerned. I would just have included a blurn about the dvd-audio version of Paranoid. It includes a really cheesy quad mix as well as a separate disc with alternate (very bad) vocals and instrumental versions of the songs. The package is killer and I love mine!
Get one!
Trey
Thank you, rvance. I get to write more about the album in our March issue. It's our "Recording of the Month."
Now that's more like it. "For The Ghosts Within" is an excellent choice for "Recording of the Month" and maybe after a couple of years it will even be worthy of R2D4 status. In any case I'm looking forward to reading what you have to say about it in an expanded review. I also hope that this recording has inspired you to explore other recordings made by or featuring Robert Wyatt. There is plenty of good stuff since he's been recording on and off from the mid 1960s to today.
What does all the AAA AAD and DDD stuff mean? I know it means analog and digital but why three times? BTW, I'm getting the Bros. Johnson LP. I forgot all about that great funk music. GET THE FUNK OUT MA FACE!
Gotsta have the funk!
Amen brother! I was putting the right years with my James Brown tunes yesterday and it was SLOW going. I mean, it is easy to look up the dates from allmusic.com, but it is so damn hard to turn off one JB tune to get to the next one!
I have no Brothers Johnson records. I have maybe one of their tunes. I know, this is a sad state of affairs. I have concentrated more on the pfunk mob and Sly Stone and James Brown. I must rectify this state of being devoid of funk.
Thanks for bring up the one.
Trey
The problem jazzfan and some others are having with R2D4: so many of the records were pop! Not as much jazz or clasical as in the past I think. For me, this was a boon, but if your tastes run elsewhere, it would be a bust.
But any R2D4 which includes Paranoid and Labor of Lust is really happening as far as I am concerned. I would just have included a blurn about the dvd-audio version of Paranoid. It includes a really cheesy quad mix as well as a separate disc with alternate (very bad) vocals and instrumental versions of the songs. The package is killer and I love mine!
Get one!
Trey
Sorry but have me all wrong. While it's true that I'm primarily a jazz fan I also like and listen to many kinds of music. For example my love of funk runs deep and I've been listening to it since back in the early 1970s. While in college I even did a 3 hour special on P-Funk for the college radio station (a station with a broadcast range covering most of Long Island, NY) which included parts of telephone I had with the man himself, George Clinton. I also saw the P-Funk Mothership land at Madison Square Garden and have seen P-Funk is several smaller venues as well. After all, a man cannot live on jazz alone, even "jazzfan".
So it's the lack of jazz in this year's R2D4 which upsets me, it's the lack of high quality music. For example have any of the various P-Funk recordings ever turned up as an R2D4? Most certainly Funkadelic's classic "Cosmic Slop" deserves to be included as well as Parliaments' "Mothership Connection"
As for Black Sabbath, I've disliked them ever since my brother came home with their self titled first album way back in high school in 1970. Heavy metal happens to be one of the musical genres I don't much care for. On public forums such as this I normally don't jump into a thread about some musical genre I don't enjoy and trash it. And remember I didn't bad mouth Black Sabbath, I only stated that I don't like them.
Trey you are more than welcome to like and enjoy Black Sabbath just as I'm entitled to like and enjoy Albert Ayler. Give a listen to Ayler's ESP recording of "Bells" for a good taste of jazz's version of heavy metal!
Now that's more like it. "For The Ghosts Within" is an excellent choice for "Recording of the Month" and maybe after a couple of years it will even be worthy of R2D4 status.Why would it take a couple of years?
In any case I'm looking forward to reading what you have to say about it in an expanded review. I also hope that this recording has inspired you to explore other recordings made by or featuring Robert Wyatt. There is plenty of good stuff since he's been recording on and off from the mid 1960s to today.Yes, that's another reason why I selected it as an R2D4: It introduced me to so much other music -- not only the original versions of the songs covered on For the Ghosts Within but also Wyatt's solo work. (I mentioned this in my blog.) After falling in love with For the Ghosts Within, I also purchased Cuckooland, Dondestan (Revisited), Old Rottenhat, Shleep, Rock Bottom, and Ruth is Stranger than Richard (Domino has reissued them all, beautifully, on 180gm limited-edition vinyl), as well as albums by the Soft Machine and Henry Cow. I don't just like these albums -- I love them, all, seriously.
What does all the AAA AAD and DDD stuff mean? I know it means analog and digital but why three times?Those are SPARS codes, and refer to the analog (A) or digital (D) processes of recording, mixing, and mastering.
Why would it take a couple of years?
Because humans have a terrible habit of forgetting the past and focusing a little too much on the present. For example look at how most "Greatest Hits of All Time" lists change from year to year. This year's big hit often becomes tomorrow's old news.
Yes, that's another reason why I selected it as an R2D4: It introduced me to so much other music -- not only the original versions of the songs covered on For the Ghosts Within but also Wyatt's solo work. (I mentioned this in my blog.) After falling in love with For the Ghosts Within, I also purchased Cuckooland, Dondestan (Revisited), Old Rottenhat, Shleep, Rock Bottom, and Ruth is Stranger than Richard (Domino has reissued them all, beautifully, on 180gm limited-edition vinyl), as well as albums by the Soft Machine and Henry Cow. I don't just like these albums -- I love them, all, seriously.
I'm glad to hear that you're exploring and enjoying Wyatt's back catalog. Just don't forget his wonderful guest vocal on Bjork's "Submarine" from the "Medulla" CD.
Thanks! Learn something new today.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/75/Madonna-spars-code.jpg
I always look forward to R2D4, as I discover another title or two I over-looked...
Because humans have a terrible habit of forgetting the past and focusing a little too much on the present.Maybe, but I don't have that habit. When I select a current album for an R2D4 -- and I do this almost every year -- I do so because I'm asserting that today's music is just as special and important as music from any previous generation. I don't think it makes sense to say that For the Ghosts Within lacks merit simply on the basis of it being a more recent work than Comicopera (2007) or Shleep (1997) or The Soft Machine (1968). Anyhow, over time, the "test of time" has changed, and continues to change, just like the SATs -- it's made of different parts and weighed by different means and dependent upon different variables. All we can possibly do is hope to appreciate and experience what the world has offered throughout all of time, which means keeping our eyes, ears, and minds open.
For example look at how most "Greatest Hits of All Time" lists change from year to year. This year's big hit often becomes tomorrow's old news.I don't know how or where to look at this, but, again, this doesn't make any sense to me. Don't all of these lists begin with some variation of Sgt. Peppers, Blonde on Blonde, Pet Sounds, Exile on Main Street...?
Just don't forget his wonderful guest vocal on Bjork's "Submarine" from the "Medulla" CD.How could I forget if I didn't know about it in the first place?
Gotsta have the funk!
I have no Brothers Johnson records. I have maybe one of their tunes. I know, this is a sad state of affairs.
Trey
Get Gap Band III if you get the chance. killer!
Mark
Get Gap Band III if you get the chance. killer!
i second that.
Because humans have a terrible habit of forgetting the past and focusing a little too much on the present.
Maybe, but I don't have that habit. When I select a current album for an R2D4 -- and I do this almost every year -- I do so because I'm asserting that today's music is just as special and important as music from any previous generation. I don't think it makes sense to say that For the Ghosts Within lacks merit simply on the basis of it being a more recent work than Comicopera (2007) or Shleep (1997) or The Soft Machine (1968). Anyhow, over time, the "test of time" has changed, and continues to change, just like the SATs -- it's made of different parts and weighed by different means and dependent upon different variables. All we can possibly do is hope to appreciate and experience what the world has offered throughout all of time, which means keeping our eyes, ears, and minds open.
For example look at how most "Greatest Hits of All Time" lists change from year to year. This year's big hit often becomes tomorrow's old news.
I don't know how or where to look at this, but, again, this doesn't make any sense to me. Don't all of these lists begin with some variation of Sgt. Peppers, Blonde on Blonde, Pet Sounds, Exile on Main Street...?
Just don't forget his wonderful guest vocal on Bjork's "Submarine" from the "Medulla" CD.
How could I forget if I didn't know about it in the first place?
Stephen,
I'm really enjoying these exchanges now that we are both managing to keep things on friendly basis. As far as Robert Wyatt's various projects go I would also suggest checking out his work with Matching Mole.
And as far as the point I'm trying to make regarding "Best of" and "Greatest Ever" lists, I refer you to Richard Thompson's comments for his recording "1000 Years of Popular Music" : http://www.richardthompson-music.com/catch_of_the_day.asp?id=117
As far as Robert Wyatt's various projects go I would also suggest checking out his work with Matching Mole.Yes, I definitely want to find some of those old LPs. I'll keep an eye out.
Too bad you haven't given Paul Messenger's pick a listen. He recommended the remastered "Heartworn Highways", which is terrific, even though I am not a country music fan per se. In fact, Guy Clark's two tracks "L.A. Freeway" and "Desperadoes Waiting on a Train" may be the two best American "a man and his guitar" songs ever recorded (and are much better than studio versions).
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Show Reports Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2023 Stereophile
