Stockhausen's death garnered all the attention, but I'd be remiss if I didn't note the passing of Andrew Imbrie on December 5.

Every Tuesday, <I>The Guardian</I> posts John Crace's "Digested Read," which is a parodic review of a book written in the (greatly exaggerated) style of the book itself.

Somebody at <I>The Washington Post</I> had the supremely brilliant idea of having Pulitzer Prize winning literary critic Michael Dirda <A HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/06/AR20071…; <I>The Completely Mad Don Martin</I>.

When I browse through early issues of this magazine, I envy <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com/historical/712">J. Gordon Holt</A>. When he <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/711">founded</A&gt; <I>Stereophile</I> in 1962, there were aspects of society that stood as solid as the Rockies overlooking his current Colorado home. Back then a magazine was a thing forever; the main means of serious communication would always be the written word; records would always be LPs...recorded in stereo; the US had a large, prosperous consumer electronics industry; computers were huge mainframes made in the USA by IBM (of course), and required air-conditioned rooms and armies of white-coated attendants; everyone watched three broadcast television networks; once a film left the neighborhood cinema, it was gone forever&mdash;or at least until it appeared on the "Late, Late, Late Show." And most importantly, people took for granted that progress in sound reproduction meant improvements in quality.

The very first "Recommended Components" listing appeared in Vol.1 No.5; this is the 16th time I've put the listing together since I took over the task from J. Gordon Holt in the November 1986 'phile. No other Stereophile feature seems to be as popular, or as misunderstood. While it might inform, it never fails to offend, particularly when it involves the dropping, or—horrors!—the not listing at all, of components that the magazine's readers own.