Are stereo and sound equipment companies, and magazines that review their equipment, out to maximize music – or money?
What is their primary interest, the product or the profit?
This debate has flared up again, related to Stereophile‘s 50 years anniversary, cf
http://www.stereophile.com/content/50-years-stereophile
The accusation from the critics is that Stereophile has turned out to become exactly what its founder J. Gordon Holt did not want – a commercially driven magazine.
“Fifty years ago this month, Vol.1 No.1, Issue No.1 of The Stereophile, published, edited, and mostly written by J. Gordon Holt out of Wallingford, Pennsylvania, hit the newsstands. Gordon had worked for two major audio magazines, High Fidelity and HiFi/Stereo Review (later renamed Stereo Review), and had been disgusted by those magazines’ pandering to advertisers. Not only was The Stereophile going to tell it like it was, it was going to judge audio components by listening to them—a heretical idea in those days of meters and measurements. “Dammit,” said Gordon, who died in 2009, “if nobody else will report what an audio component sounds like, I’ll do it myself!“, writes editor John Atkinson who took over from Holt in 1986.
In my view, the critique has some truth, the magazine is some of both. Readers have to learn to notice cue phrases like “in its price class” and read between the lines. Yet in my own experience, the advice has mainly been good: the product has had the main say, not the profit. Sometimes there is “snake oil” (profit-making, empty claims) involved, but then again, learning to use the magazine goes together with using other sources also, like Audiogon (and in Norway, hifisentralen).
In my case, I have followed advice from others, including Stereophile, whenever I could not listen myself. I have made some buying decisions mainly relying on the magazine reviews, and although I have found better alternatives later, in some cases, I do not regret making those decisions.
I would like the magazine to sharpen its critical edge, to be more clearly “with” the listener with limited means – not just those with big wallets. Besides keeping a sharp critical eye, there are some areas where Stereophile needs improvement. One is mid-level equipment (in terms of price), not just top level plus a bit entry level. Lower mid-level is probably the level of most readers. Secondly, top level equipment gradually drifts down to mid-level as time goes by, and the magazine should give more space to second hand options. Thirdly, it should give more space to how systems sound as a whole, not just this or that component, but its synergy with the rest.
According to the foreword by Donald Ault in the new Fantagraphics Books series “Donald Duck – Lost in the Andes – by Carl Barks” (2011) , Barks – not Disney – was the one who invented most of the Donald Duck scenery and characters, including Uncle Scrooge. “Barks was perhaps the most widely read but least-known author in the world”.
I was six or seven years old when I started to recognize Barks’ stories, in the late 1950s. I would make a corn-flake bowl when I got home from school, reading Donald Duck when it arrived each week. A new Barks series was a special treat. I knew it only through a sense of the best drawings. Here we are again – top quality.
This is still my impression when, sixty years old, I reread his “Lost in the Andes” story. This layman story (Barks was an autodidact) is just great, regarding adventure, capitalism, US fingers on south America, and general attitude – a true artistic wonder. The foreword helped me me put words to several things I felt as a boy also, not least, the film-like technique, the great attention to timing, in his drawings.
Here is an example of Barks making fun of power in modern society (click on image to get a full version).
“Important egg dealers are interested”…indeed.
Although the foreword describes how Barks died without much recognition, is is a bit curious, by 2012, that it does not more clearly mention his critical view of capitalism, which was a red thread in his best work.
The book as a whole is not up to the standard of “Lost in the Andes”, the long adventure story where Barks had free hands, it also contains shorter and less interesting stories – illustrating the editorial constraints laid on this remarkable artist.
A kind of thought ray has a world locked up in deadly battle with the human colonizers.
The basic theme of Harry Harrison’s Deathworld (1960) has not lost its relevance, and the novel makes for a good reread, and although not great literature, it is up from e g his Stainless steel character. The man gambles but he also thinks and feels. Very interesting concerning the period development in science fiction. Camouflaged as science fiction, we get a critique of military logic, and a sketch of another form of society. Not bad, even if some of the writing is poor. I found Deathworld while going through my SF library, to rediscover, and enjoy.
Erving Goffman (1922-82) var en av de store sosiologene i det tyvende århundret, ved siden av Robert Merton, og noen få andre, slik jeg ser det. Derfor siterer jeg ham, om maskulinitet og skam, på toppen av hjemmesiden.
Noen mener at Goffman var evig mistroisk, og dessuten nokså markkrypersk og uteoretisk. Han prøvde seg som kjønnsteoretiker på 1970-tallet (bl.a. “The arrangement between the sexes”), men det ble ikke en fanesak, hverken for sosiologene eller for feministene, å lese ham. Han prøvde seg som samfunnsteoretiker (“Frame Analysis”) men fikk en god del kald skulder fra fagfellesskapet. Det var greit så lenge han holdt seg til “sitt” område, litt dramaturgisk sosialpsykologisk bidrag fra sosiologiens verden. Da han forsøkte seg på mer syntetiserende teori, fikk han mindre støtte.
Jeg kjøpte og leste flere av Goffmans bøker på 70-tallet, og kopierte en del av hans artikler, men dessverre har mye av dette blitt borte underveis, fordi det har blitt lånt ut, uten at jeg fikk det igjen. Jeg får bare håpe at andre ble tilsvarende interessert.
Goffman er fortsatt interessant og relevant bl.a. fordi han var en anti-strukturalist før sin tid. Hans tenkemåte er riktignok typologiserende, men den har sin styrke i “dramaturgien”, dette at han tolker roller i et dramatisk lys, en sans for plot, narrativ, “se hva som skjer”. Og skal man forstå Goffmans bidrag må man lese med, ikke mot, man må forstå at han også selv skriver innen denne litt mistroiske dramaturgien. Det å knipe ham på litt uryddige typologier eller manglende sans for mikro, meso og makro-nivåer og strukturenes betydning, slik han ofte ble kritisert på 70- og 80-tallet, blir for smålig og utvendig. Det er er mer å lære, men man må gå innvendig til verks.
Derfor holder det heller ikke å bruke uttrykket for det viktigste teoribidraget han skapte, “rammeanalyse”, som et alt-mulig-begrep som skal fange enhver prosess eller enhver diskurs. “Ramme”, hva er det? Det hjelper ikke å kalle det “kritisk” rammeanalyse,. Vi er alle innrammet. Vi er alle dømt til å bli tolket av den andre, som de Beauvoir, Sartre og mange andre skrev om. Det å vise ansikt er ikke bare en etisk handling (Levinas) men også noe som kan medføre ytterligere innramming. Sosiale kontekster skaper sine praktiske logikker (Bourdieu). Sosiale strukturer, klasser osv holder aktører i systemer som opprettholder makt og hierarki. Dette er kjernen i Goffmans analyse.
Goffman er ikke den beste guiden for å forstå hva slags samfunnsstrukturer som skaper slike negative rammer eller tolkninger, i denne brede betydningen – men han er meget skjerpet i forhold til å forstå hva som skjer innen slik samhandling. Ofte i samme retning som Torstein Veblen, som sent på 1800-tallet skrev om bruken av kvinner som “tegn” i borgerskapet i den avanserte kapitalismen i Amerika.
Goffman beskrev begivenhetene innen feltet moderne sosial ulikhet mer overbevisende, enn strukturene som skapte ulikhetene. Han blir vanligvis ansett som psykologisk orientert sosiolog (sosialpsykologi) men kan også tolkes som en småskala-økonomi, orientert ut fra bredere sosial resiprositetsøkonomi (Gouldner). Hans analyser har viktige likheter med senere poststrukturalistisk teori. Han hevder ofte, i tendens, at aktørsystemet virker godt nok som det er. Det er ikke nødvendig å teoretisere bakenforliggende “strukturelle” forhold. Noen kan hevde at, med Goffmans porsjon av mistro, og vekt på en markedaktør-aktig sosial figur som handler på grunnlag av nytte eller gevinst, i et spill om status – så trenger man ikke “bakenforliggende strukturer” for å holde etablissemanget på plass. Det forklarer seg selv, gjennom aktørsystemet. Et interessant eksempel på hvordan Goffman etterhvert knyttet mer an til institusjoner og strukturer, er nettopp hans kjønnsanalyse, også som eksempel på hans arbeidsmetode, etterhvert som hans dagligdagse skam- og pinlighets-orienterte første runde av empirisk sosiologi (Stigma, osv) møtte motstand.
“Alle menn rødmer”? Hvordan ble det mottatt? – Det vakte motstand, reaksjon, og eneste grunn til at Goffman vant gjennom, så og si, var at han ble “reddet” av praktikerne, inkludert psykologer som så at begrepsdannelsen var nyttig, i tillegg til liberale fagfeller i sosiologi. Uten dem hadde han neppe blitt publisert.
I den relativt lite faglig påaktete boken Gender Advertisments (1976), tolker Goffman reklamebilder i lys av teori om kjønnslikestilling. Teorien er enkelt utformet – menn dominerer. Det er mest bilder, mindre tekst, og boken ble utgitt i A4-format. Goffman beskriver hvordan reklamen, ved å vise folk med bestemte utseender og kroppsposisjoner, relativ høyde, positurer, gester, og andre virkemidler, gjenskapte en underordningsposisjon for kvinner og en overordningsposisjon for menn. Han bruker innrammingsanalysen metodisk videreutviklende, ut fra en bestemt begrenset kilde, fotografiske reklamebilder, til å si noe om en bestemt strukturell kontekst, reklameindustri, og dens innvirkning på samfunn og kultur. Innramming ble beskrevet mest i termer av substantiver og type ramme-virkemiddel, men teksten er skrevet først og fremst ut fra en underliggende tanke, slik jeg tolker den, dette var hans underliggende teoretiske ambisjon – med trykk på verbet, plasseringen, det å bli (inn)rammet.
Når mannen står over henne, i bildet, eller opptrer beskyttende, i forhold til det ytre rom, og fremheves som person med kvinnen som bakgrunnen, (osv.) i bildene fra amerikanske reklamer på 70-tallet – så er det fordi han har blitt plassert der, det er (i poststrukturalistiske termer) en narrativ, og det er denne sekvensen av plassering som særlig interesserte den “senere” Goffman som forsker, etter at han hadde mottatt og fordøyd kritikk for sine tidlige bidrag. Han har blitt interessert i strukturen og prosessen, samtidig som han holder seg til selve resultatet, bildet av aktørene.
Goffman’s tolkning kan på overflaten virke stillestående, noe som delvis skyldes typen materiale og kontekst han beskriver. Han er ikke verdens beste historiske sosiolog eller prosessanalytiker, men jeg regner ham likevel som en “verb-orientert” forsker, snarere enn en typologisk eller “substantiv-orientert” forsker. Mer “mummitroll” enn “hemul”, ut fra en nordisk skildring, nord for det Connell kritiserer som nordlig teori (Southern Theory, 2007) . Skillelinjene i teoriutvikling beskrives i min avhandling om sosial formanalyse (1997), der jeg kritiserer “abstraktisme” og overdreven tro på substantiver, kategorier eller typer, utviklet ut fra vår tids samfunnsform.
Selv om Goffmans forståelse av prosesser på samfunnsnivå og hans analyse av bredere historisk endring var begrensete, var han på sitt beste nettopp når han opererte i landskapet mellom historie og sosiologi, i framhevingen av aktørsystemets egenvekt, innen en vitenskapelig horisont som dengang var dominert av typologer og strukturalister. Han var empirisk orientert, og observerte hva folk sa og gjorde, særlig for å oppnå sosial status. Han vektet sin analyse ut fra det pinlige og skamfulle i moderne sosialt liv, og gikk videre, derfra. Hans tenkning var en utfordring for det middel-konservative maktens sentrum i datidens Amerika. Det at han kanskje mistroisk rygget litt tilbake idet han italesatte og begrepsfestet dramaturgien, kan ikke brukes mot ham – han var en innsiktsfull og modig teoretiker.
Goffman ble delvis lest mot sin hensikt, som om han mente at alt sosialt liv handler om makt, stigmatisering og innramming. Foucault, som levde noe lengre enn Goffman, ble tolket på samme måte. Disiplineringen gjalt alltid og overalt. Foucault fikk anledning til å imøtegå denne tilsvarende forflatende tolkning av hans teori – Goffmans rammeanayse og Foucalts disiplineringssystem handler mye om det samme.
Det stemmer ikke, sa Foucault i et sent intervju (gjengitt i boken Remarks on Marx, 1991) at makten bare er allestedsnærværende eller overalt. Den utøves på noen måter av alle, men særlig av visse grupper og klasser. Foucault ble her tydelig på at bl.a klasseanalyse er viktig for disiplineringsanalyse og diskursanalyse, og kritisererer forflatende tolkning av hans teori. Goffman ville vært enig.
Under the heading, Does feminism have a bad reputation?, almost 50 participants attended the start conference of the new Feminist Forum at the University of Oslo, at Chateau Neuf Nov 26, with presentations by Charlotte Myrbråten, former editor of the feminist journal Fett, and myself. Mostly students, about a quarter men.
The debate concerned whether feminism today has become a mark of disrespute or negative reactions. In some student circles, saying “I am a feminist” is a risky proposition.
Yet the reaction against what is perceived as “feminism” also has some understandable reasons. For example, when feminism becomes the word for women-only-interests, or upper-middle-class-career-interests. Main reasons why feminism gets into disrespute were discussed, including a belief that feminism only favors women (and is against men), only the middle class, or that it is no longer needed (the goals have been achieved, gender equality is here already).
The debate did not provide “answers”, but it was interesting, fun, open and smart – a good start for the new forum. A debate like this would scarcely have been possible twenty years ago. At that time, the “hard” front lines between the genders would have been much more marked. Today, Myrbråten argued that masculinits, also, could be feminists. This idea would hardly even have been understood twenty years ago. There has been a major change of climate, and it is most noticeable among young participants in the discussion.
The debate underlined the need to know, to create better analyses and theories, and for better research.
Ever since the “Gender equality and quality of life” survey results came in, in 2007, I have worked with improvements of the data base.
Version 5 of the data base has now been constructed and internally tested, eliminating errors. The data base versions 1-4 constructed the main gender equality indexes, as well as easier access to important variables. Version 5 follows this, with new useful variables e g regarding sickness leave, parenting, violence experience, and many other topics.
The data base has 2805 respondents. The variable set is now larger, total 820 variables. Some of these are temporary variables only, but at least 500 variables is realistic.
This is quite a bit above the global gender equality “index approach” with – at best – thirty or fifty variables.
In many ways, the data set is unique. It was constructed in terms of gender equality, and has helped create a new map of gender equality developments.
Why use time and resources for a phd course on “archaic” gift exchange theory, outlined by nowadays somewhat “obscure” theorists like French structuralist Claude Levi-Strauss?
Because, perhaps, there was “something in it”? Something true, across sciences? Something with women “between” men, not just “opposed to” men?
This course enlists main University of Oslo professors as well as independent researchers, as speakers (including Thomas Hylland Eriksen, Elisabeth L’orange Furst, Jorun Solheim) – the researcher interest is collective. Starting from a measurable affair, “who moves in marriage”, we will highlight and develop improved gender equality research.
Although I listened a lot to Talking heads when their music appeared in the late 1970s, I was already in my late twenties, and my main or “formative” experience was from the late 1960s, so this was a kind of repeat of what I had heard before. It was only gradually that I came to realize, a better kind of repeat.
At the time, I had my musical radar open, and got their debut album “77” quite soon, but it was their follow-up “More songs about buildings and food” that really gripped me, beyond my first-round music socialization. I was amazed by the combination of “strange” and “melody”, even pop-hooked melody. Along with quirky but understandable lyrics – “I just want to be with the girls”.
For some reason, I lost interest in Talking heads in the early 1980s, and never listened so much to their other albums.
Time for a change.
I’ve bought “Remain in light” in the 2006 remastered edition (Rhino), and am sorry I missed it in the first place.
Like “More songs”, “Remain in light” is fresh and interesting, today. The first is still in a kind of “Americana”, it is within the bubble or gum wrap of commercial ‘pop’, the second more into ‘world music’. Together they make a shining path in the development of popular music.
Why do I like this music? My premier honor does not go to Byrne’s vocals or Harrison’s keyboards, or to others, although they are all very good. It goes to the bass playing of Tina Weymouth. She deserves a position in the hall of fame of rock music. This “verve” lady plays a great and deep bass, better than almost all I know of, when it comes to making the bass integrate with the ensemble effort, slowing it down, moving it up, based on melody, a greater sense of the whole, not just rhythm. Yes, her bass and the band playing can sound repetetive and tiring at times, but I think this is much due to the role she was given. When she is offered the chance to break loose, she is great. Her bass is the overlooked structure of the Talking heads’ success.
I was not aware of her later career with the Tom Tom Club. A new live CD sounds very good – to be checked out.
The new novel by China Mieville, Embassytown, is just great.
As an old science fiction fan, running low on new input for several years, I would never have expected this. Here is a true science fiction novel that shows the superiority of the whole genre, over the money-pushing fantasy bullshit that has polluted our shelves.
Having read some of his former novels, if I had not known, I would never have expected Mieville as the author of this. Since his former novels are good, this is great praise indeed.
Ursula K. LeGuin writes on the cover of my copy, that this is “a fully realised work of art”. On many levels, when reading, I am reminded of her masterwork, The left hand of darkness.
Mievelle’s novel continues the best traditions of science fiction, as well as doing an utterly astonishing “concretization” of postmodernist language theory.
I am still in the middle of it – but this is very much recommended.
I just saw that Bob Dylan has a new album, Tempest, coming in September, and thought that this might be a nice place to sum up listening experiences the last months. Listening for good music, now as always.
Among music bought this last semester, I quite like Supersilent: 10, very experimental, great sonics.
Generally, albums bought in the last period have a bit better sound than before. LP producers seem to be advancing their act. Even a “niche” company like Rune Grammophone in Norway, the publisher of the Supersilent LP, makes sonically good recordings. Improved sound is noteworthy in some other European cases also, like the Nik Bartsch: Llyria LP, made in 2011 by ECM – remarkable sound quality, even if ECM LPs have generally always sounded quite good (if a bit thin, clinical, etc). Some of the tracks, like Exodus and Tomorrow never ends, on the Herbie Hancock: Imagine project LP were notably enjoyable also. I play some flute and guitar, and if the sound invites me to play – it is good, in my judgement. This one really does.
In 2011 I bought several “keeping up” albums by old groups and artists. The results were mixed, but often favorable, so I continued in 2012. I enjoyed, for example, the best tracks on Tom Petty: Mojo and on Robbie Robertson: How to become clairvoiant. I also managed to get hold of a few hard to get original gems, like Donovan’s 1970 double LP, HMS Donovan (an album with some great, overlooked songs with amazing sound, even if my copy, bought from Iceland (!), is only the second issue from Dawn (the legendary company). I also enjoyed Wizz Jones’s similarly overlooked LP Right now, reissued by Speakers’ Corner (I think, on my suggestion). I also bought new groups or artists, like Field Music: Plumb (quite good) and even Adele: 21 (hmm, well). Some music I buy just to get a feeling of current changes of taste – being interested as a researcher.
As analog sound is becoming more re-accepted, some “fresh tape” albums, relatively speaking, from the 80s and 90s, are getting good new remastering. An example is Talk Talk: The Colour of Spring, 2012 edition, on EMI (EMCX 3506) – a great album, better sound than the original I had, and well worth it. Another example is Paul Simon, Graceland – the new remaster.
Clearly there is more attention to quality in many places al0ng the chain. Among those who should be honored for this is, not least, Michael Fremer of Stereophile, who almost single-handedly started “the analog counter-revolution” back in the late 1990s. Back in the time when CDs as “perfect sound forever” was received wisdom.
Let me tell you my own take on this.
Personally, I held on to the “digital is superior” theory for five years or so in the early 1990s. I liked data programming, which became one of my favourite hobbies, along with music. This happened after a long period of recording LPs to analogue tape, in the 1970s and 80s, with a Revox A-77 recorder, and playing some of the LPs direct on a decent but limited system.
I thought, OK, let me give digital a try. At first, I was confirmed, or so was my impression. A bit is a bit, right! It was only after a while that I really started to note the digitalization deficits. The format was so practical and inventive – I wanted it to be best. But after awhile, I realized that CD sound was not such a great improvement of LP sound, after all.
In 1997 I bought a used Lyra Clavis pickup, somewhat by coincidence, meeting a good dealer at the south coast of Norway (Vidar Sonesen/Audio Art). After that, things never became the same. I gradually became transformed back into an analog person, simply using my ears. I started upgrading my analog rig. Vinyl was clearly the best source, even if one has to live with some medium deficits, like ticks and pops, decentering, warps etc.
I was not alone. After having literally been run down in a flea market, I stopped over-eager excursions into cheap used LP bins. Good analog costs money, yes. But it pays off. All the more reason to share information about what does sound good, and what does not, among the now-increasing analog offerings.
New LPs in 2012 – spring:
Dr John: Locked down. Quite good but too stressful – somewhat disappointing. Check out Duke Elegant instead, much more relaxed. The melodic core, harmonic logic and strictness of Ellington’s music seem to have worked exceptionally well for the doctor, on this “The duke meets the doc” album. It is a shame that it exists only on CD, not on vinyl, but the music is so good you mainly forget all that.
Bob Dylan and the Band: The Basement Tapes, in the new Mobile Fidelity (MFSL 2-382) edition. Agree with Michael Fremer – this improves on the original. Not a basement revolution perhaps, but enough to make re-listening more worthwhile.
On CD (I am not a vinyl fanatic); World Party: Arkeology. Although some parts are kitch or filler material, or in a draft stage only, on the whole, this 70 song set is remarkable and well worth a listen. Wallinger is one of the overlooked entrepeneurs of pop (see earlier blog post, under Music, on this site).
I was not happy about Pink Floyd’s Wish you were here, the new remaster, and returned it. It was not quite centered, and the variation in pitch was really unforgiveable on the long beautiful opening of Shine on you crazy diamond, which for me is a major part of wanting to own this LP . Even more so because the band experiments with pitch. If the speed is not 100 percent correct, the whole thing fails. I tried another copy, thanks to the Big Dipper shop that sells vinyl in Oslo, but that was decentered too.
Vinyl bought, but not yet listened to (phono stage on repair) – some have not yet arrived:
Doors: The Doors (first LP) and Strange Days (second LP), both on 2 x 45 rpm
Madeleine Peyroux: Bare bones
Patricia Barber: The Cole Porter Mix
Astra: The Black Chord
Grateful Dead: Reckoning
Glenn Frey: After Hours
Little Feat: Rooster Rag
And I’ve ordered Dylan’s Tempest, of course.
