Taylor Swift – The Life of a Showgirl – Is the audio performance up to the marketing hype? – Review (CD,colored vinyl records, streaming,Stereo Atmos)

[Axo1989]

In Italian, figuratively speaking, a "caryatid" is used to define an "immobile" person fixed on his outdated ideas and beliefs.

Thanks for explaining your intended reference. My Oxford English reference was "a stone carving of a draped female figure, used as a pillar to support the entablature of a Greek or Greek-style building." The symbolism is somewhat different, but I can see how we get to your figurative usage from there.

A key thematic difference of course is that architectural caryatids are female. Our immobile ASR codgers not so much. Tangentially, immobility (and otherwise) was a key element of the deadly statues in that Doctor Who sequence.

 

[Digital_Thor]

I also think she's a natural beauty!

A bit of height, mixed race, no smearing tatooes or piercings all in a nice curvey yet slender figure, good smile, no over the top nails, great hair, high cheek bones, kind eyes and nice voice... still looking good and healthy after 2 kids.
Somehow I find a woman like Taylor swift, as almost irrelevant in comparison.
And purely for singing, I think I would still tap my steering wheel more happily to someone like Dolly Parton

We all know that there's no size fits all, but just like properly measuring loudspeakers, women like Giddens, are definitely not going to be picked last, even if she's slightly crazy

 

[RickS]

Lots of talented folk here and elsewhere that may not be very "pretty".

Let's watch the superficial personal comments please!

 

[Mort]

fine with it if it’s balanced by sharing what the sisters and daughters think of Steely Dan, Dire Straits, and Pink Floyd

Nailed it. Three of my most hated bands. Pretentious Rock.

 

[Digital_Thor]

I clearly remember the times before youtube and the likes, even before the internet... I just listened to music, and had no clue how people looked or what they did. If it sounded good, you sang along... Pretty straightforward
I don't think you can be famous today, unless some kinda marketing is heavily figuring out how to sell your 'product', whatever it might be.

 

[Robin L]

I clearly remember the times before youtube and the likes, even before the internet... I just listened to music, and had no clue how people looked or what they did. If it sounded good, you sang along... Pretty straightforward
I don't think you can be famous today, unless some kinda marketing is heavily figuring out how to sell your 'product', whatever it might be.

I beg to differ:

 

[Sal1950]

I clearly remember the times before youtube and the likes, even before the internet... I just listened to music, and had no clue how people looked or what they did. If it sounded good, you sang along...

I beg to differ:

Me too. Nope, we didn't look at the album covers,

 

[Digital_Thor]

Good examples guys, good natural beauties.
Though my dad listened to Nana Mouskoury...a bit more buttoned up...

 

[visanj]

These big artists sell 10 different versions of the same album but not even one as 'audiophile' version with good dynamic range. That is Sad

 

[masterhw]

These big artists sell 10 different versions of the same album but not even one as 'audiophile' version with good dynamic range. That is Sad

Did you look at the review in the original post? CD & streaming is DR6 where vinyl is all DR11 (Atmos is DR13).

 

[Chr1]

Not really a Taylor fan myself but I find it amusing that there's so many folks here that write off modern music they don't like by claiming that it's badly recorded.
Often based solely on the dynamic range.

Kinda like writing off all photos that aren't high contrast.
It's only one aspect of the music/recording.

 

[mhardy6647]

These big artists sell 10 different versions of the same album but not even one as 'audiophile' version with good dynamic range. That is Sad

I think the products reflect the audience's interest(s).

 

[Digital_Thor]

Not really a Taylor fan myself but I find it amusing that there's so many folks here that write off modern music they don't like by claiming that it's badly recorded.
Often based solely on the dynamic range.

Kinda like writing off all photos that aren't high contrast.
It's only one aspect of the music/recording.

Hey I listen to Doris Day too... Which might possibly not be hi-res
I believe good recordings, like proper craftsmanship, will trump modern recordings, if done right. Again, like DAC's, when you reach a certain level, good enough is good enough.
Which is why I mentioned that sometimes, certain marketing aspects, are just more important for fame and sales, than actually making a good well sounding song.

 

[Chr1]

..."good well sounding song" ...being a matter of taste and purely subjective.
Or, no?

Not sure what you mean by "good recordings" trumping "modern recordings" to be honest. Why not just say that you don't like Taylor Swifts music?
I'm not a fan, but most of what I have heard seems to have been well recorded.
Lots of folks seem to be conflating the quality of the recording with the style of the music or production, if you ask me. My 2c.

 

[Digital_Thor]

My take on good recordings, is one that doesn't make mistakes big enough to anoy you during a song that you actually like.
I mean, isn't that the whole point in any related audio aspect, that technical things are only there for you to hear the music, not remind you that you are listening to someone's technical faults of the audio chain. KISS. Though I'm drifting towards technical talk and forgetting miss swift, so I'll excuse myself

 

[Timcognito]

Her audience is probably the biggest in the world. How bad is her music? Probably not very given the numbers and her staying power, and not to my ears. I don't care for Rap because it usually lacks melody and goal seems to be rhyming but it's huge. Is it bad, not. I'm off jazz cabaret singers but love instrumental jazz. Music is personal thing and a lot people love Taylor Swift and she seems sincere in crafting her message, art and in person and recorded performances. Back in the day the Beatles had the same kind of fame and I could take them or leave them and grew to like other British Invasion bands that followed a lot better. The fan obsession thing is a generational right of passage that previous generations always seem to question and that helps that current generation to want it even more.

 

[Robin L]

Her audience is probably the biggest in the world. How bad is her music? Probably not very given the numbers and her staying power, and not to my ears. I don't care for Rap because it usually lacks melody and goal seems to be rhyming but it's huge. Is it bad, not. I'm off jazz cabaret singers but love instrumental jazz. Music is personal thing and a lot people love Taylor Swift and she seems sincere in crafting her message, art and in person and recorded performances. Back in the day the Beatles had the same kind of fame and I could take them or leave them and grew to like other British Invasion bands that followed a lot better. The fan obsession thing is a generational right of passage that previous generations always seem to question and that helps that current generation to want it even more.

. . . one more time:

"Every generation throws a hero up the pop charts."

Paul Simon, "The Boy in the Bubble"

 

[Sal1950]

Hey I listen to Doris Day too... Which might possibly not be hi-res
I believe good recordings, like proper craftsmanship, will trump modern recordings, if done right. Again, like DAC's, when you reach a certain level, good enough is good enough.

That's a two sided coin. I listen to Sinatra and Tony Bennett on occasion from the 1930s and forward and can easily hear the technical problems of the recordings from back in the day. OTOH I can first mostly ignore those issues, and secondly they're not something I listen to nailed to the "sweet spot" listening in the "audiophile type mode", mostly in fact they're being played as background while doing other things.
But todays quality recordings give me the kind of High Fidelity Reproductions that we could only dream about back before 1980s. Digital recordings combined with the multich layering first attempted in the 60s allows a level of detail to be heard on the individual performers/instruments undreamed of
only a few decades ago. Add to that todays mediums like bluray discs with space for Quad to Immersive technology at high resolution data rates are StarWars ahead of what we lived with before.

 

[visanj]

That's a two sided coin. I listen to Sinatra and Tony Bennett on occasion from the 1930s and forward and can easily hear the technical problems of the recordings from back in the day. OTOH I can first mostly ignore those issues, and secondly they're not something I listen to nailed to the "sweet spot" listening in the "audiophile type mode", mostly in fact they're being played as background while doing other things.
But todays quality recordings give me the kind of High Fidelity Reproductions that we could only dream about back before 1980s. Digital recordings combined with the multich layering first attempted in the 60s allows a level of detail to be heard on the individual performers/instruments undreamed of
only a few decades ago. Add to that todays mediums like bluray discs with space for Quad to Immersive technology at high resolution data rates are StarWars ahead of what we lived with before.

Recordings may be good but loud masters takes it all away. A proper cd quality old recording with good masters sound better than modern hires loud music. That is the reason Stealy Dan, Dire Straits, Diana Krall are still getting referenced

 

[goat76]

Did you look at the review in the original post? CD & streaming is DR6 where vinyl is all DR11 (Atmos is DR13).

It's still a big chans that the vinyl was made from the same dynamically limited original digital master as the CD/digital version, even if the DR numbers looks very different for the final measurements. The DR numbers goes up a lot just by applying the usual preparation for vinyl, like adding a highpass filter and making the bass mono. Not that long ago I did this to a track that had DR4, and it did go up to DR10.

Based on the analysing I have made on different digital versions of tracks, the more dynamically limited they are, the more the DR numbers and the crest factor goes up by applying a highpass filter. It also depends on the type of HPF, and if it's a non linear filter, the DR will go up more than using a linear filter. For digital releases that are not as extremely dynamically limited, the change in DR and crest factor will usually not be as drastic.

I would say a DR11 is fairly low for being a vinyl rip, so I'm quite curtain the original master used for this record was dynamically limited. And again, it could come from the same DR6 master as the digital release.

Here is the track (from another artist/band) I was talking about, where the DR number did go from DR4 to DR10 just by applying a HPF and making the bass mono. These are the preparations that are almost always done before a vinyl is made.