Quality of recording vs Musical tastes


How many of you have ended up "expanding your horizons" musically simply because:

A) you were tired of the poor recordings that "popular music" typically has to offer ?

OR

B) you bought something because it was a known good recording even though you don't normally listen to that type of music ?

I have to say that i am "guilty" on both counts and glad of it.

Before you start nodding your head in agreement, how about passing on some of the "gems" that opened your eyes to a "whole nother world" and how you ended up selecting them. Sound like a way to share some good yet "hidden" music ??? I hope so : ) Sean
>

PS... Thanks to Craig aka Garfish for the idea : )
sean

Showing 1 response by duanegoosen

I guess anyone who has been addicted to music for a couple of decades or so is likely to have expanded or changed their musical tastes to some extent.
Alot of times before buying if I suspect good (or poor)recording quality I'm influenced as a consumer. Sometimes that's a drag and can limit what gets underneath the skull. Pristine fidelity is nice, but isn't always necessary to make a great record. Who Live At Leeds, Capt. Beefheart Mirror Man and gobs of live Hendrix records are poorly recorded but offer tremendous rewards to the connected listener. The search for new and voluptuous sounds has only made things better. Trombones, Bass Clarinets, Tablas, Cellos, Oboes, Acoustic Basses and Trumpets are often better recorded and as adrenal and intoxicating as the best King Crimson or Mahavishnu Orchestra releases.