Has audiophilia changed your music taste?

I like Patricia Barber because:

1) She is a good poet and lyricist.

2) She's a good jazz pianist and her voice doesn't sound pretentious or "put-on."

3) Her songs remind me of Greenwich Village scene in the late 1950's and early 60's. Small intimate smoke-filled clubs with 'Beat Poets' and 'Jazz' musicians, and everyone sitting around snapping our fingers to the beat.

4) Her music is very creative in relation to some of today's top monotonous "cool" jazz musicians.

5) She allows each musician in the band to take the spotlight.

6) She cares about the quality of her recordings.

7) And she didn't make it by her looks!

Thanks Rosstaman for summing that up so well. You did forget to mention one thing though. That is, she and her band can deliver everything that you want or expect when you see them live. They are not like some of these "studio effect" singers / performers that can't stand on their own two feet when they need to. When it comes to live performances, you've either got it or your don't. She and her band have it in spades. Sean
>

This is a good example of how a discussion about music
preferences has turned into a pretty typical pissing match,
complete with straw men, people talking at cross-purposes,
looking for an edge, "are you trying to say...[insert silly position here and argue against it]. With the usual attendant communication failure, with whipped cream,
chocolate sauce, and cherry on top.

The prize has to go to whoever it was who argued something
like, "my musical tastes haven't changed because they
didn't NEED to change, MOFO -- I had great taste at 17,
and I have great taste now!"

Oh...okay.

LOL.

Carry on, gents.

Figure out who listens to music and who listens to
their system.

Let me know who wins.

Although I still gravitate to particular rock subtypes, I have a few albums that I bought directly from being an audiophile. I have also gotten more in to classical and some of the more acoustic music in general that is more common amoung audiophiles. My rock music is still the priority, but audio has pushed my music budget around. It'll be a cold day in hell before I buy jazz, but writing this sentence probably means I will someday (Not really).

Okay -- Sorry about the earlier cranky post.

I've had a nap and I'm in a better mood now.

>>I'm not suggesting that any of the great performers whom you listed are equivalent to the "audiophile tripe".<<

No -- quite the opposite. I'm saying there is a world
of difference between the "Tripe" [Or, musical equivilent
of those train records] and the list of performers I mentioned.

I will take part of the credit for the misunderstanding.

I probably didn't express myself clearly.

I listen to Clifford Brown for many reasons. He plays
the hell out of his instrument -- AND -- because I am
lucky enough to have what I consider to be a great
system -- I can get even closer to his music.

And, if I haven't made this point clearly enough --

I think it is far too simplistic to try to split people
into these two camps -- those who listen to the music and
those who listen to their system.

It is convenient, it makes for easy one-ups-man-ship,
but I also think it is silly and can short-circuit a
better conversation.

Finally, my answer to the question at the top of this
thread is: Yes, I find myself listening to different
music now that I have a nice system. I think it is
great music and it sounds great on my system.

It is less filling AND it tastes great.

It is the chicken AND the egg.

It is the Lady AND the Tiger.

It is round AND flat.

I didn't listen to this much classical and Jazz when I
was younger. For whatever reason, I've acquired a taste
for this music -- AND -- I find that it also sounds great on my system.

I put it on, I listen to my system and find that -- voila --
great music is playing and it sounds great, both my system
and the music until the system disappears and there's
only music and then it ends and I think, boy am I glad I
have this system!