justincb

It might not be the Cleaner Dan poem, but that it's too funny to die.

You're welcome.

It's not that short shorts or fake glasses are bad, it's just that they don't go together very well. I would rather see some real country outta her then this pop-type stuff.

Also, Taylor Swift trying to look all "bad" looks a lot like girls who have nerdy fake glasses and wear short shorts(but not as jarring).

I don't spend a whole lot on records, and usually buy from a thrift store. I try to avoid records that are badly scratched(scratches between grooves, and very light scratches are OK for me, though) or worn out(the grooves start to look grey when it starts to wear out). Poor quality vinyl doesn't matter at all if it's in mint condition, sealed, or been played several hundered times; it still sounds bad. I try to avoid simulated stereo, although, most of the time, it just sounds like mono that has been slightly panned to one side or the other at a few frequencies, but once in a blue moon, one will be very bad or good. On a small label devoted to a particular purpose, simulated stereo isn't as bad as it can be, and is sometimes good. On the major labels, simulated stereo is often bad, and sometimes truly terrible.

A food dehydrator doesn't matter if it's a cheap knock off, I was just wondering if their records were poor quality, or if I was getting them confused with a poor quality knock off with a similar label(or there could be 2 poor quality knock off labels, and that's what's confusing me).

Isn't Ronco a poor quality knock off label?

If anyone's curious, the Jimmie Rogers album is The Best of the Legendary Jimmie Rogers, RCA Victor LSP-3315(e), and the Jack Elliot album is Jack Elliot, Everest Records, archive of folk music FS-210.

I don't spend a whole lot of money on records, but I've found that original releases that aren't scratched and are reasonable quality vinyl(not full of impurities from recycling) usually sound pretty good. Rereleases on vinyl of records that were originally on shellac and aren't in bad simulated stereo are usually good(even though those releases were from the '60's-80's),

Too bad Taylor Swift is all pop, but I could never think of her as country(yes, even the songs that got on the country charts).

Some are worse than others. The Jimmie Rogers record has too much ambiance, and is artistically innaccurate because they put his guitar to one side and his voice to the other(he played guitar for himself). If they had left most of the recording alone, and only changed the other instruments accompanying him(of which there weren't many or even any in his songs), it might have been good. Most others I've listened to, there is a little bit of stereo effect, but not so much ambiance or such innaccurately aggressive simulated stereo. The Jack Ellhot album is one of the rare ones where the simulated stereo works. On it, Jack Elliot and annother man sing and play guitar and banjo. Two artists, two channels, and people at Everest Records dedicated enough to make 500 splices to a single recording to remove pops and clicks really make simulated stereo work, and people at RCA looking to add a new buzzword to an old recording make simulated stereo sound bad.

I'm sure this has been said before, but what do some of you think of simulated stereo? I don't have as strong opinions as some people. I have one record in simulated stereo that's amazing(the liner notes say up to 500 splices can be made to a single recording to remove pops and distortion) by Jack Elliot(on Everest Records, I think), and one that's terrible by Jimmie Rogers on RCA.

Yes, windex is bad for records. I'm surprised it didn't damage them earlier.

Clean it with vodka. Now, I'll dismiss this case for the lack of whisky.

Someone suggested he burn his head in a gas oven, but why not gas himself instead? I agree it wasn't in very good taste to bring up the nazis, though.