20 tracks including The Crickets' (not Buddy's old band) "You're Mine," Miriam Grate and The Dovers' "My Angel," Dimples' "My Sister's Beau," The Five Stars' "We Danced in the Moonlight" and The Four Fellows' "Soldier Boy." Enjoy!
Hey Bill, long time! I wondered where you went off to. Yes, sorry it took so long for a follow-up. The Crickets' You're Mine is probably my top fav. Thanks again, and please keep in touch!
Oh, I'm still here, George. Just been trying to stay cool LOL. Many of the songs/groups are my fav's, Miriam Grate and The Dovers and the Chestnuts just to name a couple. And of course the Chicago groups/songs are also on the list. Take care and thanks again. Hopefully you'll post more doo-wop in the future!
I do want to post more doo-wop. I just get into other genres and next you know, I forget all about it, lol. I really enjoy the deeper (and the rare) cuts of doo-wop that you don't see that often in lists/comps/other blogs, etc.
I know how easy it is to forget things, George. I even write myself notes. And of course I then forget to look at the notes. Those "senior moments" are coming along fast and furious these days! I too enjoy the rarer side of doo-wop. Too many songs/groups are overplayed but that makes the rarer cuts that much more enjoyable.
You got that right Bill regarding those "senior moments." But again, sometimes I do want to forget paying heat & hydro bills, etc, lol. As for the overplayed tracks - I don't recall how The Mello-Kings' "Tonite, Tonite" got in my mix folder. I was running short on time, so instead of replacing, I set it as the last track. I do know "Tonite, Tonite" is a fairly common doo-wop track, but I wouldn't list it amongst the most common (Goodnight, Sweetheart, Goodnight and Sh-Boom, etc). I suppose I'm justifying myself for "Tonite, Tonite" lol. Oh, and I suppose The Heartbeats' "Crazy for You" is fairly common, but more so to the doo-wop fans and not necessarily to the more casual listener. And speaking of The Heartbeats, it was their "A Thousand Miles Away" that turned me to doo-wop.
Yes, having paid utility bills is something you want to forget. However, forgetting TO pay them is not a goodthing LOL. Tonite, Tonite is common to me but a good song just the same. I don't mind it being on the album at all. As the saying goes, "one man's poison is another man's meat". The groups of James "Shep" Sheppard (RIP) -- the Limelites and the Heartbeats are long time fav's here. Shep came out with many good songs and I never get tired of hearing them -- no matter how common they may be. Shep left us way too soon. I'm glad that he was able to get you interested in the forgotten third of R&R.
Mom had a lot of 78s, and it was during the late sixties when I heard her play The Diamonds' "Little Darlin'" a lot. I'm most certain that that was my first introduction to Doo-Wop. I've always loved the tune (still do!) but I never bothered to explore the genre until hearing "A Thousand Miles Away" in the film, American Graffiti. However, I recall hearing "I Only Have Eyes for You" by the Flamingos long beforehand, and probably several others too. Ahh, the memories are flowing now. I wouldn't be surprised after I publish this comment, I'll remember something else most pertinent to this discussion, lol.
You're mom had good taste! "Little Darlin'" (and "The Stroll") are awesome songs. The songs are anything but rare but I never tire of hearing them. Likewise, American Graffiti (1973) is a terrific film. I've watched it many times. George, hopefully some of those memories will not get lost and you'll remember to make another doo-wop album soon. There are tons of good uptempo and slow songs out there! I'm sure that you can find a few more worthy of posting. Bill
Thank you again Bill. I think I'll do another doo-wop next. The only downside I run into is wanting certain songs that are either ripped & sound so poorly (I've seen some ripped lower than 128!) or cannot find at all. Sometimes youtube is the only choice but I still won't convert their files (long story short - the audio is degraded in initial upload, and some data lost in the download ala down-converting). Maybe someday, but I'll definitely make a note on it.
My ears aren't what they used to be but I know what you mean about lower bit rates, especially below 128. I still have some stuff in the 24-96 range but never listen to the songs. They go back to the days of dial up modems LOL. Yes, up-converting does not make the songs sound better and just may make them sound worse. If you're ever having trouble finding something, let me know. I may be able to help. I believe you have my email address.
You've read my mind, for the next time I run into a tune I really want and cannot find, I'll send you an email. As for bit rates, I have a ton of 192 in my hd. Most are my own rips from long ago. They still sound great to my old ears, but people today want either 320 or flac. I'm not going to argue if that's what they want.
The dial-up days, lol. I can still here the modem ringing. The Napster days were something else.
Some people say that they can hear the difference between 192 and 320 but I sure can't. I have my doubts that they really can. Especially when these people are using cheap sound cards and tinny sounding computer speakers. I also don't argue. Give 'em 320 whenever possible. As for me, 128-320 is totally fine for this old music. Newer music may be a different story.
The days of squeaking and squawking does indeed bring back memories of Bulletin Boards and Napster. I'm sure glad that we have moved forward. I do miss Napster though! My first modem was 2400 baud. Then I graduated to 14.4 and then to 56k. That was really living!
It took the patience of a saint, George. And then if someone called you while you were uploading/downloading, that broke your connection and you had to start all over again. The good old days!
Back when I was younger, I went to this conference and they were debuting digital audio tape and the guy asked us to close our eyes and listen to two sources and in the room my buddy and I could easily tell the difference between 192 and 320kbps, but most of the room could not. Nowadays, I can't hear anything unless it's on huge speakers. And most of the time I'm listening on bluetooth bone conducting headsets, where you couldn't hear any difference if you tried, But I play for people who can, so I keep up appearances. Lol!
I'm writing this in haste, mind the grammar imperfections and spelling...
Anything below 192, you can hear the difference (the cymbals and highs have this wishy-washy sound during the fades), but 192 to 320 you really can't, BUT it mattered on what was used for the ripping, the source, etc. Years ago when CD ripping was taking off, some of the free programs were iffy. One I still recall but not the exact name - something like Buuuurrn, or Burnnn, left a subtle hum-like noise in the background. I could hear it but not everyone.
I've done so many blind tests in the past, and 99% of the time, my CD rips at either 192 or 256 have always prevailed over the flac or 320 files off the net (note though, that again it's the source of the rip, and was it done so correctly, etc).
I'll end with this - I have The Knack's Get the Knack ripped in 192 off my CD (it was either the 2002 or 2011 remastered version) in my hd. Last year, I had the 24-bit, 192 khz, hi-res audio dl'd off Q*b*z (it was something like 2 gigs!). To do the blind text correctly, I also ran the latter through a front-end wxgain so that both folders are at the same/similar volume. I listened to parts of each track over and over, bits here and there, comparing (all file names were renamed with a bunch of numbers & letters to keep it fair and random). Once completed, 10 of the 12 tracks were my 192 rips. Now, you have to consider a few things - what was the source for the hi-res files, the settings, the burners, etc. It was clear that my burner and settings sounded a lot better.
Oh yeah, I also did this with Led Zep I. It was 24-bit, 96 khz Hi-Res, up against my CD (same album, recent remaster a few years back) ripped at 256. My rips = 7/9. So why again did the hi-res fail? I think and highly likely that I couldn't hear any difference between the two, and just did a random pick.
I also tested using the Bose QC headphones. I don't listen to music through home stereo anymore. It's been years now. 99% headphones, 1% bluetooth speaker(s).
nice! thanks!
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome Mr. Cat!
DeleteExcellent selections, George, and well worth waiting for ! Thank you.
ReplyDeleteHey Bill, long time! I wondered where you went off to. Yes, sorry it took so long for a follow-up. The Crickets' You're Mine is probably my top fav. Thanks again, and please keep in touch!
DeleteOh, I'm still here, George. Just been trying to stay cool LOL. Many of the songs/groups are my fav's, Miriam Grate and The Dovers and the Chestnuts just to name a couple. And of course the Chicago groups/songs are also on the list. Take care and thanks again. Hopefully you'll post more doo-wop in the future!
DeleteI do want to post more doo-wop. I just get into other genres and next you know, I forget all about it, lol. I really enjoy the deeper (and the rare) cuts of doo-wop that you don't see that often in lists/comps/other blogs, etc.
DeleteI know how easy it is to forget things, George. I even write myself notes. And of course I then forget to look at the notes. Those "senior moments" are coming along fast and furious these days! I too enjoy the rarer side of doo-wop. Too many songs/groups are overplayed but that makes the rarer cuts that much more enjoyable.
DeleteBill
You got that right Bill regarding those "senior moments." But again, sometimes I do want to forget paying heat & hydro bills, etc, lol. As for the overplayed tracks - I don't recall how The Mello-Kings' "Tonite, Tonite" got in my mix folder. I was running short on time, so instead of replacing, I set it as the last track. I do know "Tonite, Tonite" is a fairly common doo-wop track, but I wouldn't list it amongst the most common (Goodnight, Sweetheart, Goodnight and Sh-Boom, etc). I suppose I'm justifying myself for "Tonite, Tonite" lol. Oh, and I suppose The Heartbeats' "Crazy for You" is fairly common, but more so to the doo-wop fans and not necessarily to the more casual listener. And speaking of The Heartbeats, it was their "A Thousand Miles Away" that turned me to doo-wop.
DeleteYes, having paid utility bills is something you want to forget. However, forgetting TO pay them is not a goodthing LOL. Tonite, Tonite is common to me but a good song just the same. I don't mind it being on the album at all. As the saying goes, "one man's poison is another man's meat". The groups of James "Shep" Sheppard (RIP) -- the Limelites and the Heartbeats are long time fav's here. Shep came out with many good songs and I never get tired of hearing them -- no matter how common they may be. Shep left us way too soon. I'm glad that he was able to get you interested in the forgotten third of R&R.
DeleteMom had a lot of 78s, and it was during the late sixties when I heard her play The Diamonds' "Little Darlin'" a lot. I'm most certain that that was my first introduction to Doo-Wop. I've always loved the tune (still do!) but I never bothered to explore the genre until hearing "A Thousand Miles Away" in the film, American Graffiti. However, I recall hearing "I Only Have Eyes for You" by the Flamingos long beforehand, and probably several others too. Ahh, the memories are flowing now. I wouldn't be surprised after I publish this comment, I'll remember something else most pertinent to this discussion, lol.
DeleteYou're mom had good taste! "Little Darlin'" (and "The Stroll") are awesome songs. The songs are anything but rare but I never tire of hearing them. Likewise, American Graffiti (1973) is a terrific film. I've watched it many times. George, hopefully some of those memories will not get lost and you'll remember to make another doo-wop album soon. There are tons of good uptempo and slow songs out there! I'm sure that you can find a few more worthy of posting. Bill
DeleteThank you again Bill. I think I'll do another doo-wop next. The only downside I run into is wanting certain songs that are either ripped & sound so poorly (I've seen some ripped lower than 128!) or cannot find at all. Sometimes youtube is the only choice but I still won't convert their files (long story short - the audio is degraded in initial upload, and some data lost in the download ala down-converting). Maybe someday, but I'll definitely make a note on it.
DeleteMy ears aren't what they used to be but I know what you mean about lower bit rates, especially below 128. I still have some stuff in the 24-96 range but never listen to the songs. They go back to the days of dial up modems LOL. Yes, up-converting does not make the songs sound better and just may make them sound worse. If you're ever having trouble finding something, let me know. I may be able to help. I believe you have my email address.
DeleteYou've read my mind, for the next time I run into a tune I really want and cannot find, I'll send you an email. As for bit rates, I have a ton of 192 in my hd. Most are my own rips from long ago. They still sound great to my old ears, but people today want either 320 or flac. I'm not going to argue if that's what they want.
DeleteThe dial-up days, lol. I can still here the modem ringing. The Napster days were something else.
Some people say that they can hear the difference between 192 and 320 but I sure can't. I have my doubts that they really can. Especially when these people are using cheap sound cards and tinny sounding computer speakers. I also don't argue. Give 'em 320 whenever possible. As for me, 128-320 is totally fine for this old music. Newer music may be a different story.
DeleteThe days of squeaking and squawking does indeed bring back memories of Bulletin Boards and Napster. I'm sure glad that we have moved forward. I do miss Napster though! My first modem was 2400 baud. Then I graduated to 14.4 and then to 56k. That was really living!
I couldn't tell you my first modem but looking back on it, how on earth did we find that kind of patience to download just one tune? LOL!
DeleteIt took the patience of a saint, George. And then if someone called you while you were uploading/downloading, that broke your connection and you had to start all over again. The good old days!
DeleteBack when I was younger, I went to this conference and they were debuting digital audio tape and the guy asked us to close our eyes and listen to two sources and in the room my buddy and I could easily tell the difference between 192 and 320kbps, but most of the room could not. Nowadays, I can't hear anything unless it's on huge speakers. And most of the time I'm listening on bluetooth bone conducting headsets, where you couldn't hear any difference if you tried, But I play for people who can, so I keep up appearances. Lol!
ReplyDeleteI'm writing this in haste, mind the grammar imperfections and spelling...
DeleteAnything below 192, you can hear the difference (the cymbals and highs have this wishy-washy sound during the fades), but 192 to 320 you really can't, BUT it mattered on what was used for the ripping, the source, etc. Years ago when CD ripping was taking off, some of the free programs were iffy. One I still recall but not the exact name - something like Buuuurrn, or Burnnn, left a subtle hum-like noise in the background. I could hear it but not everyone.
I've done so many blind tests in the past, and 99% of the time, my CD rips at either 192 or 256 have always prevailed over the flac or 320 files off the net (note though, that again it's the source of the rip, and was it done so correctly, etc).
I'll end with this - I have The Knack's Get the Knack ripped in 192 off my CD (it was either the 2002 or 2011 remastered version) in my hd. Last year, I had the 24-bit, 192 khz, hi-res audio dl'd off Q*b*z (it was something like 2 gigs!). To do the blind text correctly, I also ran the latter through a front-end wxgain so that both folders are at the same/similar volume. I listened to parts of each track over and over, bits here and there, comparing (all file names were renamed with a bunch of numbers & letters to keep it fair and random). Once completed, 10 of the 12 tracks were my 192 rips. Now, you have to consider a few things - what was the source for the hi-res files, the settings, the burners, etc. It was clear that my burner and settings sounded a lot better.
Oh yeah, I also did this with Led Zep I. It was 24-bit, 96 khz Hi-Res, up against my CD (same album, recent remaster a few years back) ripped at 256. My rips = 7/9. So why again did the hi-res fail? I think and highly likely that I couldn't hear any difference between the two, and just did a random pick.
I also tested using the Bose QC headphones. I don't listen to music through home stereo anymore. It's been years now. 99% headphones, 1% bluetooth speaker(s).