Grex Music2 Conference

Item 39: The mix tape item (or I want to be a DJ)

Entered by raven on Fri Apr 11 18:17:16 1997:

This is the mix tape item.  Talk about the favorite mix tapes you have given
or recieved.
52 responses total.

#1 of 52 by krj on Sun Apr 13 05:31:21 1997:

Funny this should come up.  Just today I found the last mix tape I made
about 18 months ago.  Side 1 alternates British Isles folk-rock tracks
with an assortment of classic rock tracks; Side two continues with the 
folk-rock stuff but alternates with one-track obscure wonders.
 
I really would like to do more tapes, but they usually take me about four
hours each.


#2 of 52 by orinoco on Sun Apr 13 14:12:59 1997:

One summer vacation I managed to cram my favorite songs from my CD collection
onto one tape. (just try doing that with my current collection!)  I listened
to that tape so much that I became used to the song order on that.  To this
day I can't listen to Blues Travellers' "Stand" without expecting to hear King
Crimson's "Lark Tongues in Aspic II" afterwards...


#3 of 52 by senna on Mon Apr 14 01:14:20 1997:

I have a constantly running mix of singles theat aI get that I don't usually
listen to because they aren't albums, it's pretty cool.


#4 of 52 by orinoco on Thu Apr 17 02:30:48 1997:

(do I sense a soundgarden fan?  or soundgarden ex-fan, or ex-soundgarden fan
or whatever it would be now...never mind...)


#5 of 52 by lumen on Thu Apr 17 23:41:55 1997:

I always get confused-- are the 'mix tapes' you're talking about called
'sample tapes,' too?  In the industry, when you release a selected single from
a group's album, you often have a number of alternate 'mixes,' other than the
one that was featured on the album.  So mix here refers to the arrangement
of the vocal and instrumental tracks.  Some DJs and mix masters take a
particular song, re-arrange the vocals and instrumentals, or strip it down
to vocals, adding new instrumentals (which usually contain several samples
or distortions of the old ones-- well, in other words, they heavily tweak with
the instrumentals), or whatever.  There's usually room to overdub samples of
the vocals or some other audio source, but then the recording is usually
called a dub.

Ok-- if I now understand you right, I don't think I remember any one great
sample tape.  My fave right now is a tape I'm making of various 80's synthpop
tunes (with the exception of George Michael's "Fastlove").  Most I get from
a retro hour on our Top 40 radio station.  I don't make as many mix tapes as
I used to-- too easy to lose sound quality in the recording-- but a friend
of mine and I used to do it a bit to try to justify a little piracy in our
minds.  These days I try to avoid it if I can.


#6 of 52 by senna on Fri Apr 18 04:08:21 1997:

The circles I run in usually use the term synonymously :)  Yes, I am a
Soundgarden fan, though I just used this name because I liked it :)  


#7 of 52 by tpryan on Thu Apr 24 23:26:49 1997:

        It's been one I made a long time ago but each time I give a 
copy away it gets cloned at least one more time:

KCUF - FM 96  - a mix tape of variuos songs with dirty lyrics and/or
sexual inuendo.  One person said something on the order of that he
was not only surprised I found so many for one tape, but I had good
stero copies of them.

        When we where reviving 80's about a year ago, I got out my
tapes I made of popular 80's.  Quite a wide variety.


#8 of 52 by anderyn on Fri Apr 25 00:01:37 1997:

Mr. Ryan, you and I must talk. I am in dire needof  a really
good Eightes mix tape. *I am also looking for a copy of _Take
Kown Leap_ and one of _Hot Frogs on the Loose_.


#9 of 52 by senna on Sat Apr 26 03:23:21 1997:

An underground band called The Levitz put out an album entitled SEX, which
altered the lyrics to popular songs to make them overtly sexual.  High
(low?)lights include a version of Hold My hand by Hootie, go by pearl jam,
and others which I don't recall.  Being underground, the don't worry too much
about copyrights, so they have a slightly modified version of Closer by NIN
on there too.  modified in instrumentals, otherwise unchanged.


#10 of 52 by mcnally on Sat Apr 26 07:38:35 1997:

  Before I got to the last sentence (fragment) I was thinking,
  "They had to modify 'Closer' to make it overtly sexual??"

  Glad you cleared that up..  }-)


#11 of 52 by arabella on Tue May 20 10:08:38 1997:

I love mix, aka sample, tapes.  I've made a bunch over the years, although
the last time I made one was January 1993.  I have a couple of new ones
planned out on index cards.  One will concentrate on acappella singing
(mostly pop and folk, no classical choral music), and one will concentrate
on favorite rock album tracks from the last 5 years or so.  I frequently
find myself only liking one or two tracks from many recent rock or pop
albums, and playing those particular tracks repeatedly.  It's nice
to collect them and then play the tape over and over again in the car.



#12 of 52 by orinoco on Sat May 24 01:47:43 1997:

On the other hand, often I will think I only like one or two tracks, and then
the others will grow on me.  Some things don't hit you immediately, but when
they do they really hit you.  Mix tapes or radio--anything selective--means
not hearing that sort of thing.  I love mix tapes, but I do find it better
to get a wide spread.


#13 of 52 by katt on Sat May 24 16:57:22 1997:

haven't made a mix tape in a while...the one I made in high school, I made
one side of happy music and one side olf music that makes me nostalgic. . .



#14 of 52 by senna on Wed May 28 02:59:40 1997:

I totally agree, orinoco.. I never buy an album for a song or two.  I can save
more money by lifting it from the radio or buying the single.  I buy albums
because the album is good.  A couple nonradio songs jump out at you, and then
you slowly start to come around to the others that don't have the punch of
the singles, but maybe as good or better.  I haven't dabbled in mixes for a
long time.


#15 of 52 by orinoco on Sun Jun 1 18:48:42 1997:

Oh, I still make mix tapes, usuall based on mood.  It just bugs me when that's
the only way someone listens.


#16 of 52 by kewy on Sun Jun 1 20:53:26 1997:

i'm currently (between umpteen bazillion other things) working on putting
together a mix tape of all the songs that remind me of my trip to mexico,
mostly stuff that they played at the disco, it's gonna be pretty cool:)


#17 of 52 by orinoco on Thu Jun 12 01:43:41 1997:

My latest project is a mix tape of music that no sane person would listen to,
for my friend Caitlin who is Not a Sane Person.
David Byrne, Brian Eno, King Crimson, Anna Holmer, Ashley MacIsaac, Surrender
to the Air, and other weirdness.


#18 of 52 by senna on Thu Jun 12 06:33:47 1997:

I'm feeling a need to make a mix tape again now that I have an influx of music
that I really don't like the whole albums of, some of which are borrowed
anyway.


#19 of 52 by katt on Fri Jun 13 02:02:01 1997:

I've got to make a couple mix tapes of stuff that's so cool or colpex or
whatever that it can bear listening to many, many times. . .I'mn going on a
long trip to this jazz conference in Itraly, and looks like we're going to
be on grains alot. ..
set "grains"="trains"(man, I gotta learn to type better. . .)


#20 of 52 by anderyn on Fri Jun 13 16:19:45 1997:

Made a mix tape about a week ago for the trip 
from hell (aka the trip to my hometown) --
first side was good, second side got thumbs 
down from the driver, bru. So, I can make 
really good side ones, and not good side twos.


#21 of 52 by orinoco on Sun Jun 15 15:34:20 1997:

I tend to either cram all the good stuf onto side one, or deliberately put
filler into side one so as to have good stuff left, and then run out of tape
before I have everything I want to on it.


#22 of 52 by jiffer on Sun Jun 15 17:36:21 1997:

I used to make mis tapes for my moods. (This was when i had a tape deck that
actually played tapes). One was total angst music ( mianly played to and from
work), the sappy music, teh scream till your totally deaf music (never left
the house because it was my "I am totally trashed and don't give a damn about
anything music") and I am totally happy to be alive (which RARELY got played)
I think they consisted of alot of punk/ sca music due to the main reason why
i was in my car was to go places i didn't want to go. Which was work.


#23 of 52 by lumen on Tue Jun 24 06:44:10 1997:

I remember I used to get mix tapes of songs from the Dr. Demento show from
a friend of mine.  (Speaking of that, the good old Dr. D was practically
mixing 'em for us!)  Unfortunately, the sound quality was EXTREMELY poor--
the show was on an AM station when we listened to it.  Even when our Adult
Contemporary station started playing the show in FM, it was an extremely short
run.  The station also picked up our local Top 40 audience when our Top 40
station folded to a country one, so I doubt I'll ever hear the show again :`(

Of course, these days the syndicates banned Dr. D from doing his show live
in L.A. ever again-- the show is bound to syndication.  I hear the live show
was even better.
(or so I've heard)


#24 of 52 by carson on Wed Jan 7 01:07:18 1998:

(I don't put together as many tapes for myself as I used to, but I still 
do for various friends, and quite frequently at that. I don't really 
have a favorite, mostly because I rarely get the chance to hear them 
again. =^) what I like about making tapes for myself is that it gives me 
the chance to sequence songs that would not normally be placed side by 
side. in this regard, my favorite sequence would have to be the time 
that I followed Suzanne Vega's "Solitude Standing" with Public Enemy's 
"Black Steel In The Hour Of Chaos.")

(what I like about making tapes for other people is the ability to show 
off. I love finding alternate mixes and B-sides and recordings that most 
people aren't even aware exist, and then putting them on tape and making 
the person GUESS who the artist is.)


#25 of 52 by anderyn on Wed Jan 7 02:19:01 1998:

Oooh, you're MEAN! (I am not good at guessing these things.)
Was given a mix CD for Christmas of Canadian bands. I am now lusting after
a whole CD by Captain Tractor. 

Am trying to put togehter a mix CD of my fave filk, since it's going to
be decaying soon (most of the filk I have is on over ten year old tapes, and
it's all oop. Bummer.) -- and I have a friend who has a CD burner. Now if I
can only get together with him....


#26 of 52 by lumen on Wed Jan 7 02:24:11 1998:

Wow.  I can't get use of a CD burner out here, although there is a used
music store back in Richland (Eastern WA, that is) nearby where I live that
might be patient enough to do mixes.

Now-- what are minidisc recorders capable of?  Are they still just a little
too expensive?


#27 of 52 by eeyore on Wed Jan 7 06:15:14 1998:

I LOVE doing mixed tapes...and it's fun looking at peoples expressions when
I do things like have Billie Holliday followed by Meatloaf...Duke Ellington,
Jewel, and Disney all in a row....:)


#28 of 52 by mcnally on Wed Jan 7 07:02:19 1998:

 re #26:  Minidisc players have suddenly gotten a *lot* cheaper in the past
 six months or so..  They're actually semi-reasonably priced these days,
 though I still don't think I'd want one..


#29 of 52 by scott on Wed Jan 7 12:24:12 1998:

Yeah, I've been mulling over buying a Minidisc deck.  The console decks are
now less than $400, media $5-7.  A few months ago Big George's had a package
with a record/play console deck and a walkman player for about $450.  

I'm slightly more interested in DAT, which starts at about $750.  :(


#30 of 52 by raven on Wed Jan 7 17:21:36 1998:

Doesn't minidisc use a compression system that causes the sound quality to
degrade when it's recorded, something along the lines of mpeg?


#31 of 52 by goose on Wed Jan 7 20:21:01 1998:

Yep, it's called ADTRAC.  The first versions of ADTRAC *sucked*.  It's much
better now, and even with the lossy compression MD is a *ton* better than
cassette.  


#32 of 52 by scott on Wed Jan 7 21:00:41 1998:

Which is why I'm still liking DAT over MiniDisc... Cassette is good enough
for a lot of things, and at $2-3 (or less) media cost, pretty damn cheap
to use.


#33 of 52 by lumen on Thu Jan 8 01:38:35 1998:

DAT is the same technology that was being labeled DCC, right?  Professional
both in the computing and music industry love DAT players because they make
great backups, and they are a superb tool in the mastering process.  For
example, DAT players make sampling real audio clean and easy.  But if I
understand things correctly, DAT cassettes aren't usually used as a permanent
recording.  Now somebody might have to explain to me how DAT players and DCC
players are different.  DCC can play digital and analog tapes, but does DAT
follow the same format?  Both are subject to the same wear and tear that
regular cassette tapes are, so even if cassettes are cheaper, I think the
masses decided that CDs were worth paying for, even if DCC's were made
cheaper.  So that meant for the public, DCC players were of little value. 
Why drive down the price of a DCC when CD players are just as viable and are
cheaper now?

Enter MiniDisc-- as was said, the public has wanted to have some advantages
of CDs, and some flexibility that only cassette had previously offered. 
Again, it is marketed to the *listening* public.  Sure, they are recordable,
but that's not their ultimate use.  Again, DATs are used by programming
companies, studios, and folks who demand the same temporary needs.
(is that close?)


#34 of 52 by scott on Thu Jan 8 01:56:26 1998:

DAT is *not* DCC.

DAT is like a little tiny VCR system, very high density, linear 16 bit digital
recording.  These are used for mastering on the not-top-end, since they are
CD quality with no data compression tricks.

DCC was a failed compromise format.  The shell is a cassette size, and some
compression is used.  

DAT is still expensive because of the mechanical complexity, with spinning
heads just like your VCR, only on a smaller scale.

MiniDisc has a cheaper mechanism, more like a disk drive, and the resulting
lower data density requires cheating, ie data compression.  Unlike the kind
of compression used on a PC, this type of compression is "lossy", gaining a
much higher compression ratio in return for some permanent data loss.  The
compression algorithm is intended to make the loss inaudible by taking
advantage of audio data characteristics, but it can't be perfect.

Actually, DAT may well be used for mastering at the top end.  I'm not that
up to date on the subject.

(one other advantage of DAT/MiniDisc:  since walkman-type recorders are
available, you can do digital field recordings with little lugging of
hardware.  DAT is especially great for compiling live albums, since the deck
is small and the media is cheap so an artist can record every concert in a
tour with clean digital recording but minimal fuss and expense.)

One application some professionals like Minidisc for is DJ work or solo
musician backing tracks, due to the random access capability DAT lacks.  (DAT
can search out index marks, but it takes time)  Minidisc audio quality is fine
for those situations.


#35 of 52 by goose on Thu Jan 8 04:59:17 1998:

DAT is used all over both ends for mastering.  Although in the big mastering
houses 1/2" analogue at 15ips with Dolby SR is still king.  THe problem with
DATs (and this could be true for MD, i don't know) is that they self-erase
in 20 or so years.  Worthless for archiving.  Gotta love that Ampex 641 tape.


#36 of 52 by mcnally on Thu Jan 8 06:09:12 1998:

  DAT would have, could have, should have been a great recording format,
  the kind that would've crippled cassette tapes the way CDs crippled LPs
  as a popular format.  Unfortunately the record companies did a remarkably
  good job of using fear, uncertainty, doubt, and the threat of legal actions
  to stifle the adoption of DAT as a common standard and so today it largely
  remains the domain of demanding niche users like recording technicians and
  audio fanatics.


#37 of 52 by goose on Fri Jan 9 01:11:01 1998:

Yep, although I've nearly sworn off DAT at a viable format.  Just too many
little things to go wrong.  I've been using my 1/4" analogue open-reel machine
a lot more lately. (until I broke a couple springs that is....damn)

Anyone know of a good source for small springs?


#38 of 52 by lumen on Fri Jan 9 03:01:20 1998:

re #34-36: Much better said-- I was hoping to learn something.


#39 of 52 by mcnally on Fri Jan 9 06:28:06 1998:

 re #37:  My experience with DAT is primarily backing up computer data
 but you're right -- the mechanical reliability of the tape mechanisms
 leave a lot to be desired..  Unfortunately DLTs are a little chunky to
 haul around with you..  :-)


#40 of 52 by snowth on Mon Jan 12 01:32:58 1998:

Re:17 (Yeah, I know. Way back there) Not a sane person, eh? ... Yeah, I guess
you could describe her like that. :)


#41 of 52 by orinoco on Tue Jan 13 03:19:28 1998:

Yep.


#42 of 52 by mcnally on Fri Jun 12 02:47:27 1998:

  So I finally took the plunge this week and ordered a CD-R burner..
  I knew I'd succumb eventually after I fell for a rebate offer at
  Staples through which I got 20 blanks for basically sales tax and
  a stamp (the rebate offer covered the full purchase price..)  
  "Sounds like a good idea," I said, "they're almost totally free and
  they might come in handy.  I don't *have* to buy anything.."

  Now a few months later, my willpower exhausted and temporarily flush
  with money from some recent consulting work, I succumbed to temptation --
  one of my friends pushed me over the edge by telling me about a deal
  on a refurbished CD-R drive ($150 for a 2x/4x SCSI CD-R burner with
  mastering software, check the red tag specials area at Turtle Beach's
  web site, www.tbeach.com, if interested, or wait for me to have a chance
  to try it out, after which I'll enter a review)

  I'll have to see how well it works before recommending anything but I
  am looking forward to the ability to make my own CDs -- in particular
  I've got a number of well-loved albums that are hard (or impossible)
  to find these days and making archival copies of those will be a high
  priority.  Another big thing for me will be arranging collections of
  preferred artists in more convenient forms, there are a couple of 
  musical genres I collect (especially old-style ska and classic-period
  dub) where many of the recordings I've been able to find are multi-artist 
  anthologies so the work of some of my favorite artists is scattered
  across ten or twelve discs..


#43 of 52 by krj on Sun Jun 14 18:21:28 1998:

I see Philips now advertising CD recorders on television.
The RIAA must be feeling really glum right around now.


#44 of 52 by cloud on Mon Jun 15 14:03:42 1998:

Who are the RIAA?


#45 of 52 by krj on Mon Jun 15 17:20:07 1998:

RIAA is the Record Industry Association of America, the trade group for the 
record labels.


#46 of 52 by cloud on Tue Jun 16 02:24:28 1998:

Are they the guys who set CD prices?  What do they do?


#47 of 52 by mcnally on Tue Jun 16 03:18:14 1998:

  They're the ones who send goons around to your business if you're
  thinking of making a product that records with a sound quality any
  greater than the classic two-styrofoam-cups-and-a-piece-of-string
  "telephones" you might've made as a very small child..


#48 of 52 by cloud on Tue Jun 16 04:06:08 1998:

Yikes.  I never knew.  Funnything is, I could never get those cup and string
things to work. Sound quality was nil.  Hmm.  Why are they so uptight about
it? (I know that I'm asking a lot of questions, but it always seemed like the
best way to find out about stuff.)


#49 of 52 by mcnally on Tue Jun 16 17:13:56 1998:

  Well, I might be exaggerating a *bit*..  The thing is there's a lot of
  money in the recording industry and the industry executives have concluded
  that the best way to make more money is to sell CDs for a lot more money
  rather than sell a lot more CDs for less money..  They may be right --
  I'm sure they know more about it than I ever will but even to me it seems
  that a recording has a certain natural market and that reducing price
  below a certain level won't greatly increase sales outside that market.
  However, while prices for CDs and cassettes go higher and higher the
  danger of losing sales to piracy, made attractive by improved technology
  and lower and lower equipment costs, continually increases.  Rather than
  alleviate this pressure by lowering their prices somewhat the record
  companies have tried instead to squash the technology.  They were quite
  successful in doing so with digital audio tape (DAT).  Though popular 
  among recording engineers and audio technophiles, DAT never achieved
  the popularity it deserved as a consumer format because the record
  companies managed to intimidate the DAT-makers for long enough that the
  format missed its chance.  However, I don't think they foresaw the rise
  of the CD-ROM and the arrival of affordable recordable CD drives, which
  had too much momentum for them to quash the way they did DAT..


#50 of 52 by cloud on Mon Jun 22 04:16:01 1998:

Cool.  I say, more power to the affordable recordable folks.  Thank's for the
explaination, mike.


#51 of 52 by mcnally on Mon Jun 22 05:59:15 1998:

  So..  I've had a few days to get play around with the new CD-R and
  I have to admit it's a pretty nifty device though it is not without
  a couple of problems.  The first (and biggest thing) I ran into was
  a very bad software installation process.  The documentation 
  prominently proclaimed compatability with Win 3.1, Windows 95, and
  "Windows NT", which sounded good to me since I was running NT 4.0.
  I had deleted Windows 95 some time back (or rather decided not to
  reinstall it when I moved to a newer, larger hard drive..)  To my
  horror I only realized that the claim of "NT" compatibility meant
  NT 3.51 and not 4.0 *after* the poorly-written installer overwrote
  several vital components of my operating system in my Windows NT
  system directory (some day when you have a *lot* of time, ask me
  about my pet peeves regarding user-mode software that requires driver
  files and shared libraries installed in system directories..)
  I was eventually able to repair my NT installation enought to make
  it bootable again but the software wouldn't work with NT 4.0 and
  I didn't want to pay another $80-$100 for a 3rd-party program, the
  only reason I bought this bundle in the first place was that it was
  amazingly cheap..  Deciding that it was probably wisest to reinstall
  NT anyways after a debacle in the system directory, I grudgingly
  concluded that my best course of action was to repartition my machine
  to allow for a Windows 95 partition (I'd been considering one anyways
  for game compatibility..)

  After the nightmarish process of backing up important files to a
  spare hard disk, partitioning the machine and installing three
  operating systems (Win 95, NT, and Unix), *re-partitioning* and
  *re-installing* several times until I figured out a way to get
  all three OSes to live in harmony, and restoring all of my software
  I had a working setup and it was time to test the CD-R.  Although
  the results of the attempted install on my NT setup were disastrous
  the included mastering software ("Corel CD Creator 2", which has long
  been discontinued -- Corel sold that branch of its software business
  to Adaptec -- these bundles have clearly been sitting on a shelf
  somewhere..) installed without problem under Win95 and has so far
  made backup copies of several of my more expensive CD-ROMS and made
  a couple of audio mix CDs for my own benefit.  The drive seems to
  work quite well, were it not for the software problems I could
  recommend this bundle wholeheartedly.  Unfortunately it doesn't
  matter what I recommend, at $150 for a 2xCD-R with software and
  SCSI card, Turtle Beach sold out of these within hours after I
  ordered.  However, should you come across a similar deal, consider
  taking the plunge if you've got a lot of irreplaceable or expensive
  music or Data CDs..


#52 of 52 by goose on Wed Jun 24 15:16:24 1998:

For a top quality drive, the Plextor drive is providing very low BLER
(block error rates) on a variety of CD-R media.  The drive is about
$500.  Come to think of it, it might be spelled PlexStor.


There are no more items selected.

You have several choices: