SIGNALS & NOISE (Letters to Editor) (Oct. 1988)

Grateful Readers

Dear Editor:

I just finished reading Michael Nash's piece, "Grateful Tapers-An In formal History of Recording The Dead," which appeared in the January 1988 issue. Wonderful! Maybe the idea of allowing recording amateurs to tape concerts will spread to all segments of the entertainment industry, including classical concerts (I've got visions of walking into the "tapers' section" of Symphony Hall in Boston with my modified Ampex 350. . .). Well, wherever one's musical tastes may take him, The Grateful Dead should be applauded for their efforts to dispel the notion that allowing concert-goers to tape concerts somehow results in reduced record sales. Keep up the good work! Bard

-Alan Finlan San Diego, Cal.

Dear Editor:

Hats off to Michael Nash for his truly unique article on taping The Dead. In this concert age of no tape-recording devices, no flash pictures, and body frisks, it's refreshing to see that at least one musical group still cares enough about its fans to indulge their interests.

I hope you commission Mr. Nash to give us a follow-up article in a few years.

Mark Uhryk Dillsburg, Pa.

A Reader's Review

Dear Editor:

I have been a subscriber to Audio for more years than I'll say. I did drop it for several years after CBS took it over, but re-subscribed because of the occasional good technical articles and "Audio ETC." I am sorry to say that this is my first letter to you. But about eight years ago, when you first joined the CBS Magazine Group, you asked for letters of comment about the "new" Audio, so here is one.

The magazine is much improved! I sat and read a whole issue from cover to cover for the first time in years. It was thoroughly enjoyable.

Thank you for the way in which you rearranged the music reviews. It shows concern for the music rather than the selling formats. I buy them all anyway, and it is always for the music, not the medium.

I also welcome to your pages the views and comments of Anthony H.

Cordesman. As with any other reviewer, I do not always agree with him, but I do give some weight to what he says and find his material enjoyable.

Glenn H. Martin Sunnyvale, Cal.

Riled Over Beethoven

Dear Editor:

I received my March 1988 issue of Audio today, and with great anticipation turned directly to the music re views. To my astonishment and disbelief, you devoted four pages each to "Rock/Pop" and "Jazz and Blues" and nothing to "Classical." Surely, this was a mistake! I have a collection of more than 600 CDs--90% classical-and have always relied on your classical reviews. I cannot believe that Audio has so lowered its standards as to devote all its review pages to rock and jazz. I recently sent in a three-year subscription renewal but am seriously considering a request for a complete refund.

-Porte V. Wheeler Akron, Ohio

Editor's Note:

To the best of my knowledge, we never promised that every issue would contain reviews of classical records. We don't even define ourselves as primarily a music review magazine. In my view, we devote an inordinate amount of space to classical music, inasmuch as it accounts for less than 5% of total recording sales and therefore is not the most popular of the music categories we cover.

-E.P.

CD Cost-Cutting

Dear Editor:

In regard to John Gordon's letter ("Signals & Noise,- February 1988), I would like to state that I stand behind him and your magazine 100%. I cannot afford $6,000 amplifiers either, but I enjoy reading about them. When I do make enough to afford gear in that price range, I'll know from listening and reading Audio's "Equipment Profiles" what pieces I should consider. Stereo Review may review cheaper gear and they may sell more issues, but it is quality, not quantity, that is important.

This is why I cancelled my subscription with them. Like Mr. Gordon, if I had the money I would spend $30,000 on quality audio components. I too might then be broke, but I would be happy.

One note of interest for your readers:

I'm sure that many of Audio's subscribers own CD players but feel reluctant to pay $14 and $15 for CDs. I felt the same way, and so I joined a Compact Disc club some time ago. I compared my club CDs with store-bought ones by the same artists for sound and quality and could not hear any difference at all. Also, many people believe that you can only join these types of clubs once. This is not true. I have joined more than four times (after completing each preceding membership) and have not been discouraged from doing so Also, you can receive free CDs for signing up your friends.

Many people don't realize that the clubs offer far more artists than those listed in their ads and monthly catalogs. All you have to do is write them a letter requesting a certain artist and the club will send you a print-out of all the CDs available through the club by that artist. I mostly listen to '80s-style jazz (Klugh, Sanborn, James. G. Howard, etc.), and I was shocked that the club carries all the artists that I am interested in. They also carry an extensive line of classical and pop.

As far as costs are concerned, sure, the club's prices range between $14.98 and $15.98, but any sharp business mind would choose the $15.98 CDs for their "free" or "six for $1" CDs and buy the $14.98 ones to fill the contract agreement. My average cost is $6.98 per disc, which includes the shipping and handling charge.

Some readers might be hesitant to join a CD club because of the wait associated with the mailing process, as I used to be. but for someone who's bought more than 75 discs, saving up to $7 a disc is what I call real savings.

Who knows, I may save enough for that $6.000 amplifier.

I am not a club representative and I am not a salesman of any type. I just feel that the public is being ripped off with store prices. and, to me, this is the only way that we can fight back.

Continue your fine work with excel lent reviews. I look forward to renewing my subscription.

-David A. Morton, Greenville, S.C.

(Audio magazine, Oct. 1988)

= = = =