Aesthetics

I suppose aesthetics is officially defined as “the philosophy of beauty”, in my book it’s more along the line of “what I consider attractive, regardless of function or practicality”.   The particular application is regard to items which I think have some inherent beauty, at least in my own subjective opinion.

Guns.  I managed to acquire a Springfield Armory Saint, which is a very recent issue of the ever-popular AR15.  The AR15 is the civilian, semi-automatic version of the US military’s famous M16.   Over the years, since its introduction in the early 60’s in our controversial war in Vietnam, the military’s version has undergone several different models.

The original M16 was full auto and had a triangular handguard, that plastic thing in between the magazine (thing which carries all the ammo) and the end of the rifle.  The M16 had various problems, one of which was that the military couldn’t leave Stoner’s original design alone, and these problems were mostly fixed in the first change, the M16A1.   This model still had a triangular handguard.  Both fired full automatic, meaning automatic so long as the trigger is held.  It had a semi-automatic mode  as well.

Eventually the Army realized that soldiers were wasting ammo firing full auto and changed the gun to fire three round bursts.  This was the M16A2.  This model has a cylindrical handguard. 

Eventually they shortened it and gave it a pistol grip under the handguard, and named this the M16A4. 

Back in the early 90s I purchased an AR15, which I later sold.  This one looked exactly like an M16A2, with a 20” barrel and cylindrical handguard.   My Saint has a 16” barrel and a newfangled handguard which actually looks pretty cool.

The “aesthetic” angle comes in here, insofar as I consider both the M16/M16A1 attractive, as I do the M16A2 and the Saint.  One thing I can’t stand is this:  many current AR15s have a weird handguard that looks like it belongs on Playstation or XBOX.  Not sure where they came up with that, but Springfield fixed that problem.  All of these guns fire exactly the same, the aesthetics making no practical difference.   But I can leave my Saint out in the open and love the way it looks, without even firing it.

Mausers.  These are the most famous bolt-actions.   The original Gewehr 98, introduced in time for the Germans to get nasty against the Chinese in the Boxer Rebellion, then serving as the standard rifle of the Imperial German Army during WWI, is relatively long and has a straight bolt.  It’s an attractive gun.   The carbine I felt looks too short.   In 1935 the Germans split the difference between the two with the Kar98K, which served as the main infantry weapon of the Wehrmacht and Waffen SS during WWII.   In addition to being shorter than the Gewehr 98 and longer than the carbine, it has a turned down bolt.  I purchased one in the 90s and still have it.  That’s another gun I could simply look at and admire without even shooting, though the picture above is a Gewehr 98. 

I also love the look of the Russian PPSh submachinegun with its wood stock, drum magazine and square holed barrel shroud.  These faced the Nazis in WWII but then faced us in Korea when the Chinese and North Koreans used them.  According to my cousin, my uncle tried using one – during his service in 1950-53 (not with a M*A*S*H unit!) - until he attracted friendly fire from neighboring US units.  Oops. 

Cars.   Recently I posted pictures of the ’71-74 AMC Javelin.  That’s the nicest looking AMC there is.  The ’68-70 Dodge Charger is another non-GM looker.  But for all around best looks, Pontiac gets it done.  The ’88-92 Firebird Formula, the ’67-68 Firebird 400, and many of the ’70-81 Formulas and Trans Ams, especially with the ’73-78 simpler pattern Screaming Chicken, are my favorites.   The best would be a ’74 Trans Am SD455 in dark blue with the hood bird.  Dream on.   Again, not all these cars are necessarily fast – a 305-equipped Formula looks just as nice, though isn’t nearly as fast, as its 350-equipped brother, and after 1975 with the introduction of emissions and catalytic converters killing the power, the later second generation Firebirds are slower than their beauty would indicate.   These 70s Firebirds, usually the Trans Ams, also have aluminum dashes.   If I ever get around to restoring my ’76 Esprit, I’ll see about upgrading the dash, as it has the faux-wood dash which was standard on non-Trans Ams. 

Oh, and Rally II wheels are by far my favorite, well over the honeycomb wheels I can’t stand.

Guitars.  I have the good fortune to have collected several guitars:  4 Gibsons (SG, Les Paul, Explorer and Firebird V) and a Stratocaster.  With the exception of the Les Paul, which is in Black Cherry Pearl, the rest of the guitars are in black, or as Gibson calls it, “ebony”.   All of them have rosewood fretboards, including the Stratocaster – I can’t stand maple.  I switched out the Explorer’s white pickguard for a mirror pickguard, and the Firebird’s white pickguard for a black one with the Firebird on it.  I kept the black pickguards on the SG, LP and Stratocaster.  The Stratocaster has the large, ’68-82 headstock typical of ‘70s Stratocasters – Robin Trower and Ritchie Blackmore are most often seen with those.   The SG is a 2013 Standard in ebony, the ’13 Standards being very popular as they are almost identical to the ‘61/62 reissue models.  In fact, I traded my ’89 ’62 Reissue in cherry for the current one, and while cherry was tolerable, ebony is MUCH better.   

Aesthetically I like the smaller pickguard and don’t like the ’67-70 larger one which surrounds the pickups.   Also, whether it’s on a Strat or a Les Paul, I am NOT a fan of sunburst finishes, least of all tobacco or cherry.  Finally, I love the Les Paul script on the headstock, which ruled out a Custom with its inlaid diamond. 

None of these preferences have anything to do with how well the guitar plays or sounds, and the wrong color, pickguard, or a maple neck won’t compromise anyone’s ability to extract heavenly tones with the right amp.   

But some things are nice to look at too, and I keep my guitars out on stands.  They certainly sound nice – either through the Marshall 1x12” Jubilee combo I bought new in 1990, or through the condo-neighbor-annoying half stack (Marshall 100 watt 4100 Dual Reverb through 4x12” 1960AV).

Vinyl

My next topic: VINYL.   Although I originally addressed this issue awhile back, (Olde Music, 5/23/08), I’d like to tackle it again in more detail. 

I repaired my Cerwin-Vega speakers a few weeks ago, and upgraded the mat on my turntable to a cork mat, so I’ve been accumulating some 180 grain vinyl: the first 6 Black Sabbath albums, the Sabbath set at California Jam (1974), Grateful Dead Anthem of the Sun and American Beauty, Moody Blues Days of Future Passed, King Crimson In The Court of the Crimson King, and Hawkwind, Hall of the Mountain Grill.  Urban Outfitters and FYE are beginning to carry vinyl as well.  Obviously Vintage Vinyl, in Ford, New Jersey (about 20 minutes north of Rutgers) carries this format – which is where I got the CA Jam record.  Here are some thoughts on this.

1.         78s.  First there were 78’s, on thick shellac but very fragile.  They were 10” in diameter and could fit 3 minutes of music on a side.  Because the grooves are much larger and require a special needle, 78s need a record player specifically designed for them, and will not play on any record player which plays LPs.  Because the LP format (see below) came out in 1948, any depiction of someone playing music in the 20s, 30s, or WWII is likely to be of 78s. 

2.         LPs.  The more familiar 12”, 33.3 RPM format came out in the late 40s, developed by Columbia.  Because this format could fit 20-30 minutes per side, they called it “long playing” (LP).  To the extent vinyl is still around – and making a comeback – it’s in this format. 

3.         180 Grain.  The prior standard, from 1948 to the 1980s, was 130 grain. The recent reissues are in 180 grain, which means a thicker album which can accommodate deeper grooves and thus – theoretically – a richer, fuller sound and better sound quality.

4.         I don’t think I’ll get any vinyl versions of recent albums which were originally released on CD.  The Beatles records are re-released on 180 grain vinyl, but that includes Past Masters – which should be all those 45s – and the BBC records.  (Still no Hollywood Bowl live album).  On the other hand, one big plus of vinyl is that the jacket displays bitchin’ artwork much better than a CD insert, and that includes Age of Winters by The Sword (2006).

5.         In one case, Sleep’s Dopesmoker, I really have to wonder about the wisdom of releasing the 90’s era music, originally released on CD, on vinyl.  This album was one 60 minute song without lyrics.  It’s basically a humungous jam.   Noway, nohow, is that fitting on one side of an LP.  In fact, it fits on 3 sides.  Breaking up a continuous song on multiple sides?  Huh?  That sounds like back when 78s were in vogue, and a complete opera or classical piece had to be split up over upteen 78s (capacity of less than 3 minutes per side), contained in a binder (“album”) with sleeves.

6.         We still have most of the original vinyl we collected up until the mid 80’s.  I believe it was 1988 when my brother got his first CD player, 1989 when I got mine.  The last few vinyl albums I bought were Judas Priest, Turbo (Ram It Down was among the first CDs), Van Halen 5150 (OU812 was among my first CDs), the three Deep Purple Mark I albums (we have all the Mark II and III albums on vinyl, plus Perfect Strangers, House of Blue Light, and Deepest Purple), and the early Scorpions albums, e.g. Lonesome Crow, In Trance, Taken By Force, and Tokyo Tapes, all bought in summer of 1988.  Thus I can identify 1988-89 as the period when we stopped buying vinyl and started buying CDs. 

**         Since car CD players were still a few years away and very prone to skipping when they did come out, and CD-Rs were also years in the future, the advent of CDs did not spell the immediate end of cassettes.  In fact we still had to retain that format if only to be able to listen to anything in a car. 

7.         How does 180 grain vinyl compare to …not-180-grain vinyl?  On the turntable, through the speakers, and turned up somewhat, the 180 grain records sound very good.  Very rich, very full.  Better than the original vinyl?  Probably, but I don’t have the patience to check.  Better than a remastered CD?  Aha, that’s the real question.  The experts (audio engineers, not hipsters) say remastered CDs are better than vinyl.  I don’t trust the audiophile hipsters who swear by 180 grain vinyl to admit if they can’t tell the difference.

            Keep in mind that when CDs were first released in that format in the mid to late 80s, no effort was made to optimize them for CD sound quality; the labels simply wanted to release something that you could physically play on a CD player.  I suppose they assumed that the buyers would assume the sound quality was better.  Only later did they go back and remaster them.  The Beatles were an exception: their first generation CDs were remastered, but the audiophile crowd disliked the job so much that the Beatles went back and redid the remasters a second time. [I compared Help! on first generation CD vs. the newer reissue, and the new version does sound noticeably better].   AC/DC (Atlantic & Elektra), Black Sabbath (Castle & Rhino), King Crimson (thirty-fifth Anniversary remasters vs. fortieth Anniversary remixes), and now Led Zeppelin (first Atlantic and now second Jimmy Page supervised Atlantic) are all bands with not one but TWO series of remasters.  While the difference between the initial non-remastered releases and the first generation remasters are probably noticeable, I have to wonder if anyone – aside from hardcore audiophiles – can detect the difference between the two generations of remasters.  Then there are bands like Soundgarden who have remastered Superunknown, which was originally released on CD in the first place (1994).

            I do read yahoos on Facebook swearing that vinyl sounds much better than CDs.  Again, the experts claim that this might only be true with respect to first generation CDs (not remastered).  Someone posted a back to back replay of a Tina Turner song in both formats, and the difference was noticeable – in favor of the CD.  A minority of people guessed that the better sounding recording was vinyl.  WRONG. 

            Finally I listened to Sabbath, Bloody Sabbath on my stereo.  Exhibit 1: 180 grain vinyl version from Rhino Records.  How was it?  It sounded nice.

            Exhibit 2: SBS in Castle Remasters [which are VERY difficult to distinguish from the later Rhino remasters].  How was it?  It sounded nicer:  clearer, less compressed, breathing better. 

8.         Aside from hipsters making vague claims of vinyl superiority, the most cogent and understandable – and verifiable – claims on behalf of vinyl, and this applies to the first generation as well as the 180 grain reissues, is this business of having to put on the record, drop the needle, and flip the record, an elaborate, retro ritual.  I mean, having done all that, it MUST sound better….right?

9.         Authenticity.  Ironically, if your point in going with 180 grain vinyl is a tribute to nostalgia, because you insist that music originally released on vinyl should be listened to on vinyl, you’re missing the point with 180 grain vinyl, which was not available back in the 60s and 70s and is a modern vinyl format.  The more cogent argument is that you’re dead set on listening to this in a vinyl format, for nostalgia purposes, and simply want to optimize the experience and come as close as you can to remastered CDs with this experience.  Fine:  but don’t be an idiot and try to argue that 180 grain vinyl is superior to a remastered CD, because – as noted above – most audio engineers and a blind listening test will tell you otherwise.

10.       Herbal Enhancement.  I'll officially pronounce myself neutral on the topic of cannabis, though strongly in favor of its legalization, as it is non-lethal and non-addictive.  One area where I think cannabis is having an impact, possibly unexpected, is this vinyl business.  With CDs and digital formats, especially streaming, you can go out and about and listen to your favorite music:  while at the gym, while driving, etc.  Not an option for vinyl, which you have to listen to in the privacy of your (or a friend's) home.  And under those circumstances, packing a bowl to enhance the listening experience might well be almost required.  Under the influence of the herb, practically anything you put on that turntable will sound amazing.  Has any stoner tried comparing remastered CDs vs. 180 grain vinyl while blazed?  Somehow I doubt it.  Perhaps the 180 grain vinyl people should be subsidizing the cannabis industry.....

Ultimately it looks like this.  If you have a good stereo, with good speakers, and a CD/DVD player going through them, but NO turntable – audiophile or otherwise – save your money and stick with CDs.  If you have a turntable going through that same stereo AND feel nostalgic for vinyl, by all means do as I did and get a few records here and there.  Do not pay $50-100+ for any vinyl, especially if you can get a remastered CD for a fraction of the price.  And “audiophile” turntables start at $300, going up to $1000, with no guarantee you’ll be able to tell 180 grain vinyl from remastered CDs.  The experts (audio engineers, not hipsters) say CDs are better; logic suggests that modern technology should surpass mid-twentieth century technology as well.  Is there any compelling reason why your ears should disagree?