dsi@unccvax.UUCP (Dataspan Inc) (10/13/85)
Tolerating other people's annoying faults is what public means...
Fran Liebowitz (sp)?
Why work up such a stink about popular music. Instead, put your energy
into hating the musical equivalent of velvet Elvis posters...background music!!
Delivered fresh to your local (elevator, lobby, restaurant, retail store..)
business via the SCA of an FM station. I just purchased an SCA receiver for
a client who receives UNC football and his ABC Contemporary Radio feeds
via SCA, and you wouldn't believe how paranoid the receiver manufacturers
are about background music piracy (they must be joking, arent they??)...
Anyway, I got to thinking about background music once again during all
this, walked in my local Burger King yesterday only to hear a fine rendition
of "Every Little Thing She Does is Magic" and "All She Wants to Do is Dance"
by the Phenobarbitol Philharmonic, Valium Quaalude, Conductor. Talk about
an invasion of privacy? MUZAK (tm) actually makes "behavioural modification"
claims for their brand of background music. Their tunes are precisely
selected for tempo, spectral composition, length, etc. to increase worker
productivity and the "urge to purchase." MUZAK is also scientifically blended
so that average persons would not tend to listen to it.
However, this Burger King (the one which tests the dielectric absorption
of every cheeseburger) had an "inferior" background music. One which was
cranked LOUD and sounded HORRIBLE. Why should the public be subjected to
large amounts of hiss, 10% THD, severe crossover distortion, the annoying
"splat" of an SCA carrier muting which isn't adjusted correctly, and a
narrowband signal which is worse than AM ? I get particularly p**ed off
when I hear some mellow song (like Dan Fogelberg) which has been remixed
for the Buick Estate Wagon crowd. Why should an intimate dinner with my
spouse at a fine restaurant be interrupted by an SCA receiver which can't
distinguish between the neon "Beer" sign at the 7-Eleven down the street, and
the 67 kHz signal from the station?
When you are in your favourite establishment, you can tell Muzak
brand background music (oops, stimulus progression) by the fact that they
break for 90 seconds on the quarter hours. Listen, as the local chatter
level in the establishment rises at least 10-15 dB after these breaks.
WHY DON'T BACKGROUND MUSIC VENDORS USE RECORDINGS OF THE GREAT CLASSICAL
REPERTOIE or, for that matter, jazz and the original rock 'n roll/country/soul
songs which they rip off anyway? Broadcast with DBX noise reduction ,
and deliver background music without severe compression and
peak limiting.
Rock and roll bands in city parks are transient affairs. Houses in the
country are made just for people who can't stand noisy neighbours, and there
are private swim clubs where Dee Snider isn't cranked to 110 dBA. However,
unless one can afford the luxury of several personal servants and wants to
stay inside a Sonex-padded room forever, you have to endure (or be manipulated
by) background music.
Now...about people who expect me to work when a 60 Hz hum is roaring
from an about-to-be-smoked fluorescent lamp ballast....grrrrr
David Anthony
DataSpan, Incjeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (10/15/85)
> > Tolerating other people's annoying faults is what public means... > Fran Liebowitz (sp)? > > Why work up such a stink about popular music. Instead, put your energy >into hating the musical equivalent of velvet Elvis posters...background music! Right on! > WHY DON'T BACKGROUND MUSIC VENDORS USE RECORDINGS OF THE GREAT CLASSICAL > REPERTOIE or, for that matter, jazz and the original rock 'n roll/country/soul > songs which they rip off anyway? NO, NO, NO! ALL background music is evil! As much as I love, say, Mahler's 6th symphony, I'd probably get indigestion if I tried to listen (I mean LISTEN) to it at dinner. Music is for listening! Dinner is for eating, and never the twain should meet (says I). When I don't want to listen to music I want *silence*! MUZAK is a communist plot, anyway... Jeff Winslow
todd@scirtp.UUCP (Todd Jones) (10/17/85)
> Why work up such a stink about popular music. Instead, put your energy > into hating the musical equivalent of velvet Elvis posters...background music!! > Delivered fresh to your local (elevator, lobby, restaurant, retail store..) Don't forget the lovely dulcet tones we are inundated with when put on hold. This is the most obnoxious by far! > Anyway, I got to thinking about background music once again during all > this, walked in my local Burger King yesterday only to hear a fine rendition > of "Every Little Thing She Does is Magic" and "All She Wants to Do is Dance" > by the Phenobarbitol Philharmonic, Valium Quaalude, Conductor. Talk about > an invasion of privacy? MUZAK (tm) actually makes "behavioural modification" > claims for their brand of background music. The literature they give to prospective clients is hilarious! They claim that the music is arranged in "ascending psychological thrusts" to increase productivity and sooth raw nerves. I'm not sure what they mean by "APT", but it sounds perverted to me. > Their tunes are precisely > selected for tempo, spectral composition, length, etc. to increase worker > productivity and the "urge to purchase." MUZAK is also scientifically blended > so that average persons would not tend to listen to it. Except for subliminal listening, which brings up another point: This may be urban folklore, but I am told Muzak (and others) provides a means of encoding subliminal messages such as "psst, better put that back, pal! if you're caught stealing it's all over!" for department stores and "mmm, that looks delicious. go ahead and pig out, but hurry!" for fast food joints. > WHY DON'T BACKGROUND MUSIC VENDORS USE RECORDINGS OF THE GREAT CLASSICAL > REPERTOIE or, for that matter, jazz and the original rock 'n roll/country/soul > songs which they rip off anyway? Broadcast with DBX noise reduction , > and deliver background music without severe compression and > peak limiting. Because with the exception of sensitive types like you and me, it is largely ignorable on a conscious level while it is (allegedly) doing its evil work of subjugating and propagandizing us like so many Skinner-boxed rats. :-). > David Anthony > DataSpan, Inc It's about d*mn time someone spoke up against this pervasive, evil and clearly communist-inspired plot to turn our brains into so much oatmeal! I dare anyone to defend this musical mockery monikered as "Muzak." ||||||| || || -X O-O X- Todd Jones \ ^ / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd | ~ | |___| SCI Systems Inc. doesn't necessarily agree with Todd.
goetter@yale.ARPA (Samurai Cat) (10/21/85)
In article <5752@tekecs.UUCP> jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) writes: >> >> WHY DON'T BACKGROUND MUSIC VENDORS USE RECORDINGS OF THE GREAT CLASSICAL >> REPERTOIE or, for that matter, jazz and the original rock 'n roll/country/soul >> songs which they rip off anyway? > >NO, NO, NO! ALL background music is evil! As much as I love, say, Mahler's >6th symphony, I'd probably get indigestion if I tried to listen (I mean >LISTEN) to it at dinner. Music is for listening! Dinner is for eating, and >never the twain should meet (says I). Amen! Picture, if you will, entering a MacDonald's and ordering dinner, only to get the Mozart Requiem with your fries and Filet-O-Fish(*). ("Dies irae!" <crunch, smack, slurp> "Dies illa!" <chew, chew, gobble, belch>) I don't think my brain could take the strain. > >When I don't want to listen to music I want *silence*! > >MUZAK is a communist plot, anyway... > > Jeff Winslow Not Communist, Jeff, but Satanist. Listen to those strings and harps BACKWARDS some time.... :- Ben. (*) Filet-O-Fish is a trademark of whoever owns MacDonald's -- ======= : Ben : ..!decvax!yale!goetter goetter@yale-comix.ARPA ("We are not in the Eighth Dimension. We are over New Jersey.")
rfg@hound.UUCP (R.GRANTGES) (10/22/85)
[] When the wife and I were in jolly old england this summer, one of the culture shocks was classical muzak in the fast food chains. I was so carried away I even taped some in a wimpies. -- "It's the thought, if any, that counts!" Dick Grantges hound!rfg
linda@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) (10/24/85)
And why do none of the famous musicians complain about it? If Muzak adapts a tune by, for example, the Beatles, or by Stevie Wonder, or by Leonard Bernstein (West Side Story), then the composer receives a royalty not for every tape, but for every PERFORMANCE. Each time the recording is played in any store the composer gets a royalty. Many musicians become quite wealthy because of the adaptations of their songs.
linda@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) (10/26/85)
In article <5287@amdcad.UUCP>, linda@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) writes: > And why do none of the famous musicians complain about it? If Muzak > adapts a tune by, for example, the Beatles, or by Stevie Wonder, or by Leonard > Bernstein (West Side Story), then the composer receives a royalty not for > every tape, but for every PERFORMANCE. Each time the recording is played in > any store the composer gets a royalty. Many musicians become > quite wealthy because of the adaptations of their songs. I want to make clear that I used the above composers' names as an example and I have no information on whether these particular people have actually profited from or dealt with Muzak (my citation of Stevie Wonder's music as an example was probably incorrect). These are the kinds of people whose songs might be used by Muzak.