Vinyl Resurgence

I've probably never mentioned vinyl records on this blog, except maybe occasionally in passing. It's not that I hate the format ... I've always had at least a handful of LPs in my music collection, and almost always have owned an apparatus on which to play them, and I don't even doubt the people who claim that they hear or feel a certain indescribable "warmth" and fullness to the sound of vinyl records that they say doesn't happen with any other format.

The main reason I don't give much attention to vinyl, and almost never buy it, is purely circumstantial: its convenience, or (arguable) lack thereof. I'm a practical guy, you see, and the ubiquity of CD drives in most every computer, the instantaneous accessibility of any track on the disc with the touch of a button, and the ability to quickly rip a whole disc into a folder of neatly separated MP3 files that I can tote around on my iPod, are all factors that have made CDs my format of choice by a very wide margin. And then there's the relative fragility of records compared to CDs: they can easily get warped by heat, or get scratched and develop a skip ... at least more easily than their digital cousins.

But there is now an outside chance that my neglect of vinyl records could soon change. You see, at a garage sale recently I happened upon a stack of about 30 LPs, all in excellent condition, and most from the early- to mid- '80s. It was a dandy little haul: multiple albums each by The Commodores, Lionel Richie, Eagles and Air Supply ... and even one each by Wham!, Phil Collins, and Peaches & Herb. I have yet to fire up my turntable and delve into them, but I'm somewhat anxious to. This one acquisition has more than doubled my library of vinyl LPs, and the other evening I actually sat down and organized my record collection for the very first time, only because I hadn't needed to before.

These newly-acquired titles now intermingle with the handful that I already had -- some inherited from my parents, but the rest I'd bought myself over the years -- and all are now neatly alphabetized by artist and separated by genre. Will I become as avid a collector of vinyl records as I am of CDs? I don't quite see that happening. For one thing, I'm not nearly the audiophile that the majority of vinyl devotees are, and I'm happy with the sound quality of CDs and of MP3s of a decent bitrate (128Kbps and higher), which give me all the fidelity that my conscious ear discerns or requires. But I rather doubt that these will be the last records I ever buy.

The Sing-Off

I probably wouldn't have bothered watching "The Sing-Off", since I've broken up with "American Idol" and didn't otherwise have the slightest inclination to get into "another singing show" (as my friend put it, with an exasperated "Agghhh!" in front, fearing I'd talk his ear off about this one too). But that all changed once I found out that the University of Oregon's totally awesome male a cappella group, On The Rocks, was slated as one of the ten competing groups. Besides, I've always liked a cappella music (though I can't quite say I'm an ardent fan), partly because it takes a lot more talent and artistry when you don't have any instruments backing you up ... not to mention group cohesion -- if just one singer is off, it can make the whole group sound sour.

I was going to do a beat-by-beat review of the season premiere, like I've done with "Idol" in the past, but then I quickly changed my mind and settled on a more "free-form" approach for a couple of reasons, one of which is that only the judges unilaterally (or, since there are three of them, would that be "trilaterally"?) decide the eliminations all the way up to the final round -- not that my play-by-play of "Idol" was any less pointless, right? Don't get me wrong, I know they're all professional musicians and know their stuff, and the season has to move quickly (with just five episodes, all airing within a month), but what's wrong with at least some audience participation, like multiple-choice "clicker"-type gizmos that the studio audience can use to vote on their favorites?

Speaking of the judges, I like them. I've tried and failed to become a fan of Ben Folds' music, but the guy himself is still likeable (and not just because he produced William Shatner's last album) and has a good sense of humor. Shawn Stockman of Boyz II Men is just as much fun to listen to, can also be pretty darn funny, and like Folds is a fount of musical know-how. Nicole Scherzinger ... well, she's kind-of the Paula Abdul of the group, although I feel guilty for selling her short like that ... she's not nearly as incoherent, for one thing, but she also doesn't get very deep with her critiques. And I love that their commentary is so much looser and wittier than that of the peanut gallery on "Idol". Nick Lachey, however, could take a lesson or two from Ryan Seacrest about relaxing a bit.

The format of the show is a little puzzling, too, in how they seem to randomly divide the ten first-round groups into two halves and eliminate one from each half. It begs the question: What if the two worst groups were in one half, and one of the better ones was forced to be eliminated just because they were in the wrong half? I have to wonder not only why they don't evaluate all ten groups at once and hold both eliminations until the end of the two-hour show, but also what determined which groups were slotted into which half. But, maybe that's picking nits (and maybe it's not).

Another concern I have is how varied the participants are. On one extreme we have a group of high-schoolers (Eleventh Hour, from Kettering, Ohio), and on another we have a group led by a veteran professional singer of 60-plus years (Jerry Lawson and Talk of the Town, led by a founding member of a cappella pioneers The Persuasions). And then there are the relative sizes of the groups, which range anywhere from just five members to well over a dozen, and that must certainly have an impact on the results. But then, maybe that's just the point: having the playing field so uneven makes it a competition for them all, and the smaller groups have to work hard to sound "bigger" just like the larger groups have to work hard to not overpower their sound. Bigger can be better, just as much as less is more, and determining the right song arrangement and approach to the performance is just as big a part of the competition.

One of the biggest reasons I chose not to do a play-by-play commentary is because I can't help but admit that I'm biased as hell in favor of On The Rocks. I knew about and was watching and listening to these guys ten years ago, and they were just as much fun when they started out as they are now. They're talented, energetic, and one can clearly see how much fun they have doing what they do. Then again, that can be said for nearly all the groups we saw on Monday night's show. To be placed in the same class of performers as the venerable Whiffenpoofs is a big damn deal (their rendition of Mika's "Grace Kelly" was positively amazing, by the way!), but it also means that On The Rocks has got some serious competition. The only possible drawback I can see is that they have a potentially unwieldy size of 15 members (which makes me wonder if the show shouldn't set a limit on the size of the group ... say, 10 or maybe 12).

Will they make it all the way to the final round? I of course hope so, but I won't take anything for granted. After all, I thought Pitch Slapped (whose name I totally love!) was one of the better ones, but they somehow were given the boot. Personally, I think that The Backbeats (the collegiate "supergroup" from L.A.) and Groove For Thought (the jazzy Seattle group with the father-daughter duo) should have been the ones to go. But one thing's for sure: nearly every voice we heard on this show was more talented than 90% of the comparatively sorry crop of "American Idol" singers last season, which makes it all but inevitable that I won't be watching it ... unless my 2% doubt convinces me otherwise.