Rudy Van Gelder
BozakTheKilla
damn many of my Blue Note recordings distorted? The latest I picked up is
"Stick Up". Is this just because the tapes have deteriorated (which doesn't
make sense to me) or is it that maybe Rudy wasn't so great after all? Lemme
hear your thoughts.
-JC
JC Martin
Excuse the name. I was parodying a "trollish" character on a basketball
newsgroup. The guy was talking about shooting me, so I responded with the
above name.
Anyway...
-JC
BozakTheKilla wrote in message <7glkip$jfs$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
JC Martin
>JC Martin <subs...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote
>
>> Excuse the name. I was parodying a "trollish" character on a basketball
>> newsgroup. The guy was talking about shooting me, so I responded with
the
>> above name.
>
I guess this thread is dead. *L*
-JC
little DEUCE
> Excuse the name. I was parodying a "trollish" character on a basketball
> newsgroup. The guy was talking about shooting me, so I responded with the
> above name.
WORD to ya mutha.
--
little DEUCE
"It's not the love of money --
It's the lack of money that makes the monkey dance."
http://members.home.net/mratoz/
Gremal
<7glt65$me9$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> little DEUCE wrote in message ...
> >
> >> Excuse the name. I was parodying a "trollish" character on a
basketball
> >> newsgroup. The guy was talking about shooting me, so I responded with
> the
> >> above name.
> >
> >WORD to ya mutha.
>
>
>
JC, 'sup homey? ;-)
You obviously have a Van Gelder "issue". You don't like his work on the
RVG series. Now you're questioning his skills as a recording engineer at
classic sessions like the mid-60s blue notes. this guy single handedly
recorded nearly every classic title for riverside, blue note and more.
would you prefer they were never recorded (that is a rhetorical question
but why are you so critical of him?).
Eric Daniel Barry
not god. He happened to record jazz in the 50s and 60s with a particular
sound that is very satisfying in some ways (but not to my knowledge ever
for Riverside). One would surmise from the quality of the albums he
recorded that he worked well with the artists. But his recordings were
not perfect. It is a fact that he recorded hot in order to get a punchy
sound, and sometimes got distorted peaks, in particular on piano. It is
annonying. Many think his treatment of piano was generally tinny. Many
think his horn sound etched and lacking harmonic body. Some complain
about his use of reverb on the drums.
Don't shout someone down just because they hear obvious distortion on some
Van Gelder recordings. The original post was not a troll just because you
disagree.
--Eric
Gremal
<Pine.GSO.4.10.990504...@aloha.cc.columbia.edu>...
> C'mon guys, you are being close-minded knee-jerk reactionaries. RVG is
> not god.
? no, he was a recording engineer--we're all pretty clear on that.
> He happened to record jazz in the 50s and 60s with a particular
> sound that is very satisfying in some ways (but not to my knowledge ever
> for Riverside).
my mistake if that's false, simply strike and put Impulse in its place.
> One would surmise from the quality of the albums he
> recorded that he worked well with the artists.
actually he worked very well with the producers, especially Lion, from what
i've read. Lion had a hard time getting the recorded sessions to sound the
way he wanted them to sound until he met Van Gelder. It was Lion who
worked well with the artists--van gelder mainly worked well mic'ing their
instruments.
> But his recordings were
> not perfect. It is a fact that he recorded hot in order to get a punchy
> sound, and sometimes got distorted peaks, in particular on piano.
unless you're talking chromatography you're making little sense. It's hard
to find a better sounding jazz recording than a virgin vinyl blue note.
from what i've read that's the consensus of many an audiophile.
> annonying. Many think his treatment of piano was generally tinny. Many
> think his horn sound etched and lacking harmonic body. Some complain
> about his use of reverb on the drums.
you must be confusing someone with van gelder. he never used reverb when
recording but was forced to add it into late 60s mixes.
> Don't shout someone down just because they hear obvious distortion on
some
> Van Gelder recordings. The original post was not a troll just because
you
> disagree.
i didn't accuse JC of being a troll, i just needed more details why he was
criticizing van gelder. the only obvious distortion i've heard is on
McMaster-remastered CDs. other shortcomings can hardly be attributed to
Van Gelder. I'm just asking for more details about exactly what JC is
criticizing--i was rude but it was all in good fun. i'm genuinely curious
about the beef JC has with van gelder.
i always thought that, given the technology he had to work with in the
50s-60s, van gelder did great work. i'm also impressed with the RVG
series. the sound is tremendous and the only naysayers i've heard on this
board are folks addicted to the artificial stereo panning. this hard
stereo spread only existed to satiate label execs who wanted to jump on the
latest technological bandwagon. a subtle stereo effect like that of the
RVG remasters appeals to me much more. ;-)
Jack Woker
> the sound is tremendous and the only naysayers i've heard on this
> board are folks addicted to the artificial stereo panning. this hard
> stereo spread only existed to satiate label execs who wanted to jump on the
> latest technological bandwagon. a subtle stereo effect like that of the
> RVG remasters appeals to me much more. ;-)
"Latest technological bandwagon"? Would that also include 24-bit
mastering? What's down the line? Your comments seem to be directly
from what Van Gelder has said about the new series. My opinions are
based on my 35 years of listening experience, and on what my ears tell
me when I listen to my very good home stereo system. I don't consider
myself to be addicted to anything other than what I consider to be good
sound, a relative thing, of course. You seem to be continually
impressed with whatever happens to be the latest in reissue technology,
otherwise why would you constantly be crying about the lack of
availability of new reissues of all your wants? Why not do like the
rest of us and find a copy of the LP, if you want the music so badly?
Sorry for the tirade, but please try to accept that there is more than
one valid point of view here, and that the RVG series is just another
marketing ploy. You may remember, I gave the sound on "Midnight Blue" a
thumbs up a couple of weeks ago. What I don't need is you explaining
the motives behind my reservations.
jack
Marc Sabatella
>> But his recordings were
>> not perfect. It is a fact that he recorded hot in order to get a punchy
>> sound, and sometimes got distorted peaks, in particular on piano.
>
>unless you're talking chromatography you're making little sense.
No, what he's saying makes perfect sense, and can even be judged fairly
objectively (although we could judge metter better if we could go back
in time with modern equipment for comaprison purposes). I just don't
know if it's actually true or not, and tend to doubt it, although I
definitely agree his piano sound was one of the worst in the industry.
I am not sure if that was his fault or the piano's, though.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
Check out my latest CD, "Second Course"
Available on Cadence Jazz Records
Also "A Jazz Improvisation Primer", Scores, & More:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Doyle Carmody
wow.
i see why many artists say that jazz 'afficianados' eat their own...
dc
Gremal
<3V_X2.318$g3.170...@news.frii.net>...
> >> But his recordings were
> >> not perfect. It is a fact that he recorded hot in order to get a
punchy
> >> sound, and sometimes got distorted peaks, in particular on piano.
> >unless you're talking chromatography you're making little sense.
> No, what he's saying makes perfect sense, and can even be judged fairly
> objectively (although we could judge metter better if we could go back
> in time with modern equipment for comaprison purposes).
i take issue with the "distorted peaks, in particular on piano" phrase.
explain to me how that makes sense--i might change my mind.
> I just don't know if it's actually true or not, and tend to doubt it,
although I
> definitely agree his piano sound was one of the worst in the industry.
> I am not sure if that was his fault or the piano's, though.
? maybe my reading comprehension skills have gone down the tubes this week
but none of this makes sense to me. so now you're suggesting that the
piano set up in van gelder's living room is at fault? or just that van
gelder didn't know how to set up mic's correctly? who of van gelder's
contemporaries got a better piano sound? for example, the atlantic
recordings had much weaker piano that seems nearly lost in the mix compared
to the horn levels.
Gremal
<37307C...@ix.netcom.com>...
> Gremal wrote:
>
> > the sound is tremendous and the only naysayers i've heard on this
> > board are folks addicted to the artificial stereo panning. this hard
> > stereo spread only existed to satiate label execs who wanted to jump on
the
> > latest technological bandwagon. a subtle stereo effect like that of
the
> > RVG remasters appeals to me much more. ;-)
> "Latest technological bandwagon"? Would that also include 24-bit
> mastering? What's down the line?
comparing digital resolution with stereo effects is apples and oranges.
> Your comments seem to be directly
> from what Van Gelder has said about the new series.
because it makes a lot of sense to me in the context of small combo
recordings. i don't see any need for the hard panning and i enjoy the
subtle stereo spread a lot better now that i've been exposed to it.
> My opinions are
> based on my 35 years of listening experience, and on what my ears tell
> me when I listen to my very good home stereo system.
I'm not trying to say what sounds best to Jack Woker. I'm trying to say
what sounds best to Greg Maltz.
> I don't consider
> myself to be addicted to anything other than what I consider to be good
> sound, a relative thing, of course.
But if two remasters had equivalent sound--the only difference being that
one had hard panning and the other did not, you'd enjoy the former,
correct? Maybe addicted is too strong a word, but this is the stereo
effect we have all learned to appreciate for the past 40 yrs. I'm just
suggesting that even though it's what we're used to, it's overkill for
small combo recordings and that subtle stereophonics may be more
appropriate.
> You seem to be continually
> impressed with whatever happens to be the latest in reissue technology,
i follow technology and like to see record companies use it to offer
higher-quality products. this is only common sense, don't you think?
basically i am impressed with good sound. for example i'll pick a tube amp
over solid state any day, no matter how advanced the technology of solid
state transistors.
> otherwise why would you constantly be crying about the lack of
> availability of new reissues of all your wants? Why not do like the
> rest of us and find a copy of the LP, if you want the music so badly?
because i would like to see certain titles reissued on CD and hoped i could
find solidarity on boards like this. i do have those titles on tape, but
after 10 years of waiting for the CDs i had hoped they'd be out by now,
that's all.
> Sorry for the tirade, but please try to accept that there is more than
> one valid point of view here, and that the RVG series is just another
> marketing ploy.
Jack, i totally respect your POV. I certainly recognize RVGs as a
marketing ploy and a transparent one at that. But unlike most ploys by the
record companies i find that this one offers consumers a good trade off.
my ears tell me the quality is significantly improved. 24-bit CDs have
better resolution than lower-bit CDs and that means the instruments sound
more natural--it's a difference i can certainly hear. Just like 24-bit
TIFF files look more natural than lower-bit TIFF files on your monitor.
it's just the nature of digital media. and i find it appropriate that
these titles have now been remastered by the original recording engineer.
> You may remember, I gave the sound on "Midnight Blue" a
> thumbs up a couple of weeks ago. What I don't need is you explaining
> the motives behind my reservations.
I didn't intend for my comments to be directed at you personally. I think
all of us have grown so used to hard stereo panning that we are quick to
disapprove of a mellower stereo effect.
Marc Sabatella
>> No, what he's saying makes perfect sense, and can even be judged fairly
>> objectively (although we could judge metter better if we could go back
>> in time with modern equipment for comaprison purposes).
>
>i take issue with the "distorted peaks, in particular on piano" phrase.
>explain to me how that makes sense--i might change my mind.
"Peak" refers to the loudest passages played. A "distorted peak" would
be one in which, when the peaks were reached, distortion occured.
Distortion is measurable as the extent to which a recording of a sound
differs from the original sound. So "distorted peaks, in particular on
piano" would suggest that distortion occured when the piano played its
loudest passages. This makes perfect sense. As I said, whether or not
the claim is true remains to be seen. However, it can be measured more
or less objectively.
Analog tape has fairly well-understood distortion characteristics, and
it is well-known that past a certain volume level, the distortion
increase dramatically (in contrast, digital tape has a practically flat
distortion curve right up until the point where it clips). He is saying
that Van Gelder recorded at levels so hot that the peaks exceeded the
knee in the distortion curve for the media used.
This assertion could be tested by running the original master tapes
through a mixer that displayed the sound levels in absolutely terms, to
determine if the sound levels on the master exceeded the knee in the
distortion curve for the tape used; if so, we'd know distortion occured.
The curve can be determine by recording sound of known composition
(like a sine wave) at various volume levels and then noting how much the
recorded results differ from the original. But even better would be if
we could go back in time and get a digital recording of the original
performance and compare this with the analog recording to determine if
the latter distorted or not.
In theory, one could hear the distortion during the peaks even on the
mixed CD, although two people could argue endlessly on whether or not it
was "supposed" to sound like that, which is why I offered a couple of
ways to decide more or less objectively.
>> I just don't know if it's actually true or not, and tend to doubt it,
>although I
>> definitely agree his piano sound was one of the worst in the industry.
>> I am not sure if that was his fault or the piano's, though.
>
>? maybe my reading comprehension skills have gone down the tubes this week
>but none of this makes sense to me. so now you're suggesting that the
>piano set up in van gelder's living room is at fault?
It sounds to me that on many of Van Gelder's recordings from the era
(not sure which were in the living room and which were in the church?)
the piano sounds like a fairly cheap upright in terms of the tone
quality and resonance the instrument achieves. If the instrument was,
in fact, a cheap upright, then Van Gelder captured it perfectly, and the
"blame" for this sound lies with the piano. If it was in fact a 9"
Steinway, then I'd say the problem was either with the acoustics of the
room, the mic choices, the mic placement, or the equalization,
compression, or other processing performed on the signal - and all of
the these would have been under Van Gelder's control, so the "blame"
would be Van Gelder's.
>who of van gelder's
>contemporaries got a better piano sound? for example, the atlantic
>recordings had much weaker piano that seems nearly lost in the mix compared
>to the horn levels.
Levels aren't the issue; that can be fixed in the mix, as it were.
I am talking about the *quality* of the recorded sound. For instance,
the piano on Bill Evans' "Sunday At The Village Vanguard" (and the other
albums from that engagement) sounds infinitely better to me than the
piano on any of the Blue Notes of the era. The Bill Evans Riversides
sound "somewhat" better to me than the Van Gelder recordings of the era,
although these are nothing to write home about either. Ditto on the
Columbias.
Marc Sabatella
>my ears tell me the quality is significantly improved. 24-bit CDs have
>better resolution than lower-bit CDs and that means the instruments sound
>more natural--it's a difference i can certainly hear. Just like 24-bit
>TIFF files look more natural than lower-bit TIFF files on your monitor.
Actually, these aren't really comparable. A "24-bit" CD still contains
only 16 bits of data, it's just that it was recorded and/or mixed using
24 bits. It's more like asking whether you'd get better results
scanning in a picture at 16 bit color, or scanning it at 24 bits then
converting it to 16. The answer is still probably the latter, but the
difference is considerably more subtle than the difference between
either of these and the actual 24-bit version.
>I think
>all of us have grown so used to hard stereo panning that we are quick to
>disapprove of a mellower stereo effect.
I think I'm about the least sensitive person to stereo panning of anyone
I've ever heard express an opinion; except for gimmicks like solos that
pan back and forth (the keyboard solo on "La Fiesta" from Maynard
Ferguson's "Chameleon" comes to mind), I tend to not really notice. I
can tell the difference between mono and stereo in an A-B comparison,
usually, but that's about it.
Michael Fitzgerald
Sabatella) wrote:
>It sounds to me that on many of Van Gelder's recordings from the era
>(not sure which were in the living room and which were in the church?)
>the piano sounds like a fairly cheap upright in terms of the tone
>quality and resonance the instrument achieves. If the instrument was,
>in fact, a cheap upright, then Van Gelder captured it perfectly, and the
>"blame" for this sound lies with the piano. If it was in fact a 9"
>Steinway, then I'd say the problem was either with the acoustics of the
>room, the mic choices, the mic placement, or the equalization,
>compression, or other processing performed on the signal - and all of
>the these would have been under Van Gelder's control, so the "blame"
>would be Van Gelder's.
A friend of mine tells me that RVG still has the two pianos he has
used in his studios. One is the "Bud Powell" piano, the other is the
"Bill Evans" piano. Neither is an upright. The Hackensack piano is a
definitely a Steinway (described as a "small grand" in the Pettinger
Bill Evans bio), I *think* the later piano is also a Steinway - but a
larger one. I doubt 9' (you really didn't mean inches, did you
Marc?....) but from photos of the Coltrane 1960's recordings, maybe a
7' model. I'm sure this could be researched far better than the couple
of minutes I spent on it.
BTW, the studio shift took place in July 1959.
Mike
MightyYKW
>Actually, these aren't really comparable. A "24-bit" CD still contains
>only 16 bits of data, it's just that it was recorded and/or mixed using
>24 bits. It's more like asking whether you'd get better results
>scanning in a picture at 16 bit color, or scanning it at 24 bits then
>converting it to 16. The answer is still probably the latter, but the
>difference is considerably more subtle than the difference between
>either of these and the actual 24-bit version.
Most decent mastering today from analog sources uses a greater-than 16-bit
converter, then uses a process such as noise-shaping (Super Bit Mapping, etc.)
or re-dithering (Apogee UV-22), or the much-venerated HDCD converter - in each
case, the resulting CD can have an effective resolution of 17 or 18 bits due to
the ear's response to the re-shaped noise and the added information in the
least significant bit. The average good CD remaster these days tends to have a
smoother, more natural overall sound than the average of, say, 10 years ago.
-Cory Edelman
Cory A. Edelman
MightyYKW
>Analog tape has fairly well-understood distortion characteristics, and
>it is well-known that past a certain volume level, the distortion
>increase dramatically (in contrast, digital tape has a practically flat
>distortion curve right up until the point where it clips). He is saying
>that Van Gelder recorded at levels so hot that the peaks exceeded the
>knee in the distortion curve for the media used.
A good example of what could be done with the late 50's and early 60's
technology is the DCC reissue of "Know What I Mean?" which was recorded at Bell
Sound in NYC for Riverside. The remaster engineer, Steve Hoffman, in the liner
notes, gets in (what to me is) a "dig" at RVG by noting the typical practice of
the time to record a sax by "..compressing the hell out of it". Listen to that
CD (which is glorious BTW) and compare it to most any RVG (except maybe Johnny
Hartman vocals, which are pretty good) and you will hear the difference!
Gremal
> >> No, what he's saying makes perfect sense, and can even be judged
fairly
> >> objectively (although we could judge metter better if we could go back
> >> in time with modern equipment for comaprison purposes).
> >i take issue with the "distorted peaks, in particular on piano" phrase.
> >explain to me how that makes sense--i might change my mind.
> "Peak" refers to the loudest passages played. A "distorted peak" would
> be one in which, when the peaks were reached, distortion occured.
> Distortion is measurable as the extent to which a recording of a sound
> differs from the original sound. So "distorted peaks, in particular on
> piano" would suggest that distortion occured when the piano played its
> loudest passages. This makes perfect sense.
if there is distortion due to hot recording there is no way this would
translate to distortion mainly on piano and not the horns. that still
doesn't make sense to me, although i liked your explanation.
> As I said, whether or not
> the claim is true remains to be seen. However, it can be measured more
> or less objectively.
> Analog tape has fairly well-understood distortion characteristics, and
> it is well-known that past a certain volume level, the distortion
> increase dramatically (in contrast, digital tape has a practically flat
> distortion curve right up until the point where it clips). He is saying
> that Van Gelder recorded at levels so hot that the peaks exceeded the
> knee in the distortion curve for the media used.
OK.
[snip]
> >? maybe my reading comprehension skills have gone down the tubes this
week
> >but none of this makes sense to me. so now you're suggesting that the
> >piano set up in van gelder's living room is at fault?
> It sounds to me that on many of Van Gelder's recordings from the era
> (not sure which were in the living room and which were in the church?)
> the piano sounds like a fairly cheap upright in terms of the tone
> quality and resonance the instrument achieves. If the instrument was,
> in fact, a cheap upright, then Van Gelder captured it perfectly, and the
> "blame" for this sound lies with the piano. If it was in fact a 9"
> Steinway, then I'd say the problem was either with the acoustics of the
> room, the mic choices, the mic placement, or the equalization,
> compression, or other processing performed on the signal - and all of
> the these would have been under Van Gelder's control, so the "blame"
> would be Van Gelder's.
Mark, in all the pictures taken by Wolfe, many of which were in Van
Gelder's studio, i never saw a stand up piano, so you are indeed calling it
a mic problem or processing problem.
> >who of van gelder's
> >contemporaries got a better piano sound? for example, the atlantic
> >recordings had much weaker piano that seems nearly lost in the mix
compared
> >to the horn levels.
> Levels aren't the issue; that can be fixed in the mix, as it were.
are you sure? we're talking 2-track here.
> I am talking about the *quality* of the recorded sound. For instance,
> the piano on Bill Evans' "Sunday At The Village Vanguard" (and the other
> albums from that engagement) sounds infinitely better to me than the
> piano on any of the Blue Notes of the era.
If you think Evans' OJCs sound _any_ better than van gelder's albums from
that era which focused on piano (e.g., the tyner albums on impulse or even
the late 50s bud powell dates on BN), you are making distinctions that i
cannot hear. these trio dates do feature piano that sounds better than
most sessions with horns, irrespective of the engineer who recorded them.
Eric Daniel Barry
> i take issue with the "distorted peaks, in particular on piano" phrase.
> explain to me how that makes sense--i might change my mind.
distortion, though it may take a while as I listen to more than just jazz.
> although I
> > definitely agree his piano sound was one of the worst in the industry.
> > I am not sure if that was his fault or the piano's, though.
>
> gelder didn't know how to set up mic's correctly? who of van gelder's
> contemporaries got a better piano sound? for example, the atlantic
> recordings had much weaker piano that seems nearly lost in the mix compared
> to the horn levels.
First, it seems to me that RVG got better piano sound on Impulses than
Blue Note. Second, I think Contemporary is reputed by audiophiles to have
the best sound, and I would put the piano sound on Riverside (Bill Evans
and Monk) and Columbia (does any Blue Note have a piano sound that could
bring off Blue in Green?) ahead of most Blue Notes. Third, I think you
may be blaming Atlantic recordings for the sins of 80s cd transfer
engineers. While I don't think Atlantics sound that hot anywhere in the
sound spectrum, the piano is fuller sounding and louder in the mix in two
remastered cds I just checked (Blakey and Monk and My Favorite Things)
than on Blue Notes.
--Eric
Jack Woker
> > > stereo spread only existed to satiate label execs who wanted to jump on the
> > > latest technological bandwagon. a subtle stereo effect like that of the
> > > RVG remasters appeals to me much more. ;-)
> > "Latest technological bandwagon"? Would that also include 24-bit
> > mastering? What's down the line?
> comparing digital resolution with stereo effects is apples and oranges.
correlation between technologies that are widely hailed when they first
appear. That they serve different purposes is irrelevant - they both
can come under the umbrella of "latest technological bandwagon" (your
term). It's convenient to dismiss early stereo as a bandwagon on which
label execs wanted to jump, but I feel that the technology is still
evolving, and personally I wouldn't be so eager to conclude that Rudy's
CD's are the last word, or even the best to date.
> > Your comments seem to be directly
> > from what Van Gelder has said about the new series.
> because it makes a lot of sense to me in the context of small combo
> recordings. i don't see any need for the hard panning and i enjoy the
> subtle stereo spread a lot better now that i've been exposed to it.
How much listening have you done on high end equipment? I'm not saying
that you're wrong - you are certainly entitled to a point of view, and I
suppose I begin to tread on the waters of audiophile insanity when I
take this position. What annoyed me was that you seemed to be spouting
the RVG party line, instead of coming up with an opinion of your own.
> I'm not trying to say what sounds best to Jack Woker. I'm trying to say
> what sounds best to Greg Maltz.
Who knows? This may change. I know that some of my notions of what
sounds good have changed significantly over the years, and I can only
assume that there is more change in the future.
> But if two remasters had equivalent sound--the only difference being that
> one had hard panning and the other did not, you'd enjoy the former,
> correct?
Not necessarily. Perhaps. I'd prefer to wait and judge each recording
individually. I'm not even saying that I disagree with you.
> Maybe addicted is too strong a word, but this is the stereo
> effect we have all learned to appreciate for the past 40 yrs. I'm just
> suggesting that even though it's what we're used to, it's overkill for
> small combo recordings and that subtle stereophonics may be more
> appropriate.
Maybe, maybe not. A problem I have when one remixes a two-track stereo
master is that "summing" (combining) stereo channels can produce
unwanted side effects, and can throw off the delicate balance of the
instruments. This effect was achieved by the judicious placement of
microphones in the studio, not at a multi-track mixing board. If
somebody (even the original engineer) tampers with it after the fact,
the overall balance is affected. I can hear this in "Midnight Blue",
and I'm still wondering if my ears will get used to it. Still, I'm
impressed enough with the overall sonic improvement that I will keep the
new CD.
> because i would like to see certain titles reissued on CD and hoped i could
> find solidarity on boards like this.
You will never find solidarity anywhere ! :-) I think it is unrealistic
for you to expect record companies to serve your needs, and to chastise
them when they don't. Your posts continually have a tone of entitlement
about them, as if the people at record companies are idiots who don't
know what they are doing. Well, some of them are, and it's true that
they get it wrong at least as often as they get it right. The RVG
series notwithstanding, overall I think Michael Cuscuna has done a
pretty good job of getting hard to find titles back into print, and he
deserves our support, not criticism for what he hasn't done. Be
thankful that they are willing to reissue anything. There's lots more
money for Capitol in Garth Brooks.
> Jack, i totally respect your POV. I certainly recognize RVGs as a
> marketing ploy and a transparent one at that. But unlike most ploys by the
> record companies i find that this one offers consumers a good trade off.
> my ears tell me the quality is significantly improved. 24-bit CDs have
> better resolution than lower-bit CDs and that means the instruments sound
> more natural--it's a difference i can certainly hear.
I thought the mid-80's Blue Note CD's were an improvement over the LP's
I had owned for years. Now I think differently. I wonder what we will
think of the RVG CD's when something new comes along.
> I didn't intend for my comments to be directed at you personally. I think
> all of us have grown so used to hard stereo panning that we are quick to
> disapprove of a mellower stereo effect.
Don't be so quick to condemn the hard stereo panning. It makes sense
for certain recordings, less sense for others. On this I think we
agree. Let's not make generalizations about what's good across the
board. Different stereo systems bring about different characteristics
in any recording. What's sounds good or "natural" to you now may not
sound so great in the future.
jack
D Royko
Fitzgerald) writes:
> I doubt 9' (you really didn't mean inches, did you
>Marc?....)
He did, but was undoubtedly refering to the rare "Schroeder-Peanuts" piano RVG
kept around.
When it comes to the recording of pianos from late-50s through early-'60s, the
difference between what some classical labels were getting (especially the
people who recorded for European labels such as Philips) and most jazz labels
is striking. I've often wondered that level of piano recording was simply
beyond the capabilities of certain engineers who specialized in jazz, or were
these aesthetic decisions of the producers? I mean, the clean and detailed, yet
opulent, tonally rich and full sound of so many classical piano recordings of
that era is a wholly different animal from virtually any jazz piano recordings
that I know from that same period.
Dave Royko
Marc Sabatella
>In article <3735204e....@news.eclipse.net>, fitz...@eclipse.net (Michael
>Fitzgerald) writes:
>> I doubt 9' (you really didn't mean inches, did you
>>Marc?....)
>
>He did, but was undoubtedly refering to the rare "Schroeder-Peanuts" piano RVG
>kept around.
Now I know how Nigel felt when they brought out the miniature Stonehenge
in "Spinal Tap".
>When it comes to the recording of pianos from late-50s through early-'60s, the
>difference between what some classical labels were getting (especially the
>people who recorded for European labels such as Philips) and most jazz labels
>is striking. I've often wondered that level of piano recording was simply
>beyond the capabilities of certain engineers who specialized in jazz, or were
>these aesthetic decisions of the producers?
I suspect the difference might be that classical recording studios
tended to be set up assuming solo piano, but jazz recordings tended to
be set up assuming small groups, and the jazz rooms were set up so as to
allow cleaner separation between instruments - even if, like Van Gelder,
they were recording direct to two track (they still would have wanted
clean seapration going into the mix). This can have effects on the
acoustic properties you want out of the room, and how you do your
micing.
Marc Sabatella
>if there is distortion due to hot recording there is no way this would
>translate to distortion mainly on piano and not the horns.
Well, it could if only the piano was made that hot, although this seems
unlikely to me. Obviously this would make more sense if RVG in fact
recorded multitrack. But it could also mean that, due to the more
complex harmonics of a piano sound, the distortion is more noticeable
(to the original poster) on piano than on other instruments. Or, as
others surmised, Van Gelder may have used a lot of compression on the
horns, just causing them not to contribute so much to peaks. Also,
distortion can occur through the microphone, mixer, or any other link in
the chain; if their optimum levels are exceeded, and this would indeed
result in distortion on one instrument alone.
>> Levels aren't the issue; that can be fixed in the mix, as it were.
>
>are you sure? we're talking 2-track here.
Well, on RVG's recordings, anyhow. I do believe others were recording
multitrack at the time. But in any case, I didn't necessarily that can
be fixed during *remixing*, just that to me, quality of sound has
relatively little to do with its actual level (except to the extent that
distortion is caused by excessive levels, and I wasn't talking about
distortion here).
>If you think Evans' OJCs sound _any_ better than van gelder's albums from
>that era which focused on piano (e.g., the tyner albums on impulse or even
>the late 50s bud powell dates on BN), you are making distinctions that i
>cannot hear.
Like I said, the studio recordings sound only marginally better to me.
It is the live recording that strikes me as significantly better. But
it is also true that I wasn't specifically comparing them to RVG trio
dates, mostly because I have very few of these. Let me put it this way,
then - *most* jazz combo recordings of the era had lousy piano sounds,
and RVG in no way rose above them as others sometimes did.
Eric Daniel Barry
> Eric Daniel Barry <ed...@columbia.edu> wrote in article
> <Pine.GSO.4.10.990506...@konichiwa.cc.columbia.edu>...
>
> > First, it seems to me that RVG got better piano sound on Impulses than
> > Blue Note.
>
> Eric, are you sure you're not influenced by the lackluster remastering
> effort that mcmaster has done for blue note? The Impulses have been
> remastered much better than BN, up until the RVG series that is. But to
> get an accurate representation one would actually have to go check out the
> original master tapes. ugh--another argument that turns out to be a moot
> point no matter who's right.
>
I'm speaking from my experience with 60s pressings of BN and Impulse as
well as the recent 180 gram versions and recent 20-bit cds from both
labels. I think the McMaster 20-bits are quite good actually, and the
180 gram vinyl for Blue Note I've found superior to the 180 gram Impulses.
In some ways better than the originals.
You're right we can't know without the master tapes. But I've been pretty
uncorrupted by the 80s cd issues by McMaster (I only have three, and they
are one reason I've invested so much in LPs and LP playback). Comparing
BN and Impulse Van Gelder pressings on vinyl, as well as 20-bit cds, I
think the Impulses come out ahead. The differences are relatively
consistent too--Impulses are fuller and more liquid sounding. So I don't
really know but what my ears tell me. And my opinion is subject to change
(esp. if I can lay my hands on some pristine BN first pressings!).
--Eric
Gremal
<Pine.GSO.4.10.990506...@konichiwa.cc.columbia.edu>...
> First, it seems to me that RVG got better piano sound on Impulses than
> Blue Note.
Eric, are you sure you're not influenced by the lackluster remastering
effort that mcmaster has done for blue note? The Impulses have been
remastered much better than BN, up until the RVG series that is. But to
get an accurate representation one would actually have to go check out the
original master tapes. ugh--another argument that turns out to be a moot
point no matter who's right.
> Second, I think Contemporary is reputed by audiophiles to have
> the best sound, and I would put the piano sound on Riverside (Bill Evans
> and Monk) and Columbia (does any Blue Note have a piano sound that could
> bring off Blue in Green?) ahead of most Blue Notes. Third, I think you
> may be blaming Atlantic recordings for the sins of 80s cd transfer
> engineers.
ok, agreed.
> While I don't think Atlantics sound that hot anywhere in the
> sound spectrum, the piano is fuller sounding and louder in the mix in two
> remastered cds I just checked (Blakey and Monk and My Favorite Things)
> than on Blue Notes.
sorry, can't agree with you here. maybe our systems are different. if so
can we trade? ;-)