Great Music, Terrible Recording

[Pigmeat]

I'll start this off with Sonny Stitt and Oscar Peterson on the album 'Sonny Stitt Sits In With Oscar Peterson Trio'. Man, the noise on this record is f'n awful!i

[Docbop]

It was recorded in 1959 just focus on the great playing that's the only thing that matters.

[dazzjazz]

Jimmy McGriff at the Apollo is one of those records for me. The playing is off the chain, but what a shite recording!

What I"d give to hear a good copy of it. Spoke to a producer famous for jazz re-releases. He couldn"t save it, so he passed in the project. Bummer.

[Joe Muscara]

It was recorded in 1959 just focus on the great playing that's the only thing that matters.

I've recently come to realize that some recent releases sound so much better like the found stuff of Bill Evans, that was probably why I unconsciously haven't gotten into the older stuff nearly as much as I would like. I wish it were as easy as you suggest, but at the very least it takes some effort to overcome the poorer quality recordings vs. the quality I have been accustomed to.

[Reezekeys]

For me, the better the music, the easier it is to ignore the recording quality. Eg, the Benedetti recordings of Bird or the bootlegs of Trane captured off an FM broadcast with the stereo carrier whistle, etc. No complaints from this quarter; I'm just glad these recordings exist. Of course, everybody's definition of "better music" is probably different.

 

I just checked out that SS/OP record on youtube (listen below). What do you mean by noise? Are you referring to the original vinyl? I hear nothing I would call "noise", which makes sense because from what I read, this record was digitally remastered in the 1990s. As far as the recording quality, if I were to nitpick with 2020 ears I'd say there's not much of a stereo image in the rhythm section and the sax is a little loud, something that may have been typical for the time of the recording (1959). I honestly could care less, given the quality of the music.

 

[video:youtube]

[GRollins]

In the stereo world, there's a rule of thumb that says the better the music, the worse the recording and vice versa. Yes, there are exceptions, but it's true enough that you shouldn't set your expectations too high when you see a new album released by someone you like.

 

Out of the untold tens, nay, hundreds of thousands of albums in the world, you would be hard pressed (*ahem*) to find a single thousand--of all genres combined--that have both great music and great sound quality.

 

Regarding classical and jazz--note that some of the best albums ever recorded, sound quality-wise, were done in the late mono through early stereo era on the luscious sounding tube gear. Don't turn away from albums recorded from, say, 1955 to 1965. In the mid to late-'60s, they started tearing out all the good tube stuff and putting in solid state equipment. "Less noise! Lower distortion! More reliable! More modern!" BLEH! The top names, Sinatra, et. al., came in and said this stuff sounds like shit, gimme the gear we had last time. So the crappy sounding stuff got palmed off on the upstart rock acts, which is part of why the early rock recordings sound so horrible. They didn't have the clout to demand the good stuff.

 

Then we had to go through the same process all over again when digital came in, but that's another story for another day.

 

It's no accident that some of the best current manufacture recording gear out there is tubed. What was once old is new again...

 

Grey

[CEB]

I"ve been listening to 40s stuff. Great tunes but it was done on 78s.

 

Original recordings of Grieg and Rachmaninov exist. Monster pianists. You have to suffer through the early technology to learn insight into their compositions.

[drawback]

I would say there are many times more great recordings of terrible music.

[KuruPrionz]

Modern speakers reproduce frequencies more accurately, what was acceptable years ago now seems to fall short.

Feed them with a modern amplfier and the "detail" can be excruciating.

 

You could get some old "hifi" speakers and an old amplifier.

 

You could play the music in one room and lsten in another.

 

Clinical scrutiny of recorded music is rarely satisfying, better to just listen and enjoy.

I no longer have the vinyl but Duke Ellington's All Stars recorded live in 1962 was a knockout. Probably a failure by today's standards for recording. So what?

[synthetic]

Toto XIV makes me so frustrated when I listen to it, because these great songs are so badly mixed and distorted. The drums were recorded by Tschad Blake at Capitol I believe. Then it was mixed by the producer using plug-in presets in Logic. Listen to how bad the drums are distorted in Unknown Soldier, though the whole album is a mess. Sad that likely their last studio album was mangled this badly.

[Stokely]

A bit of a tangent, but this relates to why I have argued with bands I've been in about demos (and quality). A lot of people just say "use that cell phone recording, it sounds ok--people know it's a phone recording"....well, whether they know that or not, poor recordings = a bad band to many of your prospective listeners you hope to attract. We here on this forum are the exception, we know music and know recording and understand that a great band can sound crappy if the recording isn't good, and they shouldn't be judged by that. Yet even people that know are influenced IMO. Case in point: my keys-playing buddy turned down an audition because he thought the singer in the band was terrible from a demo--he doesn't have any recording or mixing experience while I do, and I could tell he was good but WAY too loud and dry in that demo mix. It just sounded unnatural. I ended up going to the audition myself and he was fantastic in person (unfortunately the rest of the band was awful!)

 

In such band discussions I always felt, better to not have a demo than a poor-sounding one even if our playing was great.

[stillearning]

Then there"s the other way. Old blues and jazz recordings sound more real when imperfect. Like it"s meant to be that way. I have some older Brubeck live takes that feel so alive just the way they are. I even feel I was in the noisy club with them. I can"t imagine them sounding pristine and perfect. Too sterile even. Just me.

 

On the other hand, I wish I had even one well mixed and mastered Vince Guaraldi studio recording.

[Bobby Simons]

I could never quite put my finger on it, but - as great an album as it was - something always bothered me about the original Brain Salad Surgery master. I assume that could have been fixed along the way in one of the many re-releases, but wasn't about to keep buying the same recording. Maybe if Steven Wilson takes a whack at it.

[SamuelBLupowitz]

I got into an argument once with a guy at college -- a recording sciences major -- about the Jesus Christ Superstar concept album. His opinion was "yeah the original is great, but I'd prefer if they could redo it with some more contemporary recording equipment." I argued that the funky early 70s grit is part of what makes it superior to later recordings of the piece. He said "oh, so to you, the sound of the recording is part of the music!" I was like... um, yeah?

[EricBarker]

I could never quite put my finger on it, but - as great an album as it was - something always bothered me about the original Brain Salad Surgery master. I assume that could have been fixed along the way in one of the many re-releases, but wasn't about to keep buying the same recording. Maybe if Steven Wilson takes a whack at it.

 

My problem with BSS is that it just doesn't sound tight, like AT ALL. Lake/Palmer don't feel locked in and Keith rushes a lot. I wonder how it was recorded, because it really feels like each of the guys were off in their own little world. Maybe heresy to say this, but despite the musicality and the good material, it's kind of a stressful experience to listen to.

 

On the flip side, staying with Prog, an album I always thought was severely underrated, but a perfect example of "terrible recording/great music" is Dream Theater's debut, "When Dream and Day Unite". It's absolutely sludgy mud. The bass sounds like dirt, and the mix is tinny and awful. But oh man... what amazing material and performance. Everything feels super locked-in, everyone grooving and hungry, so much energy. Tho he's not a great vocalist, I never found Charlie Dominici to be unpleasant, so at worst I just listen through it to the great instrumental music behind, but there are some times where I really dig what he does. I actually often prefer the originals to LaBrie's live versions... he often doesn't take them seriously and sounds like he's mocking his predecessor, which is bad form, IMO. (LaBrie's rendition of "Only a Matter of Time", Live at Budokan makes me so angry).

 

WDADU is an oft overlooked gem since they didn't make it big until Images & Words, it's done on a shoestring budget and sounds about as bad, and doesn't have their famous vocalist. But it's got some fantastic material that's highly listenable, even if the production is bad.

[CowboyNQ]

And Justice For All

[montunoman]

I find music recorded in 20"s -40"s hard to listen to no matter how good the paying is. I recognize the greatness of the players but find it hard to past the poor and scratchy sound

[Docbop]

I got into an argument once with a guy at college -- a recording sciences major -- about the Jesus Christ Superstar concept album. His opinion was "yeah the original is great, but I'd prefer if they could redo it with some more contemporary recording equipment." I argued that the funky early 70s grit is part of what makes it superior to later recordings of the piece. He said "oh, so to you, the sound of the recording is part of the music!" I was like... um, yeah?

 

 

People don't understand most of those old recordings ended up in a dumpster years later. When I worked at Sound City and even my buddy who worked at the Village Recorder two places a lot of great music was recorded the tape libraries with the physical tapes stored would fill up. We would called all the record companies to tell them we have to clear up space please pickup your tapes or we can ship them. The answer almost always was erase and dump the multitrack masters and just send use the stereo master. It was heart breaking erasing those old multitracks. That's one of the advantages of the digital world doesn't take a lot of space to store an entire recording.

[Stefan011]

Tony Williams Lifetime: first two albums. Stellar playng, Larry Young really shines on organ. Bu it is almost unlistenable.

[SamuelBLupowitz]

And Justice For All

I've been saying for years that Justice would be my favorite Metallica record, no contest, if it weren't so grating to listen to. As it stands, it's hard for it to edge out Lightning and Puppets.

 

I guess that record is a good example of both sides of the argument: even though it sounds like weak, tinny garbage and there's nothing below, like, 150 Hz, it still shines as some of their strongest, heaviest, most engaging material. But also, it's constantly kept off the top of their discography because of its completely avoidable (actually, seems more like deliberate) sonic deficiencies. Even though the songs are just as strong or even stronger than the two preceding records, those albums had so much more impact and gravitas... because, you know, low end. Poor Jason Newsted. Couldn't have been easy replacing Cliff Burton under the best of circumstances, but he really got the short end of the stick there.

 

EDIT: I missed a really obvious opportunity for a "Shortest Straw" joke there. Ah well, we can't win 'em all. Or Kill 'Em All? Ugh, forget it.

[Stokely]

Back when I was more into the sounds of albums, the one that was really disappointing to me was GTR (the album put out by Steve Howe and Steve Hackett). Was it really that good, sound aside? Eh, maybe not, but I enjoyed the songs at the time--but it was really awful sound-wise. Sounded like scratch mixes, just way too much reverb on some parts and not on others, no cohesion. Steve Howe never had a great guitar sound but they made it sound even worse

 

After that 80s period of really shiny produced albums--Tears for Fears' Sowing the Seeds of Love being probably the best example, I still use Woman in Chains as a mixing reference--I remember how shocked I was when I bought Lenny Kravitz Are U Gonna Go My Way. THEY RECORDED THE DRUMS TOO HOT, THEY ARE DISTORTED!!! They were going after that ultra-analog 70s rough sound and it worked great for those songs, but it was definitely a change for me personally!

[harmonizer]

The Yes Album

[Mitch Towne]

Toto - Turn Back. There are no mids and the whole thing sounds phasy. I just heard a remaster of it and it"s much better.

[OB Dave]

Traffic Welcome to the Canteen. Smoking show, bad recording.

[OB Dave]

Oh, and let me add Gomez: Split The Difference.

 

I love this band. Great chemistry, three great songwriters, really nice vocals. But this album was a victim of the loudness wars and it sounds like shit. I would love to hear this album remixed and remastered, but what happened in post is an absolute travesty. It's unlistenable on headphones.

[nursers]

Springsteen's Darkness on the edge of Town. Springsteen now acknowledges its flaws.

[SamuelBLupowitz]

Springsteen's Darkness on the edge of Town. Springsteen now acknowledges its flaws.

That's a funny thing to think about -- in all the dozens of times I've listened to that record, it's never struck me as being a bad recording by any stretch. I know Bruce struggled with the mix of Born to Run, and I know making Darkness was an agonizing slog because of the battles with the old management company, but I'd be very satisfied to have made a record that sounds like Darkness... so there it is!

[nursers]

Springsteen's Darkness on the edge of Town. Springsteen now acknowledges its flaws.

That's a funny thing to think about -- in all the dozens of times I've listened to that record, it's never struck me as being a bad recording by any stretch. I know Bruce struggled with the mix of Born to Run, and I know making Darkness was an agonizing slog because of the battles with the old management company, but I'd be very satisfied to have made a record that sounds like Darkness... so there it is!

 

Oh I agree re: I wiash I had an album a tenth as good, but even so it sounds very lifeless compared to what Springsteen has done with the songs since. I can't remember whether it's in his memoir or elsewhere I've read that he's really unhappy with how the album sounds compared to what he wanted to achieve. The standout example of that is Prove It All Night - the album version is very bland compared to nearly every other version I've heard him do.

[SamuelBLupowitz]

Springsteen's Darkness on the edge of Town. Springsteen now acknowledges its flaws.

I can't remember whether it's in his memoir or elsewhere I've read that he's really unhappy with how the album sounds compared to what he wanted to achieve.

Yeah, well, it definitely has a lot more of that typical dry 70s production, rather than the huge reverby drums he would go for on Born in the USA and such. I feel like Darkness still sounds very live relative to, say, Elton John records from the same period, but it makes sense that Bruce would be disappointed that it didn't have that huge roomy sound. A good example of how sometimes our expectations prevent us from appreciating things for what they are!