Big BAnd Music - Which?

Maybe I have a different CD? It is 'The Complete Atomic Basie' Produced by Teddy Reig, Reissue produced by Michael Cuscuna Digital Transfers by Malcom Addey, recorded at Capitol Studios New York. EMI records, Blue note records, Capitol Records.

The recording is more in ya face than most I have heard. It sounds like something recorded in the late 50's, which it was. Poor by todays standards of good recordings. Some of it is even mono!

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Atomic-Basie-Count/dp/B000005GX2
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've only got the LP, that is all stereo, but it doesn't have all the extra's. It sounds great to me. Maybe it's been fiddled with on the digital mastering/remastering. Maybe it's those studio speakers of yours ;):p
 
Seriously given the choice of a late 50's blue note, or a Columbia 6 eye, RCA Living Stereo, Mercury Living Presence and a modern recording I'd take the early one everyday. Somehow to these ears (via no doubt totally inaccurate tubes and horns) they sound much more like the real thing than any overmiked modern recording designed to show the listener that the 6th fiddle to the left's chair was slightly squeaky and the second cellist from the back had a bad case of wind.
 
I've got a few early 60s Columbia pressings - Johnny Cash springs very much to mind - and the recording quality is excellent - nothing like a modern recording, but very hard to beat - they sound lush ... its the best word for it. And this is via NS1000Ms, which aren't exactly pipe n slippers.
 
Damn, and I walked past a load of old Johnny Cash lp's at a car boot sale last week, I knew I was stoopid at the time but I'm trying to save money. :mad:

I also ordered that Basie CD after reading this thread, it arrived today so I'll post my thoughts on it when I've had a chance to listen to it.
 
Well it depends how old I think. Not wanting to derail the thread, but if anyone comes across any of his late fifties/early sixties "concept" albums on Columbia (or pretty much anything from that period) - Songs of Our Soil, Ride This Train, Bitter Tears, Blood Sweat and Tears on the original vinyl ... they are a must have item (and usually inexpensive). 70s stuff is old too, but mostly cheesy old rubbish.

I suspect it may be true of Bob Dylan too. The only original pressing I have is a nice mono Freewheelin' ... again it sounds great, same sort of sound as the Cash. All the other copies of his sixties output I have are 70s retreads and sound crap in comparison ... of course its possible the orginals were too but I somehow doubt it. I think in the late fifties and early sixties Columbia's in house engineers really knew what they were about.

Probably RCA too. I've got some original pressings of Ray Charles - Modern Sounds in Country and Western - again fabulous sound quality.
 
lordsummit said:
Seriously given the choice of a late 50's blue note, or a Columbia 6 eye, RCA Living Stereo, Mercury Living Presence and a modern recording I'd take the early one everyday. Somehow to these ears (via no doubt totally inaccurate tubes and horns) they sound much more like the real thing than any overmiked modern recording designed to show the listener that the 6th fiddle to the left's chair was slightly squeaky and the second cellist from the back had a bad case of wind.
Click to expand...

Its not bad, considering its from the 50's. It just sounds coloured and lacking in any definition and also kinda grainy. But by today's standards it is poor. It makes my hi-fi sound like its from the 50's!

Get some discs from the Chesky record label and hear what a good modern recording can sound like :)

It doesn't have to be a audiophool record label though, that Cowboy Bebop stuff is excellent. Well most of it, a few tracks are too compressed. Have a listen to this one done as Flac, chosen only because I like the tune and it is kinda big-band.

www.audiosmile.co.uk/what-planet-is-this.flac
 
RCA, Columbia and Mercury were out of this world. Blue Note, Riverside, Prestige, Verve and Impulse! ditto for jazz. In the UK, Decca did some great stuff, HMV as well. Certainly with classical and jazz the early stuff seems to be far more naturally recorded than the later stuff.

I've noticed early presses to be great. I've got a Plum Yes album, that sounds stunning. I've also got a later 70's version, and that's nowhere near as good. I've started getting really geekey these days, and I've swapped out some stuff for earlier pressings. They almost always seem to sound better.
 
Your definition is my over miked. I hear too many recordings now that sound like it does when my fiddle is right next to my ear, not like it does to the rest of the room ie the audience. Singers are often nearly sat on the mike.
 
You can't say that about the Chesky records stuff since it is rarely close miced. Its just a better microphone and recording media.
 
My impression too. Isn't it the sort of stuff that sends everyone but the beardy weirdies shooting for the bar at HiFi shows? (that's a serious question, not a pop).
 
Sadly you have to buy it to listen to it.

Its not big band at all, but my point was that the Atomic Basie CD is a poor recording IMO. You can like what music you want to, I was never arguing that it was or was not good music.
 
I wouldn't know, I've never heard it. All I was saying is that the few the early 60s Columbia recordings I own have been very natural sounding and a joy to hear ... and every time I hear them I ask myself, why don't records sound like this anymore? ... as an aside to Lordsummit's comments about good recordings of the time.

You do get to listen to a bit of one track ... it does sound a bit "Manilow's Backing Band" y'know.
 
Tenson said:

Its not big band at all, but my point was that the Atomic Basie CD is a poor recording IMO. You can like what music you want to, I was never arguing that it was or was not good music.
Click to expand...

But previously on ZG

Poor recordings and boring music
Click to expand...

:p

seriously I still find it hard to believe that you don't like the sound of late 50's early 60's recordings, some of my best sounding records are that, and some of those are mono. Simon would you reject a recording that was mono simply because it wasn't 'hi-fi'?
 
I wasn't arguing the case of boring music, I just commented that I thought it was.

If a recording was mono then I would probably not listen to it anywhere near as much as if it were a good stereo recording; even if the music was really good. A good recording lets me hear more music and the two can not be separated when the only way you have to listen to the music is via the recording. So I object to the distinction between 'hi-fi' and 'music'. They need each other. In fact I like most music if it is a good enough recording, in the same way one can enjoy a lot of music live that they might not otherwise enjoy at home.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top