Dmitry Posted August 10, 2004 Report Share Posted August 10, 2004 Were the 2 alternate takes not issued on the Mosaic Candid Mingus LP set that were included in the Mosaic Candid Mingus CD set issued on the stand-alone Candid cds or the only way to get them is the Mosaic CD # 3 of the Complete Candid cd Mosaic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free For All Posted August 10, 2004 Report Share Posted August 10, 2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzbo Posted August 10, 2004 Report Share Posted August 10, 2004 Off the top of my head I would say they are on the Candid cds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertrand Posted August 10, 2004 Report Share Posted August 10, 2004 (edited) They are also slated to be in the 'Mosaic fuck-ups' box scheduled for next year. Bertrand. Edited August 11, 2004 by bertrand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dmitry Posted August 10, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 10, 2004 Were the 2 alternate takes not issued on the Mosaic Candid Mingus LP set that were included in the Mosaic Candid Mingus CD set issued on the stand-alone Candid cds or the only way to get them is the Mosaic CD # 3 of the Complete Candid cd Mosaic? This has got to be the ugliest, least cohesive sentence I've ever read on this board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzbo Posted August 11, 2004 Report Share Posted August 11, 2004 Those damned paint fumes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJ Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 I just wanted to put in a very strong positive plug for the LP set, despite the omission of the 2 tracks as discussed above. First, in defense of Mosaic, these were apparently not able to be located at the time of the LP set's production...they were later found on a reel that had been labeled as containing only Cal Massey's sole leader date for Candid. So hard to fault Cuscuna/Mosaic for that, and they did after all "make it right" with the later CD edition. More importantly - the Mosaic LP set sounds amazing. I had the Candid reissue from 2000 of CHARLES MINGUS PRESENTS CHARLES MINGUS and even though it was slightly cleaned up from an earlier Candid CD reissue, it still sounds like it's from some horrid 12th generation source, definitely not from the original master. While these were never remarkably good recordings, the difference is staggering...cleaner, crisper on the LP, and you hear things you could never have heard before. Given the absolutely top flight musical quality of this session and its historical importance, it is so nice to be able to hear it with this level of sonics. I should say I haven't heard the Mosaic CD version of this set, but given the era and my prior experience with earlier Mosaic LP versus CD sonics, I'm guessing it's no comparison, with the LPs coming out on top. Also, compared to piecing this together via crappy Candid reissues, the Mosaic booklet is very informative and well-done. I got my copy on Ebay for about $120 with shipping etc. More (about $30) per LP than I usually like to pay but it was really a bargain given all I've mentioned. I'm sure if you hold out you can get a slightly better deal, I do see this set up for auction pretty frequently (in fact one was on the block right after the one I got and it never met the seller's reserve which I'd guess would be about $80-100) so it didn't sell. One issue: the LP set booklet is not clear on whether mono or stereo masters were used for MINGUS PRESENTS...I've heard that mono sources were used (original session tapes, thus better sound quality) but if so this is mono with more "spread" between instruments than I'm used to. Would be interested if anyone can clarify this issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Posted January 15, 2005 Report Share Posted January 15, 2005 They are also slated to be in the 'Mosaic fuck-ups' box scheduled for next year. Bertrand. Is there such a box to be or are you just kiddin' around? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alankin Posted January 16, 2005 Report Share Posted January 16, 2005 Those damned paint fumes! Novacaine spill? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alankin Posted January 16, 2005 Report Share Posted January 16, 2005 They are also slated to be in the 'Mosaic fuck-ups' box scheduled for next year. Bertrand. Is there such a box to be or are you just kiddin' around? The first Mosaic Nonselect set! B-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolff Posted January 16, 2005 Report Share Posted January 16, 2005 (edited) More importantly - the Mosaic LP set sounds amazing. While these were never remarkably good recordings, I've thought the sound on most of thiis set amazing(or at least very, very good) for years. I've mentioned it a few times, but you are first to post a similar feeling. I'd guess the recodings were good to begin with. The 'Mingus Presents' sides sure sound naturally stereo to my ears. Never heard of mono tapes being used for these sides. Edited January 16, 2005 by wolff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJ Posted January 16, 2005 Report Share Posted January 16, 2005 That's my impression too wolff - stereo, not mono. Yes, splendid sound, although what I was getting at was that it's not a very polished, glitzy type of studio sound. It's almost anti-polished, very true almost to the point of being unflattering at times. However, that doesn't always have to be read as a negative. Definitely I agree that they captured a very natural room sound. Dannie Richmond's drums and Mingus' bass in particular are simply amazing...as life like as any capturing of those instruments I've heard. However I still find the horns to be a little flat-sounding still, even though they are MILES better here than on the CDs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartyJazz Posted January 16, 2005 Report Share Posted January 16, 2005 I've had the Mingus Mosaic box set of LPs for many years as it was among the very first issues by Mosaic. This discussion makes me want to put the LPS on my turntable again as I have only been listening to CD-R copies of the Mosaic Mingus CD box that a friend made for me some time ago. The convenience and programmability of CDs are the reason that so many of my LPs have languished on shelves for a long, long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidewinder Posted January 16, 2005 Report Share Posted January 16, 2005 Interesting discussion about this LP set. I'm on a Mingus kick at the moment so will pull the LPs down a bit later and have a listen. Both of the Mingus Mosaics are great ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzbo Posted January 16, 2005 Report Share Posted January 16, 2005 I'm pretty certain that the Mingus Presents sessions is in MONO on the cd box set, just listened to half of it. . . . Sounds great, I agree about the very natural sound, I'm sure the lp set slays the cds but the cds are no slouch, very very good sound for digital of its time frame! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolff Posted January 16, 2005 Report Share Posted January 16, 2005 (edited) I'm pretty certain that the Mingus Presents sessions is in MONO on the cd box set, just listened to half of it. . . . Sounds great, I agree about the very natural sound Hmmm??? I wonder what the deal is. They found mono tapes(with the 2 alts) after the LP set was issued? Maybe, someone had a different reaction to the LP's stereo sound and opted for the mono for the CD's???? Regardless, I'm more than happy with what I have. Edited January 16, 2005 by wolff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJ Posted January 16, 2005 Report Share Posted January 16, 2005 I would think if they had used mono masters it would be clearly indicated in the LP booklet. But it's not. They only list stereo matrix numbers in the discography, and then simply say at the bottom that to get mono matrix numbers for any of these, Candid replaced an 8 at the start of the matrix number with a 9 (or something like that...you get the idea, even though I may have the digits reversed). There is no mention of any of the music coming from mono transfers. Again, if the CHARLES MINGUS PRESENTS...stuff in this box is mono, it's the most stereo-ish mono I've ever come across. There is a lot of spread among the instruments, it just doesn't seem plausible this could be mono (which I often like a lot, but it's never sounded like this to me). Ultimately, I don't care - it sounds great! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nessa Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 What a wonderful example of the "golden ears" on the list. I might come back later to see what's discussed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolff Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 What a wonderful example of the "golden ears" on the list. I might come back later to see what's discussed. Great example of another lame ass post by Nessa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nessa Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJ Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 I won't wade into this at a personal level, despite the obvious attempt to bait me into doing so. Call me lame as much as you want if I turn out to be wrong, but I am confident that I have quite good ears and that's exactly why I'm questioning the conventional wisdom about this supposedly being a mono remastering. It sounds obviously to be stereo to me - no matter what has been said. How could it possibly be mono when there are some horns whose sound is eminating from one speaker but not in the other? Seems like pretty clearcut evidence - but I was just trying to be nice so as not to embarrass people who at some point may have posted otherwise. I'm sure wolff was doing the same. Not everybody has the same tact and consideration, clearly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron S Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 I won't wade into this at a personal level, despite the obvious attempt to bait me into doing so. Call me lame as much as you want if I turn out to be wrong, but I am confident that I have quite good ears and that's exactly why I'm questioning the conventional wisdom about this supposedly being a mono remastering. It sounds obviously to be stereo to me - no matter what has been said. How could it possibly be mono when there are some horns whose sound is eminating from one speaker but not in the other? Seems like pretty clearcut evidence - but I was just trying to be nice so as not to embarrass people who at some point may have posted otherwise. I'm sure wolff was doing the same. Not everybody has the same tact and consideration, clearly. I'm no audio expert, and if my ears are golden they're probably about 10 karat, but: is it possible that the EQ was played with in each channel during remastering from a mono source to create so-called "simulated stereo"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJ Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 Possible, but given that we're talking Mosaic, unlikely - that's the type of tweaking that they routinely "undo" by going back to original masters. So I doubt it. I just listened to a few tracks again. My LP set is stereo, no question about it - often you can hear a particular instrument in both speakers but there are huge differences in volume and tonality and "placement" in such cases. I guess it could have been done with EQ trickery but I doubt it...seems far more likely that it's a stereo mix and you're just hearing the natural placement of sounds at different points in the room. In doing some Web searches, the only time I've seen mention of "mono" attached to this set is in reference to the CD version, which as we know also added a couple of missing alternates. So it's definitely possible there could be a difference in terms of source tapes being mono or stereo between these recordings, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolff Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 but: is it possible that the EQ was played with in each channel during remastering from a mono source to create so-called "simulated stereo"? Could be, I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron S Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 I don't have these sets, so I'm flying blind here, but is it possible that for the particular tracks under discussion Mosaic did not have access to the original mono studio masters? It could be that they had to use a subsequent generation tape that had been EQ-adjusted. I discovered an "issue" on one of the CD's of the "Complete Pablo Art Tatum Group Masterpieces," where one of the channels of a mono recording dropped to lower volume for a few seconds and then returned. I called Fantasy, and an engineer there listened to the track and confirmed that at some point in the mastering process someone had screwed around with the EQ in an attempt to "enhance" the sound, leading to this single-channel dropout in what should be a mono recording. I've noticed on many remastered mono recordings the sense of spatial placement you discussed, and I assume that EQ adjustments in each channel are responsible for this. At times, I've had to put on the old Sennheisers to confirm that the recording was indeed mono (those 10 karat golden ears of mine). FWIW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.