AllenLowe

Beware: Acrobat is using CDRs only these days.

yeah, I usually buy used on these labels because it is less likely to be a CDR. Frog has been using CDR's too; also Acrobat, which is doing all kinds of Chess and Savoy reissues. When I do get a CDR, I always return it.

that I want.

thanks, didn't know that that was how it emerged.

actually I do get OP. I just don't like it. But I understand your point. by the way I love Kenton, but his daughter's allegations about sexual abuse are more than a little bit troubling.

Joe, I never said my taste was better than theirs. But if I think I am right, I say so. I mean, would you be bothered if someone said Russ Meyer was the equal as a director to Orson Wells? You wouldn't question their taste? If you are casting a movie, would you cast someone who you thought was the worst for the job, if that actor was popular? more likely you would let your own taste supersede popular opinion, if you thought it was best for the film. as for the analogy.....millions of people got great pleasure from being able to vote for a candidate whom they thought was revolutionary....who just happened to be a guy with orange hair. Should we just let them enjoy his presidency? as for OP; I do think he is destructive for jazz. He creates a false and dangerously corrupt sense of what is art in the music. If his sound is heard as the ideal, deeper musicians suffer.

sounds like a lot of fun. I tend to enjoy gossipy jazz books. Nice antidote to publicist press releases.

also, btw, though I have had my ups and downs here, I have never seen any pressure to conform to set opinions. People feel strongly, and they express it.

thanks, Cliff. well, maybe it's because they are............bad.

Joe, I see it, really, as no different than trying to convince someone to NOT vote for a particular political candidate. Sometimes people respond to new perspectives. And I find it to be as important as politics. Personally I have, more than once, been converted by persuasive artistic arguments. Sometimes it feels like a mission.

no offense taken. I have many friends who like OP; I try to show them the True Way but, believe it or not, some continue to disagree with me. BTW I may have already mentioned it, but Bill Evans was a big admirer of Peterson.

all good points, though I will say it is a mountain I have spent many years climbing.

well, that's kinda like saying we can't say Trump is worse than Obama - because it is so subjective. Or is Van Gogh equal to Keane (those paintings with the big eyes)? We make these judgements daily, on music, television, films, theater. We rank people, places, politicians, and artists. And we should.

just an instructive thing: compare the way in which OP makes double-time runs to Bud Powell. Op is like a typewriter; it's just speed. With Powell it is as though each individual note is a thing in itself, leading to the next; there is a hollow ring to Bud's sound; much more drum-like.

I love that Lunceford box.

yes, Martial Solal expressed similar things, in an interview with Martin Williams and Dick Katz. And others thought the same, I am sure.

his opinions on Monk are relevant I think; he remarked that Monk was a composer, not a pianist. Hence Monk's remark when Leonard Feather played an OP record on a Blindfold Test: "Where is the toilet?" (If I am remembering correctly) - During the 1970s I always asked pianists I knew what they thought of OP; one in particular did not like his playing (well known bebopper, recorded for Xanadu.....) Dick Katz also used to remark that there was a difference between technique and facility. And think of Phineas Newborn, who had every bit as much facility AND technique, but was a much deeper pianist.

I can see Larry's point about Early OP, though personally I find his playing offensive. Will check out those early Verves. And my favorite remark about OP's work (cannot remember from whom) said, basically: "What is notable about Oscar Peterson's playing is not how easy he makes everything sound, but how equally difficult."

I would like the Mary Lou Williams, 1944 and 1944-45.

oi; every time I think I am out.... let me make a correction, for those who seem to have willfully misunderstood why I withdrew; it wasn't anything Jim said, or even Scott, as dumb as he is on this stuff. I can argue all day, and have, about anything from music to politics. Disagreement, even strong admonition, does not bother me. what happened, fellas, is that the argument left the realm of respectful disagreement when Kevin compared my opinions on the relative sounds of different bit rates to the opinions of a Flat-earther. That was it, plain and simple. It was basically the equivalent of saying, "Allen's 40 years of recording and doing audio work and restoration and listening to more music than anyone on earth amounts to the equivalent of a man wearing a tin foil hat. His life's work? He might as well be that guy screaming on the corner." THAT is what disturbed me; call me wrong, call me aurally deficient, or ill advised; but have some basic respect and understand that this comes not out of some distant and deluded theorizing, but from having put in the time and the effort. As Jim has. that was it. It had nothing to do with the relative merits of the arguments, the charts or the listening rooms.

don't want to belabor this but this is really my last appearance here; I would eliminate my account if I could figure out how to (moderators, feel free). This has been great, many great friendships have been made, and this place was very good for me and my life during the lost years in Maine. And I do think Jim Alfredson is a great guy and appreciate what he has done to maintain this place. But I just don't like the disrespect, the casualness of it, etc. I have probably reciprocated in this as well, so it's time to go. I will not be looking back at this, but anyone who wants to stay in touch, my email is allenlowe5@gmail.com; website is www.allenlowe.com. Also, as always, active on Facebook.

Kevin: Bollocks, as the British say. The science of sonic proof here is WAVE FORMS and CHARTS. The reality is what it sounds like to the listener as reproduced on both pro and consumer equipment; the rest is an attempt to quantify that which cannot be quantified. and the truth is I am insulted by your lack of respect here; I have worked and recorded as a professional musician since the 1980s; have remastered over 6000 recordings, restored as many, have worked with a number of great engineers going back 30 years, have had important friendships with people like David Baker and Doug Pomeroy, and have spent hundreds of hours in professional studios, thousands of hours in my home studio, and have been on bandstands organizing sound and recording with everyone from Doc Cheatham to Julius Hemphill to David Murray. What I find insulting is NOT your disagreement but your dismissal as if I am just another schmuck weighing in with no experience or knowledge but only superstition. So screw your smiley face. When you have done 1/10 of what I have done, then we'll talk. Fuck you, really.

real world, yes. But Jim has the same, so it is interesting that we differ. But Scott, try and listen more; the grownups are talking.

well, what can I say, Jim? I have made about 15 CDs in the last ten years, and there is no question, to my ears, that the later ones, recorded at 24, sound significantly better than the earlier at 16; I am wary of a test like the one above, which is purely visual; the sound - and ambience - tells more, I do believe. Now, the first time I did a personal test, I was using a consumer 2 track machine at 16 and 24, playing saxophone with a good mic; there is no question in my mind that the improvement at 24 was startling, noticeable; and I had zero expectations, as a matter of fact I was determined to declare 24 bit to be voodoo, just to save the cash on upgrade. So that does not factor in. And look at how much better digital sounds in the last 10 years; of course there are other factors, but what I heard was a graininess that was lost and a clarity gained - and even if there are other things at work, gain stage, microphone, converter - that's really exactly the point; since 24, to my very sensitive ears, was such a dramatic improvement in consumer (and relatively primitive) terms - and MUCH more forgiving - then the medium itself must be inherently better. As for double blind, well, I can't tell the difference between one Chinese dialect and another, but that doesn't mean they sound the same. Same with blind tests, if I am not the one being tested, it doesn't convince me. And a lot of people thought Hillary and Trump were the same; they could not tell the difference, either.