adhoc

Kevin, Which 'TOCJ' version? There are tons out there. Cheers!

Anyone ever considered that KOB might be the 'best selling jazz album of all time' because there are so many people out there who simply must have every version of this album? I mean, there aren't many albums floating around that inspire people sufficiently that they go out and purchase >5 copies of it.

Whoops, should have been: 'at the time, machines were being used to stamp 78rpms'

If you choose 'not to care', and admit to 'not wanting to buy', why are you even on this thread? Also, cover art is pretty easily accessible if you have an... oh, internet connection. Sure, the resolution may not be great, and the scans may be poor, but its not as if you're picking up stone mint originals at the thrifts, so...

The story that's told to me is that at the time machines used to stamp 78rpms were being retrofitted to stamp LPs, and that's how the DG came about. Given the market today for Blue Note DG pressings, the supreme irony is that Plastylite was apparently a 'cheapo' pressing plant.

I've got both "Replica" and "ordinary" King issues of Herbie Hancock's 'Maiden Voyage', and while it was some time since I compared them I don't think the difference is that great between the two. So personally I don't worry that much if original tapes were used or not as long as the result is good - or even great - sound. Interesting information, though. Where did you learn this? I was told that by a record seller who got that information directly from Michael Cuscuna - now before you discount this information based on that, this seller was actually a specialist in classical music, and only an enthusiast (and not a dealer) for jazz records. FWIW, my copy of Horace Silver - Blowin' the Blues Away on the King "Replica" series actually blows away the original issue!! Dead silent surfaces, and it just sounds so much like the original, only a little better somehow - somehow it has a little more 'presence'. Who'da thunk it? WRT your experience, I would tend to agree with you - Maiden Voyage sounds particularly good on the 'standard' King issue to my ears. I can see how it might be difficult to top. Just curious - is yours the GXK- or GXF- issue? Mine's the GXF- one.

FWIW, SH may be wrong - King Records apparently did have access to some original master tapes for some albums for their issues - the ones in their "Blue Note Masterpiece Special Replica 15" series. These came with big silver obis and were immaculate replicas of the original issues, differing only in their matrix numbers - vinyl weight, label material, cover material, catalogue numbers were all identical.

Wow. Lots of bitching and moaning on this thread. Lots of bullshit too. 1. So masters are for keeping and not using now. Uh-huh. So much for it's 'all about the music', huh? If it's a job worth doing, it's a job worth doing right and AFAIK that's what SH thinks he's doing. Comments by people on thread who have (gasp) - ACTUALLY HEARD THE 45RPM ISSUES - seem to support SH's 'vision' of how these albums should sound. Think about how similar adopting this ridiculous stance is to people who pay mucho $$$ for LPs, only to NEVER PLAY THEM. Why? Because they're 'historical artifacts, of course'! Y'know - 'collector items'! Let's completely ignore their ORIGINAL function, their PURPOSE FOR EXISTING! 2. If these 45rpm issues are the method by which new people get introduced to jazz, isn't that a good thing? Judging by the way some posters here talk, it would seem that the only Organissimo-approved 'right' way to get into jazz is through A. live performances (which so many of us do not have access to), or B. via a crappy sounding recording. So what if their first introduction to jazz is via an 'audiophile' release? What, that route isn't 'authentic' enough? We all want more people to appreciate jazz, but we only want them to 'find' their way into the genre in a way that we approve of, before we accept them into our 'club'? Wow, and you wonder why interest in jazz is dwindling. It's because of arrogant prick comments like that - that assume that somehow people who care how their music sounds are incapable of 'appreciating' jazz - that account for a lot of negativity towards 'highbrow' music. 3. Read the following sentence carefully: I love the music, and want it presented in the best possible way. Does that statement contradict itself? Many people here seem to think that is a contradiction of sorts, and that people who care about the sound AUTOMATICALLY don't care about the music. Well here is some news for you: IT ISN'T. If I like a particular album, I'll look for the BEST SOUNDING version of it because I think that's better. But NOT having a good sounding version of any album ISN'T going to prevent me from purchasing, listening to, and enjoying it. See where your argument falls down? Just because you're lazier/poorer, or have a higher threshold for poor fidelity, doesn't make you any more of a 'real' jazz lover. 4. What is the purpose of almost all JAZZ recordings? [exceptions include some Bill Evans albums, etc] To accurately reflect a LIVE EXPERIENCE. This isn't Pink Floyd, this is jazz. Having the original LPs as your 'reference' for remastering makes zero sense, unless they sound like the real thing. Case in point: we all know that RVG used compression. If your ultimate aim is a faithful reproduction of a live performance, that immediately rules out ALL his LPs as 'references'. This 45rpm series doesn't use compression. See how they're 'better' already? So why shouldn't a trumpet sound like a real live trumpet? Or can a recorded trumpet only sound like the RVG trumpet on the 1st RVG pressing? Amazingly, most of the bitching here is done by people who don't have any intention to listen to these issues. Or by people who can't afford them and resent those who can. They don't own a single one, yet somehow feel qualified to pontificate on them, and to be taken seriously. And clementine's posts are just disturbing. I've gone through them a few times and I don't understand his beef with SH. Sure the guy can be a bit snarky at times and is almost certainly flawed, but aren't we all?

Thanks for that - I'm actually listening to them right now, and haven't yet reached the second half... So I suppose only the 1952 recordings will be in the Mosaic box? Hopefully this pay-to-preview thing I've done will pay off!

Hi guys, Just one (hopefully) last quick question. After looking through the track listing on the Mosaic website and referencing the 'album index' section on this webpage - http://www.mosaicrecords.com/discography.a...;copies=7%20CDs - I went out and picked up 2 CD sets: 'OP plays the Cole Porter songbook' and 'OP plays the George Gershwin songbook'. I immediately noticed that these CDs were in stereo. Given that this is a set of OP recordings made between '51 and '53, why are they in stereo? To the best of my knowledge, stereo came out in ~1957. What gives? Or is it because these CDs are on 'Verve' instead of Mercury/Clef? I guess I am showing my unfamiliarity with the OP catalog here - my 'specialty' would be more 1960s hard bop or soul-jazz type recordings. Help!

Thanks guys for your opinions thus far! Are there a lot of 'alternate takes'? Do they take up a significant proportion of the 7 CDs? Don't get me wrong - I'm all for alternate takes as well, but when I found out that my Lester Young/Count Basie set had just under 30 alternate takes for a 83 song set (i.e. >35%), well... there can be too much of a good thing I suppose.

So... any feedback on how this set sounds? I am familiar with OP's later work on MDS and Pablo, but not his 51-53 Clef/Mercury output. I'm wondering whether it'll be 'more of the same'... will it?

That's quite interesting - could you tell me more about it? I am all for good music, and if possible, good sound at the same time. Good sound, is for me, the final finishing touch, and the most relevant and proper way to "honour" an artist's work. Like how the right frame can really bring out the beauty in a piece of magnificant art - it really can make a difference. As for the issue at hand, I'll just state my beliefs here: To be dogmatic in a belief that the sepia-toned past is the absolute pinnacle of acheivement and/or cling resolutely to the obsolete (declaring for example, that "mono is best") despite there being an option with the clear potential to be far superior/realistic/true, is something that I cannot accept. Ditto when I encounter people who apply different standards to different formats - if I passed the average listener a modern CD recording that somehow sounded like a 78rpm, most people would bin it in a flash. Yes, many 78rpms sound startlingly realistic for their age, but seriously, when was the last time you heard a real piano sound like a piano recorded on a 78rpm? Or noticed that 78rpms have neither top end above 12-14k or discernible bottom end below 80Hz? I challenge anyone to find me a solo piano 78rpm that sounds as good as Thelonious Monk's Alone In San Francisco, where if you close your eyes, you can actually "see" him playing. And I wouldn't even attempt to compare 78rpm orchestral recordings to anything that came after it - the outcome would be farcical; a complete trouncing. Yes, the graininess and starkness of B&W film has its charms, but does the appeal then arise solely from the content, or does the medium play a role? Yes, 78rpms have a startlingly realistic midrange, historical significance and a full warm sound that can be very attractive, but does the appeal then arise solely from the content, or does the medium play a role? Just because you've managed to tune out the hiss/crackle/pops/ticks doesn't mean they aren't there. Falling in love with someone makes that person more beautiful to you only. Which is what I think a lot of "music lovers" have done - fallen in love with the nostalgia, pomp and circumstance of "vintage" formats, "vintage" recording techniques, etc and become blind to their shortcomings. Yes, what they did was amazing and remarkable for their time, but we have moved on to better things. I'm not saying that new automatically that new = better. All I'm saying is that "new" gives us the potential to have better sounding, more realistic recordings. Christiern wouldn't even be able to contemplate noise removal without modern technology. And that to claim old = best is just as much a fallacy as new = better. This Zenph re-performance is just that, a re-performance. While it does not replace the original recording for me, it has made me appreciate Art Tatum's work more. Like how getting hold of the design blueprints of your car helps you understand better the effort, compromises and imagination that went into it. Notes that were a blur on the original recording or even indiscernible, are now clear to me. It makes no claim to replacing the original recordings, and the PR focuses on the sound, not any perceived superiority to Tatum. To lambast people for desiring better sound ('oh, we listen to the music'), or declare this whole affair pointless is... missing the point. To lump it together with "fake stereo" and/or dismiss it out of hand as a "gimmick" or some perceived disrespect to Tatum's legacy, is to me, breathtaking idiocy and narrow-mindedness.

Quick question. When you're sitting in a concert, and close your eyes, can you tell WHERE the music is coming from? Can you tell - roughly - where the instruments are in relation to each other? Can you "hear" the hall? If the answer to any of the above is yes, you ARE listening in stereo. You have 2 ears, and live music doesn't originate from a "point source" directly right smack in front of you - you MUST be listening in stereo. Do jazz musicians stand on each other and play? No! They are spread out all over a bandstand, and the music sounds like that - SPREAD OUT. Not "point source". A well done stereo recording will always sound more better than a well done mono recording. ...which is why this statement is complete and utter BS. You're confusing things - multimiking is NOT the same as digital is NOT the same as processed is NOT the same as stereo. For every one of your "multi-track/isolated/digitally processed CDs" I can show you a Mercury or Decca STEREO that is realistic and fantastic sounding. For every one of your incredible sounding monos (I own many, btw) I can show you a terrible sounding mono. See what I'm getting at here? And another time, you miss the point. The point is - why have to "listen around", why have to "filter out", when there are better sounding versions available? If your glasses are dirty and I offer you a cleaner pair, are you going to decline it because you've grown "used" to seeing through filthy lenses? Which is also why I don't understand your constant references to those "Steve Hoffman forum" people - they seek out best sounding versions of music they already know and love. It's not as though they only listen to "good sounding" things. You almost seem to pride yourself in your "ability" to listen to poor recordings as though its something good - why?

Have any of you even been to a concert recently? Was the sound muffled, distorted or marred by pops and clicks? Did you listen in mono? Was there a crackle? Did the notes sound as though they were played through a thick curtain? Was there wow and flutter, and clumsy tape edits to boot? All this Zenph re-performance is... is a re-performance. The technology is not perfect, yes, but tell me, how can anyone - even a human - recreate Tatum's piano playing? All that has been displayed here is startling narrow-mindedness, dressed up as "devotion" to the "real deal", and almost exclusively by people who HAVE NOT HEARD THE CD and who are MERELY REACTING BADLY TO A NOVEL IDEA. Which is better? Hearing Tatum play in a horrendous recording, or hearing a computer recreate Tatum's playing in a perfect recording? Neither are "true" to him, and you all need to snap out of the fantasy that just because you persist in tolerating a poorly recorded album, that you are somehow more of a "true" jazz fan or more of a "music rather than sound" person. Sound and music are inextricably linked, and cannot be seperated - unless by people touting their own biased agendas. Poor sound can obscure the full magnitude of dazzling music, and poor music is shown for what it is in good sound. So I don't accept this "I'm really not ready to replace marvelous music with a 'marvelous engineering feat'" crap - poor sound cannot do justice to great music, and great sound can be let down by poor music.