Christiern

Yeah, let's throw in Miles and Trane, to show that we're hip. I like Obama and he gets my vote, but I wouldn't put too much faith in this being a totally honest list. The man is, after all, a politician.

Blues March?

Thanks for that article--I now remember a forgotten discussion of this at Stereo Review, a magazine I contributed to for 28 years. At Columbia (around 1970) my engineer, the late Larry Hiller, did--in a couple of cases--reintroduce slight surface noise, enough to enhance the sound but not enough to be detected as such. We used Dolby, but it did not give satisfactory results when applied as prescribed--it worked when we only used it on one channel (we transferred all the 78s using 2-channel mono styli that were designed for us). Spending 2 years on Bessie Smith's 160 sides, we jst about tried anything we could think of.

Allen is right, I certainly don't oppose new tech. In fact, I don't care what is used, voodoo dust, a lawnmower, goat milk, whatever--as long as the sound is not distorted I'm okay with it.

adhoc: "Christiern wouldn't even be able to contemplate noise removal without modern technology." Is that so? Well, here's the modern technology we used to remove pops and clicks without shortening the tape (by cutting and splicing--the old-fashioned way). It worked very well. adhoc: "And that to claim old = best is just as much a fallacy as new = better." Show me where such claims were made. This is not about old or new, it's about techniques employed to achieve the best results. BTW, I have known people who find nostalgia value in the typical extraneous sound of old recordings. I received a complaint from the late owner of Yazoo Records, Nick Perls, when he did not hear any surface noise on a Bessie Smith reissue series that I was responsible for. When I asked him if he heard an degradation in the original signal, he said that he didn't but that the recordings just didn't sound the same sans noise. I reminded him that there was no surface noise in the studio at the time of the original recording--he seemed to be mulling that one over when I left his house.

adhoc: "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?" Bad analogy, imo. If the lens in the "cleaner" pair distorts my vision, I'll take the dirty glasses. Same goes for audio work--the reason I don't like the Zenph Tatum "sound" is because it is essentially a distortion of the original--cleaner? perhaps, but obviously dickered with. adhoc: "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." I should not have generalized, but you have to admit that many of the posters clearly seem more focused on the technical rather than the musical aspects of a recording. I sense that in your post, as well. Mind you, this is not to say that these poster haven't an affinity for the music, obviously they do, but I think they often show warped priorities, as it were. adhoc: "You almost seem to pride yourself in your "'ability' to listen to poor recordings as though its something good - why?" I have never suggested that I can hear "poor" recordings are "good," but it is possible to listen and in one's mind minimize such things as surface noise. It rather depends on what one focuses on--I focus on the music. Am I against "restoration" per se? Of course not. Recently, fantastic work has been done on recordings by Bessie Smith, King Oliver, and others--I'm all for it. I and an engineer spent some 3 years working, nightly, to eliminate extraneous sounds from old Columbia recordings, and to do so without employing the established procedures (equalization, etc.). The most important thing, as we saw it, was to not alter the original signal. Even in the pre-microphone days, some engineers were able to capture music with extraordinary faithfulness, and the pressings of the day often did not do their work justice.

If I misunderstood the poster, I apologize, but I still think they were out to improve (in their mind, at least) the recording--of course I was not talking about the music. The music is, however, what motivates most people to purchase a recording (segment of the Steve Hoffman posters exempted), isn't it? I think anyone with a reasonably good ear could hear the artificiality, even if they have never heard the original recording. In other words, to me, the Zenph stands on its own as mission not accomplished. It is amazing how many ticks and pops our ears can ignore when the music behind them is good, but I guess it makes a difference if one grew up in an era when surface noise was unforgivable

You sound a bit confused. First you counter our critique of this set, then you proceed with your own criticism. The Zenph Tatum thing is a gimmick, no better than such old "enhancements" as artificial stereo, reverb, or heavy equalization. Have the Zenph people improved the Tatum recordings? I don't think so.

Last week I finally finished writing the notes for Storyville's forthcoming Blues Box. It will contain 7 CDs and 1 DVD. Artists are: Specklled Red Sunnyland Slim Roosevelt Sykes Sippie Wallace Little Brother Montgomery Big Joe Williams Sleepy John Estes Robert Pete Williams Big Bill Broonzy John Henry Barbee Memphis Slim Champion Jack Dupree Eddie Boyd Jay McShann Sonny Boy Williamson Sonny Terry and Brownie McGhee Lonnie Johnson Otis Spann All recordings stem from the 1960s, except for Broonzy, who was recorded at the Montmartre (in Copenhagen) in 1956. Some great stuff.

Of course you have, because you listen to the music. Some don't.

I guess "adhoc" can't hear the difference between mechanically generated Tatum and the real thing. There are many great recordings of Tatum that have neither pops nor clicks, so that argument is silly. The Tatum assemblies in question are horrendous. Imagine a Vermeer painted by the number--that would be the same thing and "adhoc" would probably love it.

You forgot the apostrophe in "rat's ass." Ah, shit. I mean, shoot! Here, ' have one of mine. Sorry 'bout the color, 'tis all I could spare.

Sorry Dan, I misunderstood your post. I see what you mean.

I think her talent is minimal, but I am sorry to see anybody wreck their life like this.

Dan, I see no similarity between Carlin and Andrew Dice Clay--IMHO, the latter simply did not have the intelligence that always came through in Carlin's routines.

This thread is a sad reminder that I had all the Denons--and they were stolen from me.

To my mind, Carlin had the most focused X-ray vision since Lenny Bruce, whom I was fortunate to know. Both had drug problems and I wonder if there might be a correlation. Probably not.

My favorite Carlin routine deals with The Greatest Bullshit Story Ever Told.. He truly nails it.

"Warning: mysqy_num_rows(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL result" Well, that explains everything, doesn't it? Thanks, MG

As the pants go, so goes society?

Glad you like them. Yes, Larry, my apartment is on Central Park West, facing the Triboro Bridge (East) and one block south of Duke Ellington Boulevard. This is the third south-of-the-border parade we have had this year. In my 46 years living here, I don't recall any previous ones--except the very bizarre ones my late friend, cellist Charlotte Moorman, had in the Sixties (one had her floating above the street, cello between her legs, suspended by gas-filled balloons like a Macy's Thanksgiving figure. Unlike a suspended-from-the-balcony performance she gave at Carnegie Hall, Charlotte was never naked in her parades. Wild woman, I still miss her--ah, the good old days!

I was working at my computer when music came into my apartment from the outside. I grew louder and louder, so I looked out the window... Then I went for an elevator ride to get a closer look... They were Colombians, but I don't know what they were celebrating. The music was canned but wonderful.

Looks aren't everything, Weizy. How did it sound? New wave?