skeith

I say keep the Politics Forum - just rename it the "Liberalissimo Forum" - that's spanish for very liberal (right EKE BBB?)

Sounds a bit less veiled to me and that presentation is a bit more three dimensional as opposed to flat. I feel like row 3 as opposed to row 20 so to speak. It's subtle but I hear it. Also some of the instruments tone is just a bit more full and real to me.

Well I can certainly hear differences and I think the new ones are an improvement. whether you think so can depend on your stereo system and your tastes.

I did not like and much prefer his work with the Paul Motion Trio. This one just screams " I can be eclectic and mix all kinds of musics" I don't think all kinds of musics mix, but if you do, you might like it.

Happy Birthday Wesbed!

I've only heard a bit of Johnny Smith, but I am not sure I understand your post. Are you saying that the tone or sound of of most Jazz guitar was worse in the 50's thanks to Johnny Smith or worse today as Allen is saying? Am I correct in assuming the Sweet Little Sixteen you reference is the guitar of Chuck Berry?

Leaves me cold, there are so many superior Jim Hall cds to this one.

I love Mercedes Sosa, and now Brownie will say that he thinks I don't understand a word of it.

Well Moose, Here's my suggestion, listen to John McLaughlin's electric guitar from his Miles period and then listen to "After the Rain" under his own name or other cds he has made in the last decade, compare the tone of the guitar, which sounds more like a real guitar to you or which tone do you prefer? compare the tone on John Scofield's cd "Time on My Hands" or some other cd from that period to your Wes Montgomery cds, I think you will hear a big difference, as to what you like better, I guess it will just be personal preference. I am saying that since electric guitarists can add so many tone altering devices it can seriously change the sound of the instrument.

Well that's how I felt about it too and I agree with it - no gratuity necessary. It's too bad everyone is so ticked off at one another.

Agreed Moose, I want musicians to sound like themselves and I would never suggest copying another's phrasing, attack, pet licks, etc. I was merely referring to the tone of a guitar and some are more synthetic than others and I just prefer one which is closer to how a guitar actually sounds. And I do think electric guitarists who play hollow body guitars have an advantage there. It's just a preference and I would not say it is not jazz. It's for the same reason I don't like sythesizers and while I enjoy many recordings with electric piano, I would in most cases prefer an acoustic piano. I am not so restrictive in my tastes on electric guitarists, I hope, and I like McLaughlin as I said, Abercrombie, and hell I like Frisell amongst many others.

Well Moose, I wish more guitarists sounded like Wes, who always sounded like a real guitar. today most of the jazz guitarists have adopted the tone that John Scofield had around 1990 (maybe he still has it I don't know) it is a sort of fuzzy, murky, kind of tone that buzzes and I can't hear much of the real guitar. Now, it worked for him and I even like some of his stuff, but Christ everybody went that way and I like another sound out of a guitar.

Ok, I just got this and it is always dangerous to put first impressions when listening to Hill but here goes: I have listened to discs 1 and 2. Generally I like the set so far, but with a few quibbles. First of all, I don't think the sound is as great as a lot of the Blue Note sessions engineered by RVG are and I don't know where the blame is - the sound has the treble a bit rolled off it seems I don't hear much air between the instruments if you know what I mean - I don't hear the room, so to speak. But I wouldn't call the sound bad, just not as good as a number of other sessions. The strings sessions I was previously familiar with since I owned the ONE FOR ONE twofer LP. Now the strings don't bother me but I find the harmonies so static and sort of similar that I find my attention drifting ... the tunes are nice grooves and all but not riveting. I find, on the other hand, at least on an initial listen, the so called "Chained" session to be very interesting. On Disc 1, tunes like "Without Malice" evidence great writing and I enjoy them. Other tunes make me wince in that they seem a bit cliche and sophomoric. Generallly the playing is great, but I found Pat Patrick's alto solo on Ocho Rios (first version) did nothing for me and sounded bad. Generally, I am giving it thumbs up and definitely recommend it to Hill fans.

Jeez, I thought Allen' s comments made sense because I read it to mean that since Metheny apparently thinks the instrument itself is irrelevant , in this case a guitar, then he is going to care less about whether the guitar actually sounds like a guitar and I took it that since Allen thought a lot of musicians share Metheny's attitude, then a lot of guitarists, would also care less - so the result is you have a lot of guitarists playing guitars that don't sound like guitars-and hence it is logical to hate the sound of most jazz guitar. Since the electric guitar is infinitely malleable in its sound - many don't sound like the sound I like on guitars anyway. Am I reading you right, Allen?

Maybe I understand this discussion of guitar tone. I used to love McLaughlin's tone on Miles stuff and Mahavishnu and other earlier stuff, but around the time After the Rain came out and since then I find his tone to sound synthetic and generic and I wish he would go back to that earlier tone and frankly a lot of jazz guitarists today sound the same way.

Good call Parkertown, you are correct. Actually the Times article says it is the official live version from the recordings most of us know as "Four and More" and "My Funny Valentine" and you are quite right - it is George Coleman - so either Ratliff or Metheny wasn't paying attention and I guess I have to put myself in that category too.

I am not a Metheny fan but I really enjoyed this interview, so although Ratliff says some stuff that I have no idea what he is talking about (such as improvisors being "masters of certainty" who "make things up on the spot" - seems a bit contradictory) this is a great interview - kudos to him.

Price reduced to $18.00

Yeah, I am inclined to agree, the band seems more on fire in the tracks you describe and in "the Riot Act" where I think Frisell really cuts loose and uses some effects. The melodies seems stronger on these tunes too compared to those on the first half of the cd. However, I love the first tune and the melody is so slight I am not even sure it's there. But I am really enjoyed this cd and was happy to see in Jazzmatazz that Trioism is set to be released in the futre.

It's the 80's domestic release. They want $15 and I got nothing to do with this - it's just a courtesy to those of you looking for it.

Well sound quality is a very personal thing. I like the sound of the new domestic one better and that is why I am selling this one. But others have expressed, and I can understand it, a preference for the sound of JRVGs. The domestic reissue also has 2 bonus tracks at the end of the cd and it depends whether you value those or not. They are ok, I prefer the originally issued takes.

This cd is in near mint condition and comes with the OBI strip, the fourfold japanese liner notes (tunes and personnel in english) and the plastic inner sleeve - all the original stuff. I offer it at $22.00 US insured to anywhere in the US

I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Best wishes for a great birthday!!!!!!!!!

Anyone care to comment on the sound quality of True Blue in comparison to previous releases of this title?