Ellington Complete Newport56 Worth Upgradding?

[Jazztropic]

I have the single cd original release from some years back.Will the 2 cd complete set really give me anymore of the concert or just alot of introductions?Not sure if it is worth buying the newer 2 cd set.

Thanks for your opinions

[felser]

I have the single cd original release from some years back.Will the 2 cd complete set really give me anymore of the concert or just alot of introductions?Not sure if it is worth buying the newer 2 cd set.

Thanks for your opinions

Robert, it will give you all of the actual concert rather than (actually, along with) some of the cuts which were rerecorded the next few days, greatly updated sound, and fascinating notes (which explain, among other things, about the rerecordings). This is seminal music - go for the upgrade.

JF

[jazzbo]

Mr. Felser is pointing you in the right direction. . GO!

Hard to believe that concert was fifty years ago this month!

[Kevin Bresnahan]

This is one instance where modern-day digital did some good. They merged two mono recordings into stereo with incredible results. I highly recommend this.

Unfortunately, there are some annoyances on this two CD set, like those "pause tracks", but the sound, when it's coming out of your speakers is heaven-sent. Wait to you hear Gonsalves' solo... it's actually on mike.

[mikeweil]

Go for it!!!!!!!!!

Edited July 11, 2006 by mikeweil

[Big Al]

There are a lot of positives as well as negatives.

The positives:

Being able to fully hear Paul Gonsalves epic solo!

The fantastic sound makes you feel like you are right there in front of the bandstand

You get to hear the whole concert!

The negatives:

Phil Schapp’s revisionist history in his self-serving liner notes

Waaaaaay too much extraneous stuff, like the three minute announcement from the pastor

The constant switch from stereo to mono within songs, and then back to stereo again.

In my own perfect world, this would’ve been released as a single-disc, starting with the Newport Suite and going out from there, leaving out the studio re-recording, and mastered from both sets of tapes into a continuous mono recording. But that’s the nice thing about the set as it is: you can make that disc for yourself! (I did!)

I would also ditch Schapp’s liner notes in a heartbeat!

[Christiern]

This is yet another reissue botched by Schaap. Big Al's reasons (the negatives) for avoiding this release of the concert are valid. I made no attempt to replace my copy when it was stolen.

Edited July 11, 2006 by Christiern

[mikeweil]

Yes, but the sound on that historic Gonsalves feature is worth any effort to avoid reading those notes .....

[skeith]

Yes, but the sound on that historic Gonsalves feature is worth any effort to avoid reading those notes .....

Absolutely correct!!!

[Guy Berger]

The negatives:

Phil Schapp’s revisionist history in his self-serving liner notes

Explain.

Waaaaaay too much extraneous stuff, like the three minute announcement from the pastor

It's part of the atmosphere. If they'd cut out music to put it in, I'd be with you. Otherwise, program it out if you want.

The constant switch from stereo to mono within songs, and then back to stereo again.

I've never noticed!

Guy

[Kevin Bresnahan]

Who reads liner notes? Maybe every now & then, but usually I just put the disc in the player and judge the music on my own. I don't need a liner note writer to decide if I should like a date or not.

I think anyone who avoids this reissue because they don't like the producer is cheating themselves out of some great music in much better sound than any other version ever issued. If you don't have this version, the version you have sounds inferior. If the extra stuff bugs you, do like Big Al and make a CD-R of just the concert recordings.

Edited July 11, 2006 by Kevin Bresnahan

[Big Al]

The negatives:

Phil Schapp’s revisionist history in his self-serving liner notes

Explain.

Among other things, and possibly the most egregious, is the claim Schapp makes where he says Jo Jones had absolutely NOTHING to do with the band's performance. I mean, he damn near goes so far as to say that George Avakian, who was there, didn't have a clue as to what he was talking about in his own original liner notes!

But again, the music and its passion and importance far outweigh the negatives of Schapp's pitiful meanderings.

Edited July 11, 2006 by Big Al

[Big Al]

The constant switch from stereo to mono within songs, and then back to stereo again.

I've never noticed!

Guy

Two places I can think of:

1. Diminuendo & Crescendo is constantly jumping back & forth between mono and stereo

2. Right as Hodges' solo starts in "I Got it Bad," it switches to mono, and I forget where it comes back to stereo.

[Guy Berger]

The negatives:

Phil Schapp’s revisionist history in his self-serving liner notes

Explain.

Among other things, and possibly the most egregious, is the claim Schapp makes where he says Jo Jones had absolutely NOTHING to do with the band's performance. I mean, he damn near goes so far as to say that George Avakian, who was there, didn't have a clue as to what he was talking about in his own original liner notes!

Though I obviously wasn't there, it did seem to me that Avakian's story inflated Jones's supposed importance to the performance at the expense of the musicians actually onstage, and that Schaap was setting the record straight. I'll have to read it again.

Guy

[desertblues]

The bottom line: this is one reissue where the completeness and sound quality far exceeds what has gone before. I say get it - you won't regret it.

[Christiern]

Guy: Though I obviously wasn't there, it did seem to me that Avakian's story inflated Jones's supposed importance to the performance at the expense of the musicians actually onstage, and that Schaap was setting the record straight. I'll have to read it again.

When you read it again, consider this:

• Schaap has a history of twisting the truth
  
• George Avakian has no such history
  
• Schaap wasn't there
  
• George was there
  
• Duke was also there
  
• Duke gives the credit to Jo Jones
  

Sorry, Guy, but it sounds very much like you want to prove Schaap right. The odds are against that.

[Big Al]

When you read it again, consider this:

• Schaap has a history of twisting the truth
  
• George Avakian has no such history
  
• Schaap wasn't there
  
• George was there
  
• Duke was also there
  
• Duke gives the credit to Jo Jones
  

In his autobiography, no less.

[Claude]

They merged two mono recordings into stereo with incredible results.

I think the idea is rubbish. You can't merge two mono recordings (made with two different mono microphones placed independently from each other and recorded with two different tape machines) into realistic stereo. The end result doesn't sound bad, but it doesn't have a natural soundstage, just a weird spacey effect, with intruments often floating around. They should have stuck to plain mono.

Nevertheless, despite the strange concept, the sound is ok, and the added music is essential.

[Guy Berger]

When you read it again, consider this:

• Schaap has a history of twisting the truth
  
• George Avakian has no such history
  
• Schaap wasn't there
  
• George was there
  
• Duke was also there
  
• Duke gives the credit to Jo Jones
  

In his autobiography, no less.

<shrug>

I guess I can't argue with Duke. But the argument that (Avakian's own words) Jones was "quite possibly the person most responsible for this explosive performance" when all the guy did was egg on the band nevertheless seems quite strange to me.

<shrug again>

Guy

[Big Al]

Nevertheless, despite the strange concept, the sound is ok, and the added music is essential.

True. When it works, which is quite often, it's a wonder to behold. When it doesn't, and ESPECIALLY when it's within the same song, the effect is rather off-putting. Listening to it right now, and really, it doesn't happen too often--at least, not enough to keep you from upgrading.

[mikeweil]

They merged two mono recordings into stereo with incredible results.

I think the idea is rubbish. You can't merge two mono recordings (made with two different mono microphones placed independently from each other and recorded with two different tape machines) into realistic stereo. The end result doesn't sound bad, but it doesn't have a natural soundstage, just a weird spacey effect, with intruments often floating around. They should have stuck to plain mono.

Nevertheless, despite the strange concept, the sound is ok, and the added music is essential.

The sound is okay beacuse the simplest concept of stereo recording - two microphones placed close to each other, like the human ears - is not so far from what was used on the stage on that event. The soundstage sounds pretty natural, to these ears.

Anyway - the old record was strange sounding - the new has air around the whole stage. I feel like I am there when I put on the new CD - that never happened to me with the LP.

[Kalo]

I say, go for the upgrade. It's a historical document, and just because a self-aggrandizing editor (Schaap) got his mitts on it doesn't mitigate its importance. At least he erred on the side of including too much.

As far as I'm concerned Jo Jones can never get too much credit for anything...

I'm pulling this out to listen to next!

[BruceH]

Personally, I find the liner notes just frigging confusing! But I'm glad I've got it.

[JSngry]

...the argument that (Avakian's own words) Jones was "quite possibly the person most responsible for this explosive performance" when all the guy did was egg on the band nevertheless seems quite strange to me.

Quite plausible, actually. You'd be amazed at the difference it can make to have a peer, especially one you hold in high esteem, "egging you on" from somewhere.