Jazztropic Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felser Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzbo Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 Mr. Felser is pointing you in the right direction. . GO! Hard to believe that concert was fifty years ago this month! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Bresnahan Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeweil Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 (edited) Go for it!!!!!!!!! Edited July 11, 2006 by mikeweil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christiern Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeweil Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 Yes, but the sound on that historic Gonsalves feature is worth any effort to avoid reading those notes ..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeith Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 Yes, but the sound on that historic Gonsalves feature is worth any effort to avoid reading those notes ..... Absolutely correct!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Berger Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Bresnahan Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Berger Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desertblues Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christiern Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al Posted July 11, 2006 Report Share Posted July 11, 2006 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude Posted July 12, 2006 Report Share Posted July 12, 2006 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Berger Posted July 12, 2006 Report Share Posted July 12, 2006 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al Posted July 12, 2006 Report Share Posted July 12, 2006 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeweil Posted July 12, 2006 Report Share Posted July 12, 2006 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalo Posted July 12, 2006 Report Share Posted July 12, 2006 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceH Posted July 17, 2006 Report Share Posted July 17, 2006 Personally, I find the liner notes just frigging confusing! But I'm glad I've got it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted July 17, 2006 Report Share Posted July 17, 2006 ...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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.