brownie Posted November 20, 2006 Report Share Posted November 20, 2006 That Birdland 1950 airshot w/Navarro, Powell & Blakey is my favorite live bebop-era date. Do you have the 1953(?) Birdland broadcast w/Bird, Dizzy, Bud, Forgetwhoonbass, & "Sgt. Roy Haynes"? That's another one... Don't have it--I've got a ton of live Bird, but not that date. What's it on? (I've got a bit of Bird w/Bud at Birdland on one of the ESP 1953 discs, but that's w/Art Taylor on drums, along w/Candido--just two cuts.) Did that second Ember live-Bird set ever come out? Probably would've covered the date you're talking about... Jim obviously refers to the Birdland March 31, 1951 broadcast with Bird, Diz, Bud, Potter and Sgt. Haynes! Birdland March 31, 1951 Lofi. Himusic! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John L Posted November 20, 2006 Report Share Posted November 20, 2006 Jim obviously refers to the Birdland March 31, 1951 broadcast with Bird, Diz, Bud, Potter and Sgt. Haynes! Birdland March 31, 1951 Lofi. Himusic! 3/31/51 smokes! Jim S.'s comments about "information" versus "entertainment" are interesting. I find that the two are often very related. Some music requires getting to know before it gives high entertainment value. That includes music in very sub-standard sound. I often find that, once I get to know a great live broadcast in "challenging" sound, my brain starts to restore it to Hi Fi. I program myself to hear what is there, and not what shouldn't be there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soul Stream Posted November 20, 2006 Report Share Posted November 20, 2006 It's too bad that some of the greatest music ever made was made in eras where the quality of sound recording was very primitive. To be able to hear what Bird was laying down at the Dial sessions in modern hi-fi would be nothing short of mind blowing. Same with Armstrong and people like Lonnie Johnson, ect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fent99 Posted November 20, 2006 Report Share Posted November 20, 2006 It's too bad that some of the greatest music ever made was made in eras where the quality of sound recording was very primitive. To be able to hear what Bird was laying down at the Dial sessions in modern hi-fi would be nothing short of mind blowing. Same with Armstrong and people like Lonnie Johnson, ect. I think its a miracle that there is as much preserved as there is. While I'd love more and in better sound there is enough for a lifetimes study for me even before I move on to listen to other stuff... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
md655321 Posted November 20, 2006 Report Share Posted November 20, 2006 It's too bad that some of the greatest music ever made was made in eras where the quality of sound recording was very primitive. To be able to hear what Bird was laying down at the Dial sessions in modern hi-fi would be nothing short of mind blowing. Same with Armstrong and people like Lonnie Johnson, ect. Atleast we have some of it, and quite a bit at very passable qualities. Imagine being a hardcore Bach fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clunky Posted November 20, 2006 Report Share Posted November 20, 2006 As the years have rolled by I've got more and more out of listening to Bird. Have loads of his CDs but there's sure to room for more.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenLowe Posted November 20, 2006 Report Share Posted November 20, 2006 (edited) "To be able to hear what Bird was laying down at the Dial sessions in modern hi-fi would be nothing short of mind blowing. Same with Armstrong and people like Lonnie Johnson, ect." I disagree with this - because - 1) there's plenty of great-sounding Bird recordings - the Savoys are excellent quality, everything sounds "live" and audible - as are the Verve's - also the Carnegie Hall concert, as well as the Massey Hall - of course, don't forget the Town Hall stuff that came out - crystal clear recordings - AND, I would argue, they sound more like "real" performances than new multi-tracks recorded in isolation with artificial-sounding group spreads 2) there are plenty of great sources for early Armstrong - find the original Columbia domestic LP issues - beautiful stuff, crystal-clear; also, the Deccas were beautifully recorded - real room sound, once again probably MORE accurate than current recordings - 3) For Lonnie Johnson, pick up the Sony Legacy stuff issued 10-15 years ago (from the 1920s) . Well recorded, nicely re-mastered, perfectly clear and clean - Edited November 20, 2006 by AllenLowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenLowe Posted November 20, 2006 Report Share Posted November 20, 2006 let me add that all of the above sounds, to me, much closer to performances I have heard in the flesh than about 99% of current CD-issued new recordings - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danasgoodstuff Posted November 20, 2006 Report Share Posted November 20, 2006 Yes 3/31/51 w/ Bird, Bud, Diz, Haynes 'n what'shisname is absolutely the shit. The only prab with saying that x,y & z recordings from back in the day sound like real live music is that real live musicis not what most contemporary listeners want from recordings, they want it to sound the way that the're used to recordings sounding, all compressed and filtered and they'll mimic that sound even in a capella man on the street performances... Weird shit, but there it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kh1958 Posted November 20, 2006 Report Share Posted November 20, 2006 On early live recordings, when it's a good recording, the rhythm section may be too faint, but often I find that the horns sound more natural than current recordings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soul Stream Posted November 20, 2006 Report Share Posted November 20, 2006 On the other side of the coin... Due to the bad early digital technology in the 80's....alot of recordings made in that era sound like utter sheot. I would say some of that music is overlooked because of it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceH Posted November 20, 2006 Report Share Posted November 20, 2006 As much as I love Lester Young, Coleman Hawkins, Hodges, Rollins, Trane, etc. to my mind, the two greatest jazz soloists were Louis Armstrong and Charlie Parker. But of course. Who would dispute this?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceH Posted November 20, 2006 Report Share Posted November 20, 2006 Bird is thee goddamn pinnacle. (We can put Duke & Monk there also, tho' i ain't gots time to explain why.) c Those would be my three choices for the pinnacle, Clem. Ellington and Monk as musical architects first and (amazing) soloists second, Parker the reverse. But there's no doubting that as a soloist, Bird burned the brightest of anyone. In fact, though I own a lot of Bird on disc, I don't listen to him as much or for as long as I should because he's so brilliant that really listening to him can be like staring into the sun. Time to pull out the discs and go burn those aural retinas again... I'd perhaps add Armstrong as another pinnacle, but yeah, Bird has burned a lot of holes in my cerebral cortex...which explains a lot.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim R Posted November 20, 2006 Report Share Posted November 20, 2006 Damn..... that's the last time I confess something so sensitive around here. Why don't I own any Bird? Goldberg hit it early on: limited time, limited resources.... OR... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al Posted November 20, 2006 Report Share Posted November 20, 2006 Damn..... that's the last time I confess something so sensitive around here. Why don't I own any Bird? Goldberg hit it early on: limited time, limited resources.... OR... Oh, THAT bird!!! Actually, that kid in the last picture looks a lot like me when I was that age. And running from a bird. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ep1str0phy Posted November 20, 2006 Report Share Posted November 20, 2006 Damn..... that's the last time I confess something so sensitive around here. Why don't I own any Bird? Goldberg hit it early on: limited time, limited resources.... OR... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nessa Posted November 21, 2006 Report Share Posted November 21, 2006 I am amazed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted November 21, 2006 Report Share Posted November 21, 2006 But are you surprised? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nessa Posted November 21, 2006 Report Share Posted November 21, 2006 But are you surprised? Guess not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul secor Posted November 21, 2006 Report Share Posted November 21, 2006 Can't understand folks having problems listening to Bird airshots, etc. I've always felt that Bird's sound came through clearly on all but the most poorly recorded material. And you have to bring something of yourself when you listen. Listening shouldn't be just a surface/background thing - though I'm guilty of that all too often. Perhaps we can't put as much into listening as the musicians put into playing, but we can do our best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al Posted November 21, 2006 Report Share Posted November 21, 2006 I am amazed. At what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenLowe Posted November 21, 2006 Report Share Posted November 21, 2006 on the sound issue - let me add that I have French RCA LPs (the Black and Whites) of the Original Memphis 5 and Thomas Morris that are absolutely clean and clear and noiseless - and recorded in the 1920s - I also have an LP of early Jug Bands and Jive recorded on Brunswick in the 1920s and 1930s - that would astound you in terms of recording quality - if we have the masters, the stuff sounds as good (or really better) than new digital recordings - because they were dependent not on acoustic modeling (aka fake reverb) but on the natural room acoustics of the place they were recording - and we won't even get into the issue of condenser microphones; I have, however, proposed legislation which would outlaw all other kind of mikes. Bad recording is the only crime for which I favor capital punishment - slow and painful, like the way they killed Mel Gibson in Braveheart - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Magnificent Goldberg Posted November 21, 2006 Report Share Posted November 21, 2006 Talk about people who don’t like to listen to music recorded “pre-hifi” as being in search of “entertainment” rather than music doesn’t seem right to me. It reminded me of a colleague in the ‘60s, who was an audio engineer and a hifi fanatic, and who described himself as a jazz fan, who once remarked to me that he’d never buy an LP with six tracks per side. I really don’t know what these people are looking for, but it certainly doesn’t seem like entertainment to me. MG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Beat Steve Posted November 21, 2006 Report Share Posted November 21, 2006 MG, if you remember the 70s you might also remember that "Quadro" fad. Stereo (to keep both ears busy) wasn't enough anymore - it had to be Quadro (as if we had four ears on our heads ) .... I remember a couple of Jazz LP's being promoted as the ultimate of all ultimates just because they offered full "Quadro" sound - and I also remember a few buddies at school went crazy about Quadro as the latest thing, and if they happened to be into Jazz they then would have had a choice of about 4 or 5 different discs. Oh well ... as long as the sound is right you apparently don't even care if the music is just run of the mill stuff. Not that I would consider any HiFi or digital-fidelity recordings to be second rate to recordings from the 78 era, but judging musical merits only from the HiFi angle is a bit ... well ... narrow-minded. Like it's been said before - nobody is forced to start getting into Bird by listening to "The Apartment Tapes" first, but among the current reissue market there should be decently sounding reissues of any 78s (even where no master tapes were available) remastered to a level to suit anybody raised on digital recording. So the fidelity argument is no longer valid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold_Z Posted November 21, 2006 Report Share Posted November 21, 2006 I'm in agreement with those of you saying that fidelity should not deter anyone from listening to great music, and, in Bird's case, there are very good sounding issues available. The Verve, Savoy and Dial material is all in available in very acceptable sound. I would caution against obtaining some of the earlier reissues (Stash, Rhino). I envy those of you that have the Spotlite issues on vinyl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
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.