Niko Posted March 5, 2007 Report Share Posted March 5, 2007 Matching Mole was interesting at times, a vehicle for Robert Wyatt's whimsy to be more out front than Soft Machine became. I prefer Soft Machine, though. My thoughts exactly. I enjoyed both MM albums when they came out, but I do not rate them as highly as a number of other Canterbury albums. mine, too; maybe even closer to Soft Machine Vol 2 than to the Wyatt Solo stuff i know, liked it but haven't listened in a while Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felser Posted March 5, 2007 Report Share Posted March 5, 2007 My thoughts exactly. I enjoyed both MM albums when they came out, but I do not rate them as highly as a number of other Canterbury albums. Agreed there. The Caravan albums up through 'Cunning Stunts' have some amazing tracks on them. mine, too; maybe even closer to Soft Machine Vol 2 than to the Wyatt Solo stuff i know, liked it but haven't listened in a while Totally agree. Wyatt's solo stuff didn't have the instrumental approach that the first two Soft Machine albums did, and those two albums (and the great "Moon In June" on 'Third') gave Wyatt an opportunity to express himself which he lost afterwards when they became strictly a (great, unique) jazz fusion group. The MM albums, while different than Soft Machine, gave room for the soloists in ways the Wyatt solo albums didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Berger Posted March 5, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2007 My thoughts exactly. I enjoyed both MM albums when they came out, but I do not rate them as highly as a number of other Canterbury albums. Agreed there. The Caravan albums up through 'Cunning Stunts' have some amazing tracks on them. I only have two Caravan albums. One of them (In the Land of the Grey and Pink) is excellent, but I am less excited about the other (For Girls Who Grow Plump in the Night). Who came up with those album titles? One of my favorite Canterbury albums is the first Hatfield and the North album. The second one (The Rotters' Club) isn't quite as good. I used to love National Health but I recently listened to their albums and didn't like them nearly as much. Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA Russell Posted March 5, 2007 Report Share Posted March 5, 2007 Guy, we're on the same page! Since you like Grey and Pink, their third album, I recommend their second album If I could Do It All Over Again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogerF Posted March 6, 2007 Report Share Posted March 6, 2007 (edited) Guy, we're on the same page! Since you like Grey and Pink, their third album, I recommend their second album If I could Do It All Over Again. Yes I recommend this 2nd Caravan album too. However, and back to the original topic.... I bought the remastered Softs Third album and although it is sonically different to previous CD releases, and also has better packaging and of course the live bonus tracks at the Royal Albert Hall, I can't help wondering just how the original Third album was recorded. The sound, even remastered from the original tapes is so poor - relatively speaking to today's recordings - that it sounds like it could have been recorded on a cassette player although it obviously wasn't. What I really want to know is why. Is it that the original master tape has been allowed to degrade to a point of no return? I'm sure other material from that time period from the CBS / Columbia vaults wasn't ever allowed to degenerate like that, eg Dylan. Maybe it's because Soft Machine was a hybrid jazz-rock group and unclassifiable it went into the miscellaneous vaults. Judging by the length of time it has taken for Third to be remastered (35 years) this might be the case. I would be very interested to learn if any of the other Softs remastered CDs are an improvement. I know I was disappointed when I purchased the CD of Softs Six several years ago. Very poor sound. I hope that was at least has been improved as it made Jazz album of the year in the Melody Maker about 30-odd years ago. Edited March 6, 2007 by RogerF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert h. Posted March 12, 2007 Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 Guy, we're on the same page! Since you like Grey and Pink, their third album, I recommend their second album If I could Do It All Over Again. Yes I recommend this 2nd Caravan album too. However, and back to the original topic.... I bought the remastered Softs Third album and although it is sonically different to previous CD releases, and also has better packaging and of course the live bonus tracks at the Royal Albert Hall, I can't help wondering just how the original Third album was recorded. The sound, even remastered from the original tapes is so poor - relatively speaking to today's recordings - that it sounds like it could have been recorded on a cassette player although it obviously wasn't. What I really want to know is why. Is it that the original master tape has been allowed to degrade to a point of no return? I'm sure other material from that time period from the CBS / Columbia vaults wasn't ever allowed to degenerate like that, eg Dylan. Maybe it's because Soft Machine was a hybrid jazz-rock group and unclassifiable it went into the miscellaneous vaults. Judging by the length of time it has taken for Third to be remastered (35 years) this might be the case. I would be very interested to learn if any of the other Softs remastered CDs are an improvement. I know I was disappointed when I purchased the CD of Softs Six several years ago. Very poor sound. I hope that was at least has been improved as it made Jazz album of the year in the Melody Maker about 30-odd years ago. It has been known for many years that the master tapes to Third are lost, only poor later generation copies are around - and the recording was pretty crappy to start with. As to the others, I haven't heard, but the Japanese DSD versions from last year were excellent, so I doubt these could be worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felser Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 It has been known for many years that the master tapes to Third are lost, only poor later generation copies are around - and the recording was pretty crappy to start with. As to the others, I haven't heard, but the Japanese DSD versions from last year were excellent, so I doubt these could be worse. I just got them, have only listened all the way through on Fourth, which sounds wonderful, a stunning upgrade. I took a quick listen on Third, and it still doesn't sound very good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felser Posted March 19, 2007 Report Share Posted March 19, 2007 I just got them, have only listened all the way through on Fourth, which sounds wonderful, a stunning upgrade. I took a quick listen on Third, and it still doesn't sound very good. 'Third' still sounds really bad, and the bonus CD of BBC cuts (originally available as a separate CD. 'Live at the Proms') sound even worse. On the other hand, you get 3 LP's worth of great music, plus wonderful notes and photos for $10. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA Russell Posted March 19, 2007 Report Share Posted March 19, 2007 Felser, I'll be interested to hear your opinions of 5, Six and Seven if you got them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felser Posted March 19, 2007 Report Share Posted March 19, 2007 Felser, I'll be interested to hear your opinions of 5, Six and Seven if you got them. I have Six on now and it sounds great - the live stuff especially is night and day from the previous releases of this. Will play Seven next. Deep Discount CD messed up and didn't send me 5, so I won't get it for awhile, but will report through how it sounds when I do. BTW, re: Six - has there ever been a more purely exciting piece of music than "Stanley Stamps Gibbon Album"? (rhetorical question, folks) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felser Posted March 19, 2007 Report Share Posted March 19, 2007 Felser, I'll be interested to hear your opinions of 5, Six and Seven if you got them. I have Six on now and it sounds great - the live stuff especially is night and day from the previous releases of this. Will play Seven next. Deep Discount CD messed up and didn't send me 5, so I won't get it for awhile, but will report through how it sounds when I do. BTW, re: Six - has there ever been a more purely exciting piece of music than "Stanley Stamps Gibbon Album"? (rhetorical question, folks) Seven sounds pretty great too, big upgrade. Four is the most stunning to me, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Wood Posted March 26, 2007 Report Share Posted March 26, 2007 I agree with felser. Three sounds better than a previous cd release I had, but still sounds like the high ends have been cut off -- like CEDAR remastering. Four sounds fantastic. 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.