Art Tatum CD Reissue - June 3rd

[Teasing the Korean]

The software could be improved. Think of how bad 80s digital recordings sounded.

[Shawn]

You know what would be cool? Take somethng like Circle's Paris Concert & make it sound like it was recorded on old 78s, that's what.

Yeah buddy.

I could do that for ya....

[Christiern]

Back in the days when I was a dj in Philly and Bill Cosby regularly called to complain about the "Mickey Mouse" or "Uncle Tom" music (Armstrong's Hot Five, Jelly's Hot Peppers, etc.) I often wondered if he really listened to the music rather than the sound. I had a wish that someone would record Cannonball's quintet on 1920s equipment so that I could either prove or disprove my notion.

[Ted O'Reilly]

I had a wish that someone would record Cannonball's quintet on 1920s equipment so that I could either prove or disprove my notion.

Didn't W. Marsalis (or maybe E. Dankworth) record something on an Edison cylinder a few years back? Did anyone hear the results?

[AllenLowe]

"and the rest of us don't have to buy it if we don't want it."

OH YES YOU DO!

or I will kill a puppy -

Edited June 11, 2008 by AllenLowe

[AllenLowe]

actually, just listened to some of the samples - sounds sorta like Dorothy what's-her-name (cripes, can't think of it) of whom Barry Harris once said to me -"weird broad - has chops like Tatum - but no taste."

[AllenLowe]

Donegan -

[Christiern]

Not impressed with what I have heard so far. I'm really not ready to replace marvelous music with a "marvelous engineering feat"--that's for the Steve Hoffman crowd. Besides, this does not sound so marvelous to me, the notes are clipped the human element has been done away with.

[Lazaro Vega]

AMG review by Ken Dryden plus sound samples of all tracks can be found here:

Piano Starts Here: Live at the Shrine/Zenph Re-Performance

I won't dismiss this release without having heard it and made a comparison with the original. I'm interested in what others who have listened to it have to say.

Listened to a few samples, and based on my memories of many other Tatum recordings, especially the well-recorded late solo Granz albums and the fantastic stuff recorded at a party at Ray Heindorf's house, the note-to-note relationships sound "off" in terms of time and attack -- too raw, abrupt, and clattery, lacking in shading/nuance.

That's true. First reaction -- it doesn't sound like Tatum but some Conlin Nancarrow doppleganger of him. Wonder what Nancarrow would do with this technology?

[Ron S]

I had a wish that someone would record Cannonball's quintet on 1920s equipment so that I could either prove or disprove my notion.

Didn't W. Marsalis (or maybe E. Dankworth) record something on an Edison cylinder a few years back? Did anyone hear the results?

Yep, it was Wynton:

Track 15

Edited June 14, 2008 by Ron S

[Christiern]

The link malfunctions.

[Ron S]

Chris, I changed it--try it again.

And then click the arrow to the left of track 15 (if you dare ).

Edited June 14, 2008 by Ron S

[chewy-chew-chew-bean-benitez]

weirdest stupidest thing ever. i wanna get that cd of the original!

[adhoc]

Have any of you even been to a concert recently?

Was the sound muffled, distorted or marred by pops and clicks? Did you listen in mono? Was there a crackle? Did the notes sound as though they were played through a thick curtain? Was there wow and flutter, and clumsy tape edits to boot?

All this Zenph re-performance is... is a re-performance. The technology is not perfect, yes, but tell me, how can anyone - even a human - recreate Tatum's piano playing?

All that has been displayed here is startling narrow-mindedness, dressed up as "devotion" to the "real deal", and almost exclusively by people who HAVE NOT HEARD THE CD and who are MERELY REACTING BADLY TO A NOVEL IDEA.

Which is better? Hearing Tatum play in a horrendous recording, or hearing a computer recreate Tatum's playing in a perfect recording? Neither are "true" to him, and you all need to snap out of the fantasy that just because you persist in tolerating a poorly recorded album, that you are somehow more of a "true" jazz fan or more of a "music rather than sound" person.

Sound and music are inextricably linked, and cannot be seperated - unless by people touting their own biased agendas. Poor sound can obscure the full magnitude of dazzling music, and poor music is shown for what it is in good sound. So I don't accept this "I'm really not ready to replace marvelous music with a 'marvelous engineering feat'" crap - poor sound cannot do justice to great music, and great sound can be let down by poor music.

Edited June 24, 2008 by adhoc

[Ken Dryden]

I wonder if anyone ever considered reissuing Piano Starts Here, retaining the sound flaws but correcting the pitch and restoring the Gershwin medley that was edited out by incorporating the missing music from Arnold Laubich's transcription disc?

That would make a better apples to apples comparison, since the various versions of Piano Starts Here were dubbed slightly too slow.

[Christiern]

I guess "adhoc" can't hear the difference between mechanically generated Tatum and the real thing. There are many great recordings of Tatum that have neither pops nor clicks, so that argument is silly. The Tatum assemblies in question are horrendous. Imagine a Vermeer painted by the number--that would be the same thing and "adhoc" would probably love it.

[captainwrong]

Funny, I've always been able to "listen around" technical shortcomings in bootleg or pre-tape era recordings.

Edited June 24, 2008 by Captain Wrong

[Christiern]

Of course you have, because you listen to the music. Some don't.

[AllenLowe]

narrow minded, adhoc? there's nothing wrong with MANY recordings of the 1940s and 1950s; as a matter of fact, if you've ever heard "live" music, you'll know that we hear more in mono than stereo, and that the sound on some of those old recordings is more faithful to "the real thing" than many a multi-track/isolated/digitally processed CD - for example - the Savoy's, the Verves. the Capitols, the Victors - try Hawkins/Tatum/Nat Cole/Bird/Bud Powell/Lester Young - beautiful sound, little surface noise, sounds like THE REAL THING -

Edited June 24, 2008 by AllenLowe

[Lazaro Vega]

And the Decca's from 1934 sound pretty good.

My comments came after hearing the re-performance. Seems like a lot of money to spend on a virtual performance. Blue Lake is playing classic pianists all week, btw. Tatum tonight and tomorrow an oft over looked influence on him, Earl Hines.

This issue of fidelity, though: have heard it for years from the early jazz crowd. "Oh, you have to come and hear our bands play this music live because it sounds so much better." To me that entirely misses the point of Johnny Dodds. Now, the Tatum thing isn't exactly the same, though, again, it doesn't sound like Tatum. There are nuances you can hear on the original recordings which identify Tatum right off the bat, and it has to do with the sound he coaxes from the piano, and you get a sense of his thinking his way through this stuff, which the re-performance does not capture. The notes are spectacular but there was more to Tatum's music, and to most of jazz, than "just the notes."

Edited June 24, 2008 by Lazaro Vega

[bluesbro]

[Hot Ptah]

I find it sad that this album is on the featured new albums rack at the end of the aisle at my Barnes and Noble, set out as one of the hot new albums to have come out recently. From the front cover packaging it is not obvious that this is a flawed recreation.

[Teasing the Korean]

Did you listen in mono?

I prefer mono, especially with LPs. The idea of stereo being some sort of an "improvement" over mono is a myth.

[clarke68]

Have any of you even been to a concert recently?

Was the sound muffled, distorted or marred by pops and clicks? Did you listen in mono? Was there a crackle? Did the notes sound as though they were played through a thick curtain? Was there wow and flutter, and clumsy tape edits to boot?

All this Zenph re-performance is... is a re-performance. The technology is not perfect, yes, but tell me, how can anyone - even a human - recreate Tatum's piano playing?

All that has been displayed here is startling narrow-mindedness, dressed up as "devotion" to the "real deal", and almost exclusively by people who HAVE NOT HEARD THE CD and who are MERELY REACTING BADLY TO A NOVEL IDEA.

I have to agree with adhoc here...blowing off this album after listening to the samples on Amazon is no different than some kid blowing off Tatum by listening to 30 sec. sound bites of the original "Piano Starts Here" and blowing it off because the sound sucks.

There are many great recordings of Tatum that have neither pops nor clicks, so that argument is silly.

This makes absolutely no sense. Sure, Tatum made some good sounding recordings, but Piano Starts Here was not one of them, and that's the album we're talking about here.

This album is what it is. It's not Tatum, and no one is pretending that it is. This is no different than Gershwin or Rachmaninov "recording" piano rolls, except now we have the technology to do it from a recording, for the thousands of artists who never sat down at a pianola. According to Amazon.com, 20% of the people buying this new Zenph thing are buying the original Piano Starts Here right along with it...Tatum's genius is getting out there, and that's a good thing. I see no reason to be dogmatic about the process.

That said...

I just got done going through both albums, alternating tracks all the way through (real Tatum's "Tiger Rag", then Zenph's; Zenph's "Sophisticated Lady", then Tatum's; etc.) and yeah, this sounds (unsurprisingly I guess) like a player piano. It's most noticeable in the left "hand"...the notes end too abruptly, giving the whole thing a subtle mechanical sound. Some passages work better than others, but some of Tatum's more swinging moments have sort of a "drum machine" kind of swing on this. It's not all bad...I found I could "blur my ears" and still enjoy the performance, not entirely unlike the way I can listen through the murk on the original and still enjoy it.

I was a bit surprised, as I really liked Zenph's Glenn Gould thing from a year or two ago. The problem with it was a bit more fundamental: Gould, like most great musicians, would alter his playing to suit the particular instrument in the particular room he was in. If he had recorded on that piano, in that hall in 1955, he wouldn't have played it that way. The album still moves me, though, perhaps because I'm less familiar with Bach than I am with jazz piano.

Since this time around Zenph was recording in the same hall Tatum played in 1933, I thought the "hall problem" would be solved. But beside Tatum being absent, there's still an issue with the instrument. I'm nothing of a piano player, but in one of the classes I took in college I was playing a waltz, and the teacher told me to use the muscles in my shoulders instead of my forearms to play one part. I couldn't believe how much difference it made in the sound...warmer, slower, but more intense. Surely a guy like Tatum knew how to play the piano with his whole body, and I doubt Yamaha's robot piano can, no matter how sophisticated the software behind it.

Still, it's an interesting effort that, I think, does more good than harm. Apparently Zenph has a robot bass & trap kit in the works as well, so if you hated this, wait until we have jazz trio re-performances!

The idea of stereo being some sort of an "improvement" over mono is a myth.

Completely disagree, but it only works if the recording is done well and your speakers are set up properly. When it's all right (and it is all right on a lot of albums), the band sounds like it's standing right in front of you, each musician in their place, spread across your room.

I've read that you can get the same effect with mono: again, the recording has to be right for it; but you have to use just one speaker.

[Christiern]

You sound a bit confused. First you counter our critique of this set, then you proceed with your own criticism. The Zenph Tatum thing is a gimmick, no better than such old "enhancements" as artificial stereo, reverb, or heavy equalization. Have the Zenph people improved the Tatum recordings? I don't think so.