Controversial Ellington CD

[miles65]

Last week the latest issue of Blue Light the magazine of DESUK arrived. It came with a CD The Expurgated Ellington. a man called Graham Colombé removed the vocals from 33 recordings by Ellington from 1928-1931. Technically it is done well. But I don't like tampering with the originals. What ever one thinks about the singers they are part of the recording.

Graham calls all singers inferior. I wouldn't call the Rhythm Boys with Bing Crosby or Chick Bullock inferior. And I quite like the singing of Irving Mills.

The CD has no label or catalog number so I don't think this CD will be made available generally.

[Rooster_Ties]

I’d still be curious to hear the results, mostly just to gage the quality and potential for the process, especially on such an older set of recordings.

(But then I’m curious about everything, to a certain extent.)

[mikeweil]

I think calling the singers inferior indicates a serious misunderstanding of the music in its original context. Abuse of technical possibilities. 

Just as severe as many early music fans in Germany that are unable to enjoy music without vocals. Never learned to listen and follow instrumental music.

[Teasing the Korean]

I am interested in how this technology can be used to improve less-than-ideal mixes.  

[mikeweil]

You cannot improve something that is not there in the original source.

[Daniel A]

I suppose that if you are able to remove vocals (or perhaps any instrument as well), you could also put them back at a different level in the mix.

Edited June 18, 2023 by Daniel A

[Teasing the Korean]

2 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

I suppose that if you are able to remove vocals (or perhaps any instrument as well), you could also put them back at a different level in the mix.

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. 

[miles65]

The vocals are cut out. Not filtered away something like that. The tracks are shorter. But the person who did this made shure there are no skips in the beat.

[Daniel A]

Oh, I see...

At least everything is in the 20th century domain, then - recording, editing technique and sound carrier.

[JSngry]

Remix or demix? 

[Stompin at the Savoy]

Desecration.

Edited June 18, 2023 by Stompin at the Savoy

[JSngry]

Even worse than rechanneled for stereo! 

[HutchFan]

17 minutes ago, Stompin at the Savoy said:

Desecration.

Yep.  And stupid too. 

 

[JSngry]

Graham Colombé...I thought that name sounded familiar...Jazz Journal International guy. Used to read the mag regularly when it had ready distribution here, mostly enjoyable, but there was no shortage of "eccentrics" and/or "cranks", I'm thinking that he might have been among them.

What he's done here is kind of Dean Benedetti in reverse, and ok, he's entitled to do that. But to distribute it, even at no charge, in an Ellington specialty magazine seems to be the type of thing somebody does just for the attention.

[rostasi]

I’ve got software that removes vocals that I’m happy to have,
but actually going in and “cutting tape” is another thing altogether.

[Ken Dryden]

I feel that vintage recordings need to be left alone, other than remastering to improve fidelity. I have no use for editing by others or anyone who overdubs their contributions on top of the original recordings. Nothing of interest to me has been created, it is like adding paint to a print of a masterpiece.

[clifford_thornton]

Some people seem to be living in an alternate reality, and this expurgator is certainly one of those...

[Teasing the Korean]

12 hours ago, Ken Dryden said:

I feel that vintage recordings need to be left alone, other than remastering to improve fidelity. I have no use for editing by others or anyone who overdubs their contributions on top of the original recordings. Nothing of interest to me has been created, it is like adding paint to a print of a masterpiece.

They are already releasing albums using AI demixing to make "stereo" recordings from mono.  Granted, this is happening more in the pop music realm, to milk whatever value is left in older recordings.  If they haven't gotten around to using this technology on older jazz records yet, it is probably because there is little commercial reward in doing so.  But this technology is out there, and lots of music is in the public domain in Europe, so it will probably begin happening if it has not already.  I am less interested in "stereo" versions of older recordings than I am in the ability to bring down instruments that are overbearingly forward in the original mixes.  

[Big Beat Steve]

What I would like to see with this kind of tampering is someone removing background crosstalk (from neighboring stations on the dial) in certain airshot recordings or announcer (et al.) talk over the actual music so the music that IS ALL there (behind/between the announcer and the radio interference, respectively) can be heard without any of these distractions at last (even if in not quite so hi fi ).

But cutting out the vocalists (regardless of how badly their singing styles may have dated - which often is true for 30s big band singers, alas) is just gimmickry or navel gazing IMO.

[Teasing the Korean]

7 minutes ago, Big Beat Steve said:

What I would like to see with this kind of tampering is someone removing background crosstalk (from neighboring stations on the dial) in certain airshot recordings or announcer (et al.) talk over the actual music so the music that IS ALL there (behind/between the announcer and the radio interference, respectively) can be heard without any of these distractions at last (even if in not quite so hi fi ).

But cutting out the vocalists (regardless of how badly their singing styles may have dated - which often is true for 30s big band singers, alas) is just gimmickry or navel gazing IMO.

Agree and agree.

[Ken Dryden]

5 hours ago, Big Beat Steve said:

What I would like to see with this kind of tampering is someone removing background crosstalk (from neighboring stations on the dial) in certain airshot recordings or announcer (et al.) talk over the actual music so the music that IS ALL there (behind/between the announcer and the radio interference, respectively) can be heard without any of these distractions at last (even if in not quite so hi fi ).

But cutting out the vocalists (regardless of how badly their singing styles may have dated - which often is true for 30s big band singers, alas) is just gimmickry or navel gazing IMO.

I never had any patience for announcers talking over the music. I know they were doing as instructed back in the day, but it is still annoying. I have never done it over the many years that I have produced a jazz program (1988-2002 & since 2019), the music is more important than anything I have to say to listeners, I can always cut my remarks.

What I especially hated was announcers with overly long scripts on NPR syndicated shows, especially Jazzset, being dubbed over the live music or causing it to be faded prematurely, though some of the syndicated live shows were at times ruined by an untimely entrance by the emcee, like Alan Grant on Four Queens Jazz Night From Las Vegas did on occasion.

The worst offenders were the hosts of the Montreux-Detroit Jazz Festival when it aired live on Labor Day weekend back in the 1990s. Some fool instructed the on air hosts of this live feed to jabber away at the top of the hour, whether it was a local or regional group, or even the main act for the evening in the midst of a set. The worst example was a gorgeous version of the Dave Brubeck Quartet playing the pianist's "Koto Song" featuring Bobby Militello on flute. When the top of the hour came, the two co-hosts started jabbering away without saying anything important, it was not like they were reading underwriting statements or a station ID (the latter which isn't required during a live show, it can be worked in during a natural break in the program, otherwise imagine what would happen to a live Texaco-Metropolitan Opera broadcast). When this happened, I was screaming obscenities at the co-hosts to shut the @#$! up until the music was over. It got so bad that when our program director had to pick either the Chicago or Montreux-Detroit to air on Labor Day weekend, I told him to pick the Chicago Jazz Festival, as the hosts and their program director had better sense than to talk over the live music that listeners tuned in to hear.

23 hours ago, JSngry said:

Even worse than rechanneled for stereo! 

I remember when I was an undergraduate I heard a stunning version of Vladimir Horowitz playing "Pictures at an Exhibition," a record that I owned in fake stereo. When I asked the fellow student why his sounded so great, he had an original mono LP, mine was the 1970s fake stereo with the Toscanini & the NBC Symphony Orchestra Ravel arrangement on the other side.

[Big Beat Steve]

16 hours ago, Ken Dryden said:

I never had any patience for announcers talking over the music. I know they were doing as instructed back in the day, but it is still annoying. I have never done it over the many years that I have produced a jazz program (1988-2002 & since 2019), the music is more important than anything I have to say to listeners, I can always cut my remarks.

What I especially hated was announcers with overly long scripts on NPR syndicated shows, especially Jazzset, being dubbed over the live music or causing it to be faded prematurely, though some of the syndicated live shows were at times ruined by an untimely entrance by the emcee, like Alan Grant on Four Queens Jazz Night From Las Vegas did on occasion. ...
...

 

Yes, announcers talking into LIVE music broadcasts or concert reordings are one thing where AI might provide a way of eliminating this unwanted talk. Though I admit some of those very old recordings where you have Symphony Sid or other famed platter spinners or emcees doing their stuff have a certain period charm of their own ...

What I was also thinking of, though, were those commercial records where "introductory" announcers talking into the opening bars or segments of the music were part of the actual as-released recordings but can be a nuisance when listening to them today. They may have been a popular gimmick or important identifier back then but many no doubt can without them today - at last as a doctored "alternate take". Although I'd rate the chances of anyone cleaning up this kind of recordings about zero because they are much too much of a niche within a niche market.
FWIW, @ UK forumists: the kind of "talking over" I am referring to is the announcements of the likes of David Miller or Gerry Wilmot on a certain number of 30s or early 40s British dance band recordings. E.g. as in the links below:

 

 

 

Edited June 20, 2023 by Big Beat Steve

[JSngry]

I like those radio MCs. That's justh what they did.

I'm pretty sure that there were more location radio shows than record dates, eh? 

That Johnny Claes band sounds pretty good, especially the sax section! 

[John L]

While I generally agree with the sentiments raised here, I still have mixed feelings about it.   It is true that some 30s Ellington tracks have less than desirable vocals.  I suspect that Ellington himself may have had limited control over who was singing on some of those records.   It is also true that some of those tracks have sensational arrangements and / or instrumental passages.  

Most of us now probably reach for the Ellington Mosaic set when we want to hear the 30s band.   That set removed almost all of the vocal tracks, which makes for more consistent and maybe enjoyable listening.  But that means that we are seldom, if at all, listening to some of the great Ellington of the period.  Maybe some of the tracks with removed vocals would be listened to more often?

On the other hand....

 

Edited June 20, 2023 by John L

[miles65]

11 minutes ago, John L said:

Most of us now probably reach for the Ellington Mosaic set when we want to hear the 30s band.   That set removed almost all of the vocal tracks, which makes for more consistent and maybe enjoyable listening.  

No vocal track was left of either Mosaic Ellington 30's set. The Goodman and Shaw boxes on the other hand.... 

Edited June 20, 2023 by miles65
typo