[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] CD versus Download was "All hail the analogue revolution..."
There is an excerpt from John Szwed's book "So What" ,on the web,that suggests the WMGM studios,on Fifth Avenue was contracted by Capitol,to record the Miles Davis,Gerry Mulligan,etc. sessions.I have a book on the history of Capitol,done for thier fiftieth anniversary,in storage somewheres.I don't believe they had the funds to buy east coast studios,until they hooked up with EMI,later in the 50s.I wasn't aware your dad bought the studios.What was done there for Mercury ?
Tom Fine <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: To my ears, the originals are much better. But an interesting story.
"Birth of the Cool" sessions were recorded at WMGM radio's music studio, later Fine Sound studio B,
711 5th Avenue. For some reason, none of the discographies or reissue CD's specifies the studio,
even though the WMGM logo is clearly visible on the RCA ribbon microphones in the pictures. One of
the key things about those recordings was that the band sat in a near circle with one or two mics in
picking them up. Pictures show one mic on the piano and one over Max Roach's drums. Drums don't
overload the recording because they're behind a baffle (an old radio baffle with a real-deal window
so everyone could see each other). A classic example of a long-enduring recording made with very
simple means. That music was very much avante garde in its day. I must say it's not my all-time
favorite but it sure had a far-reaching influence in the jazz world. One question I've always had
about those sessions is, why at WMGM? Capitol had their own studio in NY? Were these sessions
self-financed and then sold as finished sides to Capitol?
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lou Judson"
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] CD versus Download was "All hail the analogue revolution..."
See this: very interesting story on NPR yesteday, re-creating the kind
of music from the Birth of the Cool:
Cool jazz is very much alive today! and the comments abotu how the new
cool was accepted when it first came out is fascinating - the world
agreed with Mr Barr at that time - but look at the legs on that music
now, getting longer and stronger all the time...
Lou Judson ï¿½ Intuitive Audio
On Oct 2, 2006, at 7:09 AM, Aaron Levinson wrote:
> I must take issue with Steven's dubious assertions about modern Jazz. To suggest that the music of
> Miles Davis, Charlie Parker,
> Thelonious Monk, etc was somehow inferior to "Dixieland" is simply absurd. Dixieland does NOT
> in any meaningful way while "Kind Of Blue" continues to sell to every successive generation that
> discovers its
> unearthly beauty. One man's opinion may be just that but to denigrate all developments in jazz
> after Benny Goodman is an
> insult to many listeners the world over and to the contributions of the artists themselves. If you
> like Dixieland
> fine but do not use this archaic form as a pedestal to disparage the work of hundreds of artists
> who are among
> the most talented people that America has ever produced. Anyone that has heard Coltrane with
> Johnny Hartman
> would immediately agree that Steven's suggestion that he eschewed "familiar, ear-catching tunes"
> is not just
> a shallow statement it also patently false. Finally, Steven damns modern jazz for its
> "introspection". In an age
> as loud, abrasive and glitzy as today music or anything for that matter, that encourages
> seems to me an excellent antidote for the self-absorbed materialism that has suffused our culture.
> When I need a respite from a
> world gone quite mad, Miles Davis playing "Someday My Prince Will Come" is a guaranteed moment of
> profound introspection and ageless wonder. I suggest it to anyone that appreciates great art.
> steven c wrote:
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Cox"
>>> In rock and pop, by and large the performer is the focus, and most of
>>> the material is composed by the performers. So one might buy a studio
>>> recording and a live concert recording, and that is it.
>> That is a practice which has only existed for just over (about) forty
>> years! IIRC, the Beatles were the first pop artists to write the vast
>> majority of the tunes they recorded (and they had the advantage of
>> being talented songwriters...one not granted to most of their ilk!)
>> Prior to that point (even during the heyday of "rock'n'roll!") if
>> one was a song PERFORMER one contacted a WRITER to see what songs
>> might be available to record. The problem to-day is that for the
>> most part being a talented performer does NOT guarantee that one
>> is an equally talented songwriter!
>>> For a Beethoven sonata, or a Cole Porter song, each performer has
>>> something different to tell you about the music, as each actor does
>>> about Hamlet or Macbeth. Add to that the changes in performance styles
>>> over the years, and it does make sense to own several versions of a
>>> major work.
>> See above...
>>> Whether it makes sense to buy the latest offering by some young "star"
>>> at full price, I doubt.
>> It probably doesn't. Many "stars" are selected by record-industry
>> "honchos" for reasons that have little or nothing to do with their
>> musical talent (or, usually, lack thereof...) but simply seem to
>> offer a possibility of selling large amounts of "product!"
>> As well, as recorded music more and more becomes a product of
>> technology, as opposed to any extant musical talent, the resulting
>> "product" takes on a distinct similarity...again, aimed at saleability
>> as opposed to musical quality. At some point in the not-too-distant
>> future, it may be possible to create "superstars" that exist only
>> as bytes and bits somewhere in the half-vast "IT Division!"
>>> I think the number of listeners to classical music is increasing, not
>>> decreasing. Comparing an issue of The Gramophone from the 70s to a
>>> current issue, there are far more releases, ten times as many labels,
>>> and no shortage of excellent new recordings. After all, there is more
>>> money around today than there was then.
>> But...the demand is primarily for the same relative handful of familiar
>> classical works! I assume there are still classical works being composed...
>> however, I would guess they are either extensively derivative of older
>> classical music...or so experimantal as to sail over the heads of the
>> potential purchasers. Most of what is heard on classical-music radio
>> is at the very least close to a century old...and generally two to
>> four centuries old...
>>>> Hey, my sympathies are with you. It's the same with jazz -- aside from
>>>> the fact that the genre has been hijacked to large extent by the
>>>> "museum music" crowd.
>>> I think jazz pretty well died when it became a genre.
>> Jazz began to die out when be-bop made it 1) more introspective than
>> entertaining, and 2) effectively impossible to dance to! In fact, that
>> is why "dixieland jazz" still survives...simple, often familiar tunes,
>> an obvious and ear-catching rhythm listeners can dance or clap their
>> hands to...and a sense of fun! Note that all of these qualities are
>> either absent or hard-to-hear in, say, a Coltrane album/performance...
>> One interesting side thought (on which I have so far no opinion...)
>> As a "survivor" of the sixties, I lived through (and enjoyed, as
>> near as I can remember) the musical developments that were both
>> inspired (for the artists) and enjoyed (for the listeners) by
>> the "mind-altering" drugs of the period. Now, the "drug of choice"
>> for jazz musicians for most, if not all, of the pre-WWII period
>> was, of course, good ol' C2H5OH (or, during prohibition, occasionally
>> CH3OH...). During the "bop era" and thereafter, many jazz musicians
>> were into heroin and similar opiates. What effect did that have on
>> how jazz developed...?!
>> Steven C. Barr
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.