Re: [ARSCLIST] Libraries disposing of records

["Steven C. Barr(x)" <stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Fine" <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Hi Steven:
>
> Actually, what's happened historically has been that when a better sound
medium comes along, the
> older musical styles get redone or revived in the new medium, to a certain
extent. Louis Armstrong
> and Duke Ellington -- acoustic 78's, electric 78's, mono LP, stereo LP and the
master tapes from the
> LPs reissued on CD with no LP limitations on fidelity. Armstrong and Ellington
recorded their
> essential repertoire several times over, each in a higher fidelity medium. So
what about Bix (used
> as an example because he died long before better fidelity came along)? Therein
is your argument. But
> Bix has been preserved and in fact enhanced in later reissues as technology
got better. And when
> someone today goes and buys a Bix CD, unless he has the worst listening system
around, he's
> guaranteed a better listening experience that getting that
flawed-from-the-factory scratchy and
> noisy shellac, putting it on his acoustic Victrola and hearing a tiny piece of
the audible spectrum
> blasting out of his horn. But maybe the awful sound out of the tinny horn is
part of the
> "experience"?  BTW, I'm using jazz examples just because that's what I know. I
could cite Muddy
> Waters (Lomax field recordings, same material recorded later in mono hifi and
then later again in
> stereo) or a bunch of Classical conductors and orchestras who were active in
the 78 era and then had
> a Golden Age of Recording starting with the transition to LP and then getting
all the way up into
> the 70's in some cases, all the way to digital for a few. Point is, again,
that commercially viable
> stuff gets preserved, rehashed, redone and then reissued and enhanced. If
there's a buck to be made,
> it gets done.
>
Ahh-h-h...therein lies the "catch" (#1, not #22!)...

The material that is "commercially viable"...! First, that amounts to
1%...or even 1% of 1%...of the total amount...which is then assumed by
our mythical "Joe Gabroni" to be the ONLY worthwhile representation of
that era! I can buy countless reissues of Robert Johnson, since he had
the good fortune to be idolized by the "British Blues Invasion" and thus
be assigned iconic status...but should I be interested in some more
obscure artist (i.e. Big Bill (Broonzy) and his Chicago Five)...not
that easily found...

Second, this assumes that the de-noised, re-equalized, and otherwise
bent, beaten and battered into acceptable 21st-century form is actually
what the original recording could/would/should have sounded like! What
this is, in fact, is some contemporary re-engineerer-of-sound-recordings'
opinion of what was there...*IN HIS/HER/ITS OPINION!!* In fact, the next
"new version" might well be "Beethoven...as he could have composed if he
were aware of the digital synthesizer..."

Third, subsequent recordings of pieces by, say, Ellington...made thirty
or more years after their composition...are more a reflection of how his
performace style and musical tastes had changed over the ensuing years.
It is interesting to compare Ellington as of 1927 with Ellington as of
1967...but each recording has its own reasons for being worth hearing
(better both in one listening session...!). I can't say specifically,
but I suspect the same would be true for classical performances?

Finally...to me, saying that "vintage recordings aren't worth the
trouble of listening to..." is along the lines of looking at the
"Mona Lisa" and saying..."Now, think how much better that would
be if it were taken with a digital camera and then carefully
edited on a good computer..."

Steven C. Barr