Jump to content
IGNORED

Can Bad Recordings sound Good?


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, SJK said:

I think you're asking the wrong question.

 

From my perspective it should be "Can I listen to music that I enjoy that has been poorly recorded?"

It’s difficult, but I can. Case in point, Chandos recording of Resphigi’s “Church Windows“ that I accessed on Tidal, sounds terrible (like most all Chandos label recordings), but until I find a better one (Like the excellent Ormandy/PO recording from the mid ‘Sixties [and to my knowledge, Sony has never reissued on CD], I’ll have to put up with the Chandos (there is a very early Reference recording of this work, with the Pacific Symphony Orchestra, but the performance is poor in my estimation).

4 hours ago, SJK said:

 

I have a lot of albums that for whatever reason sound like they were recorded with a portable cassette player.  We all do.

I have stereo recordings that sound worse than some 78’s from the late ‘Thirties and ‘Forties. So, yeah. And it’s hard to fathom why anyone would make and release recordings that poor. Especially since we’ve had the ability to make incredibly lifelike stereo recordings since the Mid ‘Fifties and did make them!

4 hours ago, SJK said:

 

When I listen to a MoFi recording of Kiko, i appreciate how wonderful a great recording can be.
 

Can’t comment on that. Never heard (or heard of) Kiko.

4 hours ago, SJK said:

 

When I listen to one of my father's 10" jazz LPs, something like Meade Lux Lewis and Louis Bellson - Boogie Woogie Piano and Drums, I just don't care.  

 

it's all about the music.  If it sounds great, you're there, you can see and feel it and you're in harmony with the universe and we're all in it together, that's great.  

 

When it's not quite like that, but it's Blue Oyster Cult and Before the Kiss, a Redcap on that poorly recorded debut - I'll take it.

OK

George

Link to comment
5 hours ago, SJK said:

Sorry about the obscure reference.  Kiko is an album by Los Lobos.  It's a terrific recording and with the MoFi version it truly is a wonderful sound and great music.  

Well, thanks for the clarification, but it’s lost on me. You see, I’ve never heard of Los Lobos either.... I know nothing about “modern” pop music. The last pop group that I can even recognize was the Beatles, and I was/am none to fond of them!

George

Link to comment
1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

Indeed. Listening to Hendrix, and his Marshall amp is having a hissy fit - it's making outrageous noises, which gave nothing to do with the music; the valves are gargling away, oblivious to how they are supposed to behave. This is dreadfully poor, technically ... but don't we love it! 😉

No. “we” hate The sound of electric solid-body guitars, and Hendrix playing is just noise to me!

George

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Uh-oh :).

 

No Duane Allman Les Paul?  I couldn't live without it.  Certainly ok if you can, though.

 

Best,

 

Bill

Generally not a fan of pop music. I do, however fondly recall the sound of Les Paul and Mary Ford doing “Mockingbird Hill”, and “How High the Moon“. But that was iong before the solid-body Fender or other similar contrivances from Martin, etc.

George

Link to comment
1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

You used the word "endure" - IME a specific, technically poor recording can range from being an almost unbearable torture, through to being an energising, fully satisfying journey - depending on the state of the rig used to play it. I much prefer it to be down the latter end, thank you very much! 😁

To me, poor sounding recordings are simply not worth enduring. But I have the advantage that there are usually multiple recordings on multiple labels from multiple eras of most classical works to choose from. If, for instance, a British Chandos recording Of Beethoven’s 6th Symphony is flat, lifeless and dull (like most Chandos recordings are), Then there is always a NY Philharmonic performance under Bruno Walter from the late ‘Fifties that does sound decent. Were I a rocker, that option might not be available to me. If you like the Grateful Dead, and all Grateful Dead recordings are lousy sounding*, then I’m afraid you’re stuck. You listen to Lousy Dead or no Dead at all.

 

*Just using a rock group name that I’ve heard of as an example. I’m not saying that Grateful Dead recordings sound bad, in fact, I don’t believe that I’ve ever heard a Grateful Dead recording or would know to whom I was listening, if I did hear them!  

George

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

Totally understand.  I am pretty selective with it as well, though have my guilty pleasures.  I also have genres that I avoid at all costs.

Same here. I will admit that I don’t mind some of the Beach Boys stuff in limited doses. Brian Wilson was, after all, a musical genius (“Good Vibrations”). I merely put up with the electric guitars on those songs, but I must say, that they aren’t front-and-center like they are on many rock tracks I’ve heard.

George

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

George, FYI Les Paul was instrumental (pun intende) in the development of the most widely played solid-body electric guitar used by top rock musicians apart from Fender, viz. the Gibson 'Les Paul' model. In fact, he plays this eponymous model on "How High the Moon". BTW, Martin's guitars are virtually all hollow body acoustic models, although a number are available with pickups. He also "invented" multi-track recording.

Yes, I know that Paul was instrumental in developing the Fender solid body guitar. I didn’t just fall off the turnip truck, yesterday, you know. Paul is also credited with developing sound-on-sound and sound-with-sound multitrack recording. In fact, when he and then wife Mary Ford started their performing duo in the early ‘Fifties, people wondered how they achieved the effect where Mary Ford did multi part “duets” with herself.

George

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

You've hit the crux here. There is no universal definition of "good" vs "poor" recording. The Chandos might new newer, have higher SNR or dynamic range (I don't know just using these params as examples) but might be lifeless and dull because the underlying performance is lifeless and dull compared with a much older recording from the 1950s of a much more dynamic performance.

 

Miles Davis "Kind of Blue" is a great example for me, people might complain about the technical details of the recording while other people absolutely love the recording for the performance.

No, the recordings are dull sounding, veiled, and lifeless. Not the performances.

George

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

You've hit the crux here. There is no universal definition of "good" vs "poor" recording. The Chandos might new newer, have higher SNR or dynamic range (I don't know just using these params as examples) but might be lifeless and dull because the underlying performance is lifeless and dull compared with a much older recording from the 1950s of a much more dynamic performance.

 

Miles Davis "Kind of Blue" is a great example for me, people might complain about the technical details of the recording while other people absolutely love the recording for the performance.

AKA “Kinda Blue”. I’m with you. It’s not a great sounding recording, but the performance is electric! Of course it doesn’t sound awful, but it was done using the standard three-channel mono jazz recording technique using too many microphones pan-potted into the three channels. I’m used to it (Columbia’s “Take Five” with Dave Brubeck and virtually all Impulse or Riverside stereo albums) so it doesn’t put me off all that much. On the other hand I don’t record jazz that way. I use a stereo microphone and direct feeds from any electronic instruments panned to where they physically occupy the space on the stage. That way I get a true stereo recording. Much better than three-channel mono.

George

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

I am sure you meant to write the Gibson 'Les Paul' solid-body guitar. The success of the Fender solid-body was the impetus for Gibson to enter that market. And, of course you are correct about Les Paul developing previously unheard of recording techniques.

I might have if I knew the difference, which I did not. I knew that Paul was instrumental in the development of the solid body. But Fender, Gibson, Martin, they’re all pretty much the same to me. But thank you for the correction.

George

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Perhaps you were at the performance there and know? I wasnt so lucky. Moreover is it the recording which is dull or the mastering? Seems unanswerable to me unless several versions of the same performance are available.

 

Many times, the recording as delivered to me *is* essentially the performance as I get to experience it.

No, I wasn’t there. The performances are generally top notch using well regarded British Orchestras and well known conductors (Sir Charles Groves, Richard Hickox, etc.) I’ve heard these orchestras and conductors on other labels (mainly EMI HMV) and they don’t sound like that.

George

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

I am very much in the minority with you.  For the old music that I referenced prior I definitely think it sounds better on a better system.  Part of this, I feel, is that the music is easier to engage as the artifacts are laid bare and thus easier to ignore.  The good parts certainly sound better.

 

The only possible exception is on overly-compressed modern crap, maybe...; curses on Rick Rubin.

 

I am glad to hear that @gmgravesfeels similarly to me re. Chandos recordings.  They get rave reviews, but they consistently disappoint.  I thought I was nuts.  I was so excited to hear their recording of Ravel's "Daphnis et Chloe."  Great performance but less engaging to me with the murkiness.

 

Bill

The Erich Leinsdorf/Boston Symphony “Daphnis” on RCA Red Seal from the early  ‘Sixties is still the best sounding one to me (and a great performance) and the EO and the PO on Columbia/Sony from roughly the same era isn’t far behind it.

George

Link to comment
5 hours ago, bluesman said:

It’s actually quite the opposite.  A recording that does not capture and convey both musicianship and performance is not a good recording to me.  Technical quality also matters, in equal measure.  This is exactly why I said that the original Kind of Blue is not an excellent recording. It captured the magic of some of the coolest jazz performances in history very well - but it took 50 years and several generations of technical advancement to overcome its sonic limitations.

 

I think (and I could be wrong, here) that you are confusing a poor recording with a poor performance. The poor recording is the technical side, and a poor performance is one that “does not capture and convey both musicianship and performance”.

5 hours ago, bluesman said:

I’ve made many excellent recordings (on a high speed Crown SX that I dragged around in a rack case) of amateur performances that were spirited and enjoyable, despite no more than talented amateur skill sets among the performers.  These recordings convey every aspect of the performance well, including both the high enthusiasm and the less than stellar skills and interpretive efforts on stage.  

That Crown SX did make excellent recordings especially at 15ips (38cm/sec) and half-track on good high-bias tape!

George

Link to comment
4 hours ago, SJK said:

Then I presume you don't mind a brief history.

 

What made the Beatles not only different, but downright revolutionary was that they wrote and played their own music.  Up to that time, people sang someone else's music. 
 

You are forgetting The Beach Boys. Brian Wilson wrote most of their repertoire (but certainly not all of it).

4 hours ago, SJK said:

 

Then, it turns out that the Beatles are fiercely talented and end up breaking new ground in experimental and innovative fashion that still plays well today.

 

As an aficionado of classical music, without reservation I will say you would greatly enjoy the Los Lobos recording of Kiko.  I just know it.

Ok I’ll see if it is available on either Tidal or Qobuz.

George

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

You had me right up to the bagpipes thing. Not sure if you are implying they are not liked by many or 'to each his own'....no matter.

 

I love the bagpipes but here's the thing, you must hear them live (not saying you have not). It brings me to another point relevant to this thread.

 

When I was lucky enough to see/hear the Tattoo in Edinburgh I was blown away (pun intended) by the massed sound of the bagpipes. I can't say i would want to sit down and listen on a high-end system but live the sound was mesmerizing. Yes, part of it was the spectacle,atmosphere and the whiskey tastings pre-event !

 

I find really esoteric (esoteric to me, subjective) jazz much the same way. A bit self indulgent and not terribly accessible. I know, heresy to jazz aficionados. Hearing it live is quite something else, again mesmerizing!! I will sit in a jazz club for hours. I am actually listening to more of the jazz classics now than ever before (some mentioned on this thread) as my audio system is the best I have ever owned. So, sound quality comes into it but I think there is more to it. Interested to hear what others feel.

That’s fine. I have a number of friends who don’t like jazz. The important thing to remember is that one shouldn’t judge another by his taste in music, food, cars, literature, etc. sometimes it hard not to, but that’s all the more reason to try that much harder...🙂

George

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

I guess the more "esoteric" style for me is bebop but whatever the style where it sometimes loses me is where a jazz song is playing which I like very much and then each artist has a turn at doing a solo bit. Sometimes they take a detour/improvisation that seems to say more about  their virtuosity on the instrument than doing service to the song. It can mesmerize me when I hear it live but much less so on radio or over a high end playback system.The analogy with some modern vocalists is the vocal "gymnastics" they do, because they can.

 

Sorry, really not trying to offend. Barry Diament is a jazz fan, I forget the style of New York jazz he mentioned but he said "you have to work at it a bit" (me not him).  he plays jazz so I think it opens up different sensibilities.

Well, I’m with you about bebop. I’ve always thought that bebop, as a style of jazz, was more an indulgence aimed at the musicians as opposed to the listener. I’m sure that it’s loads of fun for the player to play, not so sure about the listener. But, obviously there are some jazz aficionados who love it, and although I can listen to it, like avant-garde classical which is atonal and contrapuntal, I’d rather listen to something a bit less intellectual and more tuneful.

George

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...