Can Bad Recordings sound Good?

[Bill Brown]

18 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

what I consider the most important ingredient: simplicity!

Triple amen!  To use simple, well-engineered gear, recording music in real-time, classic mic arrays, musicians interacting with each other in the same room/hall, no "fixing it in the mix," etc. nonsense.  All of the labels/recordists you mentioned are on my list as well.

 

Bill

[gmgraves]

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!

[fas42]

6 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

A meaningless argument at best. Who cares what a good sounding system does to a poor recording? Nobody WANTS to listen to a poor recording, and the only reason to put up with one is that the listener likes the musical composition and/or the artist, and the poor recording is the only way to experience either. My take on this dilemma is simple: Since the mid 1950’s, there is simply no technical excuse for any record company to release a poor sounding recording. The technical ability to make superb stereo recordings has existed since that time.

 

Because one cares about music ... 🙂. The recordings are the only auditory, umm, records of what happened in a particular place - and if what turns you on is the texture of live instruments and people creating such, then getting the best out of what's in the archives matters.

[Bill Brown]

1 minute ago, gmgraves said:

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

 

Uh-oh :).

 

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

 

Best,

 

Bill

[gmgraves]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

Because one cares about music ... 🙂. The recordings are the only auditory, umm, records of what happened in a particular place - and if what turns you on is the texture of live instruments and people creating such, then getting the best out what's in the archives matters.

Did I not just say that the only reason to endure poor recordings is that it’s the only way to experience the music that’s on those recordings? I think I did.

[fas42]

5 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Did I not just say that the only reason to endure poor recordings is that it’s the only way to experience the music that’s on those recordings? I think I did.

 

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! 😁

[gmgraves]

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.

[Bill Brown]

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.

[Allan F]

23 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

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, FYI Les Paul was instrumental (pun intended) in the development of the most widely played solid-body electric guitar used by top rock musicians apart from those 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. Les Paul also "invented" multi-track recording.

[gmgraves]

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!  

[fas42]

Another CD I use for monitoring,

 

 

At Carnegie Hall; very, very low recorded level, almost still air some of the time  - I normally have to have this at maximum gain for it to be as loud as, say, a TV. Hard to get the voice right; the slightest issue, and the vocal becomes a bit of a caricature of what one would expect this type of singer to come across like. But get it right, and you have a live human being singing for you, just over there ... makes the effort to get it happening worthwhile.

[gmgraves]

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.

[jabbr]

3 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

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.

 

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.

[gmgraves]

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.

[gmgraves]

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.

[Allan F]

17 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

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.

 

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 the market. And, of course you are correct about Les Paul developing previously unheard of recording techniques.

[jabbr]

11 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

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

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.

[gmgraves]

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.

[jabbr]

5 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

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.

 

Yes and if you had recorded Charlie Parker that way the world would be eternally grateful!

 

Its interesting that, for example Alan Lomax is credited with making many recordings of what are now considered the "worlds best blues guitarists". These pre-WWII recordings aren't what I would call great technical recordings given modern capabilities, yet the greatness of the performance shines through. So perhaps I'd use that as an example, of course Lomax did the best he could at the time ... and the world is grateful.

[gmgraves]

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.

[gmgraves]

2 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

Yes and if you had recorded Charlie Parker that way the world would be eternally grateful!

Unfortunately, I wasn’t recording in those days!

[bluesman]

31 minutes ago, jabbr said:

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.

Maybe we love the performance despite the recording.

[jabbr]

Just now, bluesman said:

Maybe we love the performance despite the recording.

Hence a "bad recording can sound good"!  

[gmgraves]

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.

[Allan F]

30 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

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.

 

But George, I wrote:

"FYI Les Paul was instrumental (pun intended) in the development of the most widely played solid-body electric guitar used by top rock musicians apart from those from Fender, viz. the Gibson 'Les Paul' model."

 

To quote a famous line from the movie 'Cool Hand Luke', "What we've got here is failure to communicate".