New Yorker article - The Record Effect

[AllenLowe]

"is it possible that you find jazz easier to appreciate on recordings than those other musics simply because you yourself feel a more direct cultural connection to jazz than you do those other musics?"

very true -

[AllenLowe]

I should also add, however, that , in the big picture my frame of reference may be changing. For almost 5 years now I've virtually stopped listening to jazz - and I certainly love country music and blues as listened to on CDs - but in comparing my listening experience to the experience of hearing this music in person, ther is a much larger gap than with jazz -

[medjuck]

A few thoughts on the subject:

For most of us the history of jazz is the history of recordings. By this I don't just mean that we don't know what Buddy Bolden sounded like. (And btw Danny Banks claimed he heard Bolden. Maybe he described what he heard to Wynton Marsalis!? ) Rather what I mean is that we tend to presume that recordings represent what was happenning at the time. But that's not always true. It's often pointed out that the Armstrong Hot 5s and 7s were just recording groups. When they were made Pops was performing live with a big band.

And I think we also get influences confused because we tend to emphasize when records were made rather than when they were released. Sometimes it's even difficult to find out the latter-- I've been trying unsuccesfully to do a chronology of Miles's release dates in the late 40's and 50's-- though I'm gradually getting it done.

Miles is a good example: through the 60s his studio recordings were not particulalry representative of his live performances. And most of the Birth of the Cool recordings were released long after the brief life of the nontet. (I think the first 10" Lp release was not called Birth of the Cool.) Someone coming to him new today would have no idea why In a Silent Way and Bitches Brew sounded so revolutionary at the time, because recent reissues contain some of the earlier cuts with guitar which were not released till long after IASW and BB came out.

Edited June 1, 2005 by medjuck

[AllenLowe]

good point, but I would answer that recordings represent the history, as novels represent literary history - this is what musicians and/or record companies and /or musicians were issuing at a given time and this is what the audiences were witnessing -

[Jim Alfredson]

Concerning Joe's point, one of the hardest things to balance when recording (and I'm speaking specifically to my own experience) is mistakes and perfection.  Obviously with today's technology, you have an unprecedented amount of control over every aspect of recording.  You can go in and not only fix single notes, but even the attack of single notes, the timing of those notes (is it too far behind the beat or too far ahead?  Just move it!), the pitch, the dynamic, etc. etc.  It's really easy to go too far.  What I try to do is place feel over perfection... yeah, I messed up that bass line right there, but the it feels good, so I won't worry about it.  And sure enough, there are some errors on our latest recording, but will anyone outside of us notice them?  Probably not.

←

This is the other aspect of recording that I've been thinking about. The author of that article mentioned "the authenticity debate". Sometimes we refer to recordings as "documents", as in documenting the work, but that doesn't seem right if you're fixing things. If two takes are combined into one, what is that a document of? Not "the moment" obviously. A live recording with no edits would be closer to being a document, I would think. So are edits dishonest in a way?

←

How authentic is it to release something the artist does not think is representative of what he wants to portray? In other words, if there are all these mistakes in there that make the artist cringe every time he/she hears them, the recording is obviously not representing the artist in the way that he/she thinks is right. It's my record, dammit, it should sound like what I want it to sound like, right? A novelist never releases a book without editing, re-writing, etc. Why should music be any different?

On the other hand, live recordings tend to have an energy and vibe that you can't achieve in the studio exactly because the musicians know that it's all on the line. But even live recordings can splice together two different takes (they've been doing multiple takes of tunes in a live situation for a long time... just look at Wes' "Full House").

[Chuck Nessa]

A few thoughts on the subject:

For most of us the history of jazz is the history of recordings.  By this I don't just mean that we don't know what Buddy Bolden sounded like. (And btw Danny Banks claimed he  heard Bolden.  Maybe he described what he heard to Wynton Marsalis!? )

Do you mean Danny Barker?

IIRC, WC played his interpretation of Bunk Johnson's demonstration of Bolden.

[Jazzmoose]

A few thoughts on the subject:

For most of us the history of jazz is the history of recordings.  By this I don't just mean that we don't know what Buddy Bolden sounded like. (And btw Danny Banks claimed he  heard Bolden.  Maybe he described what he heard to Wynton Marsalis!? )

Do you mean Danny Barker?

IIRC, WC played his interpretation of Bunk Johnson's demonstration of Bolden.

←

I knew bunk was involved somehow...

[Chuck Nessa]

I knew bunk was involved somehow...

←

[Jazzmoose]

This is the other aspect of recording that I've been thinking about. The author of that article mentioned "the authenticity debate". Sometimes we refer to recordings as "documents", as in documenting the work, but that doesn't seem right if you're fixing things. If two takes are combined into one, what is that a document of? Not "the moment" obviously. A live recording with no edits would be closer to being a document, I would think. So are edits dishonest in a way?

←

In a sense, I think so. Not that I'm against any edits, but too many fixesare deceitful in my opinion. To give a longwinded explanation, what repelled me from rock was the discovery of how much of the music was created by the studio personnel, not the musicians. Realizing that the "most important Beatle" was neither John nor Paul, but George Martin was tough. So, what attracted me to jazz in the first place was the chance taking of improvisation. That has colored my thinking to the point that, for me, "real jazz" (bear with me and mind the quotes, okay? ) is best represented by a one take, there it is approach. (And by one take, I mean a single take, not the first take.) While I enjoy Bitches Brew, for example, it can never measure up in my mind as "real jazz", due to the studio trickery involved. People who criticize performers like Mad Lib and hold up Bitches Brew as a great album confuse the hell out of me...

[Chuck Nessa]

At some point (earlier than most presume) it stops being a "jazz recording".

Talk to me about Armstrong, Morton, Oliver, Hawk, Ellington, Bird, Trane, Ornette, (or whoever) and then talk to me about "tracking" as it is currently practiced. It may be "something" but it ain't "jazz".

[Jim Alfredson]

But what's the difference, when you get down to it, between Miles or Coltrane or whomever doing multiple takes until they get it just right (in their own minds) and just fixing a few flubs here and there on an otherwise good take?

[Chuck Nessa]

But what's the difference, when you get down to it, between Miles or Coltrane or whomever doing multiple takes until they get it just right (in their own minds) and just fixing a few flubs here and there on an otherwise good take?

←

Reality.

[Jim Alfredson]

But the net result is the same. I don't see the difference. Records are not reality anyway... they never have been, never will be. They are an aproximation of reality. Some are more "real" then others, but none are truly real. It isn't real unless you're sitting in the club or the hall and taking in the performance live (and with pop music these days, sometimes that's not even a "real" experience, but that's a whole nuther topic!)

[Chuck Nessa]

It's the difference between music and either "a routine" or "an act".

[Chuck Nessa]

Once again we live in very different worlds.

[Jim Alfredson]

Chuck, you've seen us play live. You know that we can play the tunes that are on our last record and this coming record. I don't see what the big deal is if you do a whole take and the head has a little mistake in it, so you go and fix that part. Or if you do two or three takes, and the organ solo is better in the third take, so you put that on the first one. What does it matter?

When you made records, did you just turn on the tape machine, tell the cats "Hit it!" and then put everything that happened on the finished album? False starts? Too bad. It's on the record. Flubbed endings? Too bad, it's on the record. Blown solos? Too bad, can't do another take, that's on the record. That would be reality, woulnd't it? One shot, and you're done. Afterall, in a live situation, is it proper ettiquette to play the same tune over and over until you get it right?

"Sorry folks, we blew the out head on that last tune, so we're going to play it again."

Of course not. You edited. One could say you edited reality.

But I guess if it matters to people, ya'll better not buy the last organissimo record or the next one, because yes we did do some editing. If we played a great take all the way through, but flubbed the ending... well, we re-did the ending and tagged it on. Sorry. If a solo was better in take 3 but over-all take 1 was better, then we edited those two together. Sorry.

Is it reality? Does it matter? If you really want to be strict about it, never use backspace on your keyboard again. Don't spellcheck. Forget about correcting yourself at all. And if everyone does that, the next organissimo record will be 60 minutes of un-edited footage for all to hear.

[Chuck Nessa]

I'm stopping.

[Free For All]

You sure as hell won't ever catch me editing anything.

Edited June 2, 2005 by Free For All

[Joe G]

Looks like I've opened a can of worms!

From where I stand, I can see both sides of the coin (neat trick, ay?). I'll just say, for now, that I'm willing to let my thinking on this issue evolve over time.

Two thoughts, though:

1. Teo did a lot of editing on those classic Miles albums, no?

2. All art is an illusion in one way or another.

Okay, something else that just occurred to me. Jim compared music editing to text editing, and earlier today, I was thinking of editing in film. Those are very different mediums, though, with different aims, and I'm not sure that they can be compared in that way.

Shall I quit now or muddy the waters further?

[Jim Alfredson]

[Joe G]

You sure as hell won't ever catch me editing anything.

←

[Chuck Nessa]

Looks like I've opened a can of worms!

From where I stand, I can see both sides of the coin (neat trick, ay?).  I'll just say, for now, that I'm willing to let my thinking on this issue evolve over time.

Two thoughts, though:

1. Teo did a lot of editing on those classic Miles albums, no?

2. All art is an illusion in one way or another.

1. Haven't you noticed all the "Teo edits" being restored (Miles, Monk, Mingus) - and which Miles albums are you including in "classics".

2. THE primary words used to describe the "qualities" of jazz have been "spontaneous, instant, improvised, etc." Multitudes of illusions can be created with notes played by people in real time.

There are musical creations designed to be edited but these are special and well designed situations.

Jim asked about my work. First of all, a decent producer does 80% of the work before entering the studio.

Here is a review of edits and "slights of hand" in my work (not including work issued by other labels (with the first exception):

First session was Roscoe Mitchell's Sound on Delmark - the title piece was too long for "first rate" lp mastering at the time and we combined 2 takes to shorten the side. (A tech issue, not musical).

n-1 - Bowie's Numbers 1&2 - shortened side a for the above reason. Combined 2 takes to fill out side b.

n-2 - Roscoe's Congliptious - no edits

n-3 & 4 not produced by me but no edits evident in the tapes

n-5 Roscoe's Old/Quartet - no edits and no alternates

n-6 Von's Have No Fear - one edit when piano stopped, took 10 seconds and stuff started again - one beat lost. No alternates recorded

n-7 Warne - no edits

n-8 Ben Webster - not recorded by me but no edits evident in the tapes

n-9/10 Roscoe Mitchell's Nonaah - no edits except the quartet for 4 alto saxophones recorded section by section (4) and spliced together.

n-11 Von Freeman's Serenade & Blues - no edits and no alternates

n-12 Air's Air Time - no edits

n-13 Lucky Thompson - not recorded by me but no edits evident in the tapes

n-14/15 Roscoe's LRG/etc - no edits

n-16 Charles Tyler's Saga of the Outlaws - no edits

n-17 Bobby Bradford/John Stevens vol 1 - no edits

n-18 Bobby Bradford/John Stevens vol 2 - no edits

n-19 Wadada Leo Smith's Spirit Catcher - no edits

n-20 Roscoe's Snurdy - 2 composed pieces meant to be cut up are edited

n-21 Hal Russell NRG - no edits and no alternates

n-22 Eddie Johnson's Indian Summer - one edit when a tune broke down in fours

n-23 Fred Anderson's Missing Link - no edits and no alternates

n-24 Hal Russell & Mars Williams - We recorded for 6 hours and Mars cut it down to lp length.

n-25 Hal Russell NRG + Charles Tyler - no edits, no alternates and one overdub

n-26 Wadada Leo Smith's Procession - one edit to connect 2 parts.

As I said earlier, a decent producer does most of the work before the sessions.

I do consider myself a decent producer.

[Chuck Nessa]

Guess I did not stop.

[Jazzmoose]

If you really want to be strict about it, never use backspace on your keyboard again.  Don't spellcheck.  Forget about correcting yourself at all. 

←

Well...judging from some of my posts in the political forum...

[Guy Berger]

Looks like I've opened a can of worms!

From where I stand, I can see both sides of the coin (neat trick, ay?).  I'll just say, for now, that I'm willing to let my thinking on this issue evolve over time.

Two thoughts, though:

1. Teo did a lot of editing on those classic Miles albums, no?

2. All art is an illusion in one way or another.

1. Haven't you noticed all the "Teo edits" being restored (Miles, Monk, Mingus) - and which Miles albums are you including in "classics".

No edits, no Black Saint and the Sinner Lady.

As far as "classics", Bitches Brew, In a Silent Way and the Gil/Miles collaborations come to mind, though edits pop up on other Columbia albums here and there.

Guy