McCoy Tyner

[Tom 1960]

Liking this one a whole lot. Some real nice playing from Joe Henderson here. Any thoughts?

[Pim]

Same as you Tom. Very nice record, very nice group of musicians. One of the better ‘80’s/‘90’s recordings by Tyner.

[felser]

Argreed!

[HutchFan]

I like that one too.  

IIRC, this was originally planned to be a Joe Henderson-led date -- but some contractual issues resulted in McCoy being named the leader.

[Milestones]

Two compositions by Tyner, one by Henderson, one by Ron Carter--plus several standards.

Fine record.  McCoy was producing a lot of good/great records in this period, in every format from solo to big band. 

 

[felser]

45 minutes ago, Milestones said:

Two compositions by Tyner, one by Henderson, one by Ron Carter--plus several standards.

Fine record.  McCoy was producing a lot of good/great records in this period, in every format from solo to big band. 

 

Interestingly, I found his Blue Notes of that period to be relative dogs, much too conservative for him.  Unlike his 60's-early 70's BN's which were monsters.  Sort of true for the whole BN restart of the 80's and beyond, I guess.

[chewy-chew-chew-bean-benitez]

11 hours ago, Tom 1960 said:

Liking this one a whole lot. Some real nice playing from Joe Henderson here. Any thoughts?

 

what is this my guy?  Chesky? never heard of it- ooo i must get one. i have very little digital joe

dawg seriously theres something about joe henderons sound, that translates really well to digital medium- so awesome he was still working so much through that time- 

[EKE BBB]

15 minutes ago, chewy-chew-chew-bean-benitez said:

 

what is this my guy?  Chesky? never heard of it- ooo i must get one. i have very little digital joe

http://www.chesky.com/

 

[Pim]

5 hours ago, felser said:

Interestingly, I found his Blue Notes of that period to be relative dogs, much too conservative for him.  Unlike his 60's-early 70's BN's which were monsters.  Sort of true for the whole BN restart of the 80's and beyond, I guess.

Agreed. Not bad per se but not at all the level he reached in the sixties/seventies for Blue Note and Milestone. Soliloquy is quite nice.

[Kevin Bresnahan]

I actually have the SACD version of this and I agree that it's a good one. It's one of Chesky's better dates in my opinion.

[Rooster_Ties]

My only issue with the Chesky date -- which I've had on CD for eons (one of the first 50 or so CD's I ever owned, iirc), is that it almost sounds TOO good

By which I mean that it sounds decidedly like every musician was recorded separately, each in their own hermetically sealed chamber.

The playing is undeniably great, but there's something slightly antiseptic about this date, that at least for me, is just a little too clean and perfect sounding.

Yeah, yeah, "it sounds just like your in the same room" as the musicians, blah, blah, blah.  But I can't help but actively hear (and see, in my mind's eye), four very separate rooms that these guys were in as the session was being recorded.

I used to love this date back when I was 25, but I haven't spun it much in the last 15+ years.

Anybody get what I'm saying?

Or does it have to do with some extreme lack of compression used in the recording (I'm guessing?) -- and the fact I've only ever heard it on the half-ass stereo systems (decidedly non-audiophile) that I've had all these years Maybe that's it?

[JSngry]

I wasn't "wowed" by the sound of the record either. Chesky was one of those labels that hyped their sound, and also one that left me feeling like, oh, if this is what "great sound" sounds like, uh...maybe it's not for me. Probably "accurate" as fuck, but unless your natural live-music experience is inside a then-modern recording studio, not particularly appealing.

Great playing, though, I worked around it. But The Real McCoy Pt. 2 , it ain't that.

[jazzbo]

I also have always been disappointed with the sound. Oh well.

[John Tapscott]

As I recall this sound of this one was fine; but that can't be said of all Chesky CD's, which in their desire to have a natural sound, end up sounding rather "unnatural" somehow. 

[Shrdlu]

I would never tolerate some engineer or producer putting us in boxes. We need to see each other. They would probably rabbit on about audio spillover from mike to mike, but there is nothing wrong with that.

I read an interview with one of the Columbia 30th Street engineers, Frank Laico, I think. He described the setup for Miles's 60s quintet. They were all out in the open together. There were just 5 mikes: one each for the piano and bass, two for the drums (one low, one at cymbal level) and one that picked up the trumpet and tenor saxophone. That worked fine.

[porcy62]

3 hours ago, Rooster_Ties said:

Anybody get what I'm saying?

 

Or does it have to do with some extreme lack of compression used in the recording (I'm guessing?) -- and the fact I've only ever heard it on the half-ass stereo systems (decidedly non-audiophile) that I've had all these years Maybe that's it?

I got it, I listened to it on super audiophile system and I don't like this kind of recordings, what audiophile recording does better is with classical ensemble, IMO.

BTW I like the music on it

[Kevin Bresnahan]

Although it's been a while since I've spun it, I do remember that when I got the SACD and compared the SACD layer to the CD layer, the SACD layer sounded much better to my ears so I gave away my old CD version. Has anyone heard the gold CD version?

I am listening to my work copy now (Q0 VBR mp3 file) and I can definitely see the sound issues being described. The instruments do sound very isolated, which lends a rather unnatural, sterile sound to the whole thing. I don't think it sounds bad by any means though.

The music is very good though. Joe plays great.

[HutchFan]

44 minutes ago, Kevin Bresnahan said:

The music is very good though. Joe plays great.

Yeah. That.

 

[chewy-chew-chew-bean-benitez]

im pretty sure the frank morgan cd i have with joe and bobby hutcherson thats DDD (on contemporary, c. i wanna say, '87) sounds good