Hardbopjazz Posted April 12, 2004 Report Share Posted April 12, 2004 (edited) I was playing Grant Greens' Green Streets, both the Conn and the RVG versions. I have to say, the RVG is so much better in my mind. This got me wondering, which engineer do others prefer? I find a warmer sound with the RVG's, especially the JRVG's. Edited April 12, 2004 by Hardbopjazz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted April 12, 2004 Report Share Posted April 12, 2004 I voted for RVG, clearly McMaster is a losing candidate in this crowd, it will probably go 9-1 or better for Rudy. But judging from other comments, this Addey fellow ought to be in the poll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.A.W. Posted April 12, 2004 Report Share Posted April 12, 2004 (edited) But judging from other comments, this Addey fellow ought to be in the poll. Check out this thread. Edited April 12, 2004 by J.A.W. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Posted April 12, 2004 Report Share Posted April 12, 2004 Just my stupid opinion: The day I don't buy a cd because of whose remastering the music, is the day I stop being a jazz fan and start being an idiot. Sorry to vent but after so many years of this, I'm just getting sick of this discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Posted April 12, 2004 Report Share Posted April 12, 2004 I've never *not* bought a CD because of the remastering (although I might hold off if I know that an upgraded version is due out in a few months), but I have re-bought titles because they've been re-remastered... McMaster certainly isn't a villian. He often did the best job he could with the technology available. It's not his fault that EMI chose to keep mid-1980s remastering jobs in print well into the 21st century... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardbopjazz Posted April 12, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2004 Just my stupid opinion: The day I don't buy a cd because of whose remastering the music, is the day I stop being a jazz fan and start being an idiot. Sorry to vent but after so many years of this, I'm just getting sick of this discussion. I agree 100%. But I happen to have both versions of Green Streets and I can hear a difference. I was pulled towards the RVG version. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude Posted April 12, 2004 Report Share Posted April 12, 2004 I voted for RVG, although I prefer other Blue Note remastering engineers (Malcolm Addey, the TOCJ engineers) and I think that not all of RVG's remasterings improve over McMaster's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster_Ties Posted April 12, 2004 Report Share Posted April 12, 2004 It's all about the music to me. I'd rather have a crappy "Applause" BN issue of a title I'm really interested in, than an early 90's TOCJ issue of a different title that I'm much less interested in. Another example... This is one of THE worst sounding discs ever. But it's one of my all-time favorite recordings with Woody Shaw, and a rare appearance by Tyrone Washington. IMHO, this is a "must have" recording, in my book. The sound absolutely stinks, but the music transcends the sound quality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJ Posted April 12, 2004 Report Share Posted April 12, 2004 (edited) I SORT of understand some people's less than enthusiastic reactions to yet ANOTHER discussion of who's the best remastering engineer...but also have to say ultimately those reactions also start to sound pretty sanctimonious, just as much as the pontification about who's the best engineer. All this "it's the music that matters" stuff is really kind of a load of crap too, folks, I am sorry to say. The not too subtle insinuation here is "I'm hipper and more of a musical purist than you because I respect the music only, and don't worry about such trifles as sound quality." Not only is this a false assumption, 'cause I think everyone here is pretty much a major music fan, but it does a disservice to the musicians in the cases where a decent reissue COULD be attained and isn't. First, I would venture to say that ALL of us have stuff in our collection that we absolutely love musically that sounds like it was etched into the grooves using a dull rock...we wouldn't BE here, posting on this board, if not. We're fanatics and passionate fans. So OF COURSE it's the music that matters...all of us good people aren't talking about Styx recordings being remastered (well, maybe once in a while, in the "Miscellaneous Music" forum, hell we've been on ELO lately so it can't be far behind... ) - we're talking about JAZZ, and GOOD jazz at that. Second, I have to say, the more I listen and the better my listening system, a nice remastering job most definitely enhances my jazz listening experience. No, it won't make a turd into a silk purse, but it can take an already excellent date and really make it kick even harder. These are WORLD CLASS musicians we're talking about here - they deserve the type of audio treatment that complements their talent. Anything else is kind of an insult, at least when the potential for great sound exists and it's squandered by a hack reissue job. Obviously this is different in cases where we already have the best we're gonna get - say stuff from the 20's and 30's originally out on 78s that's already been done painstakingly. No, it ain't gonna be issued with an SACD layer any time soon, but it's still great music and I think many of the same people who have commented most thoughtfully on remastering issues related to later, more modern recordings are the very folks who love the crackly stuff the most - me included - surface noise and all. In fact, for older recordings like that, give me surface noise over NoNOISE any day of the week. So you CAN have it both ways - love the music, and care about how it's presented. In fact, in my view, if you're a REAL music fan (!) , these two issues should be INEXTRICABLY LINKED in your mind. The remastering bugaboo just rankles me no end when the ability to present the music to its full potential is squandered. Matthew Posted on Apr 12 2004, 08:13 AM  Just my stupid opinion: The day I don't buy a cd because of whose remastering the music, is the day I stop being a jazz fan and start being an idiot. Sorry to vent but after so many years of this, I'm just getting sick of this discussion. Matthew, sorry to pick on this statement but it's rubbing me the wrong way on a Monday AM...as far as I can see, nobody here has mentioned anything like not buying a CD just because a particular remastering engineer they dislike is involved with it...probably some HAVE said that at some point in time on the board, but nobody in this thread has mentioned it. So again, why the harsh reaction? And why weigh in on a discussion you're sick of? I just don't get it. Edited April 12, 2004 by DrJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Chaney Posted April 12, 2004 Report Share Posted April 12, 2004 I'm 43 years of age. I wear glasses. When I notice that things are visually getting a bit fuzzy, I visit the optometrist, get tested and get a new lens prescription. (An upgrade?) Why would I choose to observe life unfocused when all it takes is a bit of time and money to see clearly? Isn't eye sight and seeing clearly important? If you agree with the above, why is it so difficult for some to understand why it's important for some (most?) to have the best sound system they can afford and to own the best sounding recordings available? (Or at least the recordings that sound best to them.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.A.W. Posted April 12, 2004 Report Share Posted April 12, 2004 I'm 43 years of age. I wear glasses. When I notice that things are visually getting a bit fuzzy, I visit the optometrist, get tested and get a new lens prescription. (An upgrade?) Why would I choose to observe life unfocused when all it takes is a bit of time and money to see clearly? Isn't eye sight and seeing clearly important? If you agree with the above, why is it so difficult for some to understand why it's important for some (most?) to have the best sound system they can afford and to own the best sounding recordings available? (Or at least the recordings that sound best to them.) Hear hear! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Son-of-a-Weizen Posted April 12, 2004 Report Share Posted April 12, 2004 True.....and if Rooster's favorite Cowell Lp miraculously appeared out there as a K2, TOCJ & JRVG next weekend, I should think he'd be interested in tracking 'em all down (over time) in order to find the 'best' one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garthsj Posted April 12, 2004 Report Share Posted April 12, 2004 (edited) Just my stupid opinion: The day I don't buy a cd because of whose remastering the music, is the day I stop being a jazz fan and start being an idiot. Sorry to vent but after so many years of this, I'm just getting sick of this discussion. My only negative experience on this list, is that so many of you have caused me to lay awake at night wondering if I have the best BN's available in my CD collection> I should have stuck with my old original LPs! Seriously ... that actual day I stopped collecting records, and paying outrageous sums of money for original, scratchy, 1950s vinyl was in 1991, when Jeff Barr, who ran (runs??) a big auction list, called me and wanted to purchase some original very early Blakey BN's from me for a few Japanese colllectors. However, he wanted me to read the "stamping" numbers on the records to him, because these collectors were convinced that one stamping machine in the manufacturing plant was superior to the other in terms of the sound on the album!! I sold him the Blakey albums, and decided that the world of original label jazz vinyl collecting (the "vinyl monkey" on my back) had suddenly passed me by .... I gradually liquidated my entire vinyl collection (about 8,500 albums) over the next few years, the bulk going to Euclid Records in St. Louis. Now ... you guys have me all confused again.. To RVG or not to RVG. perhaps to JRVG or to CONN ... that is the question? The real question is ... will CDs as we know them be around in 5 years? 10 years? Edited April 12, 2004 by garthsj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottb Posted April 12, 2004 Report Share Posted April 12, 2004 I'll vote for Rudy but I think it's not a Ron vs Rudy for me as much as an old release vs a 24 bit release. I think Ron's recent releases on 24 bit format are much better than the "old" McMasters as well. However, I think Rudy is more consistent in his output than Ron. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Posted April 12, 2004 Report Share Posted April 12, 2004 Matthew, sorry to pick on this statement but it's rubbing me the wrong way on a Monday AM...as far as I can see, nobody here has mentioned anything like not buying a CD just because a particular remastering engineer they dislike is involved with it...probably some HAVE said that at some point in time on the board, but nobody in this thread has mentioned it. So again, why the harsh reaction? And why weigh in on a discussion you're sick of? I just don't get it. No problem DrJ, you make good points in your post, and I do agree with you that sound is important, that's why I'm very excited about the upcoming Albert Ayler box from Reverant. Who doesn't want to hear some live Ayler with good sound? I would love a good remaster of Ayler's "Live at Slug's Saloon" but that, I feel, won't happen in my lifetime. So, that is not my beef. I usually do what you suggest -- just stay the heck away from threads that I don't like. It's just this whole McMaster vs. Van Gelder thing has been talked to death. They both have done good work, and some not so good. Why not leave it at that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzbo Posted April 12, 2004 Report Share Posted April 12, 2004 It certainly has been done before! But when new folk arrive, the rituals are repeated. That's what you have to do to keep the tribe alive! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wesbed Posted April 12, 2004 Report Share Posted April 12, 2004 I voted for neither (null vote). I can't say that one is better than the other. My eyes/ears were opened yesterday. Yesterday, I purchased Joe Henderson's 'State of the Tenor.' The Henderson date was recorded in 1985. It was touched by neither Rudy Van Gelder nor Ron McMaster. 'State of the Tenor' is 30 years newer than the Blue Note 1950s recordings. Yet, the sound quality on 'State of the Tenor,' to me, is not as good as most any of the 1950s/1960s reissues that have been remastered by Rudy and Ron. Upon hearing 'State of the Tenor,' noticing the muffled sound of the recording, I felt relief that we have both Van Gelder and McMaster bringing the old recordings back to life. I'd like to have either man do his best with 'State of the Tenor.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AfricaBrass Posted April 12, 2004 Report Share Posted April 12, 2004 I've been revisiting some of the eighties McMasters and, though they lack some of the detail of the RVG's, some are pretty good. I just wish the RVG's weren't so loud. I must have been hanging out the the Hoffman forum too much, because the loudness can get fatiguing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wesbed Posted April 12, 2004 Report Share Posted April 12, 2004 I just wish the RVG's weren't so loud. I must have been hanging out the the Hoffman forum too much, because the loudness can get fatiguing. I agree with Africabrass on this. The RVGs have sort of an 'electric' sound to them. Not that they are 'bad.' The RVGs sound kind of too 'electric' when you consider that there are 'acoustic' instruments being used during most of the sessions. Again, see my post above, I'd rather have the bright detail of the RVGs versus the lack of detail of the 1985 recording of Joe Henderson's 'State of the Tenor.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted April 12, 2004 Report Share Posted April 12, 2004 I don't much care, but don't mind if others do. My listening experience would be improved far easier with better equipment at my house than changing the person in the booth. Unfortunately, Blue Note seems to feel it's a better investment to use various engineers rather than buy me a top notch stereo. Pretty selfish on their part, if you ask me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJ Posted April 14, 2004 Report Share Posted April 14, 2004 Matthew, I agree with much of what you say too - good points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ariceffron Posted April 14, 2004 Report Share Posted April 14, 2004 rvg is sonically better but in a bar fight ron mcmaster would kick his ass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.