What are we missing?

Message

julius · #31 Post by **julius** » Wed Jun 04, 2003 3:22 pm

the true stereo of ellington live at newport is awesome, and the story behind it is awesome too.

I picked up an ODJB cd recorded in 1917. Now there's an interesting take on sound quality.

I also have Basie live at the Famous Door and in the liner notes it says "The mind is the best scratch remover". And it's totally true for me. I don't even notice defects when I'm listening, much less dancing.

yedancer · #32 Post by **yedancer** » Wed Jun 04, 2003 3:28 pm

julius wrote:I also have Basie live at the Famous Door and in the liner notes it says "The mind is the best scratch remover". And it's totally true for me. I don't even notice defects when I'm listening, much less dancing.

Of course, if you are specifically listening for "bad sound quality," you will be much more likely to notice it. It's all a mind set, really.

Mr Awesomer · #33 Post by **Mr Awesomer** » Wed Jun 04, 2003 4:26 pm

Lawrence wrote:it is similarly disheartening how some other people ignore some of the best music out there because of a tunnel-vision focus on only a decade's worth of recordings.

Who does that? Examples... please.

Lawrence · #34 Post by **Lawrence** » Thu Jun 05, 2003 10:29 am

KevinSchaper wrote:
Also, although not all hi-fi is good, many of the bad hi-fi recordings are bad because hi-fi reveals defects in the musicianship that lo-fi concealed.
In the genre of stuff that was recorded just for the sake of having a hi-fi take on an earlier recording, it's usually just that it's lifeless that's the problem..

Yes, not all hi-fi is great, but not all lo-fi is vibrant and full of life, either. Hello Paul Whiteman, Bob Crosby, Bing Crosby, Tommy and Jimmy Dorsey.... Also, not all musicians became lifeless when hi-fi came around. Even though Harry James was a swing era phenom due to his "sweet" solos, my favorite stuff of his is from his 1970s recordings: The King James Version, Still Harry After All These Years....

I don't mean to distract from the thread, which was to highlight what we are missing on 78s. There is a lot of good music on 78s out there, and I'm more interested in "what we're missing" than in defending hi-fi vs. lo-fi, yet again. This thread got TOTALLY sidetracked, partly with my complicity.

Does anyone know industry estimates on what percentage of music recorded on 78s made it to LPs, and thereafter to CDs?

Mr Awesomer · #35 Post by **Mr Awesomer** » Thu Jun 05, 2003 4:03 pm

No examples then?

Swifty · #36 Post by **Swifty** » Sat Jun 07, 2003 4:04 pm

GuruReuben wrote:
Lawrence wrote:it is similarly disheartening how some other people ignore some of the best music out there because of a tunnel-vision focus on only a decade's worth of recordings.
Who does that? Examples... please.

Mikey didn't play anything later than '40 or '41 in Columbus, if I remember correctly.

Mr Awesomer · #37 Post by **Mr Awesomer** » Sun Jun 08, 2003 10:28 am

Swifty wrote:
GuruReuben wrote:
Lawrence wrote:it is similarly disheartening how some other people ignore some of the best music out there because of a tunnel-vision focus on only a decade's worth of recordings.
Who does that? Examples... please.
Mikey didn't play anything later than '40 or '41 in Columbus, if I remember correctly.

That doesn't mean he ignores the whole spectrum of music. I know for a fact that he doesn't. Perhaps he decided to focus on a few years at an event because no one else seemed to be touching them. Peter and I have had DJs battles where we limit ourselves to certain years to give us challange. That doesn't me we ignore everything else when we're DJing a normal gig just because it was recorded after a certain year.

Swifty · #38 Post by **Swifty** » Mon Jun 09, 2003 8:57 am

I didn't theorize why he did it, I just provided an example when you asked for one. Incidentally, both Julie & myself played stuff from the same era during our sets at the same event.

That brings up an interesting point. How big of a sample do you need to have before forming an opinion of a DJ? That was the one and only time I heard Mikey DJ. How am I supposed to know what he plays "normally" and if that differs from what he played at that event?

Mr Awesomer · #39 Post by **Mr Awesomer** » Mon Jun 09, 2003 9:45 am

Swifty wrote:How big of a sample do you need to have before forming an opinion of a DJ?

Good question. I usually go by the "he/she sucks till he/she proves otherwise" method of thinking... when it comes to a DJ sucking or not, but I try my best to not pigeon hole a DJ into "he/she only plays this" until I've heard a decent amount of sets or read a decent amount of playlists with blaring simularities. What a decent amount though... hell if I know. haha.

Lawrence · #40 Post by **Lawrence** » Mon Jun 09, 2003 6:51 pm

GuruReuben wrote:
Swifty wrote:How big of a sample do you need to have before forming an opinion of a DJ?
Good question. I usually go by the "he/she sucks till he/she proves otherwise" method of thinking... when it comes to a DJ sucking or not, but I try my best to not pigeon hole a DJ into....

How charming.

"Suck" and "not-suck" might be considered as two rather poignent pigeon holes.

That "presumption of sucking" also is very different from the more justifiable position that someone needs to prove themselves in order to earn their reputation. It starts from a more agnostic, neutral position. But, if you must have a belief before you meet someone, it says alot about a person whether they start from an "innocent (of sucking) until proven guilty" or "guilty (of sucking) until proven innocent" perspective.

Lawrence · #41 Post by **Lawrence** » Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:08 pm

GuruReuben wrote:
Lawrence wrote:it is similarly disheartening how some other people ignore some of the best music out there because of a tunnel-vision focus on only a decade's worth of recordings.
Who does that? Examples... please.

The point is not aimed at anyone in particular, nor am I inclined to begin another flame war by artificially and unnecessarily taking aim at anyone. It is just a general supplement to Peter's general (and understandable) claim that "t's kinda depressing that "swing DJ's" would ignore some of the greatest musicians that ever lived because of 'recording quality'."

As I said, I respect what he said, as I respect him. Just hoping for similar understanding flowing the other way, as well. Despite the impression I know I sometimes leave, the last thing I want to do is add to the division/alienation between "originals" and "groovers." I appreciate anyone passion for music, especially if it is for good music.

yedancer · #42 Post by **yedancer** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 1:31 am

Lawrence wrote:The point is not aimed at anyone in particular, nor am I inclined to begin another flame war by artificially and unnecessarily taking aim at anyone. It is just a general supplement to Peter's general (and understandable) claim that "t's kinda depressing that "swing DJ's" would ignore some of the greatest musicians that ever lived because of 'recording quality'."

As I said, I respect what he said, as I respect him. Just hoping for similar understanding flowing the other way, as well. Despite the impression I know I sometimes leave, the last thing I want to do is add to the division/alienation between "originals" and "groovers." I appreciate anyone passion for music, especially if it is for good music.

I don't want to add to the "division/alienation" either, but I have to say that it seems like the "anti-originals" outnumber the "anti-groovers."

It seems like most of the people who promote original swing music also like good groove music, too. They just think it's played too much, and is bad for lindy hop. In fact, it's not so much that they're anti-groove as they're pro-original.

On the other hand, it seems like the people who promote groove music do not want to hear original swing music more than once or twice a set. Which, in turn, seems to be proof of the pro-originals' argument that groove music is bad for lindy hop, because one of the prime reasons the pro-groovers don't like the old stuff is because they can't dance well to anything over 150-160, which is pretty much the bottom of the chart when it comes to original stuff, and the top when it comes to groove stuff. (was that a run-on sentence?)

Again, this is just what it seems like to me. I'm definitely not the most well-traveled or experienced member of this board.

Lawrence · #43 Post by **Lawrence** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 2:03 am

yedancer wrote:... it seems like the people who promote groove music do not want to hear original swing music more than once or twice a set. Which, in turn, seems to be proof of the pro-originals' argument that groove music is bad for lindy hop, because one of the prime reasons the pro-groovers don't like the old stuff is because they can't dance well to anything over 150-160, which is pretty much the bottom of the chart when it comes to original stuff, and the top when it comes to groove stuff. (was that a run-on sentence?)

A run-on fragment, at that.

I'm a "groover" with a huge "original" collection of music. I promote it, too. So, to borrow your phrasing, not all groovers are anti-original as they are pro-groove.

I do disagree with the presumption that preferring tempos under 150 for social dancing is "bad" for Lindy Hop. Although it would be bad to completely eliminate fast dancing, that's not going to happen. But, according to Frankie Manning, social dancing even in the "original" era emphasized mid- to slow tempos. It's easier to enjoy and improvise and relax into, which is GOOD for Lindy Hop.

I also disagree with the generalization that all groovers are groovers because they are scared of or otherwise can't dance to fast music. There is a different style of holding your body weight and interpreting the rhythm at fast or slow tempos that not only clutters many groovers fast dancing, but also saps the "uummph" juice out of many "originals" slower dancing. But just as many groovers understand that difference to be able to dance fast as there are originals who can dance well to slower tempos.

KevinSchaper · #44 Post by **KevinSchaper** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 12:10 pm

Lawrence wrote:But, according to Frankie Manning, social dancing even in the "original" era emphasized mid- to slow tempos.

What do you think that meant in terms of actual numbers?

my sneaking suspiction is that at the time, anything up to 180 or 190 or even higher may well have felt like midtempo that bunch of dancers - given that their ceiling was up in the 300's.

(after all, if you can lindy at 300, are you gonna call something that's 190 "fast" ? )

Lawrence · #45 Post by **Lawrence** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 12:31 pm

KevinSchaper wrote:
Lawrence wrote:But, according to Frankie Manning, social dancing even in the "original" era emphasized mid- to slow tempos.
What do you think that meant in terms of actual numbers?
my sneaking suspiction is that at the time, anything up to 180 or 190 or even higher may well have felt like midtempo that bunch of dancers - given that their ceiling was up in the 300's.

He was making a comparison to todays tempos and including "Shiney Stockings" as a common tempo, not an uncommon one. He also indicated that the music at dances was slower than what the recordings were, and that they were able to dance fast in video clips because they were performing with the benefit of rehearsal, much like today. He was responding to a question that was a bit overly pointed with a "Aren't we wimps today for not being able to hang with fast tempos," so he probably also was playing peacekeeper, as he is known to do.

As I've said elsewhere, I submit that the perception of "original/classic" Swing music being generally faster is distorted by what they chose to record, the limitations of their recordings (the 3 minute time limit as well as the sound quality not being able to pick up subtleties), etc. Likewise with the perception from movie clips: they were not social dancing in the movies but performing with the benefit of rehearsal. Most other random video clips were of jam circles when a fast song broke out, not an accurate recording of the average tempos.

How different would our perception be of the tempos played at our own Exchanges if it was based purely on videos of jam circles or movie clips of Rhythm Hot Shot performances? DJs who play 90% mid to slow sets would be misperceived as "fast DJs."