New Big Bands Recordings vs. Original Recordings

Everything about the swinging music we love to DJ

Moderators: Mr Awesomer, JesseMiner, CafeSavoy

Message
Author
User avatar
Kyle
Posts: 192
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 3:01 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

New Big Bands Recordings vs. Original Recordings

#1 Post by Kyle » Tue Apr 27, 2004 1:07 pm

Not sure if this has been discussed in the past, so I shall bring it up here (possibly again).

I buy CD's of the original artists (Goodman, Basie,e tc...) either HI-FI or mono and notice a drastic difference between the sound on those CD's and the sound that the new big bands record (Big Phat Band, Airforce Big Band (i think), Big Cahuna etc....)

Outside of the artists that are trying to replicate EXACTLY what the original bands did (Mora's) I have found that the newer recordings lack the sound that of original records.

I know it sounds convoluted, please bear with me.


I listened to lets say Cottontail by Ellington, the popular recording, and then listen to LCJO's recording of it, and I hear two different sounds. Outside of the "It's Live vs. Studio" Hi-Fi vs. Low-Fi" or "Better sound equipment vs. poor sound equipment" Why do you think this difference exists?

I have talked to Peter Loggins about this before, and he mentioned one thing I found interesting. Original big band recordings went based on one mic for the entire brass section, lets say. New recordings, each horn has its own mic and its own track. Thus giving a different sound.

Outside of my potentially convoluted post, what do you think attributes to this difference?

julius
Posts: 818
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 11:30 am
Location: los angeles

#2 Post by julius » Tue Apr 27, 2004 1:30 pm

The quality of musical instruments has also changed over the years. I wouldn't necessarily say they have improved, but there is a difference between a 1930s drumset and a modern one. Ditto brass and reeds.

Recording techniques, technology, and psychoacoustics all have a great deal to do with how we perceive old vs. new music.

User avatar
Kyle
Posts: 192
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 3:01 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

#3 Post by Kyle » Tue Apr 27, 2004 3:08 pm

I assume that psychoacoustics is referring to me 'thinking' that I am hearing a difference. right?


Im not sure if quality of instruments comes into play here. How much different does a trumpet sound from the 40's than today. Drums, maybe, I dontk now much about that instrument, but a trumpet? It is just metal wrapped around and around? Am I missing something here?

julius
Posts: 818
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 11:30 am
Location: los angeles

#4 Post by julius » Tue Apr 27, 2004 4:31 pm

Psychoacoustics is a branch of science that deals with how people perceive sound.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoacoustics

I think in the end what you are hearing is a combination of recording technology and more importantly the evolution of jazz playing in the last 60 years. Sixty years ago it was vitally important for players to have a beautiful but individual sound. Modern players stopped caring so much about embouchure and tone in the 70s and early 80s, although beautiful sounds are making a comeback now.

I think the difference in instruments does make a difference. Otherwise vintage reeds and brass would not be so prized. I'm not saying it's always true, but to a world-class musician I bet it matters a lot. And since we're supposed to be world-class swing DJs, it should matter to us too. :)

Another thing that matters is that a lot of the old bands had a constant membership and played together every day for years. Modern bands, not so much. That can influence a band's sound greatly.

User avatar
Jerry_Jelinek
Posts: 294
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 11:33 am
Location: Cleveland, Oh
Contact:

#5 Post by Jerry_Jelinek » Tue Apr 27, 2004 6:24 pm

One big factor in differences in original recordings versus recreations or updated versions is how often the bands
played. When you have the popular bands of the 30s and 40s, these people were working an incredible amount of time
together.

The may have a week or 2 week gig in a city. During the stay they may play 3 or 4 sets in a given night. If they were
big enough they may also have a radio broadcast. If they were REALLY big they may play some matinee show at a theature.

These bands may be playing 6 or 7 nights a week. They may be playing 3 to 5 hours a day together for month after month.

No matter how many top quality studio guys you put together today for a recording session, they can't recreate the tight
feel of many of the original recordings. They simply haven't had the time together.

User avatar
sonofvu
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2003 10:15 am
Location: Austin, TX

#6 Post by sonofvu » Tue Apr 27, 2004 7:18 pm

julius wrote:
I think the difference in instruments does make a difference. Otherwise vintage reeds and brass would not be so prized. I'm not saying it's always true, but to a world-class musician I bet it matters a lot. And since we're supposed to be world-class swing DJs, it should matter to us too. :)
While I do agree that the vintage instruments are prized above today's, I don't think your statement above adresses the question fully. Is the sound of those instruments different than what we find today? Does a clarinet that has aged 50 to 60 years sound different than a clarinet that was manufactured 5 years ago? If it does sound different (and I think it would) then did the clarinet sound that way 50 to 60 years ago?
Yard work sucks. I would much rather dj.

Albert System
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 11:11 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact:

#7 Post by Albert System » Wed Apr 28, 2004 7:52 am

YES! Vintage instruments have a very different sound from modern instruments. They have different bore sizes and bell sizes, they have different style mouthpieces, and they sound very different from what is made today. Plus the style of playing- drummers using more snare and less cymbals, brass players using more mutes and growling techniques, reed players with a fat tone and wide vibrato. These techniques are not used by a lot of modern players who play with a flat tone (no vibrato), almost never use mutes, reed players that go for a more cutting tone rather than a wide tone ala Johnny Hodges.

Another reason the bands sound different goes to feel. When the "cool" era of jazz came in, playing behind the beat became in vogue. Earlier bands played more "on Top" of the beat- think Chick Webb, Bennie Moten. PLaying everything behind the beat- not just solos but ensembles as well- gives the band a very different feel than a band that is constantly pushing the beat to make things hotter instead of cooler. I am not saying that the old bands rushed and the new bands drag. The beat is kind of circular, and you can play in the front or the back of the beat. Get it?

Doug
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2003 7:38 am
Location: Albuquerque
Contact:

#8 Post by Doug » Mon May 24, 2004 8:32 pm

I have been reviewing to my Book (for the 500th time) listening for the energy that can drive a Balboa crowd wild! (Kyle - Think Lawrence Welk). The biggest difference I feel between most new recordings and many of the old translate to me as energy and drive. I think that all the factors discussed above, plus a few more, contribute to this feeling.

Certainly playing on top of the beat pushes the energy. The rhythm sections today do not drive the bands in the same way they did in the day. Etc, etc.

But in addition, more recent soloists just do not seem to me to have the skill to help sustain the energy. For example, Sidney Bechet, all by himself, could create more energy and swing harder than some entire orchestras of more recent vintage. And the same is true for a number of the great musicians of yore.

Another difference is the underlying riffing that goes on in many of the older bands. You might, for example, have the entire reed section riffing behind a soloing trumpet player in support of the rhythm section. I hear a lot more unsupported, or only partially supported, solos today. Perhaps more space for the soloist, but less energy.

So I indeed agree with Kyle :shock: that the older recordings are often better, but I think that there are a very large number of contributing factors.

User avatar
funkyfreak
Posts: 138
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 10:53 pm
Location: Dallas, TX
Contact:

#9 Post by funkyfreak » Wed May 26, 2004 2:48 pm

Doug wrote:I have been reviewing to my Book (for the 500th time) listening for the energy that can drive a Balboa crowd wild! (Kyle - Think Lawrence Welk).
Hahahahaha, I can't believe you just dragged that over to this forum ;)

-FF

User avatar
Lawrence
Posts: 1213
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 2:08 pm
Location: Austin, Texas
Contact:

Re: New Big Bands Recordings vs. Original Recordings

#10 Post by Lawrence » Mon May 31, 2004 7:43 am

Kyle wrote:Outside of the artists that are trying to replicate EXACTLY what the original bands did (Mora's) I have found that the newer recordings lack the sound that of original records.
* * * *
I listened to lets say Cottontail by Ellington, the popular recording, and then listen to LCJO's recording of it, and I hear two different sounds. Outside of the "It's Live vs. Studio" Hi-Fi vs. Low-Fi" or "Better sound equipment vs. poor sound equipment" Why do you think this difference exists?
As I understand it, this is a technical question about sound quality, not about the quality of the music performance. I disagree with your generalization, but there are definitely 1950s hi-fi recordings that are better than recent recordings.

First, big band recording is a tough art. The ideal recording has both direct mics on each instrument and "ambient" mics throughout the room. Getting the right placement of the ambient mics and the right balance between ambient and direct mics is tough, and varies from room to room. It also should be done in a room with enough space to allow the sound to "breathe," but not so much space that it echoes and eliminates the clarity of the sound. Not many sound engineers pay attention to this balancing act, or get it right.

Studios in the 50s were designed for big bands, and sound engineers were trained to record big band. Studios today have sound-absorbing material that is ideal for small-group jazz or rock bands, but unideal for Symphonies or big bands. That is why most symphonic classical music is recorded in halls where they perform, not in studios. Unfortunately, not all modern big band music is recorded as such. Many symphonic halls would create too much echo for a Big Band, as well. Most 1950s studios designed for big band recording would also create too much echo, as well, because today's mics pick up far more clarity and detail than they did in the 1950s; echo and other interference with the clarity that would not make it onto the recording in the 1950s sometimes DOES make it on the recording with today's equipment.

Although better equipment is definitely available now, that also does not mean that the recordings use that better equipment or that the sound engineers are trained how to use it: namely, that the better equipment is used to its fullest potential.

The other thing to consider is the playback medium. Lower fidelity recordings sometimes sound better on lower fidelity stereos. Thus, if you do not have a top-notch system, it might be better suited to playing music with less clarity and less of a dynamic range. Very often, I notice that lo-fi vintage recordings often sound better when played on cheap stereos or even over a small television speaker than they do when played over my sound system at home. (I've A-B compared playing the same movie recording through the television and through the stereo, and the television speakers sounded better, even though they are MUCH worse than the stereo speakers for modern music).

The DMP Big Band recordings, although not absolutely perfect in terms of music quality, are a great example of what a Big Band can sound like if recorded properly (in surround sound, too).
Lawrence Page
Austin Lindy Hop
http://www.AustinLindy.com

Campus Five
Posts: 251
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 12:57 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

#11 Post by Campus Five » Mon May 31, 2004 1:39 pm

As a bandleader and musician who's tried SO frickin' hard to get that vintage sound, both live and in the studio, let me share a couple of things I've figured out - God knows I've still got more to learn.

1. The Beat - The "swing" feel of late 30's-early-40's swing is different that the modern jazz "swing" feel of almost all post-1945 jazz. The stacato 4-feel of Swing changed into the the more legato shuffle of post war jazz. All of the modern recordings outside of the "trad-jazz" scene have a modern feel. Even all the great swing soloist's 1950's recordings are all "swingin'" rather than "swing". It's more than on(or ahead of) the beat vs. behind the beat, but that certainly is true. Three things are responsible for this:
- The ride cymbal/bop drumming: Swing Drumming (from watching Josh Collazo on every gig) involves four-beat bass drum, and four-beats on the snare or time on the hi-hat. Very choppy. Because of the flowing ride cymbal, the choppy four feel was smoothed out. Plus the bass drum left four-to-the-floor duty so it could be free to comp and drop "bombs". The beat lays back because of this, giving that slinky feel that alot of "groove" dancers like.
- steel bass strings/legato bass: Listen to Walter Page, then listen to Ray Brown. Page goes "dunk-dunk-dunk-dunk" - very staccato, choppy. He's playing his gut strings as hard as he can to project over the (large) band. Now, listen to Ray, he's playing "doo-doo-doo-doo," each note blending into the next, very legato. Again the beat will lay back because of this. Guys can play either feel on either string, but steel strings allowed bass players to lay back they were originaly responsible for the change in sound.
- no rhythm guitar: although I'm partial to rhythm guitar for obvious reasons, its essential to a 30's-40's swing feel. Bear in mind that Freddie Green chunked his whole life through the Basie band and "Corner Pcket" doesn't swing like Basie in the 30's-40's. Rhythm guitar helps to chop up the rhythm, but it can't change a whole band playing in a modern style. Oh, and electric guitars don't count. They just doesn't work timbre-ally.

2.Old vs. Modern instruments - Swing (ie the 30's-40's sound) was largely pre-amplification. The reference point for volume was an acoustic piano - The loudest a band could get had to take into account the maximum volume of a piano. As microphones, sound systems and guitar amps got better and louder, other instruments changed to keep up with their electricifed collegues. Drums in particular, are vastly different today. Today's drums and also cymbals are made to keep up with amplified music - they are decidedly louder. It is impossible to play swing drums on modern equipment. I did two gigs on drums, borrowing Josh Collazo's kit, and got compliments from the other guys on the gig. I go into Guitar Center and sound stupid on their modern kits. (pause for jokes about my drumming) A vintage kit, and one set up vintage (heads, cymbals, etc.) are essential to play the style.
All of the other variations with horns are responsible, but I think drums and bass are the two most important.

3.Isolated Recording vs. Room Recording - The sound of a live band is the combined sounds of all the instruments interacting together in the air and then reaching your ears. The sound of modern recording is all of the instruments mic'd individually, and interacting in the sound system artificially. Appearently the overtones don't ring out right, or something -on one level this is pretty audiofile stuff, most people can hear some difference. The organic vintage sound of Mora's Cd's, or Swing Session's, or my own Cd is due to room recording. Everyone is the same room, with all of the frequencies interacting organically picked up by one or two mics - just like they did back in the day.
The guy who recorded Mora's and my CD (who also plays trumpet with the Chicago Six) uses a MS stereo pair to get the room sound. If something needs a boost, he has everythig mic'd individually for safety, but 99% of what you hear is just the room sound.

I could write a book about this stuff, so I've had to simplify a bit, but I really find these to be the case. Most musicians don't really bother with the specifics of the genre, but that "Swing" feel vs. "swing" feel issue really prevades every musician. 99% percent of the musicians in this city (or any city) can't play or don't try to play with a real "Swing" feel.
There's a reason some of the same guys show up in the different bands. I find that Western Swing bass players are better for Swing than most jazz players, because they are more dedicated to the style. Hope that helps explain the discrepancy.
Last edited by Campus Five on Tue Jun 01, 2004 10:47 am, edited 2 times in total.
"I don''t dig that two beat jive the New Orleans cats play.
My boys and I have four heavy beats to the bar and no cheating!
--Count Basie
www.campusfive.com
www.myspace.com/campusfive
www.swingguitar.blogspot.com

User avatar
djstarr
Posts: 1043
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 2:09 pm
Location: Seattle

#12 Post by djstarr » Tue Jun 01, 2004 1:17 am

Campus Five wrote:
All of the other variations with horns are responsible, but I think drums and bass are the two most important.
as a layman I agree --- the live band I've been dancing to a lot changes out the bass and drum depending on who is available -- it really makes a difference in dancing... I'd say drums, bass, then piano as far as influencing the sound. And if the musicians are any good, there is a lot of give and take between the rhythm section, so I've heard the pianist play very cool and outside, and the rest of the rhythm section follow.

But the drummer is key -- if the drummer is playing to the dancers - watch out - it's going to be a great night of dancing.

User avatar
GemZombie
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 2:46 pm
Location: Alpharetta, GA (Formerly SLO, CA)
Contact:

#13 Post by GemZombie » Tue Jun 01, 2004 10:03 am

Thanks for the Post Jonathan. I think many of us have been trying to say the same thing, but not having the experience to back it up.

Doug
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2003 7:38 am
Location: Albuquerque
Contact:

#14 Post by Doug » Tue Jun 01, 2004 10:50 am

Actually I was only trying to say something sorta like what you said Jonathan. I lack not just the experience, but also any real knowledge. I was just fumbling around intuitively. Thank you Jonathan!!

Albert System
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 11:11 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact:

#15 Post by Albert System » Tue Jun 01, 2004 11:29 am

Nice post Jonathan.

On my new CD, we also used a room concept, but we used multiple mics- one on each instrument, and a couple on the piano and drum kit, as well as room mics. The engineer who recorded us actually won a grammy for a Basie album he recorded live at a concert here in Pittsburgh a few years ago. So the point is- he knows what he is doing when it comes to acoustic music. Making it sound natural and organic as opposed to cold and harsh.

And of course, we all use vintage instruments, including vintage drums. I actually play an Albert system clarinet (hence my name here). It is a model of clarinet that went out of favor in the 30's. However, if you listen to players like Johnny Dodds, Bechet, Omer Simeon, early Jimmy Dorsey, Jimmie Noone, etc. you will notice that the clarinet sound is very different. Some of this has to do with mouthpieces, but much of it has to do with the fact that they played Albert clarinets. I wanted that sound and tone, so I had to learn to play Albert.

The whole package makes the thing happen- recording techniques, vintage instruments, knowing the style and being faithful to it, trying to capture the original spirit of the music, etc. can make modern recordings sound more like the vintage recordings we all love.

Paul Cosentino
Boilermaker Jazz Band

Locked