Why do transcriptions have less energy?

Everything about the swinging music we love to DJ

Moderators: Mr Awesomer, JesseMiner, CafeSavoy

Locked
Message
Author
Haydn
Posts: 1277
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 5:36 am
Location: London

Why do transcriptions have less energy?

#1 Post by Haydn » Mon Feb 08, 2010 6:36 am

One of the magic ingredients of classic 1930s swing is energy. Just had a thought while looking through my song library today. It seems that songs recorded for radio transcription have noticeably less energy than those recorded for record release. The trouble is, the radio transcription versions have much better sound quality.

A few examples:

Stompin' Around, Casa Loma Orchestra
Jamaica Jam, Teddy Powell
Jump Jump's Here, Red Norvo

There may be examples where the transcription version has more energy than the record one, but in general the transcriptions seem to have a lot less energy. So I wondered why the bands played with less energy when recording transcriptions?

User avatar
trev
Posts: 736
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 8:20 pm
Location: Perth, Australia

#2 Post by trev » Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:26 am

I'm not sure if I'd agree with that generalization. I would have said that transcriptions for the most part have more lively playing and poorer audio fidelity. I'm thinking for example of the AFRS Jubilee broadcasts and all the tracks available on Hindsight's "Uncollected" series.

The Woody Herman one is a good example of the transcription tracks being much better than the released studio stuff.

glenncrytzer
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:35 pm
Contact:

#3 Post by glenncrytzer » Mon Feb 08, 2010 1:21 pm

1. Bands often played it safe on the radio. You didn't want to take risks in front of a huge audience like that as a mistake could break your band.

2. If the band really went for it it could cause the broadcast equipment to peak out and distort the sound quality. On a regular recording if this happened they could just do another take, but of course that's not an option live.

3. Guys were often saving their chops for their gig playing a dance hall or club for 3 or 4 hours after the radio broadcast, or in the case of late night broadcasts, guys had already used up their chops on the gig.

4. Radio programs often wanted bands to tone down the "wildness"of their sound for conservative audiences (and to appease the sponsors).

With air checks on the other hand you sometimes get them playing really all out cause they could do so without fear of peaking out or wigging out sponsors since it wasn't live. Though on airchecks sometimes the band is saving their chops for the broadcast, all depends.

Haydn
Posts: 1277
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 5:36 am
Location: London

#4 Post by Haydn » Mon Feb 08, 2010 3:18 pm

trev wrote:I'm not sure if I'd agree with that generalization. I would have said that transcriptions for the most part have more lively playing and poorer audio fidelity. I'm thinking for example of the AFRS Jubilee broadcasts and all the tracks available on Hindsight's "Uncollected" series.

The Woody Herman one is a good example of the transcription tracks being much better than the released studio stuff.
Maybe it applies more to 1930s stuff Trev - check out the two versions of Stompin' Around by Casa Loma, I think one is from 1934 and the other from 1935. Think you can hear samples on allmusic or amazon, maybe eMusic or iTunes too. Maybe the radio listening audience at that time was different to the record buying one?

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

#5 Post by Campus Five » Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:35 am

I've never noticed live radio broadcasts as being either better recorded or more "safely" played. Generally, the easiest comparisons for me to make mentally are the Camel Caravan shows of the Goodman band, captured on "On the Air: 1937-1938" which, for the most part, smokes some of the studio takes. "Bugle Call Rag" is easily way faster and hotter than the studio take. The live version of "St. Louis Blues" is also great - and extended. Also, the "King of the Clarinet" Artie Shaw recordings are also probably not better recorded or less energetic. Those broadcasts feature the only recording of "Man from Mars" and that's plenty hot. I think they played "Carioca" a bit slower, but I think that was a creative choice, rather than a function of being on the air vs. in the studio. Of the other songs on that box set, I doubt I would label any of the transcriptions as less energetic.
Another example would be one the uncharacteristically good song from Glenn Miller, "Carribean Clipper", which was later played on a broadcast by the AAF band, and the live take is hotter.

Those are just the examples that jump to mind, so maybe I've got the exceptions.
"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

Haydn
Posts: 1277
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 5:36 am
Location: London

#6 Post by Haydn » Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:48 am

Campus Five wrote:I've never noticed live radio broadcasts as being either better recorded or more "safely" played. Generally, the easiest comparisons for me to make mentally are the Camel Caravan shows of the Goodman band, captured on "On the Air: 1937-1938" which, for the most part, smokes some of the studio takes. "Bugle Call Rag" is easily way faster and hotter than the studio take. The live version of "St. Louis Blues" is also great - and extended. Also, the "King of the Clarinet" Artie Shaw recordings are also probably not better recorded or less energetic. Those broadcasts feature the only recording of "Man from Mars" and that's plenty hot. I think they played "Carioca" a bit slower, but I think that was a creative choice, rather than a function of being on the air vs. in the studio. Of the other songs on that box set, I doubt I would label any of the transcriptions as less energetic.
Yeah, completely agree with all that. Most of the live Artie Shaw, Goodman and Miller stuff is noticeably more energetic than the studio versions. I think the Shaw, Goodman and Miller ones were all done in front of an audience, weren't they? You get announcements and clapping at the end, and sometimes you can hear the crowd during the track. In fact, I think the Shaw, Goodman & co were concerts/dances broadcast live, whereas the Casa Loma transcriptions were done in a studio. That's how it sounds anyway.

glenncrytzer
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:35 pm
Contact:

#7 Post by glenncrytzer » Thu Feb 11, 2010 6:42 pm

Of course by the late 30's early 40's it was a different story, but during the early 30's sweeter bands were hired to play on the radio more regularly and bands that could play hot were still generally relegated to playing more commercial sweet music.

I think saying that all live air recordings have less energy or that all live recordings have more energy is probably too broad a generalization, but if you want to look at why a particular recording is flat, or series of recordings from a particular band or particular show, it's probably traceable to one of the factors mentioned above.

PS

With regard to King Porter Stomp: B.G. original recording 1935. Chick Webb recording 1936 (much faster). I'm not sure of the exact date of the radio transcription, 1937 or 1938 but I'm guessing they heated up this arrangement either to prepare for, or in response to, getting their asses handed to them by Chick Webb at the Savoy in '37.

Personally I prefer the live BG recording on this one to the Webb, but I'm guessing the reason for the hotter live recording is that they needed to step that arrangement up in the dance hall between 1935 and the date of the live recording.

G
Last edited by glenncrytzer on Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

Haydn
Posts: 1277
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 5:36 am
Location: London

#8 Post by Haydn » Fri Feb 12, 2010 6:59 am

glenncrytzer wrote:Of course by the late 30's early 40's it was a different story, but during the early 30's sweeter bands were hired to play on the radio more regularly and bands that could play hot were still generally relegated to playing more commercial sweet music.
I didn't know that. But I actually meant bands like Casa Loma recording two different takes of the same song - one for record, one for transcription. Again, a good example of what I mean is the great track "Stompin' Around". There is a record version from 1934 (from the CD: Stompin' Around) and a transcription one from 1935 (from the CD: The Transcription Sessions 1935 (Vol. 1)). I think the Casa Loma transcriptions are 'studio transcriptions' whereas the Miller/Shaw/Dorsey ones from the late 1930s and earliers 1940s (e.g. Man from Mars by Artie Shaw) are 'live transcriptions'.

Locked