Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2023-10-03 02:05
Paul,
Thanks so much for bringing the "squillo" thread in! I had wanted to mention the thread, but couldn't remember the word to search for.
That thread is the one which initially spawned this thought/question in my mind (moreso than any before it.) I listened to all the examples, but left that thread with a feeling that technology and/or venue could explain away a good portion of what I thought I was hearing. Even closeness to the "mic" device alone might have. Not saying it does/did explain it all away - but that it could. To my ears, it most likely did explain away a great deal of the differing sounds I heard in the examples...but I haven't heard a lot of great singers in halls - so my experience is limited. My mind didn't have the material to plug the missing holes.
Which in some way refers us back to McDonald Eater's thread.
[EDIT: This part added in as an afterthought:]
A few of the current old-time jazz players have recorded using 1910s-1920s era equipment (straight to 78 or cylinder). A few of those albums were then digitized and sold. The difference is that studio techs back then probably had much more experience at the procedure than our current musicians, so I suspect these modern recordings are a bit rougher than the vintage ones.
Still, it is very interesting to be able to hear the tone/quality/sound of a player that you've heard live, heard recorded on modern equipment, and compare it to the 78 or cylinder recording. While stylistically, its easy to hear that its the same artist; and while one specific artist still contrasts with the artist sitting/standing next to them...the overall sound is foreign.
I enjoy these recordings, but I find that had I ONLY had these vintage-type of recordings to listen to, that I would be completely wrong about how these artists actually sounded.
Fuzzy
;^)>>>
Post Edited (2023-10-03 02:19)
|
|
The Clarinet BBoard
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
