Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [RedHotJazz] John R.T. Davies deafness?

Expand Messages
  • Hugh Crozier
    Ironically enough I spoke to JRT by phone when I was tracing his boxed Armstrong set. I mentioned in passing the quality of his Oliver reissues, and especially
    Message 1 of 10 , Nov 8, 2006
      Ironically enough I spoke to JRT by phone when I was tracing his boxed Armstrong set. I mentioned in passing the quality of his Oliver reissues, and especially the fact that the second cornet comes through so clearly. I was surprised that he did not think there was anything of particular note about the Olivers. Many people I spoke to at the time the Oliver double CD was issued were as struck as I was by the high quality, but to JRT they were simply reissues using more modern equipment.

      And, yes, he did say that reissues should happen every 10 years or so, so there may well be some merit in a reissue now.

      Hugh Crozier

      ----- Original Message ----
      From: Howard Rye <howard@...>
      To: RedHotJazz@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wednesday, 8 November, 2006 8:50:00 AM
      Subject: Re: [RedHotJazz] John R.T. Davies deafness?

      on 8/11/06 7:59, Michael Rader at Rader.Michael@ web.de wrote:

      > If you bother to read my postings you might have noted an incomplete sentence,
      > reporting from the Bixography discussion group. What the contributor (one Phil
      > Walsh) said was: "metallic, muffled, muddy and the bass freqs always cut out,
      > I had always to pull up the knob of my EQ to have back the tuba or string
      > bass. I got rid of all my records made by John R.T."

      There have always been people who have preferred a "modernized" artifact to
      attempts to reproduce the original tone qualities.

      There were once people who preferred the results of using the new tools of
      the 60s, as heard for instance on the Ace of Hearts series. I have little
      doubt that the verdict of history will be with John R.T.'s approach.

      I also can hear no evidence that his work was deterioriating but it is also
      obvious that much of his later output was, as has already been discussed in
      relation to the King Oliver issue, recycled earlier work. It is obvious not
      only because he occasionally admitted it but because mistakes in the
      identification of takes and even titles made much earlier recurred in later
      issues (e.g. the Johnny Dodds and Jimmy Blythe Timlesss CBC1-010) making it
      perfectly clear that the same mastertapes were being used for the digitized
      CDs as had been used for the previous LPs.

      I have never noticed any difference between the final generation Swaggie LPs
      and the CDs of the same material. Has anyone? (Except that the CDs sometimes
      introduce additional distortion, as in the case of the Clarence Williams
      Timeless CDs, which has also been discussed in this list).

      If anyone is suffering from slight deafness it is those who cannot hear the
      spurious tones introduced by the new digital tools, and there are a few
      issues about on which this must be what is happening since they could never
      possibly reach the marketplace otherwise!

      No one's hearing (at least no man's) is as good at 75 as at 35, never mind
      15, but most of what is lost is high frequency noise. However, there have
      been a few people involved with reissues who actually had hearing
      deficiencies which prevented them from hearing the results they were
      producing as others hear them. It would be unfair to name names! But start
      with those who don't notice the janglings and noise-pumping resulting from
      the "new digital tools", which JRTD certainly still did! If you can still
      hear this gunk you've nothing to worry about.

      Howard Rye, 20 Coppermill Lane, London, England, E17 7HB
      howard@coppermill. demon.co. uk
      Tel/FAX: +44 20 8521 1098

      Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.