"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote

The objectives in recording are totally different.

I don't buy it.

Perhaps you have never really considered
what the difference inrequirements and objectives
might be. See below (Clip included)

In big band recording, the objective is to record a
close up hard hitting image (listen to Buddy Rich)
In classical recording the objective is to record a
performance set back in its acoustic environment.
Two totally different techniques are required, which
is why since the fifties up to the present day, the finest
big band recordings have been multi mic, and the
finest classical recordings are made with pairs, or
trees often with outriggers.


What sort of "classical" are you talking about here? Plainsong or
Gershwin?, Bach or Wagner?


None of those composers were 'classical' - that's a blanket category you
find (used to find) in record shops.

Bach was Baroque bloke (need to be a Yank for that to work), Wagner was a
pedantic Romantic and Gershwin was a frantic transatlantic...

Please see here to see how many famous composers were *not* 'classical':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...usic_composers

That's my point.

Iain is lumping them all together and declaring that one technique is
appropriate for all of them (but a different one required for Big Bands).

David, there is a recording technique known as "classical" which, as
I have stated may be used for a Bach cembalo or a Wagner opera.
It is based on a simple pair, or tree or tree with outriggers. The
Decca classical team recorded Baroque to post-modern
but never big band:-)

If you listened to the clip which I provided, and considered
the questions, you will understand why such a technique is
not suitable for big band recording (or jazz, or pop music
for that matter)

Iain

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote

I posted a link in my previous post to illustrate
the point. Up to now, David seems to find it
impossible to accept that the technical requirements
and listener expectations for a big band recording
are totally different to a classical project.

This is understandable.

You are continuing to use the terms "Big Band" and "Classical" as though
they were similar, they aren't.

But earlier, you stated that you "didn't buy" my claim that
due to their differences they require totally different techniques.


"Big Band" refers to one very specific musical style that arose in the US
in the 1930s,

1920s actually, Paul Whiteman.

and remains the same today.

Your not serious? Big band music, like every other genre
is constantly developing. The playing techniques, writing
and arranging styles common in the 20s, 30s ad 40s are
rarely heard these days, except in tribute performances.
Even the style of artists like Ellington changed enormously
Listen to the original 1930s recording of Diminuendo and
Cresendo in Blue, and compare it with the 1956 version
and then the 1970 version!

Whist some "classical" is far closer in sound to the Big Band than it is
to most other classical music.

Sorry, too vague to even consider. Can you give an example?

Even the use of saxophones in a big band (not part of a
standard classical orchestra) and the lack of orchestral
woodwinds, French horns, harp etc makes the range of
tone colour in each totally different.

Frankly the notion that the very consistant style of the Big Band requires
one type of recording, and *everything else* uses a second type of
recording makes no sense.

Certainly not everything else,. Pop music recording is
again a style all of its own, but most classical recordings
from cembalo to Opera,. can be done with a fairly standard
classical approach.

Did you read my other post on this matter, and listen to the
example?

Iain

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
As I said earlier:

If you listen to the finest live or studio big band
recordings from the mid fifties onwards, Ellington,
Basie, Kenton,Woody Herman Ted Heath etc,
(Ellington At Newport 1956 is a perfect example)
you will find they are all multi mic. Ask yourself
why, if a simple pair alone would suffice.

It all probably seems so easy and straightforward
to someone like David.

I've given up trying to make you address big band recordings made in the
20s and 30s. And what those would have sounded like live. Before the days
of high powered PA systems.

You really should do something about this word blindness thing you suffer
from.

--
*I wish the buck stopped here. I could use a few.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote

The objectives in recording are totally different.

I don't buy it.

Perhaps you have never really considered
what the difference inrequirements and objectives
might be. See below (Clip included)

In big band recording, the objective is to record a
close up hard hitting image (listen to Buddy Rich)
In classical recording the objective is to record a
performance set back in its acoustic environment.
Two totally different techniques are required, which
is why since the fifties up to the present day, the finest
big band recordings have been multi mic, and the
finest classical recordings are made with pairs, or
trees often with outriggers.


What sort of "classical" are you talking about here? Plainsong or
Gershwin?, Bach or Wagner?


None of those composers were 'classical' - that's a blanket category you
find (used to find) in record shops.

Bach was Baroque bloke (need to be a Yank for that to work), Wagner was
a
pedantic Romantic and Gershwin was a frantic transatlantic...

Please see here to see how many famous composers were *not* 'classical':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...usic_composers

That's my point.



Looks like Mr Loser is reading and replying to my posts? I thought he had me
in his ****ter??

If he wants out of mine, he'll have to get word passed to me....

??

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...


I posted a link in my previous post to illustrate
the point. Up to now, David seems to find it
impossible to accept that the technical requirements
and listener expectations for a big band recording
are totally different to a classical project.

This is understandable.

Talking about it, and actually doing it to meet the
requirements of professional producers, clients,
musicians, and discerning listeners are two very
different things:-)



Exactly. For ages, the Googlers, cut & pasters and yappers here banked on
no-one with actual *hands on* turning up....


As I said earlier:

If you listen to the finest live or studio big band
recordings from the mid fifties onwards, Ellington,
Basie, Kenton,Woody Herman Ted Heath etc,
(Ellington At Newport 1956 is a perfect example)
you will find they are all multi mic. Ask yourself
why, if a simple pair alone would suffice.

It all probably seems so easy and straightforward
to someone like David.

But things are rarely what they seem.



*Nobody* expects the Spanish Inquisition!!



Why did Charlie Parker practice 15 hrs a day?



Because he'd heard the 'How do you get to Carnegie Hall?' joke?

:-)



After all, you only have to blow down the sharp
end and twiddle your fingers:-)



As the bishop said to.....never mind....

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote

I posted a link in my previous post to illustrate
the point. Up to now, David seems to find it
impossible to accept that the technical requirements
and listener expectations for a big band recording
are totally different to a classical project.

This is understandable.

You are continuing to use the terms "Big Band" and "Classical" as though
they were similar, they aren't.

But earlier, you stated that you "didn't buy" my claim that
due to their differences they require totally different techniques.

Obviously I didn't make myself clear. I mean "similar" in terms of the scope
of the terms, that's why I put the words in quotes. The range of the term
"Big Band" is small, whilst that of the term "Classical" is huge.


"Big Band" refers to one very specific musical style that arose in the
US
in the 1930s,

1920s actually, Paul Whiteman.

and remains the same today.

Your not serious?

Near enough the same. We are not all Big Bands anoraks

Whist some "classical" is far closer in sound to the Big Band than it is
to most other classical music.

Sorry, too vague to even consider. Can you give an example?

Rhapsody in Blue, West Side Story for example.


Even the use of saxophones in a big band (not part of a
standard classical orchestra)

By no means all "classical" music uses a "standard" orchestra.

and the lack of orchestral
woodwinds, French horns, harp etc makes the range of
tone colour in each totally different.

Frankly the notion that the very consistant style of the Big Band
requires
one type of recording, and *everything else* uses a second type of
recording makes no sense.

Certainly not everything else,. Pop music recording is
again a style all of its own,

I would have thought it obvious from the context that we aren't talking
about pop! (or rock, jazz, folk etc either!) I am talking about the vast
range of musical styles loosely grouped under the term "Classical".

but most classical recordings
from cembalo to Opera,. can be done with a fairly standard
classical approach.


Which is the claim I don't believe. I'd like a second opinion, preferably
from a recording engineer who is interested in classical music as you are in
jazz. I don't believe that you can record a Wagner opera, for example, well
with a "fairly standard classical approach".


Did you read my other post on this matter, and listen to the
example?


What on earth is *one* example supposed to prove? Post 100 different clips
from 100 different musical works evenly spread over the compositions of the
last 800 years, yet all recorded in exactly the same way and all equally
excellent, and I might concede you had a point.

David.