One of the distinct bonuses of having grabbed vinyl from the charity shops
like a cat burying crap, a couple of years back (when it was cheap) is that
you could quickly amass a great depth of 'variations on a theme' and could
easily end up with a dozen or so versions of certain works and you could
harvest certain composers and orchestra/conductor pairings without even
looking at the album titles!

One composer I simply grabbed whenever I saw him, no matter what, was Wagner
and tonight was a first outing for a fabulous recording I haven't yet got
round to playing before - various extracts and the Idyll *beautifully*
played by Amy's very own Detroit Symphony Orchestra (DSO)* under the
baguette of the 'Frenchman in Detroit', Paul Paray, on a fine 'Mercury
Living Presence' SR90107:

http://www.classicalnotes.net/columns/paray.html

Where you will see that this superbly dynamic and detailed stereo recording
was gathered with just three mics probably over half a century ago:

"The analogy even extends to the recordings. In early 1953, Paray and the
DSO cut their first records for Mercury, which had startled the hi-fi world
in 1951 with the unprecedented clarity and musicality of an acclaimed series
of albums using a single microphone and no equalization, filtering, mixing
or compression. The elegance of this approach was continued in late 1955
with multi-channel recordings using only three mikes, each separately
tracked on half-inch tape (later 35 mm film) and then mixed down to stereo.
The result is not only astonishingly vivid (eclipsing many recent DDD CDs) ,
but manages to project a soundstage image that gives a wonderful sense of
the atmosphere of the recording venues which were chosen for their
distinctive acoustics. Just as you can glean detail from an impressionist
painting by looking closely at the canvas, Mercury's sound provides aural
glasses that let you approach and appreciate the quality of Paray's
intricately woven sonic fabric."

And also on the sleeve notes:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Wagner.jpg


All of which, I hafta say, fits in much better with my 'pre digital/pre
solid state' *natural sound* preferences and, needless to say, the sound is
quite simply superb - giving a very high performance satisfaction!

(IOW 'blissy'!! :-)

Here's the pity - as this is an early LP, it's a bit 'old school' and needs
a bit of work to get the best out of it: you know - turn the treble down to
lose the hiss and cock a deaf 'un to the rumble they managed to record in
and which intrudes in the quiet passages. Anyway, I simply daren't post a
clip for fear of offending the sensibilities of all the 'CD only types' here
and/or get a bollocking from the moderator for posting *music*!!

LOL!!



*Is where Amy lives, is it not?

(Pity I couldn't post a snatch of the music, it might have cheered him up!
:-)

On 16/02/2010 11:20 a.m., Keith G wrote:
snip

"The analogy even extends to the recordings. In early 1953, Paray and
the DSO cut their first records for Mercury, which had startled the
hi-fi world in 1951 with the unprecedented clarity and musicality of an
acclaimed series of albums using a single microphone and no
equalization, filtering, mixing or compression.

Isn't that basically what Dave Plowman stated in regard to single
microphone recordings of big bands?? Which (if I also recall correctly)was
immediately poo poo'd by God's gift to recording engineers - Mr Churches
and supported by your good self?
I could be wrong, but I'm sure you'll be able to clarify one way or another .

"Mike Coatham" wrote in message
...
On 16/02/2010 11:20 a.m., Keith G wrote:
snip

"The analogy even extends to the recordings. In early 1953, Paray and
the DSO cut their first records for Mercury, which had startled the
hi-fi world in 1951 with the unprecedented clarity and musicality of an
acclaimed series of albums using a single microphone and no
equalization, filtering, mixing or compression.

Isn't that basically what Dave Plowman stated in regard to single
microphone recordings of big bands?? Which (if I also recall
correctly)was immediately poo poo'd by God's gift to recording engineers -
Mr Churches and supported by your good self?
I could be wrong, ..... (snip)

Yes. You are wrong, in that you are trying to compare
two totally different genres requiring very different
recording techniques. You cannot compare single
mic classical recordings of Paray/Detroit Symphony
in mono, with multi close mic hard hitting big
band recordings in stereo, any more than you can
compare a recording of a Bach solo clavicord work
with a recording of ZZ Top:-)


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.


When people listen at home to big band music,
whether concert or studio recording, they expect
contrast, immediacy, and impact of a driving
rhythm section, four trumpets, four trombones and
five saxophones. The Buddy Rich big band is a
splendid example, and the Hilversum recordings
illustrate the point perfectly.

I have worked on a large number of jazz ensemble
and big band projects and never met anyone in that
time, producer, client, engineer, musician, critic or
listener who thought that a better result could be
achieved with just a pair. I asked Dave to post a
link to an example to substantiate his assertion.
He was unable to do so.


In haste
Regards,

Iain

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Mike Coatham" wrote in message
...
On 16/02/2010 11:20 a.m., Keith G wrote:
snip

"The analogy even extends to the recordings. In early 1953, Paray and
the DSO cut their first records for Mercury, which had startled the
hi-fi world in 1951 with the unprecedented clarity and musicality of an
acclaimed series of albums using a single microphone and no
equalization, filtering, mixing or compression.

Isn't that basically what Dave Plowman stated in regard to single
microphone recordings of big bands?? Which (if I also recall
correctly)was immediately poo poo'd by God's gift to recording
engineers -
Mr Churches and supported by your good self?
I could be wrong, ..... (snip)

Yes. You are wrong, in that you are trying to compare
two totally different genres requiring very different
recording techniques. You cannot compare single
mic classical recordings of Paray/Detroit Symphony
in mono, with multi close mic hard hitting big
band recordings in stereo,

What a wriggle! Of course you can compare a symphony orchestra playing
classical music to a big band. Both are large, multi-instrument, musical
ensembles. So any arguments in favour of multi-miking addressed to one will
apply equally to the other. So-called "classical" music is not a "genre". it
is a wide range of genres. Much classical music is similar in sound and
intensity to that played by big bands.

David.

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

"Mike Coatham" wrote in message
...
On 16/02/2010 11:20 a.m., Keith G wrote:
snip

"The analogy even extends to the recordings. In early 1953, Paray and
the DSO cut their first records for Mercury, which had startled the
hi-fi world in 1951 with the unprecedented clarity and musicality of an
acclaimed series of albums using a single microphone and no
equalization, filtering, mixing or compression.

Isn't that basically what Dave Plowman stated in regard to single
microphone recordings of big bands?? Which (if I also recall
correctly)was immediately poo poo'd by God's gift to recording
engineers -
Mr Churches and supported by your good self?
I could be wrong, ..... (snip)

Yes. You are wrong, in that you are trying to compare
two totally different genres requiring very different
recording techniques. You cannot compare single
mic classical recordings of Paray/Detroit Symphony
in mono, with multi close mic hard hitting big
band recordings in stereo,

What a wriggle! Of course you can compare a symphony orchestra playing
classical music to a big band. Both are large, multi-instrument, musical
ensembles.So any arguments in favour of multi-miking addressed to one
will apply equally to the other. So-called "classical" music is not a
"genre". it is a wide range of genres. Much classical music is similar in
sound and intensity to that played by big bands.

The objectives in recording are totally different.
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.

Iain

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
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.

One day you'll accept I was talking about perhaps the heyday of the big
band - the 20s and 30s. You however immediately talk about 30 years plus
later. And electronics moved on a long way in that time.

--
*One tequila, two tequila, three tequila, floor.

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

"Iain Churches" wrote

The objectives in recording are totally different.

I don't buy it.

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? If you are suggesting that Big Bands require a different
technique how can you lump all of those very different styles together?

In any case as you yourself have said so often a recording studio doesn't
really have an "accoustic environment". As far as I am aware the vast
majority of studio recordings of classical music use multi-miking, and have
done for many years.

David.

In article ,
David Looser wrote:
In any case as you yourself have said so often a recording studio
doesn't really have an "accoustic environment". As far as I am aware
the vast majority of studio recordings of classical music use
multi-miking, and have done for many years.

IMHO, the very best symphony orchestra performances come from a location
recording, in a venue with a good acoustic. Musicians play better in such
an environment. Very few recording studios are large enough to provide
this.

--
*Many hamsters only blink one eye at a time *

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
David Looser wrote:
In any case as you yourself have said so often a recording studio
doesn't really have an "accoustic environment". As far as I am aware
the vast majority of studio recordings of classical music use
multi-miking, and have done for many years.

IMHO, the very best symphony orchestra performances come from a location
recording, in a venue with a good acoustic. Musicians play better in such
an environment. Very few recording studios are large enough to provide
this.


Oh indeed. But I wonder why that does not equally apply to Big Band
recordings? After all Big Bands were also originally formed to give live
performances rather than record.

David.

In article ,
David Looser wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
David Looser wrote:
In any case as you yourself have said so often a recording studio
doesn't really have an "accoustic environment". As far as I am aware
the vast majority of studio recordings of classical music use
multi-miking, and have done for many years.

IMHO, the very best symphony orchestra performances come from a
location recording, in a venue with a good acoustic. Musicians play
better in such an environment. Very few recording studios are large
enough to provide this.


Oh indeed. But I wonder why that does not equally apply to Big Band
recordings? After all Big Bands were also originally formed to give live
performances rather than record.

Something Iain consistently chooses to address. But it's his usual way -
ignore a point well made and write irrelevant screeds on the small part of
the 'industry' he knows.

--
*I never drink anything stronger than gin before breakfast *

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