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

"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 ,
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 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,


Iain, that is a 'stereo' recording, but quite *how* stereo I wouldn't like
to say: all I can say is that it is clear and detailed and the point made
about the deliberately clear direction 'for stereo' is very well
demonstrated.



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.



A very good point well made - if only the 'lurkers' would think a little
before they swung in on the latest rope the likes of Anus and his Pooch had
set up for them!

I think where it all starts to go wrong is the ludicrous concept that
relentless yapping (shouting down?) about recording by one or two here could
possibly establish them as having greater expertise than genuine, working
recording professionals who are probably totally unaware of the existence
this pathetic little viper's nest, much less bothered about what's said
here!!

"Keith G" 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,


Iain, that is a 'stereo' recording, but quite *how* stereo I wouldn't like
to say: all I can say is that it is clear and detailed and the point made
about the deliberately clear direction 'for stereo' is very well
demonstrated.

Yes, understood. What I wrote was in reference to the 1951
recordings, but the comparison with a big band recording and
and any classical recording, made with a pair, or tree or tree
with outriggers still stands.


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.

A very good point well made - if only the 'lurkers' would think a little
before they swung in on the latest rope the likes of Anus and his Pooch
had set up for them!


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:-)


Iain

"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. "Big Band" refers to one very specific
musical style that arose in the US in the 1930s, and remains the same today.
"Classical" can mean anything from the earliest days of "ancient music",
religious and secular, to "contemporary" music written in the 21st C. It
could be anything from unaccompanied voice or chamber music to an enhanced
symphony. Whist some "classical" is far closer in sound to the Big Band than
it is to most other classical music.

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.

David.