Perfectly recorded & accessible jazz

[andy517]

Hello everyone,

I have a kind of classical question with a small twist.

I'm new to jazz (a year maybe), except it I listen mainly to prog rock. But I got hooked up thanks to Kind Of Blue and Oscar Peterson. My problem is, I have a nearly audiophile grade IEMs and most of the widely recommended albums just aren't recorded so well so I could really enjoy the sound of instruments. Most of Charlie Parker's or Monk's recordings being an example, the sound is just bad for me.

I know that I can't want much from 60 years old records but there is some perfectly recorded stuff (Kind of Blue) and I'm searching for other albums which are easy to listen (mainly bebop I guess) and well recorded. I know I can go to some 80s or 90s recordings but I also like the atmosphere of old times :).

Stuff I enjoy and has a good sound according to me:
Oscar Peterson - Great Connection
Sonny Stitt - Sits in with O. Peterson (I much prefer piano to horns, but the atmosphere and sound of the sax here is incredible and better than on most of his records)
Miles Davis - Kind Of Blue
Keith Jarrett - Still Live (not quite accessible but the piano sound is just awesome and it can send chills down one's spine)
Oh and The Bad Plus :))

So if you could recommend something good, or just something you enjoy the sound quality of. It may be something new, you just don't find the new stuff in all the TOP100 jazz albums charts and it's often kind of too experimental for me.

[jazz oud]

Music wasn't recorded with audiotape until a few years after WWII (the technology was a secret closely guarded by the Nazis), so you're going to mostly be looking at post 1950 recordings.

You should probably begin with the bigger labels like Columbia and Verve. Blue Note, Prestige, Riverside, Fantasy, Pacific, etc. all have a lot of great recordings but didn't have the budget of the big labels.

There are a bunch of Miles records from around the same time as Kind of Blue that are well-recorded and perfectly accessible, like Milestones, Porgy and Bess, and Miles Ahead. The recordings from 1958 (I think on Prestige) right before that also have good sound, except for the piano (usually the weak point), such as Relaxin' and Workin'.
Virtually all of Stan Getz's Verve output from about 1960 on is quite well-recorded.

The dividing date tends to be around 1960, this is when multitrack recording became more available and common.

Not that you asked for it, but I want to qualify the above with my personal opinion: the more you listen to the music and the more you have internalized the real acoustic sound of the instruments, the less important the fidelity of the recordings becomes. Our brains have a tremendous capacity to fill in the defects of the recording, once they have sufficient resources to do so. If you avoid poorly recorded music, you will be missing out on much of the greatest music in history. While it's good to appreciate excellent sound, obsession with recording quality over content is rather superficial.

[andy517]

Thank you for your input, I haven't really listened to Stan Getz yet (been preffering the piano stuff) but I will surely listen to something. And Davis' albums you listed are by conincidence among those I didn't get to. Currently I'm stuck at Tribute to J.J. :)).

Your last paragraph is inspiring and it is really something to think about :). I guess after lots of years of listening to guitars my ears want to enjoy other instruments in all fidelity, not putting aside the music must be good. For example "Night Train" is an album where the sound quality doesn't matter to me but it's getting too simple for me, I guess it is a good sign. In ten years or so I'd like to truly appreciate all the complicated stuff :)).

[walkin]

I find the stuff Columbia recorded in the late `50s/`60s really well recorded:

Dave Brubeck-Gone With The Wind,Time Out and Time Further Out
Thelonious Monk-Monk`s Dream,It`s Monk`s Time,Underground
JJ Johnson-Trombone Master

[jazz oud]

I'm glad that my comments were thought-provoking, that was the spirit I intended (rather than criticism).

There are a bunch of Monk recordings on Columbia, such as "Underground" and "Solo Monk", that are excellent recordings. Musically, I prefer many of the earlier and live recordings, but these are still good and it may be easier for you to get into them with the better sound and work your way backward.
The recently discovered recording of the Monk/Coltrane Carnegie Hall concert also has good quality and great playing.

[jonesy]

I have a nearly audiophile grade IEMs

What is IEMs?

[andy517]

Thanks for other tips, I will check them all. I'm listening to "T. Monk with J. Coltrane", 1957 and it is good so I guess there are quality Monk's records after all :-).

Jonesy: I'm not sure if you are looking for a definition or model. IEM = In ear monitors or in-ears.

My model is currently VSonic GR04 Pro Flagship. Right now they are selling for incredibly low money because the company screwed up naming of their models (they are better than GR06) and wants to get rid of them. Great bargain for everyone

[Alypius]

I too listen to lots of classical and appreciate the concern for top-flight recording quality.
For audiophile quality, try more recent jazz, especially in the digital era --
and especially anything that appears on the ECM label.
Here are a few starters -- all accessible and a variety of different styles:

Marcin Wasilewski Trio, January (ECM, 2008)
Marcin Wasilewski Trio, Faithful (ECM, 2011)
Pat Metheny, Bright Size Life (ECM, 1979)
Manu Katche, Manu Katche (ECM, 2012)
John Abercrombie & Ralph Towner, Sargasso Sea (ECM, 1976)
Dave Holland Quintet, Prime Directive (ECM, 1999)
Dave Holland Quintet, Not for Nothin' (ECM, 2001)




Given your interest in piano, try one of the earliest digital recordings ever made -- when digital was still a Sony prototype in the late 1970s:

Herbie Hancock, The Piano (Columbia, 1979)

I would also recommend any recent Nonesuch recordings. Nonesuch uses a warmer sound (ECM's is more crisp, even crystalline). For a piano focus, check anything by Brad Mehldau. For starters, try last year's Ode (Nonesuch, 2012) and Where Do You Start (Nonesuch, 2012). If those appeal, follow up with any of the five-volume Art of the Trio series (which was boxed up into a 7 CD set) in 2011.



Please let us know what you find helpful. And please continue to contribute.

[Dave Martin]

I would also add that IEM's are, in my experience, NOT the best way to listen to music (not a criticism, simply an observation); even more than headphones, IEM's block the ambiance of the listening environment, artificially enhance the stereo field, and are certainly NOT what the artists heard when recording. I use them for work, but when I want to enjoy music, I play it on speakers. And as Jazz Oud stated, the music should, especially when heard on speakers, transcend the audio quality of the recording.

[Vaughan]

This is the second thread of this type we've had recently. For some reason I see it as a bit of a worry - where the perceived sonic quality is held up as being equally important as the music itself.

Sonic quality varies because of many things. Columbia, for example, have lots of Jazz CD's out, but many of them were improved with remasters. It's not the recording that ought to be the concern but the particular mastering.

I won't even begin to go into how immaterial the quality is in the end. Which is not to say if everything was played back on a scratchy old mono phonograph it would be the same - just that the quality of the recording ought (imo) to be some way down on the list of priorities.

For truly good headphones IED just don't cut it - you need over-the-ear ones. Even then, a decision has to be made for what type of playback you want. Do you want faithful reproduction of the recording, or do you want the failings of a recording to be masked in some way? For example, my Shure headphones have faithful reproduction - but listening to MP3's on them can be torturous. You can here the compression. Whereas Sennheimer models are known for smoothing out these issues, so you don't notice them. It's just up to the individual.

IMO, of course.

[andy517]

First if all - thanks everyone for their comments, this answer will be a bit short because typing on my phone.

Alypius: Thanks for your comprehensive answer, I will look i to it. I've heard some Mehldau stuff and it is very nice, especially faster songs, since it takes quite some time to get to know all the jazz standarts. And as a Radiohead diehard fan I must say his covers/renditions are just great.

Dave, Vaughan: I realize it may sound like I want to judge book by its cover, but right now there are literally thousands quality albums I can choose from and get easily lost, skipping from one to another. So for the beginning, sonic quality might be my filter. I realize IEMs are not the best type, but I like them more than others and if you have good ones...

Mine are very neutral in sound, I boost the bass a little bit sometimes but they are still less bassy than all of Shure models I've heard. I had the entry model, SE115, for some time and their sound was "fun", but I wouldn't say neutral and precise, I guess it's better in more expensive models.

[Dave Martin]

You may, of course, do as you wish - but I suspect that your filter may be keeping you from hearing some marvelous music. I spent a couple of hours during a rather long drive over the weekend listening to 1920's and early 30's recording of Bunk Johnson, Louis Armstrong's Hot 5 and Hot 7, a bunch of transcriptions from Sophie Tucker, Bessie Smith and Duke Ellington, and some even older copies of Emmit Miller's Medicine show (with the Dorsey Brothers, Gene Krupa and Eddie Lang). If you were going for sonic quality, these would not be on your playlist - but there's some important music there...

You might also be aware that sound quality is a variable; personally, I've never been a fan of the piano sound from the Van Gelder recordings - but that doesn't keep me from enjoying the musicianship.

[Vaughan]

Certainly it's a case of "each to their own". You must do whatever suits.

Personally speaking I am certain of a few things.

1) Listening in the car, or on a train/bus, or around noise, never necessitates sterling production/recording. There is just too much noise, too many distractions. Deep listening requires complete concentration, which means - for me - silence all around me. I can't do it if, for example, the washing machine is going, or people are talking.

2) The "quality" of music is never dependent on the quality of the recording. For me that's like saying only packages in shiny boxes are worth my time, or that I like cinema but am only interested in color movies, or movies that have surround sound rather than stereo.

3) "Quality" varies from person to person. Some like Senheimer headphones, some Shure. Some like Linn systems, some Nad. Perception is everything, and it's also personal.

4) Training the ear involves more than hearing - and delivers greater benefits over time.

5) It isn't that sonic quality doesn't matter, it's that it is a lesser concern than other qualities.

6) MP3 files are never truly great or audiophile.

7) MP3 players are never truly great or audiophile.

8) Listening on computers is never truly great or audiophile.

9) Demands for "sonic quality" in the digital age has been detrimental to music. In meeting the demands of MP3 files and players, overall sonic quality has suffered through compression.

10) Buying an "audiophile" system (amp, speakers, deck) will return a greater sonic boost than any remaster, it will also greatly increase your enjoyment of all music, not just Jazz.

11) Trying to address audiophile concerns with cheap equipment is akin to trying to get the best from a cheap 1960's transistor radio. It's fun to try, but you never really succeed (cost alone isn't a good metric to choose an audio system, but at the end of the day more expensive generally equals better quality).

12) Sony are sh*t.

/end

[mwtzzz]

I can't help you with your question about audio recording quality because I don't pay attention to that, but I can recommend good bebop pianists from the 50s:

Lou Levy
Russ Freeman
Bud Powell

Those guys were consistently excellent, so anything recorded by them from the 50s onwards will give you that classic bebop sound you want.

[PeterCS]

Originally Posted by Vaughan

This is the second thread of this type we've had recently. For some reason I see it as a bit of a worry - where the perceived sonic quality is held up as being equally important as the music itself.

Sonic quality varies because of many things. Columbia, for example, have lots of Jazz CD's out, but many of them were improved with remasters. It's not the recording that ought to be the concern but the particular mastering.

I won't even begin to go into how immaterial the quality is in the end. Which is not to say if everything was played back on a scratchy old mono phonograph it would be the same - just that the quality of the recording ought (imo) to be some way down on the list of priorities.

...

This btw is the thread V was referring to ...

http://forums.allaboutjazz.com/showthread.php?t=30263