LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  May 2010

ARSCLIST May 2010

Subject:

Re: Sonny Stitt Roost records discography wanted

From:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 4 May 2010 06:42:43 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (142 lines)

I hear what you're saying, but we just disagree. I don't WANT to see the rough drafts of a writer, I
can make my own rough drafts. I want to read a finished, polished piece of work as the writer wanted
to present it to the world. You don't win prizes for rough drafts, you win prizes for the skill (or
being blessed with an editor who has the skill) to take that rough draft and make it award-winning
writing.

As for music, I think a commercial release should be just that, a commercial piece of entertainment
software. Not a textbook on the artist noodling around before and after he finds a groove. In the
jazz world in the LP era, if a label had any vision or budget, they had one or more producers (A&R
man). The good ones of these guys were key in shaping coherent, viable albums. They and/or the
artist would call for "just one more take" and sometimes obtain the true gem. They, either alone or
with the artist and/or other execs would come up with the best sequence of tunes. The end product,
in the best cases, would be a polished commercial product. This is what I'm interested in, their
work of art, not what kind of brush strokes they tried to get there.

And as for the rejected takes and studio chatter, I feel very strongly about this -- if I were an
artist, I would order them destroyed or take possession of all my tapes. This is like an unpublished
manuscript published after a writer is dead, it violates the artists' privacy and cheapens their
art. It's a person's right as a creator to decide what of his or her creative output is put on
public display. I think it's voyeouristic and somewhat goulish not to respect that. I know there are
"must have every single bit of studio chatter" collectors who violently disagree with this! OK, so
you can have that stuff but can I at least have the original albums as they were released as an
artistic and commercial statement? I'm out to be entertained, not watch a guy change his reeds or
play around on a riff until he finds the groove he needs for the master take.

Mike's point about "a sequence for each side" being busted up in the CD era is a good one, in my
opinion. But I've been surprised how well the great albums hang together as one 30-50 minute
sequence. Get over that time limit and it starts to drag for sure, which is another argument against
all the extra scraps. But I never minded putting the scraps at the end, I can just listen to the
album sequence (or either side sequence) and go on to another CD. What is difficult is trying to
piece together an album sequence out of a record-in-studio sequence if an album came from several
sessions spread on several discs. Again, it's a commercial entertainment product. I don't really
care what order it was recorded in as far as a listening experience.

Now that last sentence ties into Michel's point. I think as a WRITTEN discography product, a
reference/academic thing, session order is the logical way to present the data. One thing that would
be great is where an album cat number is listed, in parens state where in the sequence the tune
landed (ie ABD Records X-01 [A2], Columbia Records XC5001 [B5]), at least for the original LP
release. I know it's muddier with stuff that was released very early with perhaps both a 10" and 12"
issue at nearly the same time, but once you get past the early 50's it gets easier. If something was
just a single side (78 or 45), why not an indicator, asteric or something?

Back to MUSIC compilations, I understand why completist sets are done in
chronological/discographical order, although I think it's pedantic and boring to listen to them
straight through. But so why not list the original album titles and sequences for the rest of us who
bought the thing because we can't get the original albums anymore and like the artist? Then, in the
age of iPods, we can somewhat easily reconstruct the albums, not even transfer the junk cuts
(rejected takes and studio chatter) and enjoy the artistic statement as intended by the artist
and/or producer? That's all I'm asking for -- just a simple listing at the end of the booklets,
after the "proper" discography.

And BTW, the same thing goes for non-completist compilations like a record label "story" set or an
artist "overview" set. I think the nearly universal adherence to chronological order is lazy and
anal-retentitve. Why not make an entertaining product? Think about sequence. What songs go together
best? Hire a good DJ or other taste-maker (if such a person exists anymore) if you're more a vault
guy than a producer in the traditional sense?

My bottom line is, I think a finished commercial music product has many hands and there is valid
input from others beyond the artist. When it all clicks, you get a magical entertainment product
that combines a group of creative, well-played and properly recorded tunes with an over-brain
deciding things like sequence and album art so the end product is more than the artistic
performance. That end product is the real entertainment and I think the compilers dismiss it in too
cavalier a fashion.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Biel" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 2:11 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Sonny Stitt Roost records discography wanted


From: Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
> Did I mention how much I don't like chronological-discography compilations?
> This substitutes the taste and intents of the artist and producer(s) for
> some sort of academic study of a body of work. Boring! Bad enough to waste
> listening time with rejected takes and false starts, but also to destroy
> album continuity and vibe, for the sake of what? I never understood this
> sort of compilation, going back to multi-LP collections of the 70's and 80's.
> -- Tom Fine


I have the exact opposite attitude. The body of work of a performer
exists as it was recorded in the studio. The ordering of the items in
the album is usually an afterthought that rarely includes the performer,
just as the performer almost never knew what the album cover would look
like. If "album continuity" actually meant something, they would record
it in the studio in that order. Just recently I did hear a discussion
by George Avakian about how he decided on programming LP tracks, but
that was his decision alone as producer, not the performer. In a live
concert the performer usually makes the choice. That is not the same.
And if there HAS to be a certain order, every one of their concerts
would be ordered in the exact same order. Some do, and others NEVER do!

The pacing of an LP is different when it is combined into a CD with no
turn-over break. Comments have been made about the British LPs of the
Beatles as opposed to the U.S. albums. Some American listeners were
disoriented when they could only get the British versions on CD, so
Capitol put out a set of CDs of the American albums. But those were
arranged by the Capitol people without any input from the producer or
performers. But it is what the American kids grew up with and they
preferred it. And TRUE Beatles fans want to hear the recording sessions
to learn how the tracks themselves were built. You can't know that from
just the "finished product".

Studying recording sessions with busted takes and alternate takes in
order is similar to studying rough drafts of a writer. Studying the
drafts of great documents like the Declaration of Independence and
speeches like the Gettysburg Address and FDR's Declaration of War where
you can see how words and phrases were tried, changed, and modified
gives great insight into the creative process. Hearing a talented
performer's recording session can be similar. Certainly you have
attended orchestral rehearsals. Same thing. THEN when you hear the
actual performance or the approved take you know more about what went
into it.

Mike Biel [log in to unmask]




-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [ARSCLIST] Sonny Stitt Roost records discography wanted
From: Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, May 03, 2010 3:12 pm
To: [log in to unmask]

Hi All:

In one of my windmill-tilting projects for listening pleasure, I am
trying to deconstruct the Mosaic
set of Sonny Stitt Roost recordings and reconstruct it as the original
albums, in the proper
sequence. I couldn't find any good discography online. Does anyone have
the original Roost records?
Would you be willing to type in the song order and ping me on- or
off-list? Much appreciated, any
and all help. I will gather and organize the total of whatever I get
from the ether and publish in a
subsequent posting to this list.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager