I would say the same for live recordings of Artie Shaw's band of 1939 --
better than the studio work.
>>> Milan P Milovanovic <[log in to unmask]> 6/2/2012 10:20 PM >>>
I've read this interesting discussion few times, and while I'm no expert in
classical field, I could not agree with you when jazz broadcasts/club and
concert dates are involved, for they often contain so exciting, thrilling,
joyful music ever recorded "on wax", despite some technical flaws,
imperfections, bad ensemble work at some given spots, intonation problems
and so on.
The same occurs with alternate takes in studio environment. One can think of
many cases from 78 rpm when record companies recorded two or three complete
takes with no audible "mistakes" or "fluff" (whatever the reason was to cut
them - I put this question about a week or so, unfortunately no discussion
followed it) but overall results were so much different in terms of quality
of given solos, musical thinking, instantaneous reflex reactions to what is
unrolling during studio time and so on. Then again, I can think of "Oh
Memory" take Louis Armstrong did on "Stardust", while for broadcasts there
are some Benny Goodman live 1943. recordings of FH arrangements that
probably, IMHO, are above any studio date he did.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 7:42 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Who needs vinyl?
This is why I don't believe in issuing recordings of radio
> broadcasts, because the performance was a one-time event and often
> containing flubs or other things that would not pass muster with a
> recording session of yore