Print

Print


You are right, Mike,with saying that the ordering of items in an  
album was generally made by the producer,not the artist.
This confirms my opinion that  'records' and 'recordings' are two  
different "worlds", although tightly connected.
Michel Ruppli
-------
Le 4 mai 10 à 08:11, Michael Biel a écrit :

>
> 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
his
> 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.
>