[Dixielandjazz] Restoration of Art

Stephen Barbone barbonestreet@earthlink.net
Sat, 17 Aug 2002 17:57:16 -0400

Kash wrote: (polite snip)

I'm all in favor of restoration, as long as it doesn't become the major
attraction of the piece of art that is being restored.  (Is that a clear

statement, or should I do a bit of restoration on it?)

Restoration as I see or hear it is to bring the art, or recording back
to what it would have looked like originally, or sounded like live,
prior to being muted by the passage of time, (eg. paintings) or the
primitive recording machinery of those early days (recorded music).

Regarding art, The Sistine Chapel frescoes were dulled by candle smoke,
and climactic effects as well as CO2 breathed out by humans, over a
period of several hundred years. Prior restorations only served to
reinforce the dullness of the colors. Now, a few years ago, a
restoration took place that most experts say brought back the original
brightness to the work. A vast difference to those who have seen the
before and after.

If, a process like Kash describes can restore sound (and why shouldn't
that be possible?) then I eagerly await the restoration of all those
early records. Not so much for stereo effect, but so we can hear tuba
and drums, other than wood blocks, more clearly, and the other
instruments more cleanly.

Of course, for all I know that might defy the laws of physics. :-)   If
so, we'll have to figure out a way to modify those laws.

Steve Barbone

PS. That's also a good argument for recreating the music on those old
records with a contemporary band. An exact arrangement of "One Step" or
"Livery Stable" or of those early King Oliver sides on Gennett, by a
good band, is certainly worth listening to, if only to hear what the
music really sounded like to those lucky recording engineers there at
the time.