[Dixielandjazz] Archeophone Sounds of King Oliver

[Steve Barbone]

"Robert S. Ringwald" <robert at ringwald.com> wrote (about the comparison of
Archeophone vs previous recordings of K.O.)
 
> Wow!
> 
> What a difference!
> 
> I always suspected that Oliver and Armstrong were using mutes because of the
> primitive recording equipment.  But in the Archeophone version, you can tell
> that they were not.
> 
> Think about this -- If the recording industry continues to improve equipment
> and restore capabilities, what do you think we will hear in 50-years?

And I had previously posted about them: (polite snip)

>> Some may not hear any difference in the two recordings. . . <grin>

I think most will hear the differences, but the reason I posted the above
remark was because of a review of the Archeophone CD on Amazon.com. There
were about 8 very positive reviews (5 stars) and then this completely
opposite 1 star review panning it.

start snip . . 

"Issue fails to live up to claims made for it, by far!" - by A. Bennett
    
"The label claims this issue to be far superior to anything previous & I
eagerly awaited hearing it. It sounds thin, harsh & impossible to listen to
for any extended period. A direct comparison with another available issue
shows it in an extremely poor light.  I'd seriously recommend anybody drawn
in by the claims made for this issue not to waste their money on it."

End snip . .

I guess there are ears, and then there are "ears". <grin>

IMO, there will be others who say that the Oliver Band was a dance band, not
a jazz band. They are comparing apples to oranges. Weren't just about all
jazz bands, as the term was used in the 1920s, dance bands?

Sadly that has changed, and the popularity of jazz took a nose dive.
Coincidence?

Cheers,
Steve Barbone