[Dixielandjazz] Archeophone Sounds of King Oliver

[Fr M J (Mike) Logsdon]

Well, I have to say that even though I'm glad to own it, I, too, was less
than impressed.  On the technical end, I can't deny it's the best cleanup
ever done.  But anything Mr Davies did sounds at least as acceptable, if not
more, as his work was analog-based, and thusly involving a more "warm" tone
in the final product.  But, once again, the use of various stylii, and the
non-invasive digital cleanup, definitely produced a quality entry in the
K.O. CD pantheon.

But the final question for me is, Why not just find the reissue one likes,
and simply enjoy it?  Continuing to hope for the Ur Reissue of a set of
recordings that will never sound as good as one wants, is wasted effort, I
think.  Which is why I actually enjoy Don Vappie's *In Search of King
Oliver* more than King Oliver himself.  It's an attempt to recreate, in real
time, what he most likely sounded like live, rather than try to dredge out
of those thrashed 1923 discs what can't possible be dredged out of them.  In
terms of the 1923 discs, I think Mr Davies gave us all we can expect.
Beyond that, it's all conjecture.

As always,
----
Etc,

Fr M J (Mike) Logsdon, Vicar-general
North American Old Roman Catholic Church (Utrecht Succession)
Archdiocese of California
www.naorc.org

"Simplicity, when it is not a careless gift of the Muse, is the last and
most painful achievement of conscientious self-denial." - James Russell
Lowell.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: dixielandjazz-bounces at ml.islandnet.com
> [mailto:dixielandjazz-bounces at ml.islandnet.com]On Behalf Of Steve
> Barbone
> Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 11:56 AM
> To: Rev M J (Mike) Logsdon
> Cc: Dixieland Jazz Mailing List
> Subject: [Dixielandjazz] Archeophone Sounds of King Oliver
>
>
> "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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> To unsubscribe or change your e-mail preferences for the
> Dixieland Jazz Mailing list, or to find the online archives, please visit:
>
> http://ml.islandnet.com/mailman/listinfo/dixielandjazz
>
>
>
> Dixielandjazz mailing list
> Dixielandjazz at ml.islandnet.com