[Dixielandjazz] Perfect Records

[Steve Barbone]

Bob Ringwald wrote:

> Steve continues by perhaps taking an Artie Shaw comment out of context:
 > (snip)
> As Artie Shaw once opined, if you don't
> make a mistake or two in a jazz performance, you are not trying hard
> enough. (snip)
> 
Bob Asks: 
> Did he say anything about making a mistake on a recording?  How many
> mistakes have you heard on Shaw's recordings?  For that matter, how many
> have you heard on Goodman's, Miller's, Dorsey's, etc?

No, not about mistakes on recordings specifically, just mistakes. But then
you make my point, they recorded until the got what they wanted. I don't
believe they "fixed" records back then. What you hear is what they played.
> 
> Goodman sure never felt that way.  The guys who worked with him said he
> rehearsed the band until it played with perfection.

You made my point again, what they played is what you hear. Not what they
fixed.
> 
> How many mistakes have you ever heard on their air checks?

Don't listen to their air checks, but I have heard lots of mistakes in the
Carnegie Concert. Never the less, Same point as above.
> 
> What did Buddy Rich think about performances that were not up to his
> standards?

He hated them, but he was a basket case. But again, that makes my point. He
didn't fix the records, he fixed the musicians by firing them.
 
> How many symphony performances have you heard, either on recordings or live,
> with clams?  Should we present our music on recordings in a lesser light
> than the examples stated above?

Answered the symphony question in another post. I don't hear the symphony
clams, but others I hang around with do and point them, out. As to how you
present your recordings, that is your business. I'm just saying that I
believe that what one plays, in any music genre, should be what is heard on
record. As to presenting in a lesser light than the symphonies, well, most
of us need to rehearse more if we want to approach their light.
 
>> Steve continues: (snip)
>> IMO, fixing records will become more and more invasive as technology
>> improves to the point that the synthesizers will take over the music with
>> "perfect" computer recordings that sound better than music played by real
>> musicians with instruments, in both fidelity and freedom from errors.
> 
> This technology is already available and is being used today.  However, that
> does not mean that we, as Jazz musicians, have to use it to that extreme.

No, of course it doesn't but you know as well as I do that some jazz
musicians will. Some are well down that road. Even if the musician is really
a techno geek who only plays the computer. Heck, if I could do it, I would.
And call it the World's Greatest Jazz Band. Improvisational music by
computer is bound to be a major factor in the very near future. But I would
start with elevator music to get even first.

We could have a battle of the bands like the old days. Computer WGJB vs. The
OKOM All Stars with techno improvements. In a few years we'll add holograms
to the program and you have a computer band that looks happy to be there, is
energetic, puts on a great show and even makes a mistake once in a while
trying hard for fans like me, vs old guys who sit, look bored and dare the
audience to like the music. I'm taking bets on who will survive.
 
>> Steve asks: (snip)
>> Why then would anyone want to listen to musicians and live music? (snip)
 
> Obviously a rhetorical question.

No, not at all.  It begs to have an answer. If better music is available via
computer, why would anyone want to listen to human musicians? Or perhaps
more to the point, why would anyone want to book human musicians? If
virtually no one listens to us now, imagine what will be in 20 years.

Can I show you something in a nice holographic OKOM show? How about the
History of Jazz segment 3 with the music of Hot 5/7. Perfect fidelity and no
mistakes, it's better than the original. Computer Art at its finest.
We can sell it as; "this is really how Louis and the boys would have sounded
if not under pressure to have a 3 minute song, limited takes (They had to be
out of town before sundown), Louis hadn't smoked a joint and all the other
excitement. Plus we could add real drums."

Of course it will be more expensive than those human Armstrong, copycat
bands who play for $25 a man. But then holograms won't get drunk, chase
women, smoke dope, or wise mouth you so you'll have no "artistic temperament
problems. I'm still betting that the nerds can sell it.

Cheers,
Steve Barbone