[78-L] How well did they do it.

Thu Apr 30 10:43:56 PDT 2009

Just the same happens to me. It's clear that our ears can be educated to
certain *odd* eq's. At my beginning in collecting 78s, I hardly could suffer
the acoustic sound. And depending on how frequently I play them, my ears
feel more or less easy to that sound.
Usually, after days not listening to 78s, my memory stays with the electric
sound, so when I first play an acoustic, it's a bit hard. But after two or
three sides, I get accostumed to the soud annd the following ones sound
better to me.

There's also a big question about the way they played in the early 1920s,
the speed of records and the sound. While playing acoustics, it turns out as
an evidence that they used a *non standard arrangement*, they made the
charts in order to get the loudest sound on acoustic 78s. OK.

But how they played saxes, for instance? Usually they sound too vibrant to
me. And there's the velocity problem... Acoustic 78s that sound a bit
strange at 78 can be improved at a different speed. I tend myself to slower
them, because the sound is more *natural* to my ears. The rapid vibrating
saxes tend to sound more realistic. But it is an overall difficult issue.
All the instruments used admit different speeds to sound natural, until
someone appears and gives the key (the kicks with woods, or a piano, or
something).

In the other hand, if you take, for instance, Whiteman's acoustics, and play
them at lower speeds, they tend to sound like the electric ones, which I
could call the Whiteman sound we are more used to. But I'm always in the
terrible doubt...

Anyone can state that they used to play rapid vibrating saxes as a rule?
Must the speed be lowered until the saxes sound more natural?

I'm pleading for some light over this...

Dr. Biel? Dr. Lennick? Norman Field?

Iñigo Cubillo
----- Original Message -----
From: <soundthink at aol.com>
To: <78-l at klickitat.78online.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 4:10 AM
Subject: Re: [78-L] How well did they do it.

> I tend to listen to acoustic records more for their historic value than
their musical value. I'm strictly in the electric era. There are certain
sounds, however, that took some getting used to in order to appreciate
them - for example: Sidney Bechet's rapid vibrato, the harmonies of the
Carter Family, pre-war Cajun vocals, and bebop. Thirty years ago I couldn't
relate to any of these musically; but after listening and listening, the
layers peel away and now I enjoy all four of these kinds of music.
>
> Ken Griffin, Audrey Williams, Sammy Kaye, and Shep Fields, however, offend
at every level.
>
> Good topic.
>
> Cary Ginell
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill McClung <bmcclung at ix.netcom.com>
> To: 78-L Mail List <78-l at klickitat.78online.com>
> Sent: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 4:07 pm
> Subject: Re: [78-L] How well did they do it.
>
>
>
> A question I have pondered for awhile is, "Why don't I have an 'ear' for
> many 78s recorded before 19XX?"  I love my postwar 78s and many "modern"
> sounding prewar 78s but oftentimes when my fellow 78Lers are debating the
> relative glories of Vaughn de Leath or What is Sweet I am lost because the
> music being debated doesn't excite me and I haven't explored it.
>
> This is in no way a value judgement or a question of what is "good" or
> "valuable".   I'm not really asking about genres.  I'm asking about sound.
> And the components of one's personal "ear".
>
> Is it pre-electric guitar versus post-electric guitar?  Is it sweet band
> versus swing versus bebop?   Again, not genres but sound.
>
> Is it what one heard growing up?  Is it the music a person first claimed
as
> one's own?  Is it historical as in the knowledge that one's favorite band
> leader was once a sideman in an earlier band or that someone was a mentor
> or influence?  Is it because you are a musician?
>
> I love Emmitt Miller and Annie Ross, Gid Tanner and Merle Travis, early
> Louis and late Louis. Harlem Hamfats and the Treniers.  Blind Blake and
> Mickey Baker. Some Ethel Waters and most Muddy Waters.
>
> But there is a huge range of music that just hasn't touched me yet.  I can
> approach it academically but not emotionally.  My "ear" just doesn't
> respond.
>
> Has the march of time changed what you like or what excites you musically?
> Is there a time or a sound that just doesn't work for you?  How many eras
> are there in 78s history and which ones have you embraced?
>
> I'll hang up and listen.
>
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: warren moorman <wlmoorman3 at yahoo.com>
> > To: 78-L Mail List <78-l at klickitat.78online.com>
> > Date: 4/29/2009 4:57:53 PM
> > Subject: Re: [78-L] How well did they do it.
> >
> >
> > This is certainly an issue for listeners, but let me mention a similar
> thing from the other direction. Psychologists have suggested that for some
> longtime performers, part of the reinforcing lure of a performing life is
> that the actual sound of applause (or for comics, laughter) is literally
> the
>  same over time, and thus offers the illusion of having suspended the
> march of time.
> >
> > Warren
> >
> >
> > --- On Wed, 4/29/09, soundthink at aol.com <soundthink at aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > From: soundthink at aol.com <soundthink at aol.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [78-L] How well did they do it.
> > > To: 78-l at klickitat.78online.com
> > > Date: Wednesday, April 29, 2009, 2:45 PM
> > > When I was in New York recently, I saw Vince Giordano &
> > > his Nighthawks perform at Club Cache. The musicians are all
> > > seasoned studio performers,?most play on period instruments,
> > > and the group uses original charts - for me, that's as
> > > close as I will get to hearing what a '20s jazz/dance
> > > band might have sounded like.
> > >
> > > Cary Ginell
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: DAVID BURNHAM <burnhamd at rogers.com>
> > > To: 78-L at 78online.com
> > > Sent: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 2:42 pm
> > > Subject: [78-L] How well did they do it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ?I've been thinking about exactly how accurately
> > > recordings were able to capture
> > > the sounds of the 20s, over 80 years ago.?? It's almost
> > > impossible to compare a
> > > recording with the original sound.? Any singers which were
> > > around then who might
> > > still be here certainly don't have the same voice.?
> > > Orchestras develop over the
> > > years and don't sound like they did 80 years ago.? I
> > > don't think any concert
> > > hall or recording studio has remained unchanged for that
> > > time.? Even if we could
> > > find instruments which were used on recordings then, the
> > > artists are all gone
> > > and the instruments also change with time.? One may find a
> > > pipe organ that
> > > hasn't been modified in 80 years but I can't think
> > > of one which was recorded
> > > back then which might still sound the same - Temple church
> > > was bombed in WWII,
> > > Royal Albert Hall's organ and acoustics have changed
> > > drastically since then.? I
> > > don't know if Mark Andrews', Jesse
> > > Crawford's?or Lew White's organs are still
> > > around.?
> > >  Choruses and choirs, of course are constantly changi
> ng.?
> > >
> > > What brought this thought to mind was that I was listening
> > > to records the other
> > > day recorded in 1927 which, I believe, are unique in that
> > > they are probably a
> > > few of the only recordings which can be compared today the
> > > their original
> > > source.? Those are the 5 Victor sides which are?recordings
> > > of the Carillon, (to
> > > avoid the word "Biels),?at the Victory Tower, Ottawa,
> > > (now the Peace Tower).?
> > > I've heard that Carillon many times and it's
> > > interesting to compare the
> > > recordings to the sound of the Carillon.
> > >
> > > db
> > >
> > > P.S. as soon as I finished this letter I imagined some
> > > mention of Herbert Von
> > > Carillon, so I'm glad I got that out of the way
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 78-L mailing list
> > > 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
> > > http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 78-L mailing list
> > > 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
> > > http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 78-L mailing list
> > 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
> > http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 78-L mailing list
> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l
>
>
>