Jazz for aficionados

The Jazz At Lincoln Center Orchestra with Wynton Marsalis.  --  HANDFUL OF KEYS: A century of Jazz Piano

Wynton invited six guest pianists to play examples of Jazz throughout the Century.   They range in age from 13 year old Joey Alexander to 89 year old Dick Hyman.


Wynton Kelly by Dan Nimmer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUu4JjZSXcA  

Oscar Peterson by Isaiah Thompson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WC2mfBbaVik 

James P. Johnson by Dick Hyman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M348ik4b1os


The name of the CD comes from this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIFoAwJPtm4


Cheers

pjw, an interesting question and I'm surprised not to see any following comments:

"I often wonder what the great trio's of the 50's and 60's would sound like using 21st century studio's, equipment, and engineers."

No doubt there have been technical advances in recording equipment.  But at the same time many aficionados continue to praise older recordings.  Is that because of tube rather than solid state electronics?  Fewer mics utilized rather than mic'ing each instrument as is typical today?  Simpler mixers (fewer channels), and thus less complex electronics?  And how about the older recordings being made with everyone playing together at the same time, no individual instruments added separately?  I suspect a combination of factors.

On the other hand, some aficionados prefer the additional detail, extended frequency range, and quieter background possible with modern gear.

Regarding engineers I believe great examples can be identified from 40 years ago or more and today at the same time, same for studios.  So that comes down to the individual recording.

Just to muddy the water around your question, consider than with older recordings many prefer the mono releases of a given recording over the stereo version.  Anyone surprised by that can check current prices for many Blue Note mono recordings compared to stereo released at the same time.

So for me the answer to your question would be, yes it could sound different, but not necessarily better.

"...yes it could sound different, but not necessarily better."

pryso, "better" is the key word and subject of dispute. What is better for me, might not necessarily be better for you. It's more the matter of taste. And yep, it can sound different - in the direction to which you set your preferences to.

"And how about the older recordings being made with everyone playing together at the same time, no individual instruments added separately?  I suspect a combination of factors."

Imho, that's the charm of old recordings - everyone playing together in comparison to today's recording (each instrument recorded and added separately). In this light, old recordings seem more real and more attractive to folks who appreciate live recording and therefore music with  certain "faults"...

Many good comments re old vs new recording equipment/techniques.

I think pjw’s premise concerns piano trios specifically. In fairness, I am not aware of any trio recordings by a major jazz piano artist that were done with all three players NOT playing together. There MAY be some degree of isolation between the players by way of baffles, but the preferred method is to play together at the same time and without overdubs. In those cases the issues of concern are excessive multi micing and arguably needless sound processing of one kind or another. So, one could say that this is a moot concern re the original question. However, it is true that with larger ensembles the players sometimes record their individual parts at different times; or some variation of that with possibly a solo being overdubbed at a different time. In pop music and even some of the overproduced “jazz” recordings (some CTI’s) it’s a different matter, with everything done piece meal.

Imo, artistically serious music ALWAYS suffers when the musicians do not play together. In any performance the visual cues that players give each other are very important musically as well as the overall musical cohesion and energy that is generated by being together. Some of that energy or musical vibrancy is always lost otherwise. With heavily produced pop music things are not as clearcut since heavy handed production values can be an essential part of the particular sound aesthetic that the producers or artist actually want. Some of Quincy Jones’ more recent projects come to mind; masterful and extremely creative use of recording tools....if one likes that aesthetic.

I do think, as jpw suggests that with modern equipment in the hands of a really great engineer and producer the POTENTIAL exists for superior sounding recordings. There is a great irony as concerns all this and is something that producers and engineers struggle with. Modern recording studios almost always have far more bells and whistles (electronic sound processing devices) than back in the day. Many engineers find it difficult to NOT use these tools which in the wrong hands often do no more than muck things up. Of course there are great engineers who take advantage of the technology when it will truly benefit and who don’t have the all too common attitude of “we’ll fix it in the mix”; as opposed to striving for best possible sound with minimal manipulation from the start.

Well said fro, especially the conclusion...