While I am certainly no recording engineer, I think the answer is "simpler is better." The recordings that you refer to are among the best that I have too. Fantasy, which includes Contemporary, Galaxy, Pablo, and Riverside all had a very direct approach. Many of these early jazz creations were made using a three track analog tape machine and a simple mixer direct to tape. There were often only two or three microphones used, and those were Telefunkens or other high end tube models, creating an unmistakable sound from that era.
Many valuable and prized classical music releases were produced about this same time by RCA and Mercury. These were recorded in this same direct manner, requiring great discipline and cooperation from the conductor and musicians, as the sound was pretty much laid down as it was being performed.
Unless the record labels return to a more intimate set up, where the musicians are simply performing for the engineers (and they capture it), we will not enjoy that sound again. As it is now, the musicians are more like captives, stuck within a strictly controlled environment, one that worships multi track digital recording and mixing, allowing the engineer total control. This gives them the ability to alter the sound, often resulting in a piece of consumer software that sounds nothing like the original performance.
We have all heard the stories about rock groups that cannot perform live. Their heavily doctored and dubbed digital creations are more the sound of the techniques of the record label than the players themselves.
This is a subject that I feel strongly about, as I consider music an almost sacred art. Obviously I am disappointed that much of what today passes for excellence, has been so planned, homogenized and edited that it is only a cutout of what could have been produced by a capable artist. Of course those that could not perform to this standard would fail. The people selling software are willing to pass up those opportunities for excellence, in order to have the guarantee that no recording session will "fail." There is always the bottom line staring everyone in the face, and the joy and passion has been exchanged for a consistent pay check.
Many valuable and prized classical music releases were produced about this same time by RCA and Mercury. These were recorded in this same direct manner, requiring great discipline and cooperation from the conductor and musicians, as the sound was pretty much laid down as it was being performed.
Unless the record labels return to a more intimate set up, where the musicians are simply performing for the engineers (and they capture it), we will not enjoy that sound again. As it is now, the musicians are more like captives, stuck within a strictly controlled environment, one that worships multi track digital recording and mixing, allowing the engineer total control. This gives them the ability to alter the sound, often resulting in a piece of consumer software that sounds nothing like the original performance.
We have all heard the stories about rock groups that cannot perform live. Their heavily doctored and dubbed digital creations are more the sound of the techniques of the record label than the players themselves.
This is a subject that I feel strongly about, as I consider music an almost sacred art. Obviously I am disappointed that much of what today passes for excellence, has been so planned, homogenized and edited that it is only a cutout of what could have been produced by a capable artist. Of course those that could not perform to this standard would fail. The people selling software are willing to pass up those opportunities for excellence, in order to have the guarantee that no recording session will "fail." There is always the bottom line staring everyone in the face, and the joy and passion has been exchanged for a consistent pay check.