2. music
  3. 136886-68726

Why Miles Davis late alboms are not well recorded?

I wonder what Miles David would answer. I suggest sound quality was important for him (in 70s he owned Acoustic Research AR 5 speakers, one of the most naturally sounded ones then). I enjoy the quality of his early 60s and even some late 50s recording, which, to me, are recorded better than late 60s, 70s and the following dates. An exception is his (live) recording with Quincy Jones live at Montreux 1993 - a good sound quality but not so interesting content. His 80s albums sound sharp and electric, indeed pity (surprisingly1981 Man with the Horn sounds better (except Mike Sterns solo on the first track is really badly recorded) than the later 84 Decoy (the worst recorded one perhaps) and 86 Tutu (at that time, already good digital recordings were made), and 1989 Aura is digitally recorded, and again, with a poor quality). I don't think that late 60s and early 70s fusion style could somehow impose worse recording quality.

A somewhat similar picture is I think with John Scofied albums - from late 90s his albums do no sound well (except perhaps a few latest ones).

Similarly in some rock groups. For instance,  the first ELPs albums (Tarcus and Triligy) I think are better recorded than later ones (why a following Brian Salad Surgery sounds worse?), Led  Zeppelin 1-4 for me sound better than the following ones.

There is so much discussion about relatively minor equipment aspects that affect sound quality. To me, having a
descent sound system,  the major trouble comes from how recordings are made.




128x128niodari
niodari's avatar
niodari OP
301 posts
 
Indeed, I have missed this, perhaps, the only and the earliest (!) "fusion" album which is well recorded (a mystery, why?)!
niodari's avatar
niodari OP
301 posts
 
P.S. The next "better" recorded fusion album is perhaps the following 1970 "Big fun"
nicotico
187 posts
 
I see where you're question comes from, but some of the ones you specifically mentioned I have a second opinion. I always thought Aura and Tutu were very good quality. Remastered versions of Aura and Tutu have been issued, and in both cases the remastered betters the first generation CD. Agree that Aura, Tutu, and particularly Amandla, the recording tends to be on the crisper side of the spectrum, and my experience with these is that as my system has improved these tend to sound more "right." If you heard the vinyl pressing of You're Under Arrest on a good system it would blow you away with its punchiness. I have the vinyl but not the CD for You're Under Arrest so I can't compare the two. However, I have the CD but not the vinyl for Decoy and I agree the CD quality is terrible. Based on what I hear on vinyl with You're Under Arrest, I suspect that perhaps the vinyl for Decoy may be a better representation of the recording than the CD. Long story short - to me the CD quality of these albums is more suspect than the recordings themselves. An album like Amandla, Miles' muted trumpet will get butchered if all is not in order with the system. But on a well sorted system, Amandla sounds right. Star People - sonic mess!  
niodari's avatar
niodari OP
301 posts
 

I am judging solely based on the CD reproductions (my LP collection is about 20k km far away from Mexico where I live now, and there I have no decent audio equipment now). I have heard many well and some excellent recorded CDs, even ones which are not remastered. And some 50s remastered ones, for me, sound better than some 90s and later made (jazz) CDs. Even in classical recordings, I often find that early analog recording on CDs I like more than most of the digital  ones (decent labels).

Above this general observation, I still remain surprised by the variation in quality of Miles Davis recordings, one of the most outstanding jazz artists (and I think the issue here is not precisely LP vs CD), especially most of his 80s recordings. I do not have remastered ones though - don't know how remastered "Tutu" sounds like, and "Aura" is a digital recording anyways, Decoy is almost impossible to audition. Some 80s ones are acceptable though, you mentioned Amandla, also Dingo (a soundtrack in fact) are OK. Some late 60s and 70s albums are well recorded,  Big Fun (nice quality), also there are some OK recordings (e.g. A Tribute to Jack Johnson, ones from compiled Panthalassa); at the same time, some other fusion albums recorded during the same years (1969-1970) are no good inquality (e.g., Bitches Brew, Live Evil). What would say Teo Macero? And the point is not the record label. The same Columbia label Winton Marsalis records, all of them have the same good quality (in fact, no difference between 80s, 90s and later made ones, all of them are good;  An American Hero, recorded in 1980 (released on Kingdom Jazz label in 1986) has an excellent sound quality).

nicotico
187 posts
 
Well in the case of Bitches Brew, In A Silent Way, On The Corner and Get Up With It (and maybe some others I'm missing) I think the recording quality can be explained by the dense sound that Miles was aiming for. There were tons of layered instrumentation on those records, with probably plenty of multi-tracking. The final product on these albums in particular (there may be others) was a highly-concocted feat studio wizardry. Contrast that approach to a situation like Kind Of Blue where you had five or six guys in the studio (so: sparse instrumentation by comparison) doing essentially a live take. And even then, not all the guys were playing at the same time. That is my best attempt at a pat answer to your question. With regard to an album like Aura where you think "wow this album was recorded DDD all digital" - consider that the earliest albums recorded  DDD circa early '80s (Donald Fagan Nightly comes to mind) - these (at least the ones I've heard) to sound on the crisp and threadbare side of the spectrum just because that's the best the technology could do at the time.
More to discover