"Famous Blue Raincoat"..

IMO, FBR can hardly be considered an example of "early digital
recording" as defined by the grainy, edgy and sterile sound of most
early digital recordings. I can understand why it could be considered to
have an "artificial" sound, but the two samples that I have heard
on my system have sounded clean, tonally fairly well balanced, not grainy
at all and with good and impressive sound staging. Easily identified as a
digital recording, but not in an offensive way; definitely not
"analog" sounding. But, so what? It is a multi-tracked studio
recording; it will, by definition, be "artificial" sounding. Don't
misunderstand what I am trying to say; I much prefer good analog
recordings to (even) good digital recordings. The point I tried to make is
simply that the sonics of FBR, artificiality and all, do not detract from the
enjoyment of the music; if one likes the music. Personally, I would much
prefer to listen to well crafted songs and superior singing with sonics that
are less than perfect than music that, for my tastes, is not on the same
level, but with perfect sonics. BTW, FBR is hardly a favorite record of mine.

I love great sounding recordings and great ear candy, but the music has to
come first (for me); and the sonics a not so close second. Besides,
"analog" can have its own set of issues that can make it deviate
from the sound of live music. I think that the term "analog" can
be in danger of being used as some sort of imaginary notion of what
constitutes reality as much as "digital" can be. I have many analog
recordings that deviate from the sound of live even more (if one can
quantify these things) than many digital recordings with their "analog"
overly ripe bottom end, closed-in highs and confused soundstaging. I will
admit that, given the choice, I would usually take the sonic problems of
inferior analog over those of inferior digital. But, "analog" sound is not the
end-all and with most pop or rock recordings there is much more latitude in
deviation from reality than with Classical or acoustic jazz recordings where
the problems with digital make that deviation much more obvious; if one
knows what the real thing truly sounds like.

Frogman, I'm listening to Elaine Elias ,the Brazilian pianist, who is about the most lyrical jazz keyboardist I've heard.
Her bass backup, Eddie Gomez , supports her beautifully with a very soft and melodic sound, to me a great reminder you don't have to play loud to play good. So soft I'll wager
you'd never even hear him on average system. Yet, the conversation is there !
I am guessing it must be very hard to do this ? Makes me wonder if he's improvising or its a chart.

The art of a great improviser! Complete believability in how the improvised lines fit with and compliment the soloist; a type of improvised counterpoint and a true conversation. Yes, hard to do and used to be rare from the bass player who, traditionally, had a supportive role; not as much the case any more. Scott LaFaro broke it wide open with his work with Bill Evans. Gomez followed with the same pianist. He is a brilliant musician. Another that comes to mind immediately is Greorge Mraz. I'm sure that there was a chart while the "head" (melody) was being played ; but, after that, totally improvised.

Thanks so much Frogman.
One could live a hundred lives and never explore all there is to explore in jazz and classical serious music .
Thank you, Jesus !

Frogman great post(6-14)! Analog vs. digital is NOT as simple as good vs. evil. I really enjoy many early digital recordings made on the 32-track 3M system. The Nightfly and Swing of Delight(Carlos Santana) are perfect examples. Are these perfect recordings... NO! IMO the weakness with early digital recordings is in the frequency extremes. The bass is soft(restricting dynamics) and the treble is sharp, but the midrange can have a real(human)texture even if it's a bit "glassy". FWIW most early digital recording are near awful but there are many exceptions with FBR being one of them.