Labels and "House Sound"

[RBFC]

I thought it would be interesting to hear everyone's opinions on the distinctive sound qualities of different labels' recordings. Although there is certainly some out-liers that do not represent the typical sound of a label, what do you feel are the characteristics that describe the sound from different labels?

For instance, some downsides:

Mercury Living Presence: in many of the stereo versions I've heard, I perceived the sound as being in two "lobes" that contained the speakers. There seemed to be less center-fill than on some recordings. This impression may have been system-dependent, etc. so I'm interested in what you all have to say.

Chandos: Often an overly-reverberant sound, with some detail submerged as a result.

Take it and run with it!

Lee

 

[MylesBAstor]

I thought it would be interesting to hear everyone's opinions on the distinctive sound qualities of different labels' recordings. Although there is certainly some out-liers that do not represent the typical sound of a label, what do you feel are the characteristics that describe the sound from different labels?

For instance, some downsides:

Mercury Living Presence: in many of the stereo versions I've heard, I perceived the sound as being in two "lobes" that contained the speakers. There seemed to be less center-fill than on some recordings. This impression may have been system-dependent, etc. so I'm interested in what you all have to say.

Chandos: Often an overly-reverberant sound, with some detail submerged as a result.

Take it and run with it!

Lee

Can't say that's been my experience with the Mercs. Are you talking about the CD or LP?

Now it is hard to totally generalize since the hall maybe accounted for 80% of the sound of the label or recording (something sadly lost on today's labels). So the best Mercs were in London and ER, RCA at CSO and London, Decca at Kingsway, Decca opera at Vienna, etc. And of course, one needs always to look at the recording team since that had a huge impact on the sound. RCA=Layton/Mohr. Mercury=Bob Fine and Wilma Cozart. Decca=Wilkinson, Haddy. EMI=Parker/Bishop and a few others such as Stuart Eltham. Harmonia Mundi= Pontrefact (the best) and Pierre Studer. Nonesuch=Nickrenz/Aubort (also responsible for many of the great Vanguard recordings such as the Weavers, etc). Then of course, with the LP, is the issue of the pressing number. In general, the earlier the pressing, the better the sound. And the matrix codes have been deciphered for all these labels. And finally, where the LPs were pressed had a huge impact upon the sound@!

Mercs=sound close up, huge dynamics, in general good low end, not the hugest depth, strings are a touch on the hard side. Three mikes in general; four if soloist. Gain riding at a minimum. Had one of the best mastering engineers of the time, George Piros who was in demand by many other labels. (see George under rock LPs esp.)
RCA= more natural ss perspective, sweet strings, soft at the top and definitely lacks low end presence (not so for the tape so assume mastered so the worst tt coud play their LPs). Also definitely more mikes, as few as 2 and some with over 9.
Decca=Great soundstaging and transparency, good low end, little lean at times. The three mike Decca tree really give the feeling of middle, used spot mikes, esp. again with soloists. Also changed mikes and electronics midway through their Golden years. For instance went from more directional mikes (as used in opera) to more omni along the way. Sometimes a little gain riding.
Argo/L'Oiseau Lyre=Decca budget line. Small step below the Deccas but can be up there on some recordings. Little lean sounding, little hard on strings. Some great organ records with low bass that will test the resolve of an woofer/sub. Great performances esp. Marriner and St. Martin.
Harmonia Mundi= definitely tastefully multi-miked. Little lean but great sense of space, body of instruments, great selection of music from early music, baroque and other periods.
Nonesuch=again tastefully multi-miked, great sense of space, can be a little lean, good low bass and resolution/tonality of instruments. After Mercury, championed American composers! Many done at the long gone and much lamented, Studio A at RCA.
Phillips=the sound is definitely a notch below the above labels, at its best and depending on pressing. 'Tis a shame, since they have some great artists. Biggest issue is their murkiness (as do the later Decca/Holland pressings), strings get harder and harder with increasing matrix/pressing number. Limited ss depth, highs rolled off.
Columbia (classical only)=If Phillips is a notch below, Columbia is at the bottom. Many are brighter than hell and virtually unlistenable; make a strong argument for something like a Cello Pallette. Great, great conductors (esp. Bernstein) and great, great performances (see Copland and Stravinsky for instance) given hideous sound. It's always amazed me that Columbia could have given their jazz artist darn good sound, yet the classical suck.

Later on some other labels.

 

[Soundproof]

Such a breathless post, with so many strange and prejudiced generalizations. "Little lean sounding, little hard on strings." You should try Aeolian on Argo, or what Lewis and Thurston Dart achieved together on King Arthur, for L'Oiseau.
Every label shows great variations, and many of those most derided by you here have numerous releases that are astounding. This ranking is just hearsay and prejudice.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Such a breathless post, with so many strange and prejudiced generalizations. "Little lean sounding, little hard on strings." You should try Aeolian on Argo, or what Lewis and Thurston Dart achieved together on King Arthur, for L'Oiseau.
Every label shows great variations, and many of those most derided by you here have numerous releases that are astounding. This ranking is just hearsay and prejudice.

Did you read the OP? I don't think so based on your reply.The original question was about a house sound for different labels. Did you read my introduction and caveats (Now it is hard to totally generalize.... ) before shooting from the hip????? No, it's clear you didn't before dashing off your post. It's beginning to seem from the posts where you attack me that you have an axe to grind about something. Not sure what I've done to you.

Are you disagreeing that every label has a house sound? If you don't think so, then you're mistaken--or maybe you need a better system. And BTW, the house sound is there on the Decca, Mercury and RCA master tapes that I've heard.

And yes, there's two outstanding Dart Clavichord (Froehberger and Bach) LPs. Oh and BTW, the quality of the vinyl used by the second line labels also degrades the sound.

What would you like me to do? Give you a rundown, LP by LP, on each label. Maybe you should do that since you seem to be an expert. If you can't, I can since I have almost complete collections of most of the major labels, including the ones cited.

 

[jazdoc]

From a previous WBF thread:

I can only speak from my personal experience with jazz labels, but will use your list as a starting point:

Riverside: For the most part good to excellent recordings. Piano recordings by Monk and Bobby Timmons are standouts

Pablo: Along with Contemporary, the most consistently well recorded jazz label. Several of my original 33 1/3's sound better than recent 45rpm reissues!

Prestige: Spotty recording quality. As to the peformances, producer Bob Porter of Prestige Records once said that "The difference between Blue Note and Prestige is two days rehearsal."

Fantasy: I don't own enough of these to comment on their recording quality.

Verve: IMO, the worst major jazz label in terms of recording quality. Not that there aren't a few good ones...Ironically the predecessor Norman Granz' labels, Norgran and Clef, are very well recorded.
Addendum: Prodded by Myles, I spent some time listening to many of my Verves. Some are very good; a few are duds. I suspect that that duds influenced the above.

Blue Note: The gold standard of jazz labels as far as performances. Some of the coolest cover art of all time. Rudy Van Gelder production. That said, I own a few originals and you know what? They aren't that well recorded. For my money, buy the $50 Music Matters reissues and skip the $1000+ originals.

Impulse: Generally well recorded. Beautiful gatefold jackets. Some mono releases sound strident.

Columbia: World's largest label with biggest jazz catalog. Look for 6-eye pressings. Many of the mono releases are spectacular
Addendum: Worth tracking down mid 50's to mid 60's 6-eye monos i.e. Charles Mingus, Miles, etc.

AudioQuest: Not enough familiarity to comment


I would add the following labels to the list:

Contemporary: IMO, the consistently best recording quality. The monos are spectacular. Early stereo recordings are panned, but excellent. Expensive but worth every penny.

Argo: Inconsistent, but if you find a good one, it's as good as it gets recording quality wise. The bad ones...well, they are really bad.

Atlantic: Not thought of as a jazz label but original Coltrane, MJQ and Freddie Hubbard pressings are quite good.

Savoy: I've found these to be very good for early mono 10" and 12" recordings.

Concord: Small but excellent label

EastWind: This is a Japanese label with spectacular recordings. The Great Jazz Trio recordings are special. Released in the US on Creed Taylors CTI label which are good quality, but it's worth seeking out the original EastWind releases.


And a few sources of current issues and re-issues:

Venus: Japanese label with uniformly excellent quality pressings and performances

Eight Eight's: Japanese label with uniformly excellent quality pressings and performances

MusicMatters Blue Note: The gold standard for jazz re-issues. Great sonics, amazing packaging and some of the greatest jazz ever recorded. Essential

Analogue Productions: Sonically excellent Blue Note reissues but not quite to the standard of Music Matters sonically or packaging-wise. Their Impulse reissues are also excellent. I would seek out the original Pablo and Contemporary pressings as an alternative to their re-issues. Not a slight of AP, it's that the originals are that good.

Mosaic: They have recently revived their vinyl reissues. I own 25+ of their box sets which are always top notch. The recent Monk and Ellington/Ella releases are tremendous. Looking forward to their reissue of Getz on Norgran.

 

[MylesBAstor]

From a previous WBF thread:

I can only speak from my personal experience with jazz labels, but will use your list as a starting point:

Riverside: For the most part good to excellent recordings. Piano recordings by Monk and Bobby Timmons are standouts

Pablo: Along with Contemporary, the most consistently well recorded jazz label. Several of my original 33 1/3's sound better than recent 45rpm reissues!

Prestige: Spotty recording quality. As to the peformances, producer Bob Porter of Prestige Records once said that "The difference between Blue Note and Prestige is two days rehearsal."

Fantasy: I don't own enough of these to comment on their recording quality.

Verve: IMO, the worst major jazz label in terms of recording quality. Not that there aren't a few good ones...Ironically the predecessor Norman Granz' labels, Norgran and Clef, are very well recorded.
Addendum: Prodded by Myles, I spent some time listening to many of my Verves. Some are very good; a few are duds. I suspect that that duds influenced the above.

Blue Note: The gold standard of jazz labels as far as performances. Some of the coolest cover art of all time. Rudy Van Gelder production. That said, I own a few originals and you know what? They aren't that well recorded. For my money, buy the $50 Music Matters reissues and skip the $1000+ originals.

Impulse: Generally well recorded. Beautiful gatefold jackets. Some mono releases sound strident.

Columbia: World's largest label with biggest jazz catalog. Look for 6-eye pressings. Many of the mono releases are spectacular
Addendum: Worth tracking down mid 50's to mid 60's 6-eye monos i.e. Charles Mingus, Miles, etc.

AudioQuest: Not enough familiarity to comment


I would add the following labels to the list:

Contemporary: IMO, the consistently best recording quality. The monos are spectacular. Early stereo recordings are panned, but excellent. Expensive but worth every penny.

Argo: Inconsistent, but if you find a good one, it's as good as it gets recording quality wise. The bad ones...well, they are really bad.

Atlantic: Not thought of as a jazz label but original Coltrane, MJQ and Freddie Hubbard pressings are quite good.

Savoy: I've found these to be very good for early mono 10" and 12" recordings.

Concord: Small but excellent label

EastWind: This is a Japanese label with spectacular recordings. The Great Jazz Trio recordings are special. Released in the US on Creed Taylors CTI label which are good quality, but it's worth seeking out the original EastWind releases.


And a few sources of current issues and re-issues:

Venus: Japanese label with uniformly excellent quality pressings and performances

Eight Eight's: Japanese label with uniformly excellent quality pressings and performances

MusicMatters Blue Note: The gold standard for jazz re-issues. Great sonics, amazing packaging and some of the greatest jazz ever recorded. Essential

Analogue Productions: Sonically excellent Blue Note reissues but not quite to the standard of Music Matters sonically or packaging-wise. Their Impulse reissues are also excellent. I would seek out the original Pablo and Contemporary pressings as an alternative to their re-issues. Not a slight of AP, it's that the originals are that good.

Mosaic: They have recently revived their vinyl reissues. I own 25+ of their box sets which are always top notch. The recent Monk and Ellington/Ella releases are tremendous. Looking forward to their reissue of Getz on Norgran.

Nice summary Doc!

I'd just add two minor things. One, the Verve's definitely have more of a house sound than the others (What I find interesting is how different RVG's recordings sound, depending on which label he was working for ) Two, I prefer on a sonic basis, the Impulses. As I mentioned earlier, the difference between Impulse and Blue Note was that RVG overloaded the tapes on the latter.

 

[jazdoc]

Thanks Myles.

I've noticed that the stridency on the Impulse recordings is more noticeable with monos and not a problem with stereo recordings. Do you have any insight as to why?

BTW, I picked a $0.98 copy of Wyntony Kelly at the Half Note on Verve that is spectacular...and the sonics are very good. Thanks again for the redirection.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Thanks Myles.

I've noticed that the stridency on the Impulse recordings is more noticeable with monos and not a problem with stereo recordings. Do you have any insight as to why?

BTW, I picked a $0.98 copy of Wyntony Kelly at the Half Note on Verve that is spectacular...and the sonics are very good. Thanks again for the redirection.

No I don't I have to say that I rarely, if ever, listen to mono recordings. OTOH, my first guess might be that the mono was cut using a non-RIAA curve and one needs a phono stage with different EQs to play it back Got anyone around with an Allnic H3000V around?

I'll have to look for the Wynton Kelly!

 

[RBFC]

In my original post, I started by mentioning some of the downsides (as I heard them) that seemed to characterize the sound of some labels. The impressions were completely subjective, and I also made room for the effects of the system & setup through which I listened at the time.

I felt that the Merc LPs often seemed to have a hole in the middle of the soundstage, at least not well-balanced with the L & R presentations. This may well have been due to room effects and speaker setup during those listening sessions, I don't know. Other labels (shaded dogs, Decca SXLs, etc.) did not seem to exhibit this as strongly as the Mercs.

I, too, found the great Deccas to provide some of the most "transparency" into the soundstage of all my LPs. When Pavarotti walks onto center stage from the left in his famous solo in Verdi's Rigoletto, you can literally "see" him walking... it's that real.

(I'm not talking about the rare D2Ds, etc.)

There are many sterling qualities to be had from several of the great labels. The discussion was meant to stimulate an eventual discussion about what qualities make a recording "great" and what deficiencies make them "less than great". Which label(s) struck the best balance of qualities and produced the most consistently "great" recordings, etc? This will eventually lead to comparison of CD and LP, which is hard as many LPs are virtually unobtainable today.

Thanks,

Lee

 

[jazdoc]

Hey Lee,

Sorry I didn't get where you were trying to take the thread.

I was going to add to my above comments about the Contemporary label but remembered this link to a great posting about what made the Contemporary label sound so consistently good:

http://www.soundfountain.com/contemporary/contemporary.html

My favorites are:

Art Pepper "Smack Up" (mono)
Barney Kessel, Ray Brown and Shelly Manne "The Poll Winners 2" (stereo)
Teddy Edwards "Here's Teddy" (stereo)
Sonny Rollins "And The Contemporary Leaders" (mono)

 

[MylesBAstor]

In my original post, I started by mentioning some of the downsides (as I heard them) that seemed to characterize the sound of some labels. The impressions were completely subjective, and I also made room for the effects of the system & setup through which I listened at the time.

I felt that the Merc LPs often seemed to have a hole in the middle of the soundstage, at least not well-balanced with the L & R presentations. This may well have been due to room effects and speaker setup during those listening sessions, I don't know. Other labels (shaded dogs, Decca SXLs, etc.) did not seem to exhibit this as strongly as the Mercs.

I, too, found the great Deccas to provide some of the most "transparency" into the soundstage of all my LPs. When Pavarotti walks onto center stage from the left in his famous solo in Verdi's Rigoletto, you can literally "see" him walking... it's that real.

(I'm not talking about the rare D2Ds, etc.)

There are many sterling qualities to be had from several of the great labels. The discussion was meant to stimulate an eventual discussion about what qualities make a recording "great" and what deficiencies make them "less than great". Which label(s) struck the best balance of qualities and produced the most consistently "great" recordings, etc? This will eventually lead to comparison of CD and LP, which is hard as many LPs are virtually unobtainable today.

Thanks,

Lee

The Decca operas are perhaps the most underrated recordings around. Parry, Haddy and Culshaw did a marvelous job. How about the Ring Cycle? At CES, I brought around the Decca recording of Bartok's Bluebeard's Castle. Blew people's minds!

 

[RBFC]

Myles,

NO apology needed. A good discussion will wander a bit, and I certainly didn't place any guidelines on what should be talked about in this one! Just didn't want this to be only a list of negatives.

I was in Sid Marks' living room the first time I heard the Rigoletto I mentioned. My jaw hit the floor. He had those modified RS1Bs and tube gear and I nearly sh** myself. I've enjoyed that recording countless times since. I'm also in agreement about the Ring. I was tempted to spring for the Esoteric cycle, but at several hundred $$, I didn't bite. Have you heard that one? (How's that for thread drift?)

Lee

 

[Soundproof]

Did you read the OP? I don't think so based on your reply.The original question was about a house sound for different labels. Did you read my introduction and caveats (Now it is hard to totally generalize.... ) before shooting from the hip????? No, it's clear you didn't before dashing off your post. It's beginning to seem from the posts where you attack me that you have an axe to grind about something. Not sure what I've done to you.

Are you disagreeing that every label has a house sound? If you don't think so, then you're mistaken--or maybe you need a better system. And BTW, the house sound is there on the Decca, Mercury and RCA master tapes that I've heard.

And yes, there's two outstanding Dart Clavichord (Froehberger and Bach) LPs. Oh and BTW, the quality of the vinyl used by the second line labels also degrades the sound.

What would you like me to do? Give you a rundown, LP by LP, on each label. Maybe you should do that since you seem to be an expert. If you can't, I can since I have almost complete collections of most of the major labels, including the ones cited.

I have Deccas from the early mono microgrooves through the first gen FFRR stereos, the second gen FFRR, to FFSS all the way to their DMMs through Telarc. Boxes of SXLs (happen to be my initials, it's a predilection). I have Londons that were pressed concurrently with their Decca siblings and I have Decca LPs that were reissued using the original mothers, in the Ace of Diamonds series (actually worth looking out for).

I have the original Culshaw Das Rheingold (made to create interest for the entire cycle), the first full Ring set, the FFSS set and the DMM set of the Ring. I have Decca operas lining shelves. I have their various experiments in sonics, all the way to Phase4.

You write:

"Decca=Great soundstaging and transparency, good low end, little lean at times. The three mike Decca tree really give the feeling of middle, used spot mikes, esp. again with soloists. Also changed mikes and electronics midway through their Golden years. For instance went from more directional mikes (as used in opera) to more omni along the way. Sometimes a little gain riding."

I don't find this very informative at all. Just a lot of generalizations, and I can pick out dozens of records that counter every point made, if that exercise had merit. The Decca House Sound is full of rooms with individual character.
That's why I wrote that your entry was breathless and filled with generalizations. It's not at all informative, and mainly consists of repeated dogma.

Go through what you wrote. It doesn't really say anything.

 

[MylesBAstor]

I have Deccas from the early mono microgrooves through the first gen FFRR stereos, the second gen FFRR, to FFSS all the way to their DMMs through Telarc. Boxes of SXLs (happen to be my initials, it's a predilection). I have Londons that were pressed concurrently with their Decca siblings and I have Decca LPs that were reissued using the original mothers, in the Ace of Diamonds series (actually worth looking out for).

I have the original Culshaw Walküre (made to create interest for the entire cycle), the first full Ring set, the FFSS set and the DMM set of the Ring. I have Decca operas lining shelves. I have their various experiments in sonics, all the way to Phase4.

You write:

"Decca=Great soundstaging and transparency, good low end, little lean at times. The three mike Decca tree really give the feeling of middle, used spot mikes, esp. again with soloists. Also changed mikes and electronics midway through their Golden years. For instance went from more directional mikes (as used in opera) to more omni along the way. Sometimes a little gain riding."

I don't find this very informative at all. Just a lot of generalizations, and I can pick out dozens of records that counter every point made, if that exercise had merit. The Decca House Sound is full of rooms with individual character.
That's why I wrote that your entry was breathless and filled with generalizations. It's not at all informative, and mainly consists of repeated dogma.

Go through what you wrote. It doesn't really say anything.

You still have not answered my basic question and obviously the answer is now no. Did you or didn't you read the OP? Did you or didn't you read my caveats (do you need that defined?)? Obviously you don't believe there is a house sound and I do. You will never mistake a Mercury for an RCA. You will never mistake a Decca for an EMI. You will never mistake a Mercury for a Decca. You will never mistake a Decca for an RCA (save for the case where they cross licensed some recordings and the Decca was released on an American RCA).

Obviously they are generalizations but I'm talking about the best of the label's offerings. I stand by what I wrote because like it or not, they [each company] still on the whole used the same mikes for their recordings, used a handful of halls [where they found the best sound in general] and were told by the corporate higher ups what they could do [for instance, compress the dynamic range]. (not that much different than writing for a mag where your voice is the editors voice; conversely, if you want your voice, write a book).

I can give you examples of dreck for all the labels included too.

 

[Soundproof]

You still have not answered my basic question and obviously the answer is now no. Did you or didn't you read the OP? Did you or didn't you read my caveats (do you need that defined?)?

Stop with the nonsense questions.
Of course I read the original poster, and yes I read your caveats. But your Twitter-descriptions of what characterizes these labels are insufficient information.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Stop with the nonsense questions.
Of course I read the original poster, and yes I read your caveats. But your Twitter-descriptions of what characterizes these labels are insufficient information.

Comment edited to adhere to forum policy...

You still also didn't answer the question about house sound. Do you or don't you ascribe to that opinion?

Oh, and by the way, why didn't you pick on Jazzdoc too for his comments? As I said, I really don't understand your grudge. Lighten up dude. It's not what you say, it's how you say it. But I understand that this is the internet, ahem Wild Wild West and put someone behind a screen and they become their alter ego. You can certainly disagree with me but how presenting your side to the story or that there isn't a house sound. Or that you're not going to mistake a Mercury for a RCA so there must be some sort of house sound. So far you've contributed zippity do dah to this thread except negativity and attacks.

 

[Soundproof]

Your attitude mystifies. I have no grudge.
Let's go way back in time. I understand you do not listen to mono, but indulge me.

Here's an excellent release from Decca.

I have that one from 1952.
Here's Gramophone's impression:
http://tinyurl.com/76ctn5q

But the work was rereleased in 1961, and by then Decca couldn't resist twiddling with it, to Gramophone's discontent, though Decca fared a lot better than Westminster did with the same work in their estimation. Worth reading, as the reviewer in 1961 evaluates a comparison made in 1955, and considers what's been done to the works since.
http://tinyurl.com/6n4kvwo

M.M., comparing the two in 1955, found both of them "first-class" as to quality; equally so as to performance. I agree about the performances, but as reissued the two qualities are so unlike that an Australian aboriginal, told that one represented a violin and a 'cello, would refuse to believe that the other did too. Clearly there has been some juggling since 1955. Westminster must have taken most of the top off the old Nixa disc, possibly to get rid of surface noise, while Decca must, if anything, have added top to theirs. The 'cello is positively buzzing with it. Perhaps the sound is not quite real, but the piano quality is far better than Westminster's, which was too plummy for me, and the performance is splendid, as of course is the music.

This kind of thing happened continuously. For instance, what happened to the Decca "house sound" when they got the RIAA-lathes? And how did their recording technique accommodate for various tech advances? And what about their many own experiments with recording techniques?
I feel that a comparison of "house sounds", to be truly beneficial, must take into account the time-line of the label in question, its evolution, the technologies it applied, and most particularly the likes and dislikes of various recording engineers. They weren't all marching to the same trumpet, so to speak. Did Victor Olof and Culshaw create the same soundscapes for Decca, for instance?

My only gripe in the thread is that such capsule descriptions ignore the many significant nuances waiting to be discovered, and creates false hierarchies.

(Correction: Above I wrote that Decca released Walküre to create interest in the cycle. Had that bass ackwards, Das Rheingold was first).

 

[MylesBAstor]

Your attitude mystifies. I have no grudge.
Let's go way back in time. I understand you do not listen to mono, but indulge me.

Here's an excellent release from Decca.

I have that one from 1952.
Here's Gramophone's impression:
http://tinyurl.com/76ctn5q

But the work was rereleased in 1961, and by then Decca couldn't resist twiddling with it, to Gramophone's discontent, though Decca fared a lot better than Westminster did with the same work in their estimation. Worth reading, as the reviewer in 1961 evaluates a comparison made in 1955, and considers what's been done to the works since.
http://tinyurl.com/6n4kvwo

M.M., comparing the two in 1955, found both of them "first-class" as to quality; equally so as to performance. I agree about the performances, but as reissued the two qualities are so unlike that an Australian aboriginal, told that one represented a violin and a 'cello, would refuse to believe that the other did too. Clearly there has been some juggling since 1955. Westminster must have taken most of the top off the old Nixa disc, possibly to get rid of surface noise, while Decca must, if anything, have added top to theirs. The 'cello is positively buzzing with it. Perhaps the sound is not quite real, but the piano quality is far better than Westminster's, which was too plummy for me, and the performance is splendid, as of course is the music.

This kind of thing happened continuously. For instance, what happened to the Decca "house sound" when they got the RIAA-lathes? And how did their recording technique accommodate for various tech advances? And what about their many own experiments with recording techniques?
I feel that a comparison of "house sounds", to be truly beneficial, must take into account the time-line of the label in question, its evolution, the technologies it applied, and most particularly the likes and dislikes of various recording engineers. They weren't all marching to the same trumpet, so to speak. Did Victor Olof and Culshaw create the same soundscapes for Decca, for instance?

My only gripe in the thread is that such capsule descriptions ignore the many significant nuances waiting to be discovered, and creates false hierarchies.

(Correction: Above I wrote that Decca released Walküre to create interest in the cycle. Had that bass ackwards, Das Rheingold was first).

Didn't I already say that? And I believe after hearing many master tapes from that day that probably the greatest limitation were the cutting lathes; most of these LPs were mastered so that they could be played on the average table of the day. Take for example, RCA recalling Pines of Rome because none of the turntables back then could track the grooves. Very few labels had someone like George Piros who as Tom Fine related to me, "could make such a dynamic cut." Because of that, Piros was sought out by many other labels; his best effort is Rashomon on the Carlton Records label. I think that most of the labels actually cut the bass in those days. I have a 15 ips tape of The Weavers at Carnegie Hall and Vanguard totally eliminated the low end and the group stomping around onstage. No cartridge back then could have tracked it.

And the brightness issues alluded to on the different labels eg. Mercury is often a result of the peaky mikes in those days. As good as the U47s were, they did have their issues. RCA tended to get away from the when they used ribbon mikes -- but of course, the mikes had their own sound.

And the best book I've seen on the history of Decca, though now probably long OOP, was written by Michael Gray. I think though, you can google it and find most if not all of it online (at least a couple of years ago).

 

[jazdoc]

Saw an fascinating post & comments on the essential London Jazz Collector blog: http://londonjazzcollector.wordpres...s-vol-1-1956-blue-note-music-matters-edition/. In particular, Joe Harley's (a principle at Music Matters) comments were interesting and valuable.

Thought it might elicit some interesting discussion on WBF...