Rudy Van Gelder - All Time Great or "Master Manipulator"?
- Thread starter caesar
- Start date
Just wanted to know how you came up with that question. Why would you think he set recording backward(hobby)? Troll question?
Some of the best jazz recordings made,I think are Rudy's. I like his mic methods,now some might not like his close mic method,but a lot of people think he revolutionised recording.
Why are you more interested in attacking me than looking for the truth and either confirming or dispelling myths about the man. If he is a great, I would like to know why. But at the same time, ff he is great, why aren't there more recordings by him? His output has gone down since the mid-60's. Is it an injustice, or is it something about his techniques? Apparently Charles Mingus, among others, refused to be recorded by him because he manipulated the sound.
If you think he is great, please tell us why you think so.
Thanks for getting back on topic. I look forward to reading your link when I have a few minutes.
Charles Mingus is one of the all time greats. Please do say more about the mic methods.
Caesar,
I just thought the original post was overly provocative. Here's a couple of links that I think tell why RVG has made such a difference in Jazz recording.
http://www.psych.mcgill.ca/levitin/pubspages/vangelder.html
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/remo...yone-know-what-rudy-van-gelder-recording.html
I just thought the original post was overly provocative. Here's a couple of links that I think tell why RVG has made such a difference in Jazz recording.
http://www.psych.mcgill.ca/levitin/pubspages/vangelder.html
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/remo...yone-know-what-rudy-van-gelder-recording.html
Not to hijack this thread,but I came across this rant by Walter Sear. He talks about the old school recording studios and engineers much like Rudy Van Gelder.
"As we approach the millennium, I thought that my overview of our industry as I have seen it evolve from the 1950s might help to counteract the negative directions that I have seen taking place in our industry. RANCOR AND RAGE!! What do you mean, negative directions!! With all of the new technology, it has to be better. Well, I don't think so. There has been a serious deterioration in the quality of recorded sound since the 1960s which continues to get worse to this day.
How many times have I heard people say, "I listened to an old LP, and the sound really jumps out at you." Why is this so, and why is so much vintage tube equipment being restored to use? I think that I can give you an answer.
THE PEOPLE. In the golden era of sound recording, recording was done in very professional studios, by a very professional staff. The training of the staff to learn the engineering art took a number of years. There were a number of prerequisites that were required for an entry level position. Often, an engineering degree was required and certainly, a very good knowledge of music was a must. You were trained in the studios in the various aspects of studio operation and you learned the studio philosophy. Yes, each studio had a point of view about the aesthetics of music and the recorded sound, usually reflecting the views and personality of the owner-engineer. Different studios, as a result of their point of view, produced different sounding recordings. There was a character and personality that could be heard in the product of each studio and each of the studio staff engineers.
Yes, in the olden days, there were ON-STAFF STUDIO ENGINEERS. In fact, the complete studio staff was on (believe it or not) salary. Freelance people were very rare and, as a result, if the client chose a particular studio in which to record, it was because of the philosophy of the studio, for the expertise of its engineers and the quality of its sound. The support staff was equally important. Everyone knew the equipment, the wiring, the sound of the rooms, the coffee maker and the monitors."
http://www.mellotron.com/by_walter_e.htm
But even RVG would probably disagree about Walter's opinion of the digital age......that's a discussion for a whole seperate thread. My point is that I agree with a lot of what Walter Sear says about the current way recordings are made. Rudy Van Gelder gave us a legacy of sound that at this point I cherish when I listen to his recordings and the artists that made them.
"As we approach the millennium, I thought that my overview of our industry as I have seen it evolve from the 1950s might help to counteract the negative directions that I have seen taking place in our industry. RANCOR AND RAGE!! What do you mean, negative directions!! With all of the new technology, it has to be better. Well, I don't think so. There has been a serious deterioration in the quality of recorded sound since the 1960s which continues to get worse to this day.
How many times have I heard people say, "I listened to an old LP, and the sound really jumps out at you." Why is this so, and why is so much vintage tube equipment being restored to use? I think that I can give you an answer.
THE PEOPLE. In the golden era of sound recording, recording was done in very professional studios, by a very professional staff. The training of the staff to learn the engineering art took a number of years. There were a number of prerequisites that were required for an entry level position. Often, an engineering degree was required and certainly, a very good knowledge of music was a must. You were trained in the studios in the various aspects of studio operation and you learned the studio philosophy. Yes, each studio had a point of view about the aesthetics of music and the recorded sound, usually reflecting the views and personality of the owner-engineer. Different studios, as a result of their point of view, produced different sounding recordings. There was a character and personality that could be heard in the product of each studio and each of the studio staff engineers.
Yes, in the olden days, there were ON-STAFF STUDIO ENGINEERS. In fact, the complete studio staff was on (believe it or not) salary. Freelance people were very rare and, as a result, if the client chose a particular studio in which to record, it was because of the philosophy of the studio, for the expertise of its engineers and the quality of its sound. The support staff was equally important. Everyone knew the equipment, the wiring, the sound of the rooms, the coffee maker and the monitors."
http://www.mellotron.com/by_walter_e.htm
But even RVG would probably disagree about Walter's opinion of the digital age......that's a discussion for a whole seperate thread. My point is that I agree with a lot of what Walter Sear says about the current way recordings are made. Rudy Van Gelder gave us a legacy of sound that at this point I cherish when I listen to his recordings and the artists that made them.
Thanks, RogerD. Obviously you know a lot about him and hold him in high regards. I only know him from the fact that his name pops up on many of my recordings. As an audiophile I am always looking to determine how the music could sound better, and since the original recording is of utmost importance, I always ask myself if the piece of music I have could have been recorded better. And a critical thinker I always look for dis-confirming evidence whenever any information is presented to me. So when I stumble on information saying that his piano recordings were manipulated or when a great jazz artist avoids him, my interest is piqued.
Caeser:
I suggest you do your homework and listen to RVG's recordings on Bluenote, Impulse, Verve and a few other labels and then tell us!
And John Coltrane insisted on having RVG record him when he signed one of, if not the first, big recording contract in jazz music history with Impulse Records. And numerous other artists spoke highly of him. Get ahold of some of the book written about Bluenote and Impulse records, esp. The House that Trane Built. And read the comments by Bob Thiele on working with RVG in Thiele 's biography.
In 2010, a young and extremely talented jazz trumpeter named Christian Scott came out with an album called Yesterday You Said Tomorrow (abbreviated "YYST"). This was my favorite album of 2010. I've included a capture of some comments of his regarding Van Gelder, the recording engineer who he specifically sought out for the album.
There will always be debate about RGV's methods,but when RE's like Bob Ohllson hold RGV in such high regard, I take notice.
...I would cite the Verve jazz records of the 50's and 60's as about as good as anything I've heard from that period.
"They were certainly a benchmark for us at Motown along with many of the others mentioned.
The thing that hammered the audio quality was the overdubbing process. Before we got the 16 track machines around 1968, almost everything was two or often three generations down before it got recorded as the final mix. We were even doing a lot of things with three track prior to getting eight track in 1964 that most people didn't start doing before the late '60s. We paid for it in sound quality, although in retrospect and as embarrassed as many of us feel about the audio quality, it was amazingly good for what was actually being accomplished." Bob Ohlsson Motown Records
__________________
...I would cite the Verve jazz records of the 50's and 60's as about as good as anything I've heard from that period.
"They were certainly a benchmark for us at Motown along with many of the others mentioned.
The thing that hammered the audio quality was the overdubbing process. Before we got the 16 track machines around 1968, almost everything was two or often three generations down before it got recorded as the final mix. We were even doing a lot of things with three track prior to getting eight track in 1964 that most people didn't start doing before the late '60s. We paid for it in sound quality, although in retrospect and as embarrassed as many of us feel about the audio quality, it was amazingly good for what was actually being accomplished." Bob Ohlsson Motown Records
__________________
Myles, the stuff sounds very good to my ears, especially the remastered stuff. But I am not sure I am the right person to evaluate. Do I have any theory based understanding of the recording domain? No. Have I had apprenticeship training with reputable recording engineers? No. Do I get a lot of practice - with tons of feedback- evaluating recordings? No.... So I don't meet any criteria to be called an expert in this field. And this is the reason I started the thread.
I haven't yet had a chance to read the material RogerD has posted. But I am looking for analysis of his techniques, not hagiography. And heck, hagiography is fine - as long as the rationale behind the worship is explained. Nevertheless, I do find it interesting that guys like Mingus, who help set the rhythm of the band, did not care for him, probably for the reasons of Van Gelder's microphone placement, that may have spotlighted the soloist and faded the rest of the band.
As you well know, in our hobby, the source material matters a great deal. Garbage in, garbage out. Is Van Gelder work is as good as it gets, or can someone do better? I would love to hear about this from the guys that have a better understanding of what he has done and what is possible.
caesar,
from what I have read about the man and his methods, he was very secretive about his methods and I think most really good engineers of the day were. To this day there are debates on what equipment he used,how he set up his mics and the configuration of his mixing board and recording equipment.
Rudy summed it all up perfectly with this quote about his mystique,
"the only thing anybody needs to know about my studio is the sounds that came out of it." RVG
Last edited:
This is clip of Jeremy Pelt documenting the making of his newest CD "The Talented Mr. Pelt (which is highly recommend). If you skip to 5:45, you see the group at RVG's studio and can see how he mikes, etc. You can also get a feel for how the musicians feel about him.
RVG is somewhat of a polarizing figure. Steve Hoffman had some very unkind things to say about him that he later *sorta kinda* apologized for. RVG was always somewhat of a secret squirrel with regards to how he recorded. He supposedly was known to hang dummy mikes around so no one really knew what mikes he was using and where. His mixing board supposedly was a surplus Army console.
You either like the sound he captures or you don’t. I happen to like it.
You either like the sound he captures or you don’t. I happen to like it.
Is there really any question that he was one of the greats? That just shows you that someone, somewhere, will question anything. Then again, he was a recording engineer. All Time Great and Master Manipulator are far from contradictory in that context.
Original event, anyone?
Tim
Original event, anyone?
Tim
Similar threads
- Sticky
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |