[sno1man]

Just got the Miles Davis and John Coltrane set. Truly awesome music, high quality presentation, but...........

Why is it in the form it's in? In some cases the same song appears three times in a row.

My first experience with this music was on the original albums (LP's to be specific) and that is how I want them again.

I also have the Miles Davis and Gil Evans set and in my opinion they did that one right. I. E. the original album in the original sequence with alternate takes and unused songs put at the end.

I realize the interest in comparing different versions of a song, but If I'm going to do that I'd rather program my CD player

Am I just being a curmudgeon?

 

[Asterix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sno1man Just got the Miles Davis and John Coltrane set. Truly awesome music, high quality presentation, but........... Why is it in the form it's in? In some cases the same song appears three times in a row. My first experience with this music was on the original albums (LP's to be specific) and that is how I want them again. I also have the Miles Davis and Gil Evans set and in my opinion they did that one right. I. E. the original album in the original sequence with alternate takes and unused songs put at the end. I realize the interest in comparing different versions of a song, but If I'm going to do that I'd rather program my CD player Am I just being a curmudgeon?

A lot of the box sets I have (complete recordings) are like you describe. They have a few versions of the same song clumped together, which is usually the master and then the alternate takes. Personally I like hearing these side by side. I like box sets that are in the order they were recorded. Makes more sense from a historical point of view.

 

[Wodgy]

I tend not to buy box sets, for exactly this reason. It's a royal pain to have to listen to several versions of the same song when you just want to put a CD in the player and press play. They've made the common case (listening to music) hard, and the less typical case (analyzing song versions) easy. Dumb.

I think the #1 reason they do this is because it means you basically still have to buy all the original albums if you want to just listen.

IMHO the outtakes and b-sides and special versions should be in chronological order, but on a separate set of CDs dedicated to outtakes and b-sides.

 

[Asterix]

The record companies probably also assume (I think) that the majority of people buying the box sets are those with a unconditional interest in the music, and not so much the presentation of it. Personally, when I listen to Stan Getz playing Autumn Leaves three times in a row, I shiver with ecstasy. Each track is entirely different and I never get bored of hearing the same tune again and again considering that everything in the middle of the song is improvisation anyway. Any great original and creative music can never be played the same way twice. I prefer box sets in chronological order because they are historically true and logically ordered. I wouldn't want all the tracks scrambled randomly, although in some cases they do seperate the original tracks from the alternates and put them on a different cd. On the Complete Atlantic recordings of John Coltrane all the studio recordings are included in chronological order but then on the last cd there are all the alternate takes of a few songs. These are also in correct order. They seperated them because these takes are mostly incomplete, and include studio chatter.

 

[sno1man]

As a complete-ist I can understand that idea but to me it goes against what loving music is about to begin with.

Kind of Blue redefined music for me. It is truly a perfect album and to present in any other way diminishes it. The transitions and change in mood that are triggered by the sequence can be critical. Sgt. Pepper or Roxy Music's Avalon are other great examples

What I want is album presentation with good liner notes so that if i wanted to assemble a set of what they recorded that day I could by using that to achieve it.

 

[Jahn]

Romanee asked me about a track on my ipod that was recorded quite well by Miles Davis called "Oleo." It took until now to track it down. It was on an old CD of mine called "High School Jazz Band Songs" lol! Apparently I had a hip teacher back then, and when Music Boulevard started up on the internet they ran a promo - they would burn you a CD, just pick anything off of the newly released Miles Davis: The Complete Fantasy Recordings box set. Well I picked 10 tracks (Oleo was one) that i remembered hearing in high school and they burned it and shipped it to me (this was before P2P).

so that track was burned at some point onto my old computer, then made its way onto my old creative jukebox, then transferred over to my ipod. And now I unearthed the original source. Hey, this CD is burned quite nicely, Lan would get a kick out of it. These tracks sound cleaner than the "Waltz for Debby" hybrid CD i listen to (just the redbook since i have no SACD player).

i might even be tempted to track down that old Fantasy boxset if all the tracks sound as good as this 10 track sample cd. I'll bring it to the NYC meet, see if folks agree.

 

[daycart1]

Back in the old days, I don't think the performers had much to say about the order in which the tracks appeared. That is, I don't think that the original order has much aesthetic value. In jazz, I usually like to listen to alternate versions one after another.
But this is one way in which CDs can be more convenient than the original vinyl!