On Sat, 07 Apr 2018 22:32:03 -0700, Brassplyer wrote:
[...] This recording of "It Ain't Necessarily So" [...] I don't
think they really did that great a job of capturing his sound. His
performance is so incredible it shines through but it sounds kind of
stuffy, buzzy and distorted. I gather they close-mic'd him. I have no
idea what mic was used.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8J3U5AHQxo
The technology had long existed to do a stellar job of capturing the
sound of a trumpet. Contrast to this earlier (1962) recording of Al Hirt
on "Memories Of You", how sparkling every aspect of the recording is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvQ4acZw1a8
[...]
I wonder... If you could redo the mix of that recording of "It Ain't
Necessarily So" _avoiding_ that extreme "stereoness", you might end up
liking the trumpet sound better than in the Al Hirt's recording you
mentioned, I hear more body and "texture" detail in the trumpet sound in
the first recording of your post than in the second one, where the
trumpet is apparently taken from a much greater distance.
But... "de gustibus non disputandum est", different concepts of how a
trumet should sound are of course possible. In classic music, a trumpet
soloist heard from a great distance in a reverberating room (e.g. church)
is fine to me too. In other situations I tend to prefer more "detail",
closer miking + take from far away, if possible. From a video I saw
recently of Doc Severinsen playing, he might have the same idea, but here
I'm speculating, in that video he was live and maybe he was just looking
for more "return" in the monitor.