A recording style that was in vogue or second-rate engineering?

[brassplyer]

Doc Severinsen is one of the big trumpet heroes. In the 60's he was recording on the Command label and his recordings during that period are considered to be a "Golden Era" of his output where he did a number of virtuosic renditions of various pop tunes.

Listening to them now, I hear things that weren't obvious to me as a kid. This recording of "It Ain't Necessarily So" is a good example because you can hear him doing different parts on both channels. 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


Do you think the Command recordings were just a particular sound they were aiming for or less than stellar engineering? He was the most visible trumpet artist, recording with a prominent label, I would have thought his recordings would have gotten the Cadillac treatment.

[Scott Dorsey]

Brassplyer > wrote:
>Doc Severinsen is one of the big trumpet heroes. In the 60's he was recordi=
>ng on the Command label and his recordings during that period are considere=
>d to be a "Golden Era" of his output where he did a number of virtuosic ren=
>ditions of various pop tunes.=20
>
>Listening to them now, I hear things that weren't obvious to me as a kid. T=
>his recording of "It Ain't Necessarily So" is a good example because you ca=
>n hear him doing different parts on both channels. I don't think they reall=
>y did that great a job of capturing his sound. His performance is so incred=
>ible 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.=20

Read the liner notes, they explain the basic philosophy. Command records
were engineered by Bob Fine who did all the Mercury Living Presence stuff,
but with a totally different philosophy. Enoch Light and Command originated
the notion of the "stereo spectacular" with everything blown out of proportion
both tonally and spatially.

Everything in the Command recordings is huge, they are all in your face, and
they are all tonally very close. Everything is aggressively panpotted right
to left; there is very little room reverb so there is little sense of real
space, just a flat line with everything blaring at you.

Although Command originated it, it became very popular for a while. People
often had the philosophy that they had spent money for this stereo with two
speakers and they want to hear the stereoness. So cheesy fake stereo became
a very popular thing.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DG8J3U5AHQxo

This has severe mistracking due to bad record playback, also a lot of weird
youtube artifacts. This is not a good example of what Enoch's work sounded
like.

>Do you think the Command recordings were just a particular sound they were =
>aiming for or less than stellar engineering? He was the most visible trumpe=
>t artist, recording with a prominent label, I would have thought his record=
>ings would have gotten the Cadillac treatment.

Read the liner notes, they explain very well the whole Command philosophy.

Also.. check the lead-out when you get a Command album. Although the liner
notes all say the stereo ones were mastered by George Piros, only the earlier
pressings were (and some of THEM were actually mastered by his employees).
Command kept records in print for a long long time without changing the liner
notes, but recutting everything. Later on when ABC Records bought Enoch out,
they kept the same liner notes but had their staff engineers doing the
cutting. So check the lead-out and look for the initials GP. Definitely
avoid the ABC ones.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[brassplyer]

On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 8:10:27 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Everything in the Command recordings is huge, they are all in your face, and
> they are all tonally very close. Everything is aggressively panpotted right
> to left; there is very little room reverb so there is little sense of real
> space, just a flat line with everything blaring at you.
>
> Although Command originated it, it became very popular for a while. People
> often had the philosophy that they had spent money for this stereo with two
> speakers and they want to hear the stereoness. So cheesy fake stereo became
> a very popular thing.


So you believe what I'm hearing & describing was a deliberate engineering choice.


> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DG8J3U5AHQxo
>
> This has severe mistracking due to bad record playback, also a lot of weird
> youtube artifacts.


It may not be optimally transferred and Youtube never makes something sound better but it sounds about like how the same album sounds played back on my Technics SL-1200 MK2 that's been leveled. They were using a very clean copy of the album - I hear only a tiny bit of LP surface noise.


> This is not a good example of what Enoch's work sounded
> like.


I find that not all of Doc's Command albums sound the same but many of them have a similar presence to the example above.

[Scott Dorsey]

Brassplyer > wrote:
>
>So you believe what I'm hearing & describing was a deliberate engineering c=
>hoice.=20

Read the liner notes. Command invented the whole "stereo spectacular"
thing. Other folks copied them, but Command was likely first with the whole
concept that two-channel playback could be used for extreme effects rather
than for reproducing a solid stereo image.

>> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3DG8J3U5AHQxo
>>=20
>> This has severe mistracking due to bad record playback, also a lot of wei=
>rd
>> youtube artifacts. =20
>
>
>It may not be optimally transferred and Youtube never makes something sound=
> better but it sounds about like how the same album sounds played back on m=
>y Technics SL-1200 MK2 that's been leveled. They were using a very clean co=
>py of the album - I hear only a tiny bit of LP surface noise.=20
>=20

It's not the surface noise that is annoying, it's the breakup on peaks!
Mind you, those records were cut hot.

>I find that not all of Doc's Command albums sound the same but many of them=
> have a similar presence to the example above.=20

Pretty much everything on Command is fake and in-your-face, and the liner
notes brag about it being that way.

But if they don't sound quite the same, check the lead-out and make sure
you don't have a later pressing that was recut differently.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Nicola B. Bernardelli]

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.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Brassplyer wrote:
> Doc Severinsen is one of the big trumpet heroes. In the 60's he was
> recording on the Command label and his recordings during that period
> are considered to be a "Golden Era" of his output where he did a
> number of virtuosic renditions of various pop tunes.
>
> Listening to them now, I hear things that weren't obvious to me as a
> kid. This recording of "It Ain't Necessarily So" is a good example
> because you can hear him doing different parts on both channels. 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
>
>

I'd say it's performance.

It just sounds overblown to me. That was the style at the time. By the
time you get to Maynard Ferguson, it can't really be taken any farther.

Severinsen's tone wasn't his strong suit. His phrasing and ... wit were.


> 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
>
>

That has a lot more room. But listen to the stabs around 1:20 - still
pretty buzzy. And there's some hardcore flangey-thing going on ( prolly
'cuz YooToob )

> Do you think the Command recordings were just a particular sound they
> were aiming for or less than stellar engineering? He was the most
> visible trumpet artist, recording with a prominent label, I would
> have thought his recordings would have gotten the Cadillac
> treatment.
>

Not everything can sound like "Kind of Blue".

--
Les Cargill

[brassplyer]

On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 8:14:13 PM UTC-4, Les Cargill wrote:

>
> Severinsen's tone wasn't his strong suit.


Every trumpet player on Earth just gave you a "say what??" look. :)

Doc in his day was famous for having the whole package - everything was his strong suit - freakish technical facility, musicality, power, range, amazing, vibrant sound. I promise you - Doc's sound in his prime is highly regarded. He had a unique hybrid sound that brought classical coloring to pop/commercial/jazz. His high range was unusual is that it never sounded brittle or screechy. He had control from the bottom of the horn to the top.

Here's a recording that captured his sound much better than my original above. Other recordings that are good to check out are his "Trumpet Spectacular" album with the Cincinnati Pops - recorded live in a large studio hall with no EQ or other FX - just the input of the mics right to the board. Also his "Rhapsody For Now" album - in particular the recording of "A Song For You".

This is off a Direct To Disc album - Doc on trumpet and flugelhorn. The link takes you to just before he comes in.

https://youtu.be/fn70ehqENYw?t=1m12s

[[email protected]]

Brassplyer:

No more sound on that COMMIEtube
link you last provided! >:(

[John Williamson]

On 11/04/2018 04:35, Brassplyer wrote:

> Here's a recording that captured his sound much better than my original above. Other recordings that are good to check out are his "Trumpet Spectacular" album with the Cincinnati Pops - recorded live in a large studio hall with no EQ or other FX - just the input of the mics right to the board. Also his "Rhapsody For Now" album - in particular the recording of "A Song For You".
>
> This is off a Direct To Disc album - Doc on trumpet and flugelhorn. The link takes you to just before he comes in.
>
> https://youtu.be/fn70ehqENYw?t=1m12s
>
That even sounds good on the laptop. :-)

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[brassplyer]

On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 6:22:46 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> On 11/04/2018 04:35, Brassplyer wrote:
> >
> > This is off a Direct To Disc album - Doc on trumpet and flugelhorn. The link takes you to just before he comes in.
> >
> > https://youtu.be/fn70ehqENYw?t=1m12s
> >
> That even sounds good on the laptop. :-)


As amazing as he sounded on recordings when I heard him live for the first time it was even more so. Which I guess is always true when someone is a real player. He's not a big guy - maybe 5'8" or so with a slender build but he had incredible power.

Doc's musical being is a convergence of various factors. He was born with ideal physical tools for the instrument - the structure of his lips & teeth, superb physical vitality, keen musical sense and he came along at a time when there was a wide variety of burgeoning musical styles that he was able to absorb. He had an obsession with improving his craft - he's legendary for being a practice-aholic. Other musicians in his professional orbit describe how on recording dates when other guys were taking a break he'd be in the corner with a mute working on something. And he came along at a time when there was a popular entertainment environment to showcase his unique talents and the kind of personality that shined under the spotlight.

He's approaching 91 now - the technical razzle-dazzle and extreme range isn't there anymore but he still has a big, resonant sound as long as he doesn't try to overextend himself.

Here's a short solo during a performance by Kid Creole and the Coconuts back in the 80's. Damn.

https://youtu.be/-lt5xOHDqPY?t=2m21s

[brassplyer]

On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 1:26:30 PM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Pretty much everything on Command is fake and in-your-face, and the liner
> notes brag about it being that way.
>
> But if they don't sound quite the same, check the lead-out and make sure
> you don't have a later pressing that was recut differently.
> --scott


Thanks for your input and inside info on this.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Brassplyer wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 8:14:13 PM UTC-4, Les Cargill wrote:
>
>>
>> Severinsen's tone wasn't his strong suit.
>
>
> Every trumpet player on Earth just gave you a "say what??" look. :)
>

I wouldn't be at all surprised. :) All pop trumpet from the 1960s
on for a couple decades just sounds a lot overblown to me.

I'm a bit biased because I think this was due to everything
being really competitive, and trying to sound louder. And
probably those damned Fender basses :)

> Doc in his day was famous for having the whole package - everything
> was his strong suit - freakish technical facility, musicality, power,
> range, amazing, vibrant sound. I promise you - Doc's sound in his
> prime is highly regarded. He had a unique hybrid sound that brought
> classical coloring to pop/commercial/jazz. His high range was unusual
> is that it never sounded brittle or screechy. He had control from the
> bottom of the horn to the top.
>

He's remarkably consistent for sure. Everything you say is true, but
the order of the day was "shrill".

SO given that - yeah, he was good at that. :) I've little doubt
he could have played differently. But that kind of shows up on
that recording...

> Here's a recording that captured his sound much better than my
> original above. Other recordings that are good to check out are his
> "Trumpet Spectacular" album with the Cincinnati Pops - recorded live
> in a large studio hall with no EQ or other FX - just the input of the
> mics right to the board. Also his "Rhapsody For Now" album - in
> particular the recording of "A Song For You".
>
> This is off a Direct To Disc album - Doc on trumpet and flugelhorn.
> The link takes you to just before he comes in.
>
> https://youtu.be/fn70ehqENYw?t=1m12s
>

That shows a lot more tonal range than I am used to from him.

I'd just say that relative to Wynton Marsalis ( yeah, with roughly 40
years difference so totally no fair ) it's a lot less expressive and
singing.

IMO, only :)

--
Les Cargill

[brassplyer]

On Friday, April 13, 2018 at 7:06:52 PM UTC-4, Les Cargill wrote:


> I'd just say that relative to Wynton Marsalis ( yeah, with roughly 40
> years difference so totally no fair ) it's a lot less expressive and
> singing.
>
> IMO, only :)


Wynton is a fine player, very technically proficient, probably a stronger jazzer than Doc but I don't think he could play that Chimes Festival arrangement the way Doc did if his life depended on it. I don't think any other player on the planet could.


> That shows a lot more tonal range than I am used to from him.

You want to hear variety of tonal color eh? Here 'ya go. An iconic Doc recording - all the way from the bottom of the horn to Eb over double C. He used to do this live in concert.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjWQG0IdVEs

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Brassplyer wrote:
> On Friday, April 13, 2018 at 7:06:52 PM UTC-4, Les Cargill wrote:
>
>
>> I'd just say that relative to Wynton Marsalis ( yeah, with roughly
>> 40 years difference so totally no fair ) it's a lot less expressive
>> and singing.
>>
>> IMO, only :)
>
>
> Wynton is a fine player, very technically proficient, probably a
> stronger jazzer than Doc but I don't think he could play that Chimes
> Festival arrangement the way Doc did if his life depended on it. I
> don't think any other player on the planet could.
>
>

Probably not. But IMO, we were talking about recording trumpet and
Wynton's tone will tend to be less strident.

But Doc grew up in the commercial world, where Wynton's experience
was much more of jazz as a conservatory form. It's almost different
planets.

>> That shows a lot more tonal range than I am used to from him.
>
> You want to hear variety of tonal color eh? Here 'ya go. An iconic
> Doc recording - all the way from the bottom of the horn to Eb over
> double C. He used to do this live in concert.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjWQG0IdVEs
>

Much better!

>
>
>
>
>

--
Les Cargill

[brassplyer]

On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 10:28:27 AM UTC-4, Les Cargill wrote:
> Brassplyer wrote:

> > Wynton is a fine player, very technically proficient, probably a
> > stronger jazzer than Doc but I don't think he could play that Chimes
> > Festival arrangement the way Doc did if his life depended on it. I
> > don't think any other player on the planet could.
> >
>
> Probably not. But IMO, we were talking about recording trumpet and
> Wynton's tone will tend to be less strident.


A lot of Wynton's sound is the equipment he uses - the Monette horns and mouthpieces he uses are specifically designed to deliver a dusky, dark sound. You wouldn't use it to play lead with a big band. Just a mouthpiece by itself will radically alter the sound of a trumpet or flugel.


> > You want to hear variety of tonal color eh? Here 'ya go. An iconic
> > Doc recording - all the way from the bottom of the horn to Eb over
> > double C. He used to do this live in concert.
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjWQG0IdVEs
> >
>
> Much better!


Well, it's a different shade of excellent. Doc played largely in the commercial world but that involved using a lot of gears besides "Peel paint" - which is why he was in such demand as a studio player even after he gained wider fame on the Tonight Show. But in his heyday he could definitely peel paint like nobody else.

Here, this is Doc in the mode you're thinking of - playing with bravura and swagger.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhy9S6ET3_k

[brassplyer]

On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 11:58:16 PM UTC-4, Brassplyer wrote:

> Here, this is Doc in the mode you're thinking of - playing with bravura and swagger.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhy9S6ET3_k


At the other end of the scale with Henry Mancini - not a hint of swagger to be found.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtrXBJEff-Q