is there a good current CD of miles davis "kind of blue"?

Session tape was 3-track.

The Mono is joined. Nothing more, nothing less. Doesn't sound all that great (and yes, I've heard it). It's okay. Doesn't matter much if 2-songs were cut at the right speed if the mix sounds muddy and has average dynamic range, as well as poor bass accuracy. It's good for waving at eBay and have people drool over. Little do they know it's very blah. Sony wouldn't be doing anyone a favor including the mono mix.

If you want a good 44.1 CD of KOB, Mark W. did it right, and then some.

What the box doesn't have are the outtakes and false starts which DO exist, obviously. Heard those too. Excellent. The lot fits on one CD with ease.

 

That, sir, is incorrect.

Four (!) tape machines were running simultaneously. Four first-generation session tapes existed at one point. Two three-tracks, and two monos. The mono session tapes are a unique mix, and done on the spot. Six- and two-eye LPs were cut directly from those mono first-generation tapes. Stereo releases were mixed down from the three-track to a two-track tape. Once in '59 by Irving Townsend, once in '97 by Mark Wilder. The '92 Mastersound gold CDs are direct to digital from the three-tracks.

Which you like, of course, is up to you.

(Sorry to be repetitive, but it seems folks didn't read post #48 )

Er, they're on there, no?


1. So What
2. Freddie Freeloader
3. Blue In Green
4. All Blues
5. Flamenco Sketches
6. Flamenco Sketches (alternate take)
7. Freddie Freeloader (Studio Sequence 1)
8. Freddie Freeloader (False Start)
9. Freddie Freeloader (Studio Sequence 2)
10. So What (Studio Sequence 1)
11. So What (Studio Sequence 2)
12. Blue In Green (Studio Sequence)
13. Flamenco Sketches (Studio Sequence 1)
14. Flamenco Sketches (Studio Sequence 2)
15. All Blues (Studio Sequence)

 

I don't own the box. I did get the promo stickers though!

Not sure if the "Studio sequences" have all of the false starts and chatter as what I have. Some cuts took 7 takes.

The mono Lps I've heard just didn't excite me at all. YMMV.

 

I know the version you speak of. I have not compared them directly, but I think if there is anything missing from the 50th set it is very minor. Obviously it's presented out of order.

 

Thanks.

Well the next question would be, what has stopped record companies in the past from mastering a CD from a safety copy? Been done many time with other CDs, such as possibly Sgt. Pepper... as Steve told us years ago and I mentioned in an article I wrote for Beatleology magazine several years ago. There's possibly decent mono safety copies of KOB in the vaults of say Sony Canada, Sony U.K, Sony Australia, Japan, etc. that Columbia could have accessed for the 50th box set.

 

All the pre-'92 CDs of KoB were from (stereo) safety copies. That info comes direct for Mark Wilder.


Just be clear, I don't know for certain what Columbia has in their NYC vaults. The rumor about the monos being long gone is just that, a rumor.

According to Steve H. Columbia would cut the mono LPs directly from the first generation mono session tapes. They never used "LP Cutting Master" tapes in that era. So, it seems possible they never made any safety copies. Remember, they had an un-used back-up first generation copy from the session anyway.

Remember also; mono went out of fashion, what, 40 years ago? Seems plausible that tapes which hadn't been used in so long would have been discarded.

 

One interesting thing about the mono mix is the fake echo chamber reverb is less noticeable.

If you listen to any of the sax solos in stereo they mixed them either left or right, depending on the player. (No, it's not a natural soundstage.) The return from the echo chamber was left in the center tho. That makes it sound a little disconnected from the saxes. Almost like a slapback, but only slightly out of time.

In mono, of course, everything is lumped together. The added reverb doesn't stick out as much. It sounds more cohesive during the sax bits. More like a natural acoustic. They may have even reduced the volume of the reverb for the mono mix, I can't tell for sure.


Another thing is (except for the '92 Mastersound gold CDs) the mono releases are always (at least) one tape generation better then the stereos. Not to mention if you want an original '59 mix without any speed error a mono LP is the only way to get it.


Which to prefer is, or course, up to the individual listener.

 

You mentioned before that the Master Sound uses the original 3 track tape, transferred directly to digital. There is no analog mix-down to stereo, such as the 1997 Wilder mix-down tape.

What exactly does that mean? How was the mix done? During the transfer? Or is there such a thing as a 3 track digital medium, and it was mixed to two track from there? Is there any technical advantage in doing this?

I'm really curious, I don't have a clue, any information and help is most appreciated.

It seems like this Master Sound CD is not very well regarded... why would that be? Something wrong with it?

 

Yep, on the '92 Mastersound CD they transferred the original three track session tapes into a multi-track digital audio editing program of some kind. (I don't know which one.) It's one of the early "Super Bit Mapping" CDs. The way I understand that is they take a 20bit digital file, and reduce it down to the 16 bits a CD uses. So, I assume the transfer was done from analogue to 20bit digital. They did the "mix" digitally. (Some folks claim when you only mix three tracks it should not be called "mixing" but I don't know what else to call it.)

That was the only CD release of KoB done this way. Earlier then that and it's a copy tape of the original '59 mix. Later and it's the analogue mix Mark did in '97.

I'm speculating (and that's all it is) that they felt doing the mix down to an analogue two-track tape would sound more like the original? Why they didn't do that in '92 I don't know.

See Steve's recent comments about the Living Stereo three-track session tapes vs original mix-downs here:
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=3980101&postcount=21
(This is a different studio, and record company altogether, but I think it is still relevant.)

I think (but I'm not 100% certain) the "surround sound" portion of the SACD is simply the three-channels of the session tape transferred to the left-front-center channels. The way they are talking about the Living Stereo SACDs in that thread.

 

With ambient sounds on the rear channel. It’s done very well IMHO. Never having heard the master tapes, so I have no idea if the 3 channels match the original 3 channels, of course.

 

OK, I stand corrected then. Thank you.

I can swear I read somewhere the SACD had no rear channel info. Either I miss-remembered, or the info I read was wrong.

 

Here is another vote for the SACD. It sounds absolutely beautiful.

 

Actually the multi-channel track of the SACD has left front- center- right front and rear ambience. The way you wrote it seems as if it just a 2 channel mix using just the left front and center with no right front information at all. That would sound very awkward to have music just coming from the left and center.

 

Without having to read through this thread, can you tell me which of my two cd's I should keep?

Original USA Columbia from 1980's.

USA remaster from sometime in the last decade.

Thanks!

 

Which sounds best to you?

 

Actually that would be the best indication of which to keep, irregardless of the incorrect speed issues of the early CD's. As has been said many times, if you have never heard the different speeds the wrong speed might sound OK.

 

I love my Gold Mastersound version, which cost me £30 ($50) back in 1997 from HMV. It sounds... warm is the only description I can give. I got the '97 Legacy version in a box set with Porgy & Bess and Sketches of Spain, and it sounds a little too sharp to me. However, you get the alt. take of Flamenco Sketches and the fade out on So What is longer.

The thing is, all these definitive sets are just not definitive. For 33 years, people heard the wrong speed for Side A. Surely there's room on those CD's for both versions? Hell, stick 'em on disc 2 and slap an extra $10 on the box price! Legacy did the same with Raw Power - they put out Iggy's remix (which, for my sins, I like) and Bowie's mixes are just wiped from history... yet there's room to put out both. I tell ya, it's Puck Man and Pac Man all over again... There was a three-sided vinyl reissue (possibly by Mosaic?) which had both speeds, which came out sometime in the last 10 years.

Anyway, back to the point: the Gold Mastersound is the best of the three versions I've heard (the other two being the '97 Legacy and the old blue-bordered Classics version with an electric Miles era pic on the front), but the music is so good that none of them are a discgrace.

 

I assume Miles Davis, the other musicians, the producer, etc. all heard test pressings of the stereo version with the speed change. Why wasn't it corrected back then? Could they have liked it and decided to keep it that way or could Miles have requested the change to make it sound a bit different? Has Davis every commented on it (I don't know if he was still alive when the remix was first released)?

 

There were more tape machines running simultaneously and I have no idea what they listened to afterwards, perhaps only the tape with the correct speed. Maybe someone else knows.

Miles Davis died on September 28, 1991.

 

From reading his autobiography and interviews he did over the years, I always got the impression that Miles actually didn't care enough about his records, and often left it to Teo to sort out. His mind was always on the live show and the next music coming out of his head.

He didn't think Kind of Blue was anything special. It was just another LP showing where he was at on those dates. Whatever he just made was the best thing he had done, because that was Miles Davis now.

Conversely, as was often the case with Miles, he was pissed off that material he thought was perfectly good didn't get released (see reels and reels of 70's material and the album Aura which was unreleased for four years), and was very upset over the Quiet Nights debacle.

I kind of get the impression that, were he around now, he (a) wouldn't care KoB had been the wrong speed, (b) wouldn't object to them rereleasing it at the correct speed, since he'd get shed loads of cash from fans buying the reissue, but (c) wouldn't be interested enough to oversee the process, and would let the Sony guys do it, because (d) he'd be in the studio making something new with whoever was hot right now, or (e) he'd be on the road.

 

I think you're right on all counts.

 

Hi Darcy,

Here's an "official" explanation from producer Michael Cuscuna (from ICE magazine Feb 1997). Cuscuna was the reissue producer for the 1997 remaster, and subsequent Kind Of Blue reissues (SACD, Sony box set, Mosaic box set, etc):

"Those three songs (So What, Freddie Freeloader, Blue In Green), which were side one of the original LP, were slightly sharp. They weren't sped up on purpose. When engineers ran the three-tracks at Columbia, they always ran two machines. The tapes from the machine that they picked to mix from were running a little off-speed that day, a little too fast. It was discovered whey they went back to remix the album for the gold CD version. They played the other machine reel and it was in correct pitch. So what had happened was, they originally took the machine reel that was running slightly fast and used that accidentally. Until the gold CD, that had always been what was issued and reissued and reissued."

- End quote -


And I agree with Evilcat (post 95), that from what I've read Miles wasn't the type to pay attention to these sorts of post-production details.

 

Thanks for the info, guys.

I just stumbled on this site with the previous issues/reissues of "KOB".

http://www.kind-of-blue.de/seiten/boxen/miles_kob_box.htm


There is a new "Blu-spec CD" (SICP-20001) being released in Japan on December 24.

 

Great site, thanks for the link.