From: owner-joni-digest@smoe.org (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2010 #182 Reply-To: joni@smoe.org Sender: owner-joni-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-joni-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk Unsubscribe: mailto:joni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe Website: http://jonimitchell.com JMDL Digest Sunday, June 20 2010 Volume 2010 : Number 182 ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- Re: Tech stuff re: remastered Blue njc [Catherine McKay ] Court and Spark Gold CD [Russell Bowden ] Re: onlyJMDL Digest V2010 #168 [Mark Domyancich Subject: Re: Tech stuff re: remastered Blue njc Em, you crack me up. You have such a way with words. In fact, I envy the fact that you're so passionate about something. I'm not sure I'd recognize fantastic sound if I tripped over it. Maybe I would, but I've never owned a really good stereo system and probably never will until I win the lottery. The. As if there's only one. But I do remember the tinny sound of transistor radios. And I guess I've never noticed that "Katy Lied" sounded bad. So mp3s sound OK to me. With me, though, the real issue is that "they" (whoever they are) keep bringing out remasters, reformattings, whatever you want to call them of certain albums or movies, always with the claim that it's so much better than it was before, and that makes me wonder why they did such a crap job to begin with. It does seem like just a grab for more money. It seems particularly true with movies and I don't mean just the DVD vs Blue ray thing, because that's a whole different format and I try to remind myself that it's just a new technology and probably not some plot to suck us into buying the same stuff over and over if we're gullible enough to think we need the stuff. I'm sure one of these days they won't make DVD players or DVDs anymore and anyone who wants to watch movies at home is going to have to fork out the cash for a Blue Ray player and hope the DVD player doesn't kick the bucket, or else be staring at all those DVDs the kids have acquired over the years. (For my part, there aren't a lot of movies I'd likely bother watching more than once, and I'd probably rent them instead of having them take up room in my place, but my kids have this thing about wanting to buy anything they've even sort of liked.) As well, I'm at the point where I'm trying not to acquire more stuff. On the other hand, when it comes to "gold" records and so on, that's geared to a specific niche market of people who get that stuff. They don't try to market that stuff to Philistines like me. But it still makes me wonder... if they CAN make the music sound so much better, why don't they do that to begin with? ________________________________ From: Em To: Russell Bowden ; Joni Mitchell Discussion ; Catherine McKay Sent: Fri, June 18, 2010 5:44:31 PM Subject: Re: Tech stuff re: remastered Blue njc Feel sorry for me~! wasting time chasing a friggin' white whale, chestnut mare, windmill or whatever! I WILL hear Katy Lied optimally before I die. I swear it. I VOW. :) love, Em ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 06:53:05 -0700 From: Dave Blackburn Subject: Re: Tech stuff re: remastered Blue VLJC I shouldn't get involved with this one but I will. Though I agree with Russ' gripe that re-issues of old material are often a marketing ploy, especially when it's only a format change, and costs the company nothing except a little reformatting of the packaging, there are times when a remastered version of an old classic is a revelation. We live in a time of amazing technology in all spheres, one of which being restoration. Old movies and recordings can be massively improved if done right. Has anyone seen the restored Lawrence of Arabia? It looks and sounds amazing, as if it just came out this year, instead of 1962. The Beatles boxed set from last Christmas season was a similar huge leap forward in presenting the material in its best possible sound. Definitely not the 1000th of a percent improvement...more like 200% I am myself involved in recording and mastering so have spent a lot of time pondering how to translate recorded sound into an emotional experience that comes out through speakers and grabs the listener from the first moment. On occasion I get it right and people respond to the sound accordingly. I would hate to think that presenting music or film in any old fashion makes no difference. That's like not restoring a painting or a cathedral ceiling 'cause it's just a marketing ploy to get more people to look at it. Dave On Jun 18, 2010, at 11:52 AM, Russell Bowden wrote: > Gang, > > > > While I'm sure it's nice to listen to a nice cleaner (?) Blue, I > have to say > that I'm getting it up to here with the 1001 "new" ways to listen/ > view a > classic...Whether you're watching/listening to Blue, Casablanca or > whatever on > non-compressed, HD, Blue-Ray, blah blah...it's still Blue, > Casablanca or > whatever.....another great marketing fraud America style....buy the > same > product on as many formats as possible because one of them MIGHT be > 1000th of > a % better. Sheesh! Nothing personal here..just being a grouch. > > > > Love, Russ in Alameda, CA > > > Sotto voce > > > _________________________________________________________________ > The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts > with > Hotmail. > http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount&ocid=PID2832 > 6::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 08:06:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Em Subject: Re: Tech stuff re: remastered Blue njc >Catherine wrote: >"But it still makes me wonder... if they CAN make the music sound so much better, why >don't they do that to begin with?" Hi Catherine, I was reading about this pretty much yesterday, and one thing I learned is that sometimes the very first edition that a given album was released on CD on - (i.e. when it was FIRST released on CD) - often those CD's are of very good or at least very decent quality. But down the road as it is released subsequent times, different tapes or sources are used which are by now several times removed from the originals and it just gets muddied up. Plus so many people don't care or don't notice if the sound isn't shockingly pure, so why should they go to any extra effort/cost to make it perfect? As with so many things, it is a business and $$ is the goal. By this point neither the artist nor the producer or engineer is involved anymore. One thing I, myself, am doing prior to blindly buying these remastered/cleaned up pressings is really getting other people's opinions on them, or buying only from places where their reputation hangs on their quality. As for the blu ray thing....wel the good news is that blu ray players can also play DVD's! and CD's. So it wouldn't hurt to buy one, you can still play your old media with it. I have no CD player now, nor a DVD player, except the one in my MacBook, so I am thinking of buying a blue ray machine pretty soon. Plus the prices are so low now! But yeah the temptation to throw $$$$ at this stuff is overwhelming. For instance the Neil Young archives on BLU RAY...are close to $300!!!!!! YOW!!!!!!!! :D and yet I am sooooooooooo tempted, because Neil says this is the best, cleanest, most pure way to hear his art. LOL! the cleanest way to experience his dirt and rust. Like if there's gonna be distortion it better be HIS intended distortion, and not some distortion you can't quite put your finger on that is a result of some crummy 3rd generation CD. The man is a control freak of sound, and he says the blu rays are markedly better. But again, this is a business! So much to think about..... I should go walk the dog. Thanks for the good chat. :) Em ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:16:23 -0700 From: Russell Bowden Subject: Court and Spark Gold CD Gang, I own this cd and the sound is quite marvelous. One thing that does bother me is that on the LP/Cassette/Regular CD there is a segue from Court and Spark to Help Me. On the gold there is a definite break between the 2. Love, Russ in Alameda CA Sotto voce _________________________________________________________________ The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount&ocid=PID2832 6::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 13:39:52 -0500 From: Mark Domyancich Subject: Re: onlyJMDL Digest V2010 #168 Amen. What I'm really interested in hearing is a 24 bit/96kHz multitrack conversion to DVD-A similar to what the Talking Heads did a few years ago for their box set. I've been lucky enough to hear some Quad8 conversions of C&S and HOSL, but these are still essentially 8-tracks and the only real benefit I've noticed is a much better mix than the HDCD's. Mark NP: Central Line, "Walking Into Sunshine" Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:39:23 -0400 > From: "Jim Kauffman" > Subject: RE: Tech stuff re: remastered Blue > > The new LP is not 1000th of a % better. Joni is in the room with you. > > This of course assumes you have a better-than-average stereo and the ears > to > go with it. Otherwise, feel free to listen to it on MP3. > > > Jim K. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 10:44:56 -0700 From: "Mark Scott" Subject: Re: Tech stuff re: remastered Blue njc - -------------------------------------------------- From: "Em" >>Catherine wrote: >>"But it still makes me wonder... if they CAN make the music sound so > much better, why >don't they do that to begin with?" > > Hi Catherine, I was reading about this pretty much yesterday, and one > thing I learned is that sometimes the very first edition that a given > album was released on CD on - (i.e. when it was FIRST released on CD) - > often those CD's are of very good or at least very decent quality. It seems to me that a lot of older recordings really sounded inferior in their first CD pressings. I eventually bought 3 different versions of Court and Spark. The first press just didn't sound as good as the vinyl to me and I was expecting it to sound better. Then they came out with HDCD which was a bit better. I finally ended up finding the 24k gold plated DCC remastered version and that is the closest match to my memories of how awesome that record sounded to me when I began playing the grooves off the vinyl. And I never owned an expensive stereo system. But there were times when I was home for the summer from college when I would come in late after my folks had gone to bed and I would put my speakers on both sides of my bed, very close. I would turn the volume down very low but since the speakers were so close, I could hear a lot of what was going on in the music. There was many a night I fell asleep listening to Court and Spark. (No, I'm not Bob Dylan lurking on the Joni list ;-)) > > As for the blu ray thing....wel the good news is that blu ray players can > also play DVD's! and CD's. So it wouldn't hurt to buy one, you can still > play your old media with it. It's true, you can play regular DVDs in a Blu-Ray player. Some initial releases of movies on Blu-Ray even have a DVD included in the package which I think is a great marketing ploy. Blu-Ray is a fantastic technology and can make watching movies in your home almost like a theatrical experience. But I think, like any other type of home media technology, their quality, especially on older movies, depends on the sources they use and the amount of time and effort put into restoration and clean-up. It's amazing what can be done with older movies. 'An American in Paris' is amazing on Blu-Ray. So is 'North By Northwest'. And somebody mentioned 'Casablanca'. The Blu-Ray version of this b&w classic is as clear, crisp and flawless as if it were released yesterday. However. The Blu-Ray format is not above dangling carrots. The first Blu-Ray release of 'The Lord of the Rings' trilogy does not include any of the extra footage that was eventually released on the DVDs (another tease since the initial DVD releases did not have the extra footage either) and I have heard and read that the quality of 'The Fellowship of the Ring' is less than optimal. I also heard a review of the Blu-Ray release of 'Spartacus' on a show called 'Cranky Geeks' that says the quality of that one is not very good either. Mark in Seattle compulsive collector of movies ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 18:50:08 +0000 (GMT) From: Lieve Reckers Subject: re: Tech stuff re: remastered Blue njc Hi Em! I just felt I had to react, even if I don't have that much to say, but I felt compelled by your infectuous enthusiasm for the Dan's Katie Lied. That album happens to be one of my all-time favourites too! In fact, it's strange. Without going into a very personal and rather traumatic story here, I should tell you that I discovered that album while lying in bed, recovering from a very severe ilness, when I was in my early twenties. I was so weak that I had gone back home to my parents' house to recover, and I borrowed my brother's headphones. You may call that recording shite, but I had never heard any music so clearly, so in detail, it was an amazing experience which I am sure aided my healing. Through the headphones I could focus, this time on the guitars, the next time on the singing or the bass line, and wow, I have been a Steely Dan nut ever since! So it really warms my heart to read your fondness for that album so clearly. And even though I thought then that I had heard the ultimate in recording skills, if you ever find that golden grail, do let me know because I really would like to hear if it can get any better! I just hope I don't need to be ill and heart broken again to enjoy it... All the best, Lieve Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:44:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Em Subject: Re: Tech stuff re: remastered Blue njc To me, "Blue" in all its forms (that I've ever heard) is really good enough to not have to go chasing other ways to hear it. But other albums - I've literally never gotten a good copy! whether on vinyl or CD. Thinking Steely Dan here. I've never ever heard Katy Lied "clean". Shite 70's pressing and a "bluh" 80's or early 90's CD. If there's SOMETHING out there that will let me hear it optimally, HELL yes I will go after it. Those of you who are happy with whatever version you have: YAY!!!!!! I am so happy for you! :D Truly!!!!!! But other people need to scratch the itch when certain albums just don't sound as good as they should. I mean when Steely Dan goes on and on in the liner notes about the equipment they used to record this thing, and the board used, etc etc, I expect to be able to realize that excellence when I hear it! When the only things good are the arrangements, songwriting and performances are the only things worthy of praise, I feel I'm being shorted! The media I listen to should support the effort put into recording this thing! Will I chase it???? yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! until I die or just no longer give a sh_t. Which ever comes first. Again, those of you who have media that you find just fine - I am so happy for you! I will celebrate with you! I will say "mazeltov" to you. (...) I WILL hear Katy Lied optimally before I die. I swear it. I VOW. :) love, Em ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:40:33 -0400 From: "Jim L'Hommedieu" Subject: Tech stuff re: remastered Blue njc, Primo versions of Steely Dan, njc When Steely Dan goes on about what board they use, employing a long-neglected toy piano, etc, I think they are often just kidding. I think they are making fun of people who did that back in the 50's while simultaneously, saying it themselves with a straight face. It's one of those Becker and Fagen paradoxes. Here is a list of primo versions of Steely Dan albums. http://www.granatino.com/sdresource/5audio.htm There was a Mobile Fidelity version of "Katy Lied", Em, but Katy Lied wasn't one of my favorites. Not like "Aja" or "Gaucho". I think one reason that Blue sounds good no matter how poorly it was mastered and pressed in the old days, is because there are so few things "on" it. If I recall correctly, there are one or two instruments on most songs. When you start adding a bunch of layers, the sound can "muddy up". I'm interested to see what Dave Blackburn says about this. What I mean is that "California" sounds great because it's JT's guitar, Joni's dulcimer, and not much else. Compare the clean sound of that to almost anything on "Court And Spark" where she used a bunch of layers and the sound got kinda muddy and screechy. Maybe the sound blocks up if you have to use a big board. Beatle Paul said that he got a clear sound on "McCartney" because he was using very simple equipment. Jim L'Hommedieu Em said in part, > mean when Steely Dan goes on and on in the liner notes about the equipment they used to record this thing, and the board used, etc etc, I expect to be able to realize that excellence when I hear it!> ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 19:48:39 +0000 (GMT) From: Lieve Reckers Subject: re: Is Tom Petty singing worse than Dylan? njc Hi Jim! I'm certainly not going to turn this into an argument, but even then I'm not sure I am following as you requested. It's a question if taste, isn't it? I actually love Dylan's voice, think it's priceless. So to me, of course Tom Petty is worse. Many - if not most - singers are worse. To me. Not to you. There we are, argument opened and closed! I know I've always been in awe of your capacity to hear the quality of sound, you're a true audiophile, I guess like Em who's looking for a better version of Katie Lied which my poor ears always thought was the ultimate in recording! I say this without any sarcasm, in true recognition that much as I love music, I don't hear certain things that others can hear. But I know I have a good ear for music, for the heart and the soul of music - as I'm sure you have too. And that is where taste comes in, and we can only respectfully disagree. Still, I hope that one day you will wake up and find you suddenly "get" Dylan's voice and love it! Lieve in London - ---------- Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 22:15:16 -0400 From: "Jim L'Hommedieu" Subject: Is Tom Petty singing worse than Dylan? njc Ok, I admit that the subject line looks like I'm cruising for an argument, but follow me for a second. When Bob Dylan sings, he usually speak/sings. The parts he sings are actually on pitch (I think) but he doesn't have an attractive voice. Lately, I saw Tom Petty on SNL and wow, he's lost it. He always had the mush-mouth to one degree or another but now he's not on pitch either. Tonight I heard a new song from him on the radio & he sounds flat, really flat, just like he did on SNL. Thumbs down in Columbus, Jim ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 16:06:56 -0500 From: T Peckham Subject: Re: Is Tom Petty singing worse than Dylan? njc Oh dear, I'm home w/my nose stuck to the proofreading grindstone--big deadline on Monday--but I can't stay out of this one. Ha, so much for professional discipline! I'm just struck (as I have been all my life) by the fact that aesthetic taste--be it in music, style, design, what have you--is often so wildly different from one human being to the next, especially between those who actually share much in common. For instance, I too love Dylan's singing--tho I like some of the voices he chooses to use better than others--and as a singer, I appreciate how much he has done w/what he was given (much like Billie Holiday). I also know that many who hate his voice don't realize (or don't give him credit for) the fact that he has influenced, directly or by osmosis, every generation of singers to follow him. (No, *not every singer*, but a lot of 'em.) And yes, he was very much a scholar of those who preceded him, especially those who blended folk, country, and blues. Sometimes the genius is in knowing who to steal from and how you synthesize it. So that said, I'm floored by the fact that someone who lives both Dylan and Joni's voices and singing styles ALSO loves . . . Steely Dan?? (laughing) I HATE Donald Fagen's voice! With a passion! I also hated their snotty, we're-so-cool-aren't-our-lyrics-obscure attitude, and the fact that they really weren't a band so much as a duo backed by a bunch of high-priced session players, cutting together sterile little pieces of perfection in the studio that they could rarely tour behind. Okay, okay, I'm already ducking under my desk--incoming! Over the years I've voiced this opinion to many musician friends and lovers, and most have disagreed with me, so I'm used to it. And of course, my opinion isn't meant to in any way diminish anyone else's experience of the music. I just think it's funny about people's tastes. T On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Lieve Reckers wrote: > Hi Jim! > I'm certainly not going to turn this into an argument, but even then > I'm not sure I am following as you requested. > It's a question if taste, isn't > it? I actually love Dylan's voice, think it's priceless. So to me, of > course > Tom Petty is worse. Many - if not most - singers are worse. To me. Not > to > you. There we are, argument opened and closed! > > I know I've always been in > awe of your capacity to hear the quality of sound, you're a true > audiophile, I > guess like Em who's looking for a better version of Katie Lied which my > poor > ears always thought was the ultimate in recording! I say this without any > sarcasm, in true recognition that much as I love music, I don't hear > certain > things that others can hear. But I know I have a good ear for music, for > the > heart and the soul of music - as I'm sure you have too. And that is where > taste comes in, and we can only respectfully disagree. Still, I hope that > one > day you will wake up and find you suddenly "get" Dylan's voice and love it! > Lieve in London > > ---------- > Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 22:15:16 -0400 > From: "Jim > L'Hommedieu" > Subject: Is Tom Petty singing worse > than Dylan? njc > > Ok, I admit that the subject line looks like I'm cruising for > an > argument, but follow me for a second. > > When Bob Dylan sings, he usually > speak/sings. The parts he sings are > actually on pitch (I think) but he > doesn't have an attractive voice. > Lately, I saw Tom Petty on SNL and wow, > he's lost it. He always had the > mush-mouth to one degree or another but now > he's not on pitch either. > Tonight I heard a new song from him on the radio & > he sounds flat, really > flat, just like he did on SNL. > > Thumbs down in > Columbus, > Jim > - -- Curiosity is my religion. David Ryan Adams ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 14:56:12 -0700 From: Dave Blackburn Subject: Re: Is Tom Petty singing worse than Dylan? njc Erm, those high priced session players are the same ones that made several of Joni's masterpieces: Larry Carlton, Victor Feldman, Wayne Shorter, Wilton Felder, Joe Sample etc. She was not a band so much as a solo artist backed by these same cats. Dave (huge Joni AND Steely Dan fan) On Jun 19, 2010, at 2:06 PM, T Peckham wrote: > I'm floored by the fact that someone who lives both Dylan and > Joni's voices and singing styles ALSO loves . . . Steely Dan?? > (laughing) I > HATE Donald Fagen's voice! With a passion! I also hated their snotty, > we're-so-cool-aren't-our-lyrics-obscure attitude, and the fact that > they > really weren't a band so much as a duo backed by a bunch of high- > priced > session players, cutting together sterile little pieces of > perfection in the > studio that they could rarely tour behind. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 22:44:20 +0000 (GMT) From: Lieve Reckers Subject: Re: Is Tom Petty singing worse than Dylan? njc Yep, taste is a funny thing. So I have no problem with you hating Steely Dan, Terra. (I dislike most of David Bowie and all of Peter Gabriel, something that many Joni fans won't understand either.) But Joni herself is a great Steely Dan fan, that much is known! And I don't agree that Fagan and Becker are snotty nosed. Yes, they're arrogant in a funny sort of way, but at least they have the talent to justify it, they're not idle posers like so many others. And hey, I happen to like the cynical mood of their clever lyrics. It's a lot more honest and interesting than the so-manieth guy who sings bland ballads of enduring love, when all he's interested in is money, adulation and superficial sex. (Not generalising, just saying there are a lot of those.) And now it's bed time in ye olde England! Lieve in London ________________________________ From: T Peckham To: Lieve Reckers Cc: jonilist JMDL ; jim Sent: Sat, 19 June, 2010 22:06:56 Subject: Re: Is Tom Petty singing worse than Dylan? njc Oh dear, I'm home w/my nose stuck to the proofreading grindstone--big deadline on Monday--but I can't stay out of this one. Ha, so much for professional discipline! I'm just struck (as I have been all my life) by the fact that aesthetic taste--be it in music, style, design, what have you--is often so wildly different from one human being to the next, especially between those who actually share much in common. For instance, I too love Dylan's singing--tho I like some of the voices he chooses to use better than others--and as a singer, I appreciate how much he has done w/what he was given (much like Billie Holiday). I also know that many who hate his voice don't realize (or don't give him credit for) the fact that he has influenced, directly or by osmosis, every generation of singers to follow him. (No, not every singer, but a lot of 'em.) And yes, he was very much a scholar of those who preceded him, especially those who blended folk, country, and blues. Sometimes the genius is in knowing who to steal from and how you synthesize it. So that said, I'm floored by the fact that someone who lives both Dylan and Joni's voices and singing styles ALSO loves . . . Steely Dan?? (laughing) I HATE Donald Fagen's voice! With a passion! I also hated their snotty, we're-so-cool-aren't-our-lyrics-obscure attitude, and the fact that they really weren't a band so much as a duo backed by a bunch of high-priced session players, cutting together sterile little pieces of perfection in the studio that they could rarely tour behind. Okay, okay, I'm already ducking under my desk--incoming! Over the years I've voiced this opinion to many musician friends and lovers, and most have disagreed with me, so I'm used to it. And of course, my opinion isn't meant to in any way diminish anyone else's experience of the music. I just think it's funny about people's tastes. T On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Lieve Reckers wrote: Hi Jim! >I'm certainly not going to turn this into an argument, but even then >I'm not sure I am following as you requested. >It's a question if taste, isn't >it? I actually love Dylan's voice, think it's priceless. So to me, of course >Tom Petty is worse. Many - if not most - singers are worse. To me. Not to >you. There we are, argument opened and closed! > >I know I've always been in >awe of your capacity to hear the quality of sound, you're a true audiophile, I >guess like Em who's looking for a better version of Katie Lied which my poor >ears always thought was the ultimate in recording! I say this without any >sarcasm, in true recognition that much as I love music, I don't hear certain >things that others can hear. But I know I have a good ear for music, for the >heart and the soul of music - - as I'm sure you have too. And that is where >taste comes in, and we can only respectfully disagree. Still, I hope that one >day you will wake up and find you suddenly "get" Dylan's voice and love it! >Lieve in London > >---------- >Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 22:15:16 -0400 >From: "Jim >L'Hommedieu" >Subject: Is Tom Petty singing worse >than Dylan? njc > > >Ok, I admit that the subject line looks like I'm cruising for >an >argument, but follow me for a second. > >When Bob Dylan sings, he usually >speak/sings. The parts he sings are >actually on pitch (I think) but he >doesn't have an attractive voice. >Lately, I saw Tom Petty on SNL and wow, >he's lost it. He always had the >mush-mouth to one degree or another but now >he's not on pitch either. >Tonight I heard a new song from him on the radio & >he sounds flat, really >flat, just like he did on SNL. > >Thumbs down in >Columbus, >Jim > - -- Curiosity is my religion. David Ryan Adams ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 17:55:58 -0500 From: T Peckham Subject: Re: Is Tom Petty singing worse than Dylan? njc Erm, I'm aware of who played on Joni's albums and also who played in her touring bands. Where did I say anything about Joni being "a band"? Aside from *Miles of Aisles*, her name is the only one on the records, and I'm pretty sure that's the only way she's been billed on tour. Sheesh! My only point was that Steely Dan was more of a conceptual project at times than a band, and that I find much of their music to be perfect but sterile.That they shared some of the same extremely talented musicians w/Joni in the studio only makes it more interesting to me that, in my OPINION, she put out much richer, more emotionally open albums. For those who get that from Steely Dan's records--great! For those who don't get that from Joni's records, fine! This was just a discussion I joined in in part because I thought it was kinda funny, and I tried to convey that. I wasn't looking to get into a pissin' contest. On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Dave Blackburn wrote: > Erm, those high priced session players are the same ones that made several > of Joni's masterpieces: Larry Carlton, Victor Feldman, Wayne Shorter, Wilton > Felder, Joe Sample etc. She was not a band so much as a solo artist backed > by these same cats. > > > Dave > (huge Joni AND Steely Dan fan) > > > > > On Jun 19, 2010, at 2:06 PM, T Peckham wrote: > > I'm floored by the fact that someone who lives both Dylan and >> Joni's voices and singing styles ALSO loves . . . Steely Dan?? (laughing) >> I >> HATE Donald Fagen's voice! With a passion! I also hated their snotty, >> we're-so-cool-aren't-our-lyrics-obscure attitude, and the fact that they >> really weren't a band so much as a duo backed by a bunch of high-priced >> session players, cutting together sterile little pieces of perfection in >> the >> studio that they could rarely tour behind. >> > > - -- Curiosity is my religion. David Ryan Adams ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 17:59:53 -0500 From: T Peckham Subject: Re: Is Tom Petty singing worse than Dylan? njc Yes, Lieve, we can happily agree to disagree--and I wish it was bedtime here! On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Lieve Reckers wrote: > Yep, taste is a funny thing. So I have no problem with you hating Steely > Dan, Terra. (I dislike most of David Bowie and all of Peter Gabriel, > something that many Joni fans won't understand either.) > But Joni herself is a great Steely Dan fan, that much is known! And I > don't agree that Fagan and Becker are snotty nosed. Yes, they're arrogant > in a funny sort of way, but at least they have the talent to justify it, > they're not idle posers like so many others. And hey, I happen to like the > cynical mood of their clever lyrics. It's a lot more honest and interesting > than the so-manieth guy who sings bland ballads of enduring love, when all > he's interested in is money, adulation and superficial sex. > (Not generalising, just saying there are a lot of those.) > > And now it's bed time in ye olde England! > Lieve in London > > ------------------------------ > *From:* T Peckham > *To:* Lieve Reckers > *Cc:* jonilist JMDL ; jim > *Sent:* Sat, 19 June, 2010 22:06:56 > *Subject:* Re: Is Tom Petty singing worse than Dylan? njc > > Oh dear, I'm home w/my nose stuck to the proofreading grindstone--big > deadline on Monday--but I can't stay out of this one. Ha, so much for > professional discipline! > > I'm just struck (as I have been all my life) by the fact that aesthetic > taste--be it in music, style, design, what have you--is often so wildly > different from one human being to the next, especially between those who > actually share much in common. For instance, I too love Dylan's singing--tho > I like some of the voices he chooses to use better than others--and as a > singer, I appreciate how much he has done w/what he was given (much like > Billie Holiday). I also know that many who hate his voice don't realize (or > don't give him credit for) the fact that he has influenced, directly or by > osmosis, every generation of singers to follow him. (No, *not every singer > *, but a lot of 'em.) And yes, he was very much a scholar of those who > preceded him, especially those who blended folk, country, and blues. > Sometimes the genius is in knowing who to steal from and how you synthesize > it. > > So that said, I'm floored by the fact that someone who lives both Dylan and > Joni's voices and singing styles ALSO loves . . . Steely Dan?? (laughing) I > HATE Donald Fagen's voice! With a passion! I also hated their snotty, > we're-so-cool-aren't-our-lyrics-obscure attitude, and the fact that they > really weren't a band so much as a duo backed by a bunch of high-priced > session players, cutting together sterile little pieces of perfection in the > studio that they could rarely tour behind. > > Okay, okay, I'm already ducking under my desk--incoming! Over the > years I've voiced this opinion to many musician friends and lovers, and most > have disagreed with me, so I'm used to it. And of course, my opinion isn't > meant to in any way diminish anyone else's experience of the music. I just > think it's funny about people's tastes. > T > > On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Lieve Reckers wrote: > >> Hi Jim! >> I'm certainly not going to turn this into an argument, but even then >> I'm not sure I am following as you requested. >> It's a question if taste, isn't >> it? I actually love Dylan's voice, think it's priceless. So to me, of >> course >> Tom Petty is worse. Many - if not most - singers are worse. To me. Not >> to >> you. There we are, argument opened and closed! >> >> I know I've always been in >> awe of your capacity to hear the quality of sound, you're a true >> audiophile, I >> guess like Em who's looking for a better version of Katie Lied which my >> poor >> ears always thought was the ultimate in recording! I say this without any >> sarcasm, in true recognition that much as I love music, I don't hear >> certain >> things that others can hear. But I know I have a good ear for music, for >> the >> heart and the soul of music - as I'm sure you have too. And that is where >> taste comes in, and we can only respectfully disagree. Still, I hope that >> one >> day you will wake up and find you suddenly "get" Dylan's voice and love >> it! >> Lieve in London >> >> ---------- >> Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 22:15:16 -0400 >> From: "Jim >> L'Hommedieu" >> Subject: Is Tom Petty singing worse >> than Dylan? njc >> >> Ok, I admit that the subject line looks like I'm cruising for >> an >> argument, but follow me for a second. >> >> When Bob Dylan sings, he usually >> speak/sings. The parts he sings are >> actually on pitch (I think) but he >> doesn't have an attractive voice. >> Lately, I saw Tom Petty on SNL and wow, >> he's lost it. He always had the >> mush-mouth to one degree or another but now >> he's not on pitch either. >> Tonight I heard a new song from him on the radio & >> he sounds flat, really >> flat, just like he did on SNL. >> >> Thumbs down in >> Columbus, >> Jim >> > > > > -- > Curiosity is my religion. David Ryan Adams > > - -- Curiosity is my religion. David Ryan Adams ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 17:14:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Em Subject: Re: Is Tom Petty singing worse than Dylan? njc another Steely Dan comment fwiw, one of my very favorite Steely Dan albums is a kind of bootleg of what seems like very early demos or maybe rehearsals...called (misspelled) "Berrytown". Really neat stripped down versions of mostly songs I never heard before. Makes me wonder why they never recorded them. Very songwriter-ish. And so naked and raw. Love it as much or more than the sophisticated studio stuff. I feel slightly guilty listening to it - as I know F&B don't want this stuff out there. But I can't stay away. Songs that really stick with me. Sometimes I think the lush production and arrangements of their regular albums actually ended up hiding some pretty tasty groundwork and melodies. I love Fagen's voice "naked". But then I like Dylan AND Petty too, lol.... :) Em ps: have enjoyed everyone's comments, whether pro or anti whatever. - --- On Sat, 6/19/10, T Peckham wrote: From: T Peckham Subject: Re: Is Tom Petty singing worse than Dylan? njc To: "Dave Blackburn" , "JMDL" Date: Saturday, June 19, 2010, 6:55 PM Erm, I'm aware of who played on Joni's albums and also who played in her touring bands. Where did I say anything about Joni being "a band"? Aside from *Miles of Aisles*, her name is the only one on the records, and I'm pretty sure that's the only way she's been billed on tour. Sheesh! My only point was that Steely Dan was more of a conceptual project at times than a band, and that I find much of their music to be perfect but sterile.That they shared some of the same extremely talented musicians w/Joni in the studio only makes it more interesting to me that, in my OPINION, she put out much richer, more emotionally open albums. For those who get that from Steely Dan's records--great! For those who don't get that from Joni's records, fine! This was just a discussion I joined in in part because I thought it was kinda funny, and I tried to convey that. I wasn't looking to get into a pissin' contest. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 16:50:22 -0700 From: "Mark Scott" Subject: Re: Is Tom Petty singing worse than Dylan? njc - -------------------------------------------------- From: "T Peckham" > > So that said, I'm floored by the fact that someone who lives both Dylan > and > Joni's voices and singing styles ALSO loves . . . Steely Dan?? (laughing) > I > HATE Donald Fagen's voice! With a passion! I also hated their snotty, > we're-so-cool-aren't-our-lyrics-obscure attitude, and the fact that they > really weren't a band so much as a duo backed by a bunch of high-priced > session players, cutting together sterile little pieces of perfection in > the > studio that they could rarely tour behind. You will get no argument or flames from me. I completely agree with everything you say. I've felt for a long time that Steely Dan is all gloss with no substance. And Fagen's voice grates on me too. > . And of course, my opinion isn't > meant to in any way diminish anyone else's experience of the music. I just > think it's funny about people's tastes. I will agree with this too since I have been known to be way off in my aesthetic perception before. I've been reading some of my writing out of the archives circa 1998-99 and I'm embarrassed by some of what I wrote about Rickie Lee Jones. Then I saw her perform live and I finally 'got it'. I'm a passionate RLJ fan now. As Joni put it 'Good or bad we think we know as if thinking makes things so!' Mark in Seattle wondering if summer is ever going to come to the PNW. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:08:48 -0700 From: "Mark Scott" Subject: Re: Is Tom Petty singing worse than Dylan? njc > I will agree with this too since I have been known to be way off in my > aesthetic perception before. I've been reading some of my writing out of > the archives circa 1998-99 and I'm embarrassed by some of what I wrote > about Rickie Lee Jones. Then I saw her perform live and I finally 'got > it'. I'm a passionate RLJ fan now. > As an after-thought and to be perfectly honest, my favorite Rickie Lee Jones album is 'Flying Cowboys' produced by none other than Walter Becker. Mark E. in Seattle ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 12:41:27 -0700 From: "Randy Remote" Subject: Re: Joni Mitchell Jazz Radio Special Have a great show, David- what's the radio equivelent of "break a leg"? Have some dead air? > Hi, > Just reminding you all that I'll be doing "Joni Mitchell Jazz Summer > Solstice Radio Special" this Thursday starting at 9 pm (Pacific) on > www.klcc.org (you can stream the show at that time). I'm pretty much > working the top 20 Joni songs most covered by others with some getting > multiple covers with mostly jazz performers. I hope you all enjoy it. > Again thanks to Bob for all his help. > David Gizara > Thursday Night Jazz > KLCC 89.7 FM Eugene (NPR) > www.klcc.org ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2010 #182 ***************************** ------- Post messages to the list by clicking here: mailto:joni@smoe.org Unsubscribe by clicking here: mailto:joni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe -------