"Famous Blue Raincoat"..

I agree with Martykl word for word. Beyond that, I don't quite understand what is being discussed here. While we can disagree about wether FBR is the best sounding record ever or not, or wether it sounds better than SS or not, I can't for the life of me understand how, using any reasonable standard, it's SOUND quality can get in the way of the enjoyment of the music; if one likes the music. Wether one likes the music is an entirely different matter and a very personal one. This distinction sometimes gets lost in these discussions.

As far as the music goes, I find Leonard Cohen's songs to be much better crafted; his lyrics can stand on their own as poetry. In the case of FBR, we have a singer singing someone else's songs while Vega sings her own compositions. So, from that standpoint, her renditions can come across as more personal. However, I find Warnes to be an infinitely better singer with a much wider technical and artistic scope; IMO.

Now, if only we could keep Cohen from singing :-)

IMO, FBR can hardly be considered an example of "early digital
recording" as defined by the grainy, edgy and sterile sound of most
early digital recordings. I can understand why it could be considered to
have an "artificial" sound, but the two samples that I have heard
on my system have sounded clean, tonally fairly well balanced, not grainy
at all and with good and impressive sound staging. Easily identified as a
digital recording, but not in an offensive way; definitely not
"analog" sounding. But, so what? It is a multi-tracked studio
recording; it will, by definition, be "artificial" sounding. Don't
misunderstand what I am trying to say; I much prefer good analog
recordings to (even) good digital recordings. The point I tried to make is
simply that the sonics of FBR, artificiality and all, do not detract from the
enjoyment of the music; if one likes the music. Personally, I would much
prefer to listen to well crafted songs and superior singing with sonics that
are less than perfect than music that, for my tastes, is not on the same
level, but with perfect sonics. BTW, FBR is hardly a favorite record of mine.

I love great sounding recordings and great ear candy, but the music has to
come first (for me); and the sonics a not so close second. Besides,
"analog" can have its own set of issues that can make it deviate
from the sound of live music. I think that the term "analog" can
be in danger of being used as some sort of imaginary notion of what
constitutes reality as much as "digital" can be. I have many analog
recordings that deviate from the sound of live even more (if one can
quantify these things) than many digital recordings with their "analog"
overly ripe bottom end, closed-in highs and confused soundstaging. I will
admit that, given the choice, I would usually take the sonic problems of
inferior analog over those of inferior digital. But, "analog" sound is not the
end-all and with most pop or rock recordings there is much more latitude in
deviation from reality than with Classical or acoustic jazz recordings where
the problems with digital make that deviation much more obvious; if one
knows what the real thing truly sounds like.

The art of a great improviser! Complete believability in how the improvised lines fit with and compliment the soloist; a type of improvised counterpoint and a true conversation. Yes, hard to do and used to be rare from the bass player who, traditionally, had a supportive role; not as much the case any more. Scott LaFaro broke it wide open with his work with Bill Evans. Gomez followed with the same pianist. He is a brilliant musician. Another that comes to mind immediately is Greorge Mraz. I'm sure that there was a chart while the "head" (melody) was being played ; but, after that, totally improvised.