I also suggest that this issue has something to do with Miles himself (it would be quite questioning if he would not notice the sound quality of his recordings). Different layers could have, in principal, caused some unexpected results. But was each instrument well recorded (in Bitches Brew and some other albums I think there are no frequencies higher than 10-12khtz, how drums, for instance, were recorded??; by the way, In a Silent Way is much better recorded)? Remastered Kind of Blue is a good example of how a very early recording may sound (I prefer this sound to most of the later Miles ones, except an earlier mentioned Live at Montreux with Quincy Jones, which sounds very good (one of the or the most well recorded album of Miles Davis, also his latest live recording perhaps; curiously, Miles live recordings, in average, sound better than his studio recordings). Likely, it is not a digital recording. As to the DDD Aura, it could have been that the sampling stage was not so good at that time, but there are some very well recorded CDs in digital before the release of Aura (for example, DDD CDs recorded in 1982, the last Art Pappers recording Goin' Home, and MJQ Live at Montreux 82, both well recorded).
Why Miles Davis late alboms are not well recorded?
I wonder what Miles David would answer. I suggest sound quality was important for him (in 70s he owned Acoustic Research AR 5 speakers, one of the most naturally sounded ones then). I enjoy the quality of his early 60s and even some late 50s recording, which, to me, are recorded better than late 60s, 70s and the following dates. An exception is his (live) recording with Quincy Jones live at Montreux 1993 - a good sound quality but not so interesting content. His 80s albums sound sharp and electric, indeed pity (surprisingly1981 Man with the Horn sounds better (except Mike Sterns solo on the first track is really badly recorded) than the later 84 Decoy (the worst recorded one perhaps) and 86 Tutu (at that time, already good digital recordings were made), and 1989 Aura is digitally recorded, and again, with a poor quality). I don't think that late 60s and early 70s fusion style could somehow impose worse recording quality.
A somewhat similar picture is I think with John Scofied albums - from late 90s his albums do no sound well (except perhaps a few latest ones).
Similarly in some rock groups. For instance, the first ELPs albums (Tarcus and Triligy) I think are better recorded than later ones (why a following Brian Salad Surgery sounds worse?), Led Zeppelin 1-4 for me sound better than the following ones.
There is so much discussion about relatively minor equipment aspects that affect sound quality. To me, having a
descent sound system, the major trouble comes from how recordings are made.
- ...
- 10 posts total
- 10 posts total