Jazz on vinyl vs. CD

[finnbow]

This is not a thread on the relative sonic merits of vinyl and CD's. I have nice playback systems for both.

Just an personal observation though. Somehow, I feel vinyl is somehow the more appropriate medium for jazz (to a greater degree than I feel vinyl is a superior medium for other genres). There's something more complete about the throwback experience of putting an old, but well maintained jazz LP on a vintage turntable than putting a shiny silver disk of 50's - 60's jazz music into a CD player. For whatever reason, playing a 60's rock and roll title on CD just doesn't seem as incongruent to me as playing a jazz title of the same era.

In a collection of about 1000 LP's, I have at least 300 jazz titles. Out of about 500 CD's, I don't think I have more than a dozen jazz titles. Subconsciously, at a used music store or garage sale, I rarely search for jazz on CD, but always look for jazz on vinyl.

Any one else share this strange bias?

 

[Captain Slack]

Now that you point it out, I tend to shop for music the same way. Very rarely do I buy a jazz CD or even browse through that section, but I'll always look through the jazz vinyls.

 

[KeninDC]

Jazz CDs (Blue Note, OJC, for example) are quite often mastered extremely well.

That being said, I understand your "strange bias." There's a genuine psychological "fit" between jazz and vinyl. Jazz vinyl is reason No. 1 why I go to estate sales.

Plus, the mono version of "Take Five" must be heard and is only on LP.

Of course, some nice bonus tracks are only on CD. I buy the OJC CDs like candy.

Ken

 

[poppachubby]

For the most part I am in agreement. There are however titles which are near impossible to find old or original vinyl. Then there are the titles which are rare and costly. For those, I thank the CD format. I am reminded most recently of Roy Brooks' Ethnic Expressions. Rather than explain I will let people find out that saga on their own. The RVG series can be had at about $10 a disc now!! An incredible price for some great sounding music, and it's not limited to Blue Note, his allegiances were to great music not labels.

Beyond that there's alot of newer releases which never see the black of wax. Companies like Nagel Heyer will go even further and limit certain special releases to digital only, so downloading. Small independent labels, even the size of ECM are relying more on downloads and discs that niche based vinyl. As much as I love vinyl, and my reference system is indeed analog, I will not pass on the latest Tomasz Stanko because of format. For me, I rip the disc and play it through a DAC.

Infact, finnbow I highly rec trying some modern ECM titles on disc. The quality is truly remarkable and dynamic. I most recently bought the last Charles Lloyd and it's a real treat. My digital playback capability can be described as average at best.

For the older albums, it is indeed a treat to hunt down some vinyl to play.

I can't wait until Art K. sees this thread...hey Art! :wave:

 

[js1138]

My only problem is that jazz is at home in smokey rooms, and vinyl isn't. Other than that I'd agree that vinyl just seem right.

 

[Scuzzer]

My local record store has boatloads of cheap jazz records so that's what I typically browse through until I find a handful of $3-$5 records with interesting covers. I seem to be building a bottom feeding jazz vinyl collection and it suits me just fine. For some of the bigger name more expensive records I typically end up with the cd but it's not as fun as playing a 50s era mono record using a big old heavy idler turntable and an old tube amp.

 

[dumptruck]

I feel that way about glam, for some reason.

 

[poppachubby]

My local record store has boatloads of cheap jazz records so that's what I typically browse through until I find a handful of $3-$5 records with interesting covers. I seem to be building a bottom feeding jazz vinyl collection and it suits me just fine. For some of the bigger name more expensive records I typically end up with the cd but it's not as fun as playing a 50s era mono record using a big old heavy idler turntable and an old tube amp.

Good show. Y'know, there are a ton of older labels like Muse, Onyx, Kudu, New Jazz and great artists like Woody Shaw, Red Rodney, Mal Waldron who's material is all outstanding and pressed wonderfully.

The thing about these great staples of jazz is that they're unbeknownst to many, and simply flounder in bins at reasonable prices.

My advice to many of people searching for good jazz vinyl is to firstly, take a chance!! Secondly, if you have a cell with a data plan do some on location homework to help unearth some gems.

I will tell you right now, all of you (Not you scuzz-dog) looking for Coltrane and Miles in a thrift shop are up for a life of dissapointment. Yes you may be rewarded every 5 or 6 years, but not much else.

The first Red Rodney LP I ever bought was coicidentally one of his best, but I had no idea at the time. I liked some of the supporting players and took a chance. He's since become one of my favorites and frankly, he's more than just a blip on the radar. Now I own 10 Red Rodney original LPs, all of which have come easily because no one else knows who the heck he is.

Rant mode off!

 

[poppachubby]

I feel that way about glam, for some reason.

Bowie = Vinyl for me too fella...and not a Rhino reprint.

 

[libertycaps]

I'm having lots of luck finding good Jazz Fusion titles on wax recently.
http://rateyourmusic.com/collection/libertycaps/recent/
Fewer fans of the genre means better pickings for me! Agree that there is some uncanny "synergy" with Jazz and the vinyl format.

 

[PickyEars81]

This is not a thread on the relative sonic merits of vinyl and CD's. I have nice playback systems for both.

Just an personal observation though. Somehow, I feel vinyl is somehow the more appropriate medium for jazz (to a greater degree than I feel vinyl is a superior medium for other genres). There's something more complete about the throwback experience of putting an old, but well maintained jazz LP on a vintage turntable than putting a shiny silver disk of 50's - 60's jazz music into a CD player. For whatever reason, playing a 60's rock and roll title on CD just doesn't seem as incongruent to me as playing a jazz title of the same era.

In a collection of about 1000 LP's, I have at least 300 jazz titles. Out of about 500 CD's, I don't think I have more than a dozen jazz titles. Subconsciously, at a used music store or garage sale, I rarely search for jazz on CD, but always look for jazz on vinyl.

Any one else share this strange bias?

I agree, but I think part of that has to do with your running a DL-160, which sounds particularly good with Jazz.

 

[finnbow]

I agree, but I think part of that has to do with your running a DL-160, which sounds particularly good with Jazz.

That could be, but I think my bias in this regard predates my use of the DL-160. I think it may have more to do with a subconscious desire to be faithful to the medium in which the title was released (even though this applies seemingly less in other genres).

 

[bobellis75]

This is not a thread on the relative sonic merits of vinyl and CD's. I have nice playback systems for both.

Just an personal observation though. Somehow, I feel vinyl is somehow the more appropriate medium for jazz (to a greater degree than I feel vinyl is a superior medium for other genres). There's something more complete about the throwback experience of putting an old, but well maintained jazz LP on a vintage turntable than putting a shiny silver disk of 50's - 60's jazz music into a CD player. For whatever reason, playing a 60's rock and roll title on CD just doesn't seem as incongruent to me as playing a jazz title of the same era.

In a collection of about 1000 LP's, I have at least 300 jazz titles. Out of about 500 CD's, I don't think I have more than a dozen jazz titles. Subconsciously, at a used music store or garage sale, I rarely search for jazz on CD, but always look for jazz on vinyl.

Any one else share this strange bias?

I got into jazz heavy at the end of high school/early college years....at that time, it was all CD's.....I have quite a handful of jazz on CD. Since I've recently gotten back into vinyl...I will say that I find myself digging for jazz and blues on vinyl before I head for the rock section. It just seems right...especially with the old jazz stuff. It's from an era when Art Blakey made playing the drums with a cigarette hanging out of his mouth look like the coolest thing on earth (it still makes him look cool as hell). That classic jazz and the whole aura around it lends itself to being played on vinyl for whatever reason.

 

[olson_jr]

When I put on music, and close my eyes, it really does not matter what server the music somes from.

That being said, I think I buy more Classic Jazz on vinyl than Cd.

 

[dumptruck]

Is "Classic Jazz" actually agreed upon to mean something? It's a genuine question - I'm probably not into jazz enough to really get all the sub-genre and period terms. Seems like most or all of you are referring to the late 50s when you say this (I see it a lot), and I certainly understand considering that as some kind of peak, but then you've got a previous 50 or so years that are clearly not all "proto jazz". Sorry, I'm all OT here.

 

[qdrone]

For me it's a matter of cost. I buy what is least expensive but yes I do go through the jazz vinyl often when I'm browsing through music store. gee I wish I lived where you guys are cause it ain't cheap in my neck of the woods,but I often hope to find a rarity that isn't marked up in price.

 

[Mr. Lin]

I'll tell you what I think (since I know you're about to burst in anticipation of me doing so ):

First of all, I completely understand where finnbow is coming from here. If not for the XRCD format, most of my jazz would be on vinyl, and more often than not I prefer to listen to jazz on vinyl. I suspect part of this might be the way well-recorded lps played with even just decent cartridges can provide harmonic texture that's often lacking on CDs - and I say that as a huge fan of the CD btw. For me, a large part of the joy of listening to jazz is hearing the truest rendition possible (for me, in my system, at that time) of instruments, especially certain brass instruments like the trumpet and trombone.

In a similar way, although I readily admit classical can sound fantastic on vinyl, often times the noise factor leads me to prefer CD for that type of music. So, like finnbow demonstrated by telling us how many jazz titles he has on both mediums, I probably have hundreds of classical CDs, and probably not even fifty classical lps. The "dead silent background" factor is largely what's behind this, along with the ready availability of cheap classical CDs featuring music by any composer one could wish to hear. I like to buy music based on what I specifically want to hear, not just because I found it and it's a good deal (though of course I've done that plenty of times in the past too).

I know there's an insinuation in this thread that a comfort or nostalgia factor plays into this as well, and I'm sure that's true for a lot of people, but for me it's about the availability of the exact music I want, and the sound, and we all know (well some of us at least ) that the two mediums have different strengths and weaknesses. I hope finnbow doesn't mind me saying this here because I know he doesn't want a debate about formats (who could blame him?), and neither do I, but I had to mention it to answer what I think is an interesting question and topic.

 

[Guest123]

One point to consider is, that some jazz recordings really benefit from the low noise floor of the CD format. I'm not talking about the hard-swinging, be-bop or big band stuff. I'm referring more to recordings such as my Eberhard Weber, or Peter Erskine albums and other atmospheric and delicately recorded works. It's a real pleasure to listen to them without the distracting pops, clicks and other unwanted artifacts an LP delivers. Also, to be able to listen to an entire album's worth of music without getting up to flip the disc over is worth something, too. I wonder if anyone else here shares this opinion?

regards,

 

[Art K.]

This is not a thread on the relative sonic merits of vinyl and CD's. I have nice playback systems for both.

Just an personal observation though. Somehow, I feel vinyl is somehow the more appropriate medium for jazz (to a greater degree than I feel vinyl is a superior medium for other genres). There's something more complete about the throwback experience of putting an old, but well maintained jazz LP on a vintage turntable than putting a shiny silver disk of 50's - 60's jazz music into a CD player. For whatever reason, playing a 60's rock and roll title on CD just doesn't seem as incongruent to me as playing a jazz title of the same era.

In a collection of about 1000 LP's, I have at least 300 jazz titles. Out of about 500 CD's, I don't think I have more than a dozen jazz titles. Subconsciously, at a used music store or garage sale, I rarely search for jazz on CD, but always look for jazz on vinyl.

Any one else share this strange bias?

I understand the bias but completely disagree.

 

[Art K.]

I can't wait until Art K. sees this thread...hey Art! :wave:

You knew where I'd stand huh Pops :yes:. Fasting for an Endoscopy/Colonoscopy on Thurs so I won't bother with the why's (not much patience for it when I'm hungry).