Some Blue Notes That Sell, And One That Won’t
Congratulations to our new friend Vinylrealist who is having quite a nice week for himself on eBay. Here are a couple of his recent auctions: J.R. Monterose, Blue Note 1536. This was an original Lexington Avenue pressing with a very nice note signed by J.R. The record was in M- condition and the cover was Ex and looked quite nice from the pictures. Would love to own this copy of that record, but not at this price, which was $2,358. Also, Introducing Johnny Griffin, Blue Note 1533. This was also an original Lexington Avenue pressing, listed in M- condition for the record and Ex for the cover. This one sold for $1,985.
I had my eye on this one because I have two copies and was pondering selling one: Cannonball Adderley, Something Else, Blue Note 1595. This was an original West 63rd Street pressing listed in VG++ condition for both the record and the cover. It sold for $404. I thought it would get a higher price. I will have a booth at the WFMU Record Fair next Friday and Saturday, assuming there will be no super storm that weekend, and I was thinking of bringing my second copy of Something Else to sell. My problem, however, is that I now have two places of residence and there are certain albums where it makes sense to have one in each location. At least, it makes sense to me. So, up in the country this weekend, with a warm fire in the stove, I put my duplicate copy of Something Else on the turntable. By the middle of Autumn Leaves, the decision was clear. This record was going nowhere.
“At least, it makes sense to me.” I’m sure it does,Al..I’m sure it does(lol).
😉
You had to be there. The fire, the sound system, the opening vamp, Miles and then a really great solo by Cannonball on Autumn Leaves. Who could resist?
I love my parents but the WFMU record fair is one weekend I don’t want them to visit. Ah well…
Re: Monterose, a great session but part of me always wished he went head to head with Sullivan’s reed arsenal as well, a la the album that later became known as “Blue Stroll.”
It must be the season for that one Al… For no other reason than perhaps that familiar chill in the air, or the lack of daylight after work, I too have found myself listening to Something Else over the last few weeks as well. It’s just one of those LP’s you never tire of, and it seems to sound better the more you hear it. I even keep one of my two original copies on display here in the office (In case of emergency…)
I live in Albany but I’m pretty sure I’m going to be going, Al! What are the details on that pressing of Somethin Else out of curiosity? Mono or stereo etc…?
Yes, Somethin Else is the kind you need one for home and one for office, or both homes as the case may be. That and Kind of Blue, Go, Soul Session, Moanin, Time Out, Sax Colossus, probably more would be on my home-and-away list. I don’t have an original Somethin Else but am bout to grab one for the princely sum of $120 in VG+ shape.
Totally agree that Else is on the must have list, quite possibly top 2 or 3 – actually think the price of $404 quite reasonable, although this one, just as nice:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/CANNONBALL-ADDERLEY-Somethin-Else-US-Blue-Note-1595-63rd-DG-58-/130977726830?pt=Music_on_Vinyl&hash=item1e7ee1816e&nma=true&si=YuvDL9%252Bemza4sOS7AKIMhcH0g%252Bo%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557
sold recently for $308
This one:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Somethin-Else-ADDERLEY-Miles-Davis-LP-Vinyl-RECORD-BLUE-NOTE-STEREO-1595-RARE-/331033357463?pt=Music_on_Vinyl&hash=item4d13202c97&nma=true&si=YuvDL9%252Bemza4sOS7AKIMhcH0g%252Bo%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557
is an original Stereo version (which I consider highly desirable) and went ofor $199 in VG+ condition
while this one:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/CANNONBALL-ADDERLEY-Somethin-Else-BLUE-NOTE-1595-LP-W-63rd-/380742938576?pt=Music_on_Vinyl&hash=item58a60c2fd0, an original with VG/VG- vinyl went for $188
Can’t believe anyone would want a lousy orignal mono rather than a solid original stereo
Weird, I just recieved a Stereo DG EAR press of SOMETHING ELSE. Paid over $100 for it but it is not as the seller said “quiet” (++/EX) so alas will be sending it back. Even if I downgrade to sell I might have an unhappy buyer so it must go home. Shame. What a great record. My other home is my car so the cd is a must. I play music for my living so am always driving around town! 4 nights a week with an hour each way so 8 hours a week in my car minimum unless I pick some other gigs up.
As far as jazz prices these days and my jazz collection I am so on the fence with the temptation of selling it. Money(a lot!) in the bank vs. my love for listening to them. There still here!!!!!!!!
they’re!!!!!
…I have another original mono pressing of Something Else that could use a good home if anyone is interested. Unfortunately the back cover has a small (maybe 1/2″+) bit of the off white corner label slick torn away but other than that it is not too bad as a filler copy if you are looking for an original pressing with all the trimmings.
I’m flexible on the price, and can send pics if anyone is interested. Just ask Al to forward me your coordinates… (Thanks in advance Al !)
how many thousands you looking for?
In other words how much you want for it?
…Maybe around $100 (Keep in mind it’s a “filler copy” at best. Definitely not an audio file copy, as it has a fair amount of scuffs and scratches on the LP itself sadly. I also came across a second pressing I had on the shelf with it ! (That makes four LP copies of this one Al ! Not to mention two on CD and one on iTunes…)
I have a New York USA pressing of 1595 and I was over the moon with it when it arrived. You can see the photos by clicking HERE. Make sure to click on ‘all photos’ to see the whole lot 😉
Great record, always considered this a Miles Lp
funny how that has stuck in my head. Picked up several copies over the years just because it was repressed so many times. Always a joy to put it on the deck, a record that gives that certain feeling EVERY time! Earl…MONO mate every time, seems to feel more original than the stereo versions. Is that just me?
Only mono. Stereo is, to me, completely uninteresting.
To each his own, I guess. I enjoy both the mono and stereo. Try the CD, RVG edition and of course in stereo, in your car on a good audio system and you’ll be amazed all over again. 😉
Thanks for sharing, Mattyman…very nice!
Re; mono vs. stereo
If you read the Van Gelder quote on stereo pressings in Cohen’s Blue Note book, you will see that most of the early BN’s were recorded in two tracks, then mixed to produce the mono releases. Therefore when they begin to produce stereo records, they already had two channels to press. In a sense, the stereo is closer to the original tape than a (mixed-down) mono.
Of course, if you feel (for whatever reason) that the mono seems more original, no one can presume to convince you otherwise.
My version is the mono original, but I have many prized early BN’s(mostly 4000’s)in stereo – I found a new love for them when I read Van Gelder’s comments
Thanks Don-Lucky for price quote.
Bit rich for my blood for a scratched record. Though I’m from the day when scratched records sold for under ten dollars. Pedigree or no pedigree. But the again, those days are gone and there are many seekers and few records.
No problem Lennib,
The price is certainly negotiable. For anyone interested in having an original pressing of this classic favorite despite the “dubious” condition… I’m certainy open to offers.
In the meantime, here is a great link I’ve posted in the past over the years here in the Jazz Collective when this LP comes up :
http://www.cannonball-adderley.com/1595.htm
…This collector is absolutely obsessed by Cannonball Adderley, and is a great resource for all known pressings and formats of Something Else along with the rest of his discography. Enjoy !
Earl, this is often misunderstood. If we’re talking about Somethin Else specifically, that was recorded at Hackensack, where Van Gelder states in Cohen’s book that he always only had a mono monitoring system. That record was without question recorded (and mixed on the fly) while being monitored in mono at Hackensack in early 1958. It was recorded to separate full-track and two-track tape but the two-track tape was not even heard until he set up the control room at Englewood in ’59 and Blue Note finally started releasing stereo LPs that year.
.
The RVG mono-stereo issue is a confusing thing. Please check out a post I have made at the Steve Hoffman forum:
.
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/current-spike-in-demand-for-original-blue-notes.334045/page-3#post-9641226
.
My post explains that for the entire time he was at Hackensack and at least a few years after he moved to Englewood he only monitored in mono. At some point in the early 60s he started to pay more attention to stereo but the evidence suggests that he has always given preference to mono.
.
I have tried to set the record straight here and other places on the web countless times, but it’s no bother to me because Rudy Van Gelder is a huge inspiration to me and I think it’s really important that people understand his creative intentions.
DG Mono:
I’m not sure I understand that what you are saying is different than what I said. While it is true that the tapes were indeed initially monitored in Mono, they did in fact exist in two-track format – and were thus available to be used to press the first stereo releases. As I see it, those initial stereo releases were in fact true to the origianl recording process, and thus not some kind of funky electronic re-channeling.
No?
Sorry Earl, I can see now that your emphasis was more on the fact that Van Gelder stereo is “true” stereo, not “electronically rechanneled” or “faux” stereo. You had also said that the stereo is closer to the original tape than a “mixed down” mono. First of all, Van Gelder did not “mix down” in the modern sense–he *summed*, and when he summed, he got exactly what he heard in the mono monitor. Now, what does it mean for a version to be more close to the original tape? Well, stereo is each of the two tracks panned hard left and right respectively; mono is a 50/50 sum. But regardless, I think what’s important is what Van Gelder was hearing when he was mixing *on the fly* i.e. monitoring, and in all cases up to a certain point in the early 60s he was definitely listening in mono, so that is IMO his artistic intention. And as I have said, I firmly believe mono was always his artistic intention, and this comes after reading everything there is out there on the guy, But this is not to say that I think the stereo mixes are worthless or something. I think they’re quite nice, especially for hearing the nuances of each instrument. 🙂
.
PS – It’s pretty easy to hear the difference between true stereo and electronically rechanneled stereo, no?
@ DG Mono: thanks for the compliments, glad you like the photos 🙂
I thought I’d jump in on the stereo mono debate: I have a 4067 NY USA “Bluesnik” stereo copy that sounds better than the original mono. I thought Lee Morgan’s Sidewinder sounded better too in stereo. Jimi Smith’s The Sermon is better in mono.
IMO mono will never sound better than stereo on a stereo. If you guys really want the “true” RVG sound you’ll have to use one speaker only – placed in the middle
DGM:
I do understnd what you are saying; it is true that what VG was hearing when monitoring was the mono sum of the two tracks, and it was from that he was judging the final mono pressing. I am not aware that he said that he preferred the mono, once stereo became possible, however. Perhaps I should not have said that the stero was closer to the original; but since the five numbers in the 1500 series (including 1595) were originally recorded in 2-track, and that was the tape used to press when stereo became feasible, I should think you can be justified in calling your stereo copy, original.
As to which you prefer, it is IMHO a matter of taste.
I have an older borther who played violin in an orchestra and owned many mon recordings; when stereo came out, he claimed that mono was intrinsically better, since the only reason an orchestra is spread accross a stage was that you couldn’t get them close enough together to have the sound emerge from a single point. My dear brother has always been known for his casuistic reasoning!
My, Earl, that is a VERY unique take on mono vs. stereo that your brother has…very interesting!
Shaft, I never thought about the possible differences between hearing mono sound coming from one speaker versus two…maybe the reverberation in the room would be different? Maybe the two speakers are ever so slightly out of phase?? Or are you referring more to a “true mono rig”? If you are, I’ve never actually heard one, but I know from experience that a modern stereo rig with the left and right channels summed sounds pretty damn good and it sounds much better than a mono record on a stereo rig without the channels summed.
I always thought RVG preferred digital. Here’s a quote from a 2005 interview:
These days, Van Gelder is also an enthusiastic supporter of digital audio and an avid learner of new gear and software. “I believe today’s equipment is fantastic,” he says. “I wouldn’t want to face a session without the editing capabilities of digital. There are still maintenance and reliability issues. Tech support helps. From my viewpoint, the essential difference between analog and digital is that analog does not like to be copied,” Van Gelder continues. “After the original is recorded, edited and mixed, then what? You need a digital delivery medium. In that sense, the final product can be much higher quality than in the ’70s.”
That seems to make sense Bill, but that has nothing to do with his preference for mono or stereo. Am I missing something? On a side note, please keep in mind that he has never, to my knowledge, explicitly stated that he prefers mono over stereo, this is just a conclusion I’ve drawn after much research.
DGM Yes real mono should be played with one speaker. RVG had three speakers but claiming to mix with only one – that should be the one in the middle right.
No phase problem with one speaker – no waddling soundstage if you move your head slightly left and right. Just a beautiful point source smack in the middle – no distractions.
Sounds nice doesn’t it?
Indeed it does 🙂 And yes I am positive the three speakers at Englewood were left and right for stereo and center for mono.
i also like the old mono lps of blue note, but as always , those artists (in this case RvG) always state that their most recent work is the best. In a Dutch jazzmagazine he gave an interview in 2009,he states: …”Now everybody wants that ‘old sound’, but i can tell you, those days where quite difficullt… we had two mics, often we had to cut or slice from the tapes. The recording was already a verry, very difficult job, but after that it REALLY began with getting it right for the final vinyl. In the sixties, and most of all in the seventies, we got much better equipment.And nowerdays with digital equipment we ‘ve got great stuff. It’s all works faster and is much more precice. ….. …. With creed taylor and CTI i got a chance to broader my spectrum enormously ….i am unbelievably proud on my CTI period. That most journalists didn;t like it a bit of what we where doing at CTI… i would expect that they would enrich themselves with NEW music, just like i did…… ” by the way, i never knew his studio in hackensack was build by the Buro of Frank Loyd Wright under the supervision of FLW. Sorry for the ‘rotten’ translation from dutch to english.
…he also says:..’offcourse there where limitations in the old studio at my parrents house ..i had to consider my parrents and our neighbours, hollidays and sundays…so most recordings where at the end of the day, beginning of the evening..’ They recorded an album within 4-5 hours time… first job: 75 dollars..
“olthough the ceiling in my parrents house was verry low, the sound was nice because of the wooden floor and the wooden cabbinets/closets”
The band in the livingroom, and i was sitting in the kitchen with my equipment, later me and my father build a glass wall between the kitchen and the livingroom.