|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
62.125.89.75
In Reply to: New Ricki Lee Jones SACD posted by JMCIII on February 7, 2007 at 13:23:40:
Please post once you have listened to the SACD layer. Mine is on order from jpc in Germany.
Follow Ups:
NT_
John Crossett____________________________
It sounds like English, but I can't understand a word you're saying.
In 2-channel only.Rough, sonically. Which, if I'm reading the liner notes correctly, is just how RLJ wanted it. Oh the instruments are fairly clear (percussin & drums excepted). But the musicianship isn't up to snuff. Certainly not a demo, but a decent listen for RLJ fans.
Musically, it's not the sermon some have been specualting it would be. As a matter of fact, it's not even the album RLJ first intended. The songs range from pretty good to fair. Typical RLJ record. It's not match for her debut album, but it's not a dog either. If you're a fan - buy it quick (it a limited edition of 35000 copies).
John Crossett____________________________
It sounds like English, but I can't understand a word you're saying.
As a Ricky Lee Jones fan I've learned to pick through the rubble to find the gems. I found this album bereft of any gems and strewn with rubble. A major disappointment. I really don't care what she's trying to do sonically, I care if the result is some musical satisfaction. I found none.
I don't find the music, per se, disappointing. I haven't listened enough to determine if there are any gems or not. There are a few tracks that, as I said, are appealing at first blush. Is it her best material? Perhaps not. But the big disappointment to me is the quality of the recording.Here is an artist whose releases on redbook have a reputation for sonic purity -- at least the ones I am familiar with, and I don't know them all. I had great expectations, looking forward to one of the few original SACD releases by a major artist (there have been so few!). Unfortunately, my hopes were dashed by what seems to be a rather shoddy, poorly produced recording. I don't know this record label, "New West," but the impression I get is this thing was produced on a shoestring.
I'm not questioning your musical judgement at all. What I am saying is that I would have been delighted, even with the material on the recording, if they had done justice to SACD.
Why record something on Fisher-Price equipment and then release it on SACD? That's what annoys me about THIS record.
.
I don't catch your drift. What are you referring to with "Pirates"? I don't get around much, you know.
she followed up with a record called "Pirates". A nice LP. But, in my opinion, the sound was not as good as her first.
Regards,
Geoff
Thanks for the info. I have never heard the self-titled debut. I will definately acquire it. If it's in the same league as Pop Pop sonicially, I will be delighted.
I was afraid it may have been like this. I'm also a fan. I do intend to listen for myself, though.
Regards,
Geoff
Now, I haven't given this a really critical listening, but I can provide some first impressions that others may confirm, or dismiss.I find the music on the record to be intriguing, and there are one or two tracks I would even describe as infectious. But there's no reason to take my musical taste over anyone else's.
On the subject of sonics, I can be a bit more objective.
My other two Jones recordings, "Pop Pop" and "Naked Songs," I do believe, are sonically superior to this recording, though they are only redbook.
This new recording has a somewhat congested quality to it. I can't say what exactly it emanates from -- the mic's used, the studio enviroment itself, who knows. It's not that the disc is poorly recorded, it's just a little disappointing in this respect, since the two redbook recordings I mentioned are both outstanding. OF COURSE, I am not arguing the superiority of redbook. But the skillfullness of these two recordings, unfortunately, far surpasses this particular SACD.
"Pop Pop" was used for years by purveyors of high end stereo equipment as an in store demo, and it still stands up well today, though there is no original material of Jones' on it. It does, however, feature some wonderful and far-fetched covers, all splendidly performed.
Now, I haven't given this a really critical listening, but I can provide some first impressions that others may confirm, or dismiss. HTML tag not allowed
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: