Why are so many of the Columbia Thelonious Monk recordings so poorly recorded and mixed? There must be some stories behind why a record company with immense resources did such a poor job on so many of Monk's small group recordings. Does anyone have the scoop?
I think I have heard them all, and none sounds bad. Including the live recordings. I think his quartet sessions for Columbia are the best recorded, better than the Riverside stuff.
Last edited by Nefertiti; December-31st-2005 at 06:37 AM.
Well, I just picked up "Jeru" a Gerry Mulligan recording with Tommy Flanigan on piano. This is a 2005 Columbia/Legacy reissue. The sound for Mulligan is fantastic and Flanigan is pushed way to the background - you have to strain to hear him. The same type of problem exists on most of my Monk quartet recordings from Columbia - the mixes are uneven and sometimes the star of the show is pushed way to the background. It seems very odd when at the same time when the Miles Davis and John Coltrane recordings are so good - why is this? That's my question.
Gladly. The following have mix problems and/or Monk sounds like he was a ways a way from a microphone while the rest of the band sounds fine:
Criss-Cross - (1993 purple edge around cover)
It's Monk's Time - (newly 20 bit re-mastered)
Monk - (newly 20 bit re-mastered)
Thelonious Monk The Columbia Years 62-68 (first disc)
The reason I brought this whole issue up is that I recently bought the last three, listed above, figuring Columbia had finally corrected the problems but I was greatly disappointed.
Most of the tracks sound like it's Charlie Rouse session and Monk has been relegated to a little appreciated sideman. I like Rouse a whole lot but how can this label with endless resources treat someone like Monk so shoddily? What's the story here - did Monk make some big enemies at Columbia? I should say that his recording Straight, No Chaser is beautifully recorded - it's not like Columbia couldn't do it right.
Linear Mode
