 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Blue Max.
No contest!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Missouri Breaks (John Williams)
The soundtrack recording was done in New York and for a variety of reasons Williams wasn't very happy with it, so he got UA RECORDS to re-record the score with LA players whom he was much happier with for the soundtrack album release.
Great Album BTW IMHO, a score written for something like a 10 piece group that is a rather interesting item in Williams catalogue.
Ford A. Thaxton
|
|
|
|
|
|
When you consider sound quality into the mix, I'd say "most of them".
Yes, that's pretty much my view as well, especially for scores of a certain age -- let's say before the 1960s, just to put up some random cutoff mark. For scores as old as the 30s and 40s, I tend to ALWAYS get the rerecording.
Yes, obviously a modern recording will sound better than an old mono recording of the 30s and 40s.
As far as classical music is concerned, I'd say most recordings from the 60s on can sound terrific. I recently listened to a remastered Karajan recording of Beethoven's 4th symphony (from the 60s cycle) and it just sounds great. That's probably because they were recorded to sound great and labels such as Deutsche Grammophon take care of their master tapes and keep them in a specially temperated vault. When they are then remastered with modern technology, they sound splendid.
Film scores on the other hand are sometimes stored in rusty old cans in some overheated storage shed or wherever, so the tapes are often in less than pristine conditions. So there are some older recordings from the 60s that can sound great (like for example Goldsmith's album recording of HOUR OF THE GUN) while there are scores recorded much later in the 70s that sound poor, simply because the sources were poor.
I'm always happy when good film scores get re-recorded, simply because I want music to live and breathe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
