Amoeba Haul, Part 2: Rock LP's/CD's

This is part 2 of larger series of posts about my recent purchases at Amoeba Music in Hollywood. You can scroll down or click here to read part 1.

Like I said before: I was fairly disappointed in Amoeba's jazz section - especially in terms of the "good stuff". I scored a couple of good reissues (that V.S.O.P. record sounds sweet as hell, btw - but there's a fucking skip in the middle of the first song - of a brand new record! grr...), but I wasn't able to finally lay down the money to buy original pressings of my favourite albums. All of those ills could have been cured by some choice finds in the "Rock" section, but that didn't go as planned either.

The resurgence of an interest in LP's that I mentioned in the last post has become especially problematic for fans of rock music. The inventory just isn't there anymore. I used to be able to apply a similar classification system to the one I outlined earlier with jazz LP's to rock LP's as well, but between a slightly more "aware" public and the kitsch value found in contemporary artists releasing their digitally recorded stuff on vinyl (an analog medium), the rock section at most record stores has become either watered down or just plain useless. Just ten short years ago, I could easily waltz into almost any records store and find a copy of a mid-late pressing (usually manufactured long after initial release, thus lower in sound quality, but still better than CD's) of any number of classic rock staples by the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, etc. for between $4 and $15 depending on age and condition. My few recent forays to the PREX, Amoeba, and other record stores have shown me that there is very little left in this regard. Without getting too long-winded (me? never!), I can say that I have now found that ROCK records in most record stores can be broken down into the following categories:

1. The "good" stuff - Classics in pristine condition. $30+
2. Reissues - Same story as jazz records, but the quality of these is often even more problematic (more on that later). $10-25
3. New releases - It is absolutely beyond me why anyone who records their music using Pro Tools or any other digital platform would bother to release stuff on LP. If I am missing something, please tell me! I really have no patience for kitsch so spare me that line of reasoning. These annoy me. $10-20
4. Bargain stuff - (my entire next post will be devoted to not only my foraging in the bargain racks at Amoeba, but bargain records in general, so I won't get too deep here) Cheap, beat up but playable, plentiful, often amusing, never organized beyond genre. $.25 (not kidding) to $3.

For those who read my classification of jazz records you may find the lack of a certain category rather curious. See: the "mediocre to decent condition but still well worth it" stuff seems to have disappeared from so many of the record stores I have been too. I will gladly pay $12 for a playable copy of Cream's "Disraeli Gears", but it's just not there anymore. These racks have long been picked over and left as a carcass of their former glory. I cherish the $13 near-mint copy of Neil Young's "Everybody Knows This is Nowhere" that I picked up about 12 years ago at Subterranean Records in the West Village and, if you come over, will use it as a prime example of why you should listen to this music on vinyl; but I would be hard pressed to make that kind of a find these days. It's taken a lot of the fun out of going record shopping. I don't always have the cash to drop on that $60 copy of "Exile on Main St." (well...) and I am usually underwhelmed by the condition of the old stuff or the sound quality of the late pressings on flimsy vinyl that you can find in the "bargain" section. Where is a man left to turn?!! (melodramsa switch... off)

Where was I? Ah yes. Amoeba's "Rock LP's" section. I was really hoping that this place might be the exception to the rule, but, alas, this supposed mecca was the same old same old. The area was flooded with new releases (grr) and reissues, but I found very few actual used records. Much like my experience with the jazz stuff, it appeared that I would need to formulate a new plan. I doubled checked the racks for the following:

1. Rolling Stones, "Exile on Main St."
2. Rolling Stones, "Sticky Fingers"
   
3. The Beatles, "Rubber Soul" (mono)
4. The Beatles, "Revolver" (mono)
5. The Beach Boys, "Pet Sounds" (mono)
6. The Clash, "London Calling"
7. Pearl Jam, "Vitalogy"

I seriously would have paid anywhere up to $30 for any of these in even decent condition, but, save the $200 copy of "Sticky Fingers" on the wall, they had NO used copies of any of these. *sigh*

They did, however, have a reissue of "Pet Sounds". For those of you not in the know, this album holds a special place in the minds of most rock musos. Widely regarded as a precursor to many of the "concept albums" of the late 1960's, this 1966 release is arguably the pinnacle of the Beach Boys' resident genius Brian Wilson's songwriting, arranging, and producing career. Not only is it lauded for it's colorfully orchestrated recordings of beautiful and breathtaking neo-Baroque pop songs, but is also important in the recording itself. As mono recording was being phased out in favor of stereo (or a few years later, even quadrophonic - aka surround sound's grandad), Wilson hung on tight to the "one-sided" tradition and crafted a veritable "wall of sound" in the model of his idol Phil Spector - even improving on it with a touch of subtlety and clarity often missed or overlooked by the aforementioned eccentric producer. It was truly one of the first records wherein the recording studio was played like a musical instrument - the mixing process proving to be as important as the recording itself. Due to its stature in this regard, both hardcore collectors and casual listeners often seek out the original mono recording (it was later released in stereo as well) in at least excellent condition on LP in order to fully experience "Pet Sounds" as Brian Wilson intended. That's what I was after.

Now what you must understand is that if I am making such a hullabaloo about "mono this" and "original that", then it only makes sense that I would approach the reissue (in mono) of this record with a good deal of skepticism. "But the jazz guy said those reissues are fine," you might say. To which I respond in the affirmative, but in the same breath, insist on reminding you that rock recordings and jazz recordings are incredibly different beasts. The majority of the jazz records I own ('cos those are my tastes and 'cos I can't afford the really nice old stuff) were originally released between 1950 and 1970. While there were significant strides in overall recording technology during that period, aside from using better mic's and better mic'ing technique, there wasn't a sea change in performers' perception of the "studio as creative tool" in the jazz world like there was in the world of rock music during the 1960's. In addition to the info provided in my earlier rant on the recording of "Pet Sounds", the recording studio, which had previously been a place (for all genres) wherein the engineers and producers sought to capture the most accurate representation of a performance on tape, was gradually recognized as a tool that could be used to not only record sounds, but manipulate them in a way to engage or play with the listeners ears. While better general mic'ing technique was being developed, several rock musicians (most notably the Beatles) were rethinking the way instruments and microphones were used in order to create new sounds that were sometimes sonically impossible to recreate with the mechanical manipulation made possible by the different tape machines, mixers, and other sound equipment found in high-end recording studios at the time. The word mechanical here is important because the experimentation and attention to technical details paid in the studio that I speak of was all done using analog technology. The majority of today's recording studios (be they in your next-door neighbors bedroom or in fancy buildings owned by record companies) operate on a largely digital medium wherein all of the "effects", shall we say, that so many of these 1960's musicians/pioneers were creating painstakingly and manually can now be done or undone with a keystroke. Now don't get me wrong, I am one of these "new school" recorders complete with a very meager home studio setup, but just like there is a reason we go to the Louvre to see the Mona Lisa rather than just use a laser printer to recreate a copy we scanned from an art book, there is an equal reason to want to hear Pet Sounds - in mono - on vinyl.

Now: I keep throwing around the words "digital" and "analog" as if the difference is well known or as simple as the "CD's v. tapes", but it only occurs to me now that this is, most likely, not the case, so allow me to give you a little more info. Analog recording occurs when an actual physical impression of a sound is created in magnetic tape or on pressed vinyl by way of a device (usually a microphone) that is sympathetic to the differences to the four determinable qualities of a sound: frequency (pitch), amplitude (volume), length, and timbre (tone color). Different sound qualities will create different sized or shaped impressions in said tape or record and get "re-translated" when played back on the device for which they are designed. Digital recording is similar in that a microphone is involved, but rather than create actual impressions in a physical object (such as the aforementioned magnetic) tape, the sound is translated into data via a seemingly endless round of "20 questions" wherein every question is "is this sound there?" with the "yes's" and "no's" being represented by binary codes 1 and 0 respectively. This difference is something of a double-edged sword. Digital recordings are posteriorally superior because, as there is no physical product, there is not degradation in sound quality over time. I am sure we all played our favourite cassette tape (mine) to the point where it started to sound shitty when we were younger, so I completely understand the appeal of something that will always sound as fresh as the day I bought it. Digital technology in terms of sound recording has also made the technology to create great sounding recordings much smaller, cheaper, and user-friendly, so I also appreciate it in this regard. However, playback and frequency create something of an issue. (this is where my vaguely intellectual and largely experiential understanding of this issue gets a little fuzzy so feel free to comment a better explanation if you have one) Due to digital's very nature, all frequencies are treated equally. This sounds nice from a musical civil rights standpoint, but, truth be told, that's not how we actually hear stuff. Remember that cell phone ring from a few years ago that only dogs and people under 15 or so could hear? Seemed odd, but it makes perfect sense. That's right: there are certain things human being simply cannot hear. The reason many people (myself included) swear by analog recording and playback techniques is because the frequencies they are able to reproduce more closely resemble the natural frequency range of human hearing. Quite simply put: analog stuff sounds more "real". People also use the terms "warmer" and "rounder" to describe the differences in quality between analog and digital recordings. My interpretation and communication of the "analog v. digital" discussion is admittedly a little naive. Some of that is because I am trying my best to communicate some scientific jargon in a way that makes sense. The other reason is 'cos, quite frankly, there is a limit to how much of that scientific stuff I even understand. I also think there's a certain amount of subjectivity involved here. Odd for science, I know, but I trust my ears. For much better explanations on this topic, you can click here and here. What I do understand about this stuff is the REproduction end of it; and that brings use back to the beginning of this pesky "reissue" topic. If something was recorded on digital equipment and mixed and mastered digitally, then it should be manufactured in a digital medium (CD's). If something was recorded, mixed, and mastered in analog, then is should remain analog. (this should also explain my frustration with contemporary artists - 99% of which record everything digitally - who insist on releasing their stuff on LP) The problem faced in the world of reissues is the remastering process. While I admit that mastering is the part of the recording process that is still the most cloudy to me, I can tell you that the basic idea behind the mastering process is to make sure that an album sounds sonically consistent not only with itself but also with other contemporary and genre-appropriate recordings. When you hear and album is getting remastered, it often means that they are taking out the old "master" tapes, or final mixes, and then double-checking the equalization (treble, mid-range, and bass frequency levels) and making volume adjustments. One of the problems with any remastering is that standards concerning EQ and volume tend to change over time. What was considered an acceptable amount of bass was considerably different in 1965 than in 1995, so when anyone - even the musicians themselves - come back to a recording to remaster it, a lot can change from the original release. What makes some remastering jobs even more troublesome is when an originally analog recording gets digitally remastered. I am sure I have beat this point into the ground already, so why don't you go ahead and tell me how much sense it makes to create a digital version of an analog recording, digitally manipulate it, and then put it back onto an analog medium and release it to the public? If you said, "none whatsoever", or something to that effect, you are correct! I actually have a 6-LP Clapton box set from the late 80's in which everything was digitally remastered before being pressed onto vinyl. While it makes sense that my father purchased it because he didn't yet have a CD player, it still confounds me that the digital treatment would be given to the greatest hits of a performer whose legacy is so entrenched in the age of the LP. Upon rereading that sentence I can see the sense in said artist going digital (somewhat anyway) in an effort to revitalize what was then a flailing career, but it's still no excuse. If you don't believe me, come on over and I will play you the pre and post-digital remastering versions of the same tunes from John Mayall's classic album "Bluesbreakers" (featuring a young Eric Clapton) and you will immediately understand my incessant ramblings.

So I am standing in the middle of the "Rock LP's" section at Amoeba Hollywood with this mono reissue of "Pet Sounds" in my hand trying to decide whether or $18.99 will make all my "Brian Wilson's 1966 vision" dreams come true or if it has suffered the digital treatment when it suddenly occurred to me that my friend Luke - the guy who got me into this album in the first place and shares my love of vinyl - might have this very same version of this very same album. So I called him. After a couple of minutes of rather confusing conversation concerning specific "editions" and packaging and labels and so forth, we figured out that this was, indeed, the disc he had, and that it was well-worth the $19 price tag. It was the only album I took home from this section that day - a sad tale as it stood alone, but bittersweet at least as it sounds fantastic and blows the CD version I have been listening to for all these years out of the water.

Amoeba's strongest suit by far is the Rock CD's section (new and used). Like any great music store, their selection is seemingly endless, with a healthy combination of mainstream radio pop and super-under-the-radar indie releases. The new stuff is competitively priced ($9.99 - $14.99 or so a disc) and meticulously organized. The used section is bountiful, has a wide range of prices ($3.99 - $12.99), and is surprisingly well-organized. Despite my short wishlist of Rock CD's, I spent a lot of time in this section as its sheer volume and neat racks were very inviting. Yes, by the way, I did say short list. It's funny, despite my seemingly anal attention to detail in terms of sound quality when purchasing LP's, I have whole-heartedly given over to the mp3 revolution. While I recognize the vastly inferior fidelity of compressed audio, the ease of purchase, minuscule amount data storage needed, and my possession of an iPod just make it too hard to pass up my eMusic subscription and all of my other mp3 purchases. Occasionally I will still go out of my way to purchase new CD's if it's an instance wherein fidelity is particularly important or if the packaging/artwork is stellar, but in a rather polarized manner, I either listen to LP's or mp3's. One of the few instances, though, where buying CD's is just plain cheaper (and you can always rip 'em to mp3 later anyway) is when buying used; so I spent a good deal of time in the "used rock CD's" section looking not only for the specifics on my list (any Phish studio albums I don't have and Pearl Jam's "11/6/00 - Seattle, Washington" from their series of live show releases - by the way, does anyone out there have my original copy of this? I absolutely treasure it and I can't seem to find mine anywhere) but also for things I have always wanted or had never thought to own but suddenly piqued my curiosity. I was basically browsing with a rather open wallet. If I had stayed another hour, I may have come home with a small pile of CD's, but instead would up with a measley one (1) CD from this section: Phish's "Round Room" for $4.99.

So here's the haul:

LP:












CD:












This seems like an awfully long post for one LP and one CD - and to think!: I haven't even touched upon the rest of the store. Stay tuned for Part 3: Bargain LP's.

Amoeba Haul, Part 1: Jazz

I honestly thought that I would get some blogging done while on vacation on the left coast last week. I figured on having lots of downtime and I have a few big posts that have been in the works for a while, so I was sure that I would finally get some writing done. Alas, it was not so. Between Disneyland, a Dodgers game, seeing my step-sister and my 7-month-old niece, visiting a teacher-friend at his school, jamming on Phish tunes, and just soaking in the California sun, blogging just wasn't meant to be. But that's not to say I didn't partake of all things musical out there. In addition to the aforementioned jamming and being schooled in the ways of Michael MacDonald, one of our gracious gracious hosts, Adam, also took me on a pilgrimage to Amoeba Music.

Amoeba has three stores in California (San Fran, Berkeley, and the one I went to, Hollywood) and all of them are widely considered to be prime locations for both "regular" CD buyers and more hardcore CD and vinyl collectors. I tend to fall somewhere in between, and always have a running list of things I am "hunting" for, so the location seemed an ideal place to drop some of the cash I acquired for the recent (and 32nd) anniversary of my birth. Two and half hours and $207 later (I know I know I know), here are some of my impressions of the store via (somewhat) a detailed list of the things that came home with me. While I try not to cubbyhole stuff, I will use the same system most record stores use to classify the stuff I bought.

Jazz/Blues:
Up until about two and half years ago, I was a casual jazz listener. I had a modest collection of "classics" from around the middle of the 20th century and knew a fair bit about the CD's I owned, but would have hardly considered myself and authority on anything in the way of jazz. My turning point into the realm of "schooled"came when I simultaneously started to play upright bass and enrolled in graduate school. In an effort to avoid the stigmata of "shitty musician" attached to being a voice major and "failed performer" attached to being an education major, I enrolled in a few jazz courses, and started telling people I was a bassist/guitarist despite my really being a Music Ed./Voice major. Not only did the jazz courses captivate and inspire me more than most of the classes I had ever taken, but I also didn't want to look like schlub in the playing department, so I started woodshedding on my new upright. One thing lead to another and, in addition to getting pretty good on bass, I started a mental and physical list of books to read, and, more importantly, jazz recordings I had to get my hands on. I acquired a ton of stuff in mp3 and CD format, but, having also recently upgraded my home stereo setup at the time, I was bitten my at-that-time-dormant vinyl bug and started to lust after original LP pressings of my favourite jazz records. These items quickly crept to the top of my list and I have spent bits and pieces of the last two years both adding to said list and scouring ebay and the P-REX for whatever I could find within my means; but the search isn't easy. When looking for records you really want to enjoy - as opposed to just have - you are always trying to find the perfect balance between what sounds good and what you can afford. See: jazz records at a record shop generally fall into 5 categories: (this is not "official" in any way, it's just a system I have put together in my head)

1. Beaters - old records that have been sold back to the store for a reason. Maybe they are shitty records everyone already has a copy of. Maybe they are in terrible, or even, useless condition. They generally cost between $.25 and $3 dependent on the store or popularity of the artist. Unless it's something fun or odd, I usually pass on these.
2. "NOS" - every once in a while, you find an older, yet still sealed, record - or "new old stock". These generally run in the $5-$infinite range. Serious collectors look for early pressings 'cos they sound better, but they are also a lot more expensive. Most buyers will take what they can get in this category - myself included. However, these are fairly rare in general as jazz record companies didn't often press in excess of what they would sell.
3. Mediocre to decent condition but still well worth it - these are generally albums that are more widely recognized as good or even "classics", or are by someone with an instantly recognizable name, but aren't in good enough condition to be considered true collectors items. I would say I buy these most often as I don't know the music well enough to be looking for the super "deep" or unknown stuff and they're a good deal in the $10-30 range.
4. SERIOUS collectible shit - these are the classic albums in excellent to mint condition. These are usually kept in a special place in most record shops and you need to ask to see the actual record (the sleeve is in the rack with a note on it) or even see their "good stuff" inventory at all. Depending on the "classicness" and the condition of the album and its jacket, these can run between $30 and infinity. I have had some good luck with this stuff on eBay but am usually too intimidated to ask too see them at record shops.
5. Reissues - There has been a serious resurgence in people's interest in LP's over the last few years. New technology and the scarcity of copies of classic stuff in the general vinyl marketplace has given cause for a few record companies to remaster and reissue several classic titles. Many of these releases have garnered mixed reviews as the remastering methods are inconsistent in term of both method and quality, thus producing highly mixed results that very from album to album. Some of them are seemingly as good as the originals, whereas some of them will make you realize you should have just stuck with the CD. Generally $15-$20.

Like I said, I had recently come into a little bit of cash for my birthday, had a respectable little list, and was in "vacation spending" mode (yeah, you know what I mean). I was also definitely in "jazz-buying" mode as I have recently become more interested in soloing and my wife reminded me that I often wonder aloud as to why I don't own more jazz records. So I fully intended to walk into Amoeba with my list, talk to the "jazz guy" and ask to see the "good stuff" and actually buy anything that was on my list and under $80. Like most record stores, Amoeba kept the sleeves to most of their good stuff in the racks with the other used jazz LP's with notes attached telling you to "see the clerk" or "ask at front desk" if you wanted to check the actual records out. They also had some of their choice stuff displayed high up on the wall with similar notes attached. While their prices for the "serious" stuff was consistent with eBay and most of the other shops I have seen, they, quite frankly, didn't have much in this department. Even more disappointing than their lack of "high caliber" inventory was their more specific lack of anything I was looking for. Sure they had the same Charlie Parker compilations in shitty condition of which I am always skeptical. They had some of the projects led by Bop and Hard Bop sideman like Cannonball Adderly. They even had a few original pressings of Archie Shepp and Yusef Lateef records in decent condition for $20 or so (but not the specific titles I was looking for), but for a record store with such a solid reputation, they were oddly lacking in this area. *sigh*

What they did seem to have a lot of were reissues. I'll admit it: at first I foolishly believed that I had NOS copies of a few choice items under my arm, but upon closer inspection a tiny 3/4" sticker in the lower right hand corner of the back of the jacket let me know that what I had in my hand were actually Warner/Rhino 180-gram reissues. As I mentioned earlier, I had my reasons to be skeptical of these, but as it became apparent that they didn't have any "real" copies of the stuff I wanted but did have these reissues of a few titles, I thought it best to ask the guys behind the desk. Unfortunately, my first trip yielded no conclusive results as the "jazz guy" wasn't in yet; but after checking back an hour later I was reminded that a) the stuff I was after is incredibly hard to come by, and b) if I do happen upon it, it will be expensive as all bloody hell. He also said that the only complaint he had ever heard about any of the titles in this series of reissues is that they had made some original mono recordings into stereo mixes during the remastering process. Knowing full well that this was not the case with the three albums I had under my arm and realizing that none of these would cost more than what I might spend on a CD version of the same recording, I took the plunge and grabbed three jazz LP for betweeen $10 and $15 each. Here they are:

Charles Mingus,
"Blues & Roots"











Yusef Lateef,
"Yusef Lateef's Detroit Latitude 42º 30º Longitude 83"











Herbie Hancock,
"V.S.O.P. The Quintet"



I won't lie: I have only listened to one of these so far - but if the overall sound quality of "Blues & Roots" is any indication of what's in store with these, I may have just made some of the best music purchases I have made in some time. Seriously: this Mingus LP is yet another reminder (much like when I got that near-mint Eric Dolphy record on eBay last year) of just how much better most jazz sounds on vinyl. If the other two are even half as good as this, I might even up and order that "A Love Supreme" reissue I have been contemplating for some time.

I also grabbed Archie Shepp's "Attica Blues" on CD ('cos they didn't have it on LP) - a disc that I have been meaning to get for some time - but that's just not as fun to talk about. CD's are CD's.

OK! I really did intend for this to be a short little post, but alas, I got excited. Guess I will do it as a multi-parter. Pop/Rock, DVD's, etc. to follow...

A quick one...

Thanks to all who came out to my bday celebration at Hank's last night. Friday and Saturday were like one glorious musical moment and I will make sure to get some details up later in the week. But now: grades.

I have been incredibly hard-nosed about making sure my class is taken seriously for as long as I have been a teacher. While my first full-time gig out of college was a very old skool...uuh...school with the "music is fun" mentality firmly entrenched, there was little more I could do than to give out the requisite A, B, or (for the little kids) S on their quarterly report cards. When I got to NYC, however, and it looked like my friend Don and I would build a program from the ground up, I decided that would be my opportunity to give grades that more accurately represented the work we did in class. I remember trying to give homework to kids who weren't even accustomed to doing as much for their all-important english and math classes. I remember spending nearly a week meticulously preparing my report card grades and additional commentary only to have the principal chide me for attempting to make my class, which was, again, supposed to be "fun", into such a serious task. That was, quite frankly, the first and last time I tried so hard at that school. Unfortunately, over the course of 3 years, said school continually unraveled itself, taking student achievement, teacher morale, and administrative accountability along with it. Needless to say, once again, my grades, and the methodology by which I determined those grades was little more than dead reckoning. The fact that I had only ONE parent complain about a grade in my three years at that school says an awful lot about parental involvement and/or my lack of ethics concerning grades.

When I was hired to work at my current school before the 2005-2006 school year, I decided that I would, once again, make every attempt to make sure that my grading policy was as rigorous as the curriculum I intended to implement in this already academically "serious" school. It's now my fourth year at that school, and I am proud to report that I have held myself to a pretty high standard when it comes to grading practices. I am often surprised that I have more "data" to back up my students' final averages than some of the "real" (read: NOT music, art, etc.) teachers do. It's really a pain in the ass - especially when report card time rolls around - but, seeing as I seem to command a decent amount of professional respect and my class is generally regarded as one of the highlights of our larger curriculum - in no small part due to the seriousness that my, by music teacher standards, stringent and unorthodox grading methods - I think it's all worth while.

But I gotta be honest: It ain't easy on a day like today. It's 60 degrees out, the sun is shining, and I spent the last two nights doing one of the few things I might like more than teaching. The school is placing more and more of an emphasis on bullshit-standardized testing and tracking students based on the scores of said tests, so I could probably give out whatever grades I want without so much as whisper of concern from anyone around me. I am sore and sleepy and would rather watch M*A*S*H all day and drink coffee. But I owe more to the kids than that. They bust their humps every time they set foot in my class or set down to do a homework assignment. Without even realizing it, their hard work, even more than my preaching, posturing, and "serious" grading, is what legitimizes what I do and places a more palpable value in my class amongst those who would sooner let music be one of the "fun", "extra", or "special" subjects. While some of them will fail for not having done any of the work, or for not having made any music at all, I must do the right thing: Ignore the sun. Bite the bullet. Do the fucking grades.