SH Spotlight Nat King Cole "LOVE IS THE THING" (1956) in new multi-channel SACD & 45 RPM LP from Analogue Prods.

Yes, everything, not just his official albums. Many of the CD's have duplicate tracks, but as a completist, sometimes you pick up a CD because it has one or two track that you didn't have before - or maybe a better version of a CD comes along and you get that one, too. For instance, I can recall some SACDs that came out not too long ago that I purchased, but I already had earlier copies of the content.. Hmm.. Now what were they... ?

 

Care to post a transcript at least for those who don't have the 45 rpm version?

 

Find A Mono

I have mentioned previously that the new AP 45rpm of this is extraordinary, and even beats the DCC. However, for you vinylphiles out there, do try to scrounge up an original mono. Great sounding, but the mix is substantially different due to the different placement of the microphone, emphasizing different musical lines of the arrangement. I'm sure anyone with the new SACD can attest to this.

 

Cool, kagentry. Fortunately, my wife fully supports my habit - she just doesn't understand it!

 

I could post a needledrop of the banter if that's permissable?

Tom

 

You'd have to check with the boss about that.

 

On further reflection it's probably better to keep it as a surprise.

Tom

 

Great catch, coleman!

Did not know that about the album's original title being STARDUST. Any thoughts as to why they dropped that, Steve? I know TWO IN LOVE was - at least at the time of the recordings - slated to be titled LOVE IS HERE TO STAY.

 

It does.

 

And we are talking about two distinct alternates here, correct? It isn't a case of the mono & stereo simply differing with respect to a few intercuts here and there, as on "Who's Sorry Now" and "When Your Lover Has Gone" from JUST ONE OF THOSE THINGS?

 

Incredible! Any others like that?

 

Steve, are you saying that Cole wasn't a fan of Stardust as a title for the album or the actual song itself?

 

I don't believe he was as enamored of the song as we all seem to be: "I never did care about being the 1001st person to record this."

 

Well thanks to J&R in NYC (just went there for a vacation with the family), I picked up LOVE, THE VERY THOUGHT and AFTER MIDNIGHT on SACD for some very good prices (they are SO expensive up here in Canada - and buying online sometimes can be pricey too thanks to the Canadian government). I have all three on vinyl, but hadn't picked up the titles yet on SACD. They sound great and are just what I expected. Now mind you, I am only listening in stereo (not set up for multi yet in my home studio - will be soon) but I am blown away by Nat's amazing voice and the PRESENCE it has on these versions. I know this pov is nothing new here, but it is good to state it one more time: these are definitive versions, and I am thankful we can enjoy them. I think if Nat were around today (or Jenkins for that matter) they would be over the moon to hear these versions. Thanks again Steve.

On a purely artistic side of things, I think LOVE IS THE THING as a title best sums up the entire record thematically. I would agree with Nat's feelings on this decision.

 

I do hope that Nat came to realize that he recorded the definitive version of Stardust. It's one of the highlights of his career for me, and that's saying a lot given how many great recordings he made.

 

Thanks. The way I interpreted your comment re LOVE IS THE THING I thought perhaps it was the exception.

 

I'm going to get flamed to a crisp for saying this, I know, but does anyone else think that the recording quality of this disc is not exactly the best? I've just bought the SACD and have nothing to compare it with, not being familiar with the piece. But someone else a page or two ago used the word "brittle" to describe at least the stereo mix (saying the mono was less brittle) and I would certainly go along with this, regardless of which mix. On my system, and to my ears, the vocals sound somewhat strident and I'm having especially bad experiences with the esses which come out almost like pistol shots as if the decibel level skyrockets for an instant every time there's an ess. It also seems as if the balance between the vocals and orchestra is badly off, in the sense that Nat King Cole sounds as though he's singing right into your ears while the orchestra sounds as if it's playing in another building and you're hearing it through an open window. (OK, slight exaggeration.) I'm not for one moment criticising the sourcing or mastering which sound to me exemplary - I'm certain that Steve has done the absolute best possible job in terms of assembling the best sources and mastering them in such a way that they simply could not sound any better. I certainly agree that it's wondrous the way you can hear the puffs of breath coming out of Nat "King" Cole's mouth and hitting the microphone and it's a rare treat to hear such intimacy in a male vocal recording. But I'm really having a hard time listening to this SACD with any pleasure. All the time it's playing I'm thinking of Steve's work on the amazing Roy Orbison's Greatest Hits (S&P) which was sound engineered by the great Bill Porter and thinking sadly to myself, "Why couldn't Nat King Cole have been recorded like this?"

Like I say, am I the only one? If so, it's my system or my ears.

 

I'd say that the recording sounds this way because they wanted Nat's voice to be very prominent in the mix. I have never been bothered by the balance of vocal to orchestra, but I can understand that some might prefer a more traditional mix where the lead vocal is more obscured by the orchestra around it.

 

I think's Nat version of "Autumn Leaves" is definitive, as well -- and that one was recorded by everybody and his brother. Too bad he did "Autumn Leaves" in the pre-stereo era, though...

 

Well, I hear what you're saying. These mixes take some getting used to... I happen to like the balance between the vocal and the musical backing on all of these Cole SACDs, except, perhaps, on the "Just One Of Those Things" album. For that particular album, I think the orchestra is pushed just a bit too far back in the mix. (In that respect, though, it's still a big improvement over the audiophile LP version from several years ago. That one, I thought, was too far out of whack.)

I think the SACDs are just spectacular. But I would also say the stereo mixes don't really sound like records. They sound like performances. There are pluses and minuses to that, I suppose, but on balance I think the pluses far outweigh the minuses.

Steve has written a bit about his mixing choices and while I risk remembering this incorrectly, I think he talked about how these balances are more akin to what one would hear in a live setting: largely uncompressed and very dynamic with the vocals out front.

One reason to love these SACDs is the ability to hear the three channel mixes. They allow you to push Nat (center channel) forward or backward in the mix to your liking.