Topic: Andrew Rose working on Charley Patton

[Rivers]

Hear hear Richard, exactly what I was trying to say.

[edit: just wanted to question Eldergreene's point earlier, viz. "since none of us can actually KNOW what the in-the-room-at-the-time sound was". I believe on the contrary we have a pretty good idea of what all permutations of acoustic instrument and vocals could sound like 'in the wild', and in addition can pick up the emotional intensity that was in play. What I crave are more of the fine details. The details can also differentiate and/or associate one artist's set of permutations from/to another, and there's a whole world of interest buried in there.]

[blueshome]

I just feel that we are so lucky to have this music available in any format that I really can't expend energy worrying about the how's and why's of reissues and  so I get on with listening the music I love in any listenable sound.

Why knock a guy who is attempting to do something better - whether we think he has succeeded or not - at least he has done more than most of us in trying.

[Richard]

Phil, I couldn't agree more.

And let's face it, if Mr Rose's CDs were the only ones out there you'd all be singing his praises not knocking it.

[Slack]

I can't find reasons to knock it either.  I suspect I'm like many here in that it is very difficult for me to listen to this music without imagining playing it, trying to figure out how to play it as I listen.  I did notice the digital artifacts, minor irritation to me compared to surface noise - which often gets in the way.  From a players perspective, any attempt at cleaning up the sound I think is welcome -- but maybe not enough to necessarily make it worth buying.