HiRez Poll Blood Sweat & Tears - BLOOD SWEAT AND TEARS [SACD 4.0]

[par4ken]

I've had this disc for awhile now and thought that I'd voted already.

One of first SQ LP's I owned was BS&T "Greatest Hits" latter I got the Q8 of this album. I think almost half the tracks on "Greatest Hits" were from this album. Much latter I picked up an SQ copy of "BS&T" as well.

The mix is great traditional, early Quad style which sounds best in a car or with the square/ rectangular speaker configuration, sit in the middle! I do hear some abnormalities such as week bass that others have reported but overall it still sounds good to me.

The first BS&T hit that I remember was "Spinning Wheel" I hated it at the time but appreciated it more latter. I always loved the rest of their hits, and all of the tracks on this album. I discovered Al Kooper through his association with the group, would love to hear "Sam Stone" in surround!

I never owned the stereo version of this or of "Greatest Hits" and so never noticed that some of the Quad versions were shorter.

I'll give it a 9.

 

[quicksrt]

I just got this in, and was worried there for a minute that it was going to go "out of stock" before I got a chance to own it. This title is as we know not getting a further pressing. I suspect it was a small run between 2.500 and 4,000 copies only.

I'm leaning on a 9 or a 10 for this. I need another full album listen before I make up my mind. The material is varied enough between artistic and commercial, rock, pop, jazz, and even blues that it does not date itself so bad to the late 60s. Even if I can see Abbey Road in my hands as a new LP as I listen to "And When I Die".

The edited Spinning Wheel does not bother me because I owned the 45 single for many years before hearing the album version. And "And When I Die" seems to be the full length album version here in 4.0 and not edited iirc.

 

[Quadly McQuadmeister]

I give it a 10+++ just based on content.
I have it on every audiophile pressing ever released, including this one.
There aren't many bands that inspire me to vote (repetitively) with my wallet but this band (in the first two or three iterations) is on the short list.
Music for Musicians.

I just got the AP Box sets in 33.3 and SACD.

3 is actually a better recording with comparable content. The politics of the time (along with the Nixon administration playing games with DCT's green card) harshed what should have been a much better, longer run.

I've said this elsewhere, but I wish somebody would remix the first six records to 4.0. Or at least 5.1. But I'd rather see 4.0. YMMV....

 

[stansby40]

I have always liked BS&T and always thought their music would be perfect for the surround" treatment. I have most of their albums on that old format called "vinyl". Crank up Spinning Wheel and hear those horns make your ears bleed! I am giving this a 9.

 

[humprof]

Also late to the party, also would love to hear a modern 5.1 mix. That said: even though I'm not as fond of BS&T as I am of early Chicago, I can't deny that this is a great album. Generally not big on drums in the fronts or (especially) piano isolated in one rear. And I wish the solos on "God Bless the Child" weren't so low in the mix. But those are quibbles. Really nice disc. Can't wait to compare the unreleased QR versions.

 

[Quadly McQuadmeister]

My take is exactly backwards. I prefer B,S&T (the first four albums and TO&TP ST edition in particular) to Chicago.
Everybody gets a take. But it was THIS record that put making Music my life's work on my radar.
I give it a ten for the Music/Performance/Recording in Stereo.
Another ten for the Quad version.

I just wish it had been more appreciated in its time than it was.
I know it sold well, but burgeoning Rock Music Press politics blunted what should've been a much longer career arc. Not enough noise, too much Music or something like that is the only sense I could make of it.
But yes, I'm old and getting older every day......lol..

 

[EMB]

Comparing BS&T and Chicago only works if considering their respective brass arrangements and the fact they recorded for the same major label; they're more apples and oranges than the surface similarities might suggest. Chicago's early stiff--three double Lp's and a four-disc live box--were sprawling and ambitious, but for me, each only works in scattered places; not one of those albums is really very cohesive in the way the single-disc V was, nor as playful as VI. What should seem beyond dispute is that the members of Chicago in those years were better at collaborating with each other than BS&T would ever be; the latter was constantly beset by various internecine situations including (according to Al) the backstabbing and undermining of members (apparently not confined to him, either, since David Clayton-Thomas, his nominal replacement, later had some not-so-sweet comments about his time with the band--something I recollect from an old interview in one of the trades).

Both bands made good (if not often great) singles, and for me, those single edits were generally much superior to the longer album cuts, if only because the former sound tight, direct and totally focused; the latter sometimes were like single edits expanded to further length with too much noodling around, of which BS&T were particularly flagrant (as of the 2nd album; there is never a sense of wasted time on the debut). Chicago's longer cuts tend to be less contrived (or obvious).

Regardless, the quad mixes from both have always been fun to hear, and it's nice that a good share of them have been made available.

ED

 

[Quadly McQuadmeister]

Comparing BS&T and Chicago only works if considering their respective brass arrangements and the fact they recorded for the same major label; they're more apples and oranges than the surface similarities might suggest. Chicago's early stiff--three double Lp's and a four-disc live box--were sprawling and ambitious, but for me, each only works in scattered places; not one of those albums is really very cohesive in the way the single-disc V was, nor as playful as VI. What should seem beyond dispute is that the members of Chicago in those years were better at collaborating with each other than BS&T would ever be; the latter was constantly beset by various internecine situations including (according to Al) the backstabbing and undermining of members (apparently not confined to him, either, since David Clayton-Thomas, his nominal replacement, later had some not-so-sweet comments about his time with the band--something I recollect from an old interview in one of the trades).

Both bands made good (if not often great) singles, and for me, those single edits were generally much superior to the longer album cuts, if only because the former sound tight, direct and totally focused; the latter sometimes were like single edits expanded to further length with too much noodling around, of which BS&T were particularly flagrant (as of the 2nd album; there is never a sense of wasted time on the debut). Chicago's longer cuts tend to be less contrived (or obvious).

Regardless, the quad mixes from both have always been fun to hear, and it's nice that a good share of them have been made available.

ED

From a musician's point of view I can find a fair amount with which to nitpick, but I understand that people are influenced by the politics of the aforementioned Rock Press. I've posted elsewhere about what Frank Zappa said about them and I think that pretty much nails it. But that case can be made for Music criticism of all types. The Singers as be all and end all are my first issue. The MUSICIANS (and especially the arrangers) made those bands what they were. The Singers weren't the Musical "magic sauce" that the rock press (and their loyal fandom) wanted them to be. It's probably a given that audiences of the time weren't especially tolerant of change or diversity. They wanted the recognizable brand of "fill in the blank" with which they'd became familiar, whichever blank that happened to be. That explains a lot of the "Kooper vs. DCT" tempest in a proverbial teapot. I'm not young anymore and after a lifetime of "wtf?" with respects to how radically differently Musicians value things as opposed to "non-Musicians" (even more so for professional Musicians) it's a miracle any of those "Brass/Large Ensemble Pop/Rock groups broke through. It was the end of people making up their own minds about what to like as opposed to being told. (This was the core narrative of Henry Schipper's "Broken Record". A book I heartily recommend.) I've spoken (email) with a number of the Musicians who were in the band during that peak period, and we (you and I) are in agreement when it comes to the likelihood of those nine guys (the Classic/"Hit" iteration of B,S&T) being in a "band" at the same time, by sheer happenstance. But it was the "politicos" in the band that failed to realize (and still do to an extent that I think few people realize) that even the SECOND Trumpet player (or admittedly the "improvisationally challenged" Trombonist) made a difference with respect to the "secret sauce" of their performing precision/style/sound. When they started trying to "off the island" certain Musicians, the more they tried to upgrade, the more sideways the aggregate presentation slid. I think "New Blood" and (particularly) No Sweat are vastly underrated. But I also believe that band needed to have a different name. Brand identification (i.e., ad copy) doesn't really matter (arguably less so than now at least) to Musicians, but I do think it matters to fans/passive consumers and especially the (then) record buying youth market. Now, the ground under the entire shooting match has shifted so much, I'm not sure there is a paradigm for anything anymore. That might turn out to be a good thing eventually. But it doesn't seem too inspiring at the moment. There's a brief dissertation on YT (Why new Music actually isn't very good) where a guy gives a specific list of measurable statistics (including a thing identified in new pop vocals as the "Millennial Whoop". I.E., a vocal affectation, perhaps not totally unrelated to crossing the "break" in one's voice like older folks usually associate with C&W female "stock stylistic" modules) that starts to open that whole can of worms. I'm retired now (health issues) so I have no dog in the fight anymore. I'm especially happy to have lived when I have and had the opportunities I've had. I was too late for the high point of "large ensemble" musically ambitious entertainment. I worked for some famous folks (none of the people we're discussing) but (again) I've corresponded with a few of them. I don't DISLIKE Chicago. I just think B,S&T got a much more raw deal, especially if you average out the reception of the first half dozen (being charitable) recordings. (I think 3 is every bit if not better than the eponymous second record.) After that, I think they gradually became their own "tribute" act. They had FINE Musicians (I'm closer friends with a number of THEM, actually) but there just wasn't a Lipsius or Halligan there to supply the inspired Musical Coordination. Kooper wrote some good tunes, but (imo) without the arrangements, they'd have never been raised to greatness. Something the band found out later was that audiences (borrowing from a comedy skit from the Monkees that featured Zappa) likes a much more organic "c'mon guys let's go" (sort of poking fun at the Beach Boys, which was the OPPOSITE of their process....I digress tho', they were much closer to the HI-Los or The Four Freshmen, again imo) kind of spontaneity. Jazz isn't anywhere nearly as spontaneous as most critics like to assert it is. I've played with Jazz Musicians from many places, and if you play with them long enough you will hear them plug their own "stock modules" into their improv. (It was true for Louis if you start listening to the Alternate takes of his Earliest Hot Fives/Sevens recordings as well....) I could go on about this stuff for far longer than most folks have interest. I did research on it for various levels of Educational Certification when I taught. To me it's a balance between "prior planning" and "inspired performance". The writers WROTE for those specific Musicians, so not only did the "secret sauce" change, the recipe itself changed for the rest of the (er....) meal. Once it was gone, they couldn't get back what they'd lost. Clayton Thomas' return couldn't get it done. (But it was back on many tunes from his solo "Bloodlines" CD. NOT to be confused with the AP box set of the same name.) That CD SMOKES.....YMMV....thanks for your thoughtful response!

 

[EMB]

From a musician's point of view I can find a fair amount with which to nitpick, but I understand that people are influenced by the politics of the aforementioned Rock Press. I've posted elsewhere about what Frank Zappa said about them and I think that pretty much nails it. But that case can be made for Music criticism of all types. The Singers as be all and end all are my first issue. The MUSICIANS (and especially the arrangers) made those bands what they were. The Singers weren't the Musical "magic sauce" that the rock press (and their loyal fandom) wanted them to be. It's probably a given that audiences of the time weren't especially tolerant of change or diversity. They wanted the recognizable brand of "fill in the blank" with which they'd became familiar, whichever blank that happened to be. That explains a lot of the "Kooper vs. DCT" tempest in a proverbial teapot. I'm not young anymore and after a lifetime of "wtf?" with respects to how radically differently Musicians value things as opposed to "non-Musicians" (even more so for professional Musicians) it's a miracle any of those "Brass/Large Ensemble Pop/Rock groups broke through. It was the end of people making up their own minds about what to like as opposed to being told. (This was the core narrative of Henry Schipper's "Broken Record". A book I heartily recommend.) I've spoken (email) with a number of the Musicians who were in the band during that peak period, and we (you and I) are in agreement when it comes to the likelihood of those nine guys (the Classic/"Hit" iteration of B,S&T) being in a "band" at the same time, by sheer happenstance. But it was the "politicos" in the band that failed to realize (and still do to an extent that I think few people realize) that even the SECOND Trumpet player (or admittedly the "improvisationally challenged" Trombonist) made a difference with respect to the "secret sauce" of their performing precision/style/sound. When they started trying to "off the island" certain Musicians, the more they tried to upgrade, the more sideways the aggregate presentation slid. I think "New Blood" and (particularly) No Sweat are vastly underrated. But I also believe that band needed to have a different name. Brand identification (i.e., ad copy) doesn't really matter (arguably less so than now at least) to Musicians, but I do think it matters to fans/passive consumers and especially the (then) record buying youth market. Now, the ground under the entire shooting match has shifted so much, I'm not sure there is a paradigm for anything anymore. That might turn out to be a good thing eventually. But it doesn't seem too inspiring at the moment. There's a brief dissertation on YT (Why new Music actually isn't very good) where a guy gives a specific list of measurable statistics (including a thing identified in new pop vocals as the "Millennial Whoop". I.E., a vocal affectation, perhaps not totally unrelated to crossing the "break" in one's voice like older folks usually associate with C&W female "stock stylistic" modules) that starts to open that whole can of worms. I'm retired now (health issues) so I have no dog in the fight anymore. I'm especially happy to have lived when I have and had the opportunities I've had. I was too late for the high point of "large ensemble" musically ambitious entertainment. I worked for some famous folks (none of the people we're discussing) but (again) I've corresponded with a few of them. I don't DISLIKE Chicago. I just think B,S&T got a much more raw deal, especially if you average out the reception of the first half dozen (being charitable) recordings. (I think 3 is every bit if not better than the eponymous second record.) After that, I think they gradually became their own "tribute" act. They had FINE Musicians (I'm closer friends with a number of THEM, actually) but there just wasn't a Lipsius or Halligan there to supply the inspired Musical Coordination. Kooper wrote some good tunes, but (imo) without the arrangements, they'd have never been raised to greatness. Something the band found out later was that audiences (borrowing from a comedy skit from the Monkees that featured Zappa) likes a much more organic "c'mon guys let's go" (sort of poking fun at the Beach Boys, which was the OPPOSITE of their process....I digress tho', they were much closer to the HI-Los or The Four Freshmen, again imo) kind of spontaneity. Jazz isn't anywhere nearly as spontaneous as most critics like to assert it is. I've played with Jazz Musicians from many places, and if you play with them long enough you will hear them plug their own "stock modules" into their improv. (It was true for Louis if you start listening to the Alternate takes of his Earliest Hot Fives/Sevens recordings as well....) I could go on about this stuff for far longer than most folks have interest. I did research on it for various levels of Educational Certification when I taught. To me it's a balance between "prior planning" and "inspired performance". The writers WROTE for those specific Musicians, so not only did the "secret sauce" change, the recipe itself changed for the rest of the (er....) meal. Once it was gone, they couldn't get back what they'd lost. Clayton Thomas' return couldn't get it done. (But it was back on many tunes from his solo "Bloodlines" CD. NOT to be confused with the AP box set of the same name.) That CD SMOKES.....YMMV....thanks for your thoughtful response!

Great post! Not many of the gang here like to get into the deeper critical discussions of artists or their work; they're basically audiophiles and fans, in about equal measure. But over the decades I've found that my musical cream rises to the top in some conventional places, but some mighty unlikely, too, and find it simply fun and energizing to discuss. As for most of the rock press, they were never any good, with certain exceptions like Lester Bangs, who wrote some pretty wild and passionate stuff (and some shit, too, which he was the first to admit).

While I can't argue the validity of Zappa's attitude toward the press, it must be said that he was also leery of any intellectual appraisals of his work, however positive. He didn't think music could be rationally analyzed beyond the notion of whether you dug it or not. True enough, but one can, I believe, go through an artist's work and see progress, evolution, the place where the muse is on some special roll, and then a decline that, at the time, we and they may not have realized was happening.

It's also true that a lot of music we hear is made by people we'll never know, even by name; in Blood, Sweat & Tears Dick Halligan (musician and arranger) was as important as the lead singer, to be sure; and the producer also has a significant but often ignored hand in the final result. I also agree that BS&T 3 is equally the rival of the previous million-seller, and arguably more creative and filled with underrated material.

People do tend to go with what is selling, when it finally does; the first BS&T album was a real sleeper, not only in '68 when it was released, but in '69 when it stayed on the charts as the second Lp went to the top and had three #2 singles. Its own release, the exceptional "I Can't Quit Her" may have been included on the Hits comp, but it didn't chart, but because it did get to a comp, I'm sure a lot of listeners believe it was. Such is life, and perception.

ED

 

[4-earredwonder]

Great post! Not many of the gang here like to get into the deeper critical discussions of artists or their work; they're basically audiophiles and fans, in about equal measure. But over the decades I've found that my musical cream rises to the top in some conventional places, but some mighty unlikely, too, and find it simply fun and energizing to discuss. As for most of the rock press, they were never any good, with certain exceptions like Lester Bangs, who wrote some pretty wild and passionate stuff (and some shit, too, which he was the first to admit).

While I can't argue the validity of Zappa's attitude toward the press, it must be said that he was also leery of any intellectual appraisals of his work, however positive. He didn't think music could be rationally analyzed beyond the notion of whether you dug it or not. True enough, but one can, I believe, go through an artist's work and see progress, evolution, the place where the muse is on some special roll, and then a decline that, at the time, we and they may not have realized was happening.

It's also true that a lot of music we hear is made by people we'll never know, even by name; in Blood, Sweat & Tears Dick Halligan (musician and arranger) was as important as the lead singer, to be sure; and the producer also has a significant but often ignored hand in the final result. I also agree that BS&T 3 is equally the rival of the previous million-seller, and arguably more creative and filled with underrated material.

People do tend to go with what is selling, when it finally does; the first BS&T album was a real sleeper, not only in '68 when it was released, but in '69 when it stayed on the charts as the second Lp went to the top and had three #2 singles. Its own release, the exceptional "I Can't Quit Her" may have been included on the Hits comp, but it didn't chart, but because it did get to a comp, I'm sure a lot of listeners believe it was. Such is life, and perception.

ED

I agree, Ed, that BS&T's first album "Child Is Father To The Man" is an extraordinary album and Kooper's 5.1 remix and AF's absolutely stunning SACD [at least on My system] sounds simply astounding....and their second outing, the eponymous BS&T 4.0 equally mesmerizing and which I had the pleasure of seeing performed LIVE back in the day! [Thank you AF]!

As far as Rock Criticism goes, I take it all with a grain of salt....yes, even Lester Bang's. IMO, ALL art is subjective.

What constitutes a great rock album. Well, if you really have to ask ..........

I find today's music 'somewhat' disposable....as in "I've heard that melody or riff thousands of times and what's the point?" Nothing, IMO, quite on the level of the 50's, 60's and 70's when a golden age of rock/esoteric music prevailed and folk, rock, jazz, new age all had somewhat equal parity.

Was it the heavy drugs, the times in which we lived, the Vietnam War raging in the distance that contributed to this cornucopia of riches........IMO, probably.

Yes, we live in troubled times...but does the current trend in music reflect it? Nay, IMO, and therein lies the rub.

Oftentimes, GREAT art is created out of angst ...... and as this new millennium spirals out of control with the iPhone/ipad and computers literally enveloping our everyday lives......real and meaningful communication between live human beings seems imperiled....and sometimes I wonder....are we really listening?

 

[key_wiz]

Can’t see any reason to not give this a “10”

Yeah, the instrument placements aren’t consistent, but none of them bother me. It’s a little light in the low end — perhaps a result of me using “bass management” on. 5.1 system? Several of these older quad releases sound light in low end to me — but nothing that a couple of db increase of the “bass” setting doesn’t solve.

I guess no one knows for sure why they used edited versions of the three singles for the quad release? Are these the single edits, or different edits? I’ll guess that they were doing the quad for the GH album around the same time and they didn’t want to mix the same songs twice so to save time/money they went with these versions?

That’s my only complaint about this disc, but I can’t fault it for being as it was 45 years ago.

Great album; great fidelity; great surround. Thanks AF for giving us what you did while you could.

 

[Scott65]

A 10. Great mix, great content.

 

[jhw59]

9 for me. Sometimes in Winter sounds wonderful in quad and is a great demo track as the horns explode around the room.