Chess CD Question

I'm a huge Chess fan but lately have been playing the Broadway and the Swedish CDs much more than the concept album. Anyway I pulled out the concept album and noticed how damn low the recording level is (which is normal with many CDs mastered in the 80s)--even though I bought my copy in the late 90s it's the thick double jewel case with the thick booklet etc.

Anyway I know/think the concept labum was reissued in a slim packaging--can anyone tell me if the sound has been noticeably remastered--especially the levels? Is it worth investing in?

E

I own that tour as well and LOVE it you're right (tho the actual staging looked odd--more like a European style musical like Notre Dame)

I see that in the late 90s Decca Broadway released CHess (mine's on RCA) does anyone have this? was it remastered (I'm gonna guess yes?)

Not sad at all--I love Chess even if I have some issues about the theatricalness of the show. The concept recording is worth hearing, particularly for Benny and Bjorn's masterful (albeit more pop than Broadway) production work in the studio

E

I have to say that I really wish they did a studio recording of the Actors Fund Concert, because I loved the orchestrations. I only have the RCA recording, I'd love to hear the new release - was it remastered? I just feel like some of the songs sound so dated, particularly the Opening Ceremony sequence and Bangkok. The synthesizers and fillers are so 80s, I'd love if someone released a new version because I love the music so much.

---

I agree with you - ideally, I would love to have a new version as well as a remastered version of the 84 recording, like we now have for Company. Hey, I can dream

---

Which did they make a one disc?

Hey thanks! So you mean it's not great but it is an improvement if you play them back to back? Maybe i'll keep an eye out for a cheap copy of that's true

I agree with you NCGuy--I listened to the one that was the larger 2 disc release--the volume was junk! I bought the slim jewel cased 2 discs and it was definitely an improvement but not by any means the kind of sound quality we are used to with newer CD's.

---

Exactly, and I guess the same could be said for many other musicals, too. I mean if the quality of Rent had not surpassed the late 80s keyboard synths on Jonathan's demos, it would be a shame, you know?

I see both sides of this argument, and as I said, in a perfect world I'd love a fresh version of this recording, since the older one already exists

---

I confess that my favorite production of Chess to date is the original London one (with the 2003 Actor's Fund concert running a very close second and featuring what I think are the best revisions to date), but I think that to accept that Chess is stuck in the '80s is essentially to accept that it's dead. And I'm just not ready to let go. The thing that's so paradoxical about the show is that underneath all of the synthesized stuff, there's a really beautiful, fairly classical score hiding. I don't think that it could ever play in all its '80s glory in a major revival, because it doesn't (shouldn't!) have that cutesy '80s vibe that audiences love. Those orchestrations were fantastic for the time, but some of the newer ones seem more appropriate for modern audiences.

Company is an interesting case, because the show itself is inextricably tied to the '70s on textual and, arguably, contextual levels... so sounding '70s is appropriate. On the other hand, I completely love what John Doyle has done with the current revival by not-exactly-updating it, but removing it from any period and making it more of a psychological study and less of a piece of societal commentary. I wouldn't argue that that's the best interpretation of the material, but on a personal level it's the one I've found the most affecting of any of the productions I've seen. I agree that trying to make Company "modern" as in set in the '00s and with orchestrations that reflect current musical trends would be a major misstep, but I don't think the revival orchestrations are reflective of a specific period so much as a chamber orchestra sort of style. I can see where you'd disagree and think that losing the '70s sound interferes with the interpretation of the show, which it obviously does, but in this particular case it opens up a different perspective. So I don't think that the creators are mistaken in allowing different takes on their material, necessarily.

Eric, CDs in the '80s were (for the most part) mastered at very low levels. They're normalization was at -27db, which is exactly where Dolby Digital sound encoding is set for DVDs.

This allowed for the best dynamics available in the medium and kept clarity and distortion at a minimum.

Unfortunately... everyone wanted to go to "eleven" (as they say in "This is Spinal Tap")... and the industry kept pushing the average/normal sound levels to their breaking point. Today's CDs are mastered "way too hot" and don't allow for any significant scope of dynamics. They're already hitting the ceiling, so there's no place to go.

That said... I actually PREFER modern mixing levels, because there is nothing I hate more than over-exaggerated dynamics, forcing a listener to keep one hand on the volume control at all times. I prefer limited dynamics that keep the medium "checked" at all times. That's strictly from an "audience" perspective... but hopefully it explains the reason for the low levels of many early CDs... not just the concept album for "Chess."

It's my favorite, by far though. Elaine Paige and Murray Head are both peerless with this score. So are the original studio orchestrations.

---