TROLL: Why are there so many more solo "albums" than in the past, and why do digital recordings sound "less brilliant"?

[bloke]

With countless inaudible splices, far more instrumentalists today - vs. in the past - can produce error-free-sounding recordings.

The reason that so many digital recordings, then, sound "less brilliant" than most old analog recordings is not really due to the recording method, but - rather - due to many of the recorded performers themselves - producing uninspired-yet-error-removed recordings.

bloke "Truly inspiring (aka 'brilliant') performances - often - don't really require very much editing at all."

[Three Valves]

Recording “sessions” are the way to go.

[russiantuba]

One of my favorite recordings is Bob LeBlanc’s solo album. He went into the Coronet Recording Studio and came out a couple of hours later, requesting not many edits be done.

I think it was Rex Martin, in an article, that stated that when he grew up, people only released recordings when they were the top of the field with something to say…however academic standards have changed, when doing a recording gives tons of points towards tenure, no matter how good or bad it might be…

[bort2.0]

Simple -- more recordings to try and monetize their talents.

I suppose there's some notion of preservation for future generations to hear... But I think it's more likely that musicians somehow got this idea that being a musician is a lucrative career. And I suppose it can be, when you splice together an awful lot of smaller things like gigs, lessons, repairs, recordings, books, whatever else people will pay you money for.

[bloke]

It's clear (when listening to those tracks) what the tuning challenges were with the (rare) York 4/4 C tubas.
(Hey...Even today: If you want MORE tuning challenges, buy a C tuba, yes...??)
Having tooted on one of them (a York C tuba), I believe he did a somewhat-good job of (mostly) overcoming those challenges.

I never met Robert Leblanc, but - as far as "requesting that not many edits be done", the only way to edit recordings - during that era - was to re-record passages and splice (or track-switch, which avoided an actual physical tape splice). If he didn't re-record many (or any) passages, there would have been no easy way to edit anything. (OK...It might have been "possible" to copy a recorded note on to another tape, and precision-locate that note on to another track of the original tape, but that's crazy-hard to do, and there would have been two transfers of tape-hiss added...but whatever...)

One of my favorite recordings is Bob LeBlanc’s solo album. He went into the Coronet Recording Studio and came out a couple of hours later, requesting not many edits be done.

I think it was Rex Martin, in an article, that stated that when he grew up, people only released recordings when they were the top of the field with something to say…however academic standards have changed, when doing a recording gives tons of points towards tenure, no matter how good or bad it might be…

[bloke]

There's no real money in recordings (for the musicians themselves), today. Even top-echelon country/rock musicians only use recordings to promote themselves, and (if they expect to actually generate any sort of real income) must go on tour...OK, and - once on tour - they can actually make SOME money selling (autographed "hard" copies) of recordings themselves - "off the bandstand" (or from a table in the lobby, etc.), as it were.

Simple -- more recordings to try and monetize their talents.

I suppose there's some notion of preservation for future generations to hear... But I think it's more likely that musicians somehow got this idea that being a musician is a lucrative career. And I suppose it can be, when you splice together an awful lot of smaller things like gigs, lessons, repairs, recordings, books, whatever else people will pay you money for.