Glenn Gould

What’s Left Unsaid About Remixed Classic Albums

This site is Free & Ad-Free! If you find this piece worthwhile, please donate via PayPal to support it & independent Art writing. You can also support it by buying Lps & CDs, Art & Art books from my collection! Details at the end. Thank you.

Written & Photographed by Kenn Sava.

It’s 2023. Do You Know What Your Remix Is?

One of the monuments of modern western culture. An early Parlophone CD release (1987) of The Beatles Sgt. Pepper’s. At the moment, there are 1,099 DIFFERENT versions of Sgt. Pepper’s listed on Discogs. This one sells for about $5. If I wanted a CD version, this might be one I’d recommend. Why? Read on. Lps, CDs & DVDs shown are from my collection.

In my prior life as a musician and Music producer, as now, I have always respected the wishes of the Artist across whatever medium he, she or they worked in in the visual or aural Arts. Yet Artists, being human, have finite lives. Art, doesn’t. As time has gone on, a lot of Music has outlived its creators. But, new listeners, even new generations of them, are continually discovering Music of the recent or distant past. The record companies are then faced with a dilemma. Do they keep reissuing the exact recordings that were originally issued? Or, do they “update” the original recordings using the latest technology? This has turned out to be an age-old question over most of the past 100+ years of sound recordings. It’s big business for those who own the recordings and/or the rights to them. Imagine making a product once, then being able to re-sell it to people over, and over, and over, and over again.

The immortal Duke Ellington began recording in the 1920s in mono, of course, stereo being invented in 1931, but adapted slowly after. RCA, Decca and Columbia recorded him early on. Here in the first 20 volumes of their The Complete Works of Duke Ellington Lps, RCA has reissued their recordings from 1927-1943 in mono pretty much untouched except for the covers and the Lp format. Leaving aside the dated cover art, I believe this is the right way to do it.

After the Artist hands in the master recording on whatever format (i.e. tape or audio file), the label then takes that, packages it and releases it. After an indefinite while, the label decides to repress or rerelease the record. Then, the questions begin. Represses of vinyl or compact disc albums usually involve minor changes- a different pressing plant, perhaps, etc. These changes that no one except the dedicated fan or collector would notice are usually only documented on Discogs.com and on fan and collector sites.

Up to 1948, all sound recordings were mono, meaning everything was recorded on one track. In 1949, guitarist Les Paul invented multi-track tape recording, “sound on sound,” he called it¹. This opened up a gigantic world of possibilities that was brilliantly explored by The Beatles and their Producer, Sir George Martin, among others. The amount of tracks you had to record on grew from 1 to 2 to 4 to 8 to 16, and on and on, and so did the possibilities.

If you see this message in GarageBand, it’s time to mix down some tracks to make room for more!

Today, everyone with Apple’s GarageBand app can have a whopping 256 tracks right at home! 48 tracks was the most I ever recorded on in my studio days, and even back in the early-mid 1990s, very few NYC recording studios had equipment to handle that many. After recording all the parts on to however many tracks, the Musician/Artist and their producer and engineer would “mix” the tracks together, adding equalization and effects, and placing each instrument within the aural space, to create the final sound of the piece. They would do this for every piece of Music to be released on an album. They would then make a 2-track stereo master tape of the finished album from start to end and hand that in to the record company as the finished, final product, to be manufactured and released to the public.

My copy of Miles Davis, Round About Midnight, Columbia CKS 8649, originally released in 1957, in the 1977 “Re-channeled for Stereo” reissue. More recently, Sony has begun to remix his immortal 1960s, and 70s albums that were originally recorded in stereo and produced by the legendary Teo Macero. Buyer beware!

When a record company decided to reissue an album, the changes to it may be small, or extensive. Some companies opted to reissue the original recordings, more or less the same, though there were caveats to that. Were they using the original materials- i.e. the original master tapes (in the tape era)? Or, were they working with a second, third, or fourth generation copy of the original?

As you move further and further away from the date of the original recording, tape begins to disintegrate. Copies had to be made. Uh oh! You’re then relying on the expertise of those making the copies doing a good job² Later on, as stereo became all the rage, many earlier mono recordings were “electronically rechannelled” to mimic stereo, with varying results.

Charles Ives in Quad??? Wow, I’ve got to hear this! it turns out there are two types of Quadrophonic sound- both using 4 speakers arranged around the listener- Discreet, which featured different instruments coming from each speaker, and SQ, which this is, which artificially mixed the sound to mimic Quad, and “better suited” to be played on regular stereo equipment.

Next, it was quadrophonic sound, and some older recordings were, once again, processed to imitate quad, though they were originally recorded in stereo. More recently, there has been no shortage of technical innovations for the enterprising record companies to use as a reason (or excuse) to reissue older recordings. It’s gotten to the point that, according to Discogs.com, to date there are 1,099 versions of The Beatles’ Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band!

Roll over Beethoven. Tell Peter Ilich Tchaikovsky the news.

In my opinion, if you want to hear The Beatles records as THEY intended their Music to be heard go to the source. Get the original releases. Seen here on the verso of the Parlophone CD I showed up top the key information is lower center. Only Producer George Martin (who died in 2016) & Engineer Geoff Emerick (deceased in 2018) are listed in the technical credits. Meaning this CD was made from the master tape without someone else, who wasn’t involved in the original recording sessions, remixing them.

How many copies of it do you have? Why did you buy each of them? There are a heck of a lot of people out there who own more than one copy of Sgt. Pepper’s. And, probably, a heck of a lot of people who own more than one copy of other albums. Extra tracks, on many albums, and/or added documentation are a draw, in addition to so-called “technical improvements.”

What’s rarely mentioned in the rush to market the latest reissue is respecting the Artist’s wishes!

Recently, the record companies have started going back to the original multi-track master tapes and remixing them! Sometimes, reiusses are done under the direction, involvement, or at least the approval of the Artists. Other times, it’s hard to tell if that’s the case or not. As time goes on, fewer and fewer Artists or members of a group, may be living. Eventually, no one who was directly involved in the recording is left. Then what? There is big money at stake in the issuance of product by countless name Musicians or groups for the record companies. Of course, few bring in as much money as The Beatles, and given their enduring popularity, I used them as an example, but my thoughts apply to every recording Artist. Having been a musician, an independent record producer and a record aficionado for over a half century, a few things are clear to me- First, ONLY THE ARTIST knows what they want their Music to sound like. Everybody else who wasn’t involved in the original recording is guessing!

Rock and Jazz aren’t the only Music being rereleased of course. Here is a reissue one of the towering monuments of recorded Music- Glenn Gould’s 1955 recording of Bach’s The Goldberg Variations. His very first album. The 1955 recording was in mono, so much less to mess up here. Ironically, his final album was also Bach’s Goldberg Variations in 1981. The two performances are night and day different! If I could only have one album with me on a dessert island, it would be his 1981 recording. (Last year, Sony rereleased that album with all existing unreleased recordings in a box set to pair this with one, which I have not seen as yet.)

They may be making educated guesses, but they are guessing none the less. Artist’s ideas often evolve over time. Listen to both recordings of Glenn Gould performing Bach’s Goldberg Variations, for example, for proof. They are completely different. Who’s to say what Artist X would do in remixing an album he/she or they made 20 or more years ago? Basing a remix on what someone did before ignores this fact because NO ONE who is not the Artist knows for sure.

Second, when an Artist approves a Musicial “product,” that’s it. It’s finished. Done. The end of the story. It’s not subject to modification at some later date. How many Painters go back and alter a Painting years later? A few. maybe. Not most of them. But, someone else modifying a Painting greatly affects what it is, and opinions about it. It lessens that work in the eyes of Art historians! WHY isn’t that the case with Music remixed by others?

Glenn Gould was a perfectionist, in addition to being eccentric & unique. I’m left to wonder how he would have handled these reissues of his Goldberg Variations recordings, and IF he would have permitted the extra material, which was rejected in the first place, to be released at all! Surrounding his original masterpiece with 6 other CDs of rejected material may serve to diminish the effect and impression of the final album. The material should be preserved for historians, but releasing it to the public is highly questionable in my opinion.

Third, If someone who wasn’t part of the original recording remixes an album, it’s their vision of the Music, in my view. Their interpretation. If I want to hear The Beatles, I go to the original recordings they themselves made and were involved with producing and mixing (with Sir George Martin). Period.

I bet no Musical Artist working in the 1960s, say, was ever approached with the following questions- “Is it ok with you if, at some later date, we remix your Music?” “Is it ok with you if, at some later date, we “electronically modify” your Music?”

What do you think the answers would have been? “IF I’m involved in it, and personally approve the results,” might be the answer I would expect to hear most often. A LOT of time, work & care went onto getting things just right in making that original final mix and final master. To let someone else change it later? In my opinion, it’s outrageous.

The reasons that these questions aren’t foremost on the minds of most Music listeners is, first, the Artist’s name is on it. It’s easy to assume the Artist approved anything with their name on it. That’s increasingly becoming up for debate! Then, in my view, some are too busy worrying about things that, frankly, are not as important! Be it CD vs Vinyl, or the new 40th anniversary edition with extra tracks and a 200 page book, with new mixes by the son of someone who was involved on the original record. Even how “good” something recorded in 2022 sounds compared to something recorded in 1999, 1969, 1959 or 1929. (Yes. I don’t think that’s as important.) Meanwhile, the original version, the one the Artist’s created & approved slips into oblivion, only to be found in the hands of astute collectors who spend time and money seeking out the original version.

IS THIS WHAT IT’S COME TO?

Terry Gilliam’s masterpiece, Brazil, in the Director Approved Special Edition DVD set from the Criterion Collection.

In books, 1st editions are the copies most valued. In Film, companies are issuing “Director Approved” versions and they receive the highest respect. This doesn’t always happen in Music. Why?

Simon & Garfunkel, Old Friends compilation and rerelease with extra tracks. I’m showing this without condemning or recommending it as an example of the difficulty the buyer faces in trying to understand just exactly what they’re buying.

When you buy an album, CD or digital album, look carefully at the fine print. You often have to look VERY long and hard to find out exactly who created the copy you hold in your hands. The Artist’s name may be on the front of it, but it’s the “other names” on the back, or inside who produced it and mixed it that are important, too, in my view. In 1995, I recorded a live Jazz quartet: alto sax doubling on flute, piano, bass and drums. When I shopped it to record labels, one very respected Jazz label (run by a Musician) offered me a considerable sum for it. On one condition. They wanted to replace the drummer. The drummer happened to be a “name” in Contemporary Jazz who won a Playboy Poll a few years earlier and had 11 solo albums out under his name. The Music was recorded in, basically, a one room studio with baffles set up to allow separation in the recording. The album was recorded live in the studio! The sax was in a separate booth, but there was still bleed from each instrument into the mics of the others. HOW was this label going to extract the existing drum track and substitute heaven knows whatever they had in mind? I refused out of hand. Frankly, it was the most ridiculous thing I ever heard! Their wanting to put “their stamp” on it was the only reason I could ever come up with. In the end, the label the drummer had been recording for subsequently picked up and released the album.

Detail of the hype sticker on the upper right of Old Friends. Read it carefully.

Now, I wonder…What will the record companies be re-releasing in 50 years? “New mixes by the son of the son of someone who knew a guy who was next door when they made the record?”

All the while, the most important thing is being lost. As time goes on, it becomes harder and harder to find those original mixes- the mixes the Artist’s created and/or personally approved. Pick an Artist. Now, look for their original recordings, on whatever format you prefer. If you are into “vintage vinyl,” it’s easier to find them. Most pop/rock records in the 1950s, 60s, 70s, and 1980s were initially released on vinyl. Look for the first release and you’re gold. If you listen to CDs, it begins to get tricky.

Notes from the Old Friends reissue producer who wasn’t involved in the original recordings.

There was an initial outrage when CDs came out because many of them sounded inferior to the original vinyl release. They usually retained the original mixes because the remix fetish hadn’t taken hold yet, but they often used 2nd, 3rd, or 4th generation 2 track master tapes to produce the CD with, resulting in inferior products. Whatever format you’re buying, spend a moment to look for the technical credits. It should be spelled out somewhere in the liner notes or credits. You have to compare the credits side by side (or listen to them A-B) to know for sure.

The fine print. Rerelease credits on Page 34 of the Old Friends Booklet. According to Discogs, Vic Anesini has been at Columbia Records since 1988. Simon & Garfunkel’s last studio album, Bridge Over Troubled Water, was released in 1970.

In my view, there is a lot to be said for finding the original mixes. Most importantly, THEY ARE WHAT THE ARTIST INTENDED WE HEAR! If you love that Artist, in my opinion, you should respect their wishes and seek out what they created.

Legendary Blue Note Recording Engineer Rudy van Gelder was so involved in all steps of a record he often inscribed his name in the dead wax of Blue Note Lps as evidence of his involvement. He has done so here, on a copy of Andrew Hills’s classic album, Judgement. Many years ago I wrote to Mr. Van Gelder to see if I could work for him. He never replied.

Age is a fact of life. Every one and every thing gets older. Nothing stays new forever. Sooner or later every piece of Music ever recorded is going to sound “old” compared to the latest technology. The record companies are selling “new” in the face of this. With each passing day, every record ever made gets older. There’s nothing anyone can do about that. Listener priorities need to change. Technical limitations are not the point. Expensive audio equipment will make these recordings sound as good as possible, but they may pale alongside recordings made in 2023. Of course, recordings made today should sound “better,” but in all honesty, due to the mastery of the brilliant producers and engineers of the past, like Sir George Martin, Rudy van Gelder, or my Grammy Award winning friend, Engineer Benjamin J. Arrindell, they often don’t, at least to me.

Three version of an etching by Rembrandt. Over time, he was fond of changing his Prints, as you can see here, particularly in the backgrounds. This also highlights an Artist’s changing view of his work over time! Rembrandt’s etching plates survived him and some are now in private hands, 350+ years after his death in 1669! Suffice it to say that prints made now from Rembrandt’s plates are not taken seriously by Art historians. I believe that once the dust settles and people assess what’s going on, the same will be true of remixed albums made by folks who had nothing to do with the original recording. Seen here shown in a darkened gallery to protect the light-sensitive Prints at Rembrandt’s Changing Impressions, in 2015 at Columbia University.

My concern is that these changes will start to erode the cultural legacy these Artists have created. How many pieces can you add to, say, Michelangelo’s David, before you diminish what it was? Even adding a fig leaf did that. Record companies are playing to the desire for “new releases” by Artists who may be long dead. I remember the day Jimi Hendrix died and, along with the towering loss of the man and his genius in his prime, the incredible sadness that there would be no more new Hendrix to go with the 3 studio albums he recorded and released by the time of his death. You wouldn’t know that from looking at his catalog now! A steady stream of releases have come out under his name ever since, and no doubt will for Prince, too. Personally, I’m not sure any of them have added to his stature. In my opinion, the release of material possibly already rejected for release by an Artist can serve to diminish their overall accomplishment.

It also brings up a bigger question- DID JIMI HENDRIX, or any Artist this has happened to, WANT THIS MATERIAL RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC?

So, LET THE BUYER BEWARE! There are many albums reissued each year. Every case is different and needs to be carefully assessed. For me, I’ll listen to the Artist approved recordings & mixes on the best equipment I can, and I’ll be perfectly happy with it because I’m listening for the Music. Everyone else can decide what their priorities are and make educated decisions accordingly.

Business, as usual. A local record and book store in action, 2023.

“Industry rule number four-thousand-and-eighty; Record company people are shady So kids, watch your back ‘cause I think they smoke crack I don’t doubt it, look at how they act.”*

*- Soundtrack for this piece is “Check the Rhyme,” byPfife Dawg, Ali Shaheed Muhammad & Q-Tip of A Tribe Called Quest from their classic album, The Low End Theory, 1991.

I’m pleased to announce that you can support NighthawkNYC by buying Lps and CDs from my personal collection 40 years in the making! Mostly Jazz Lps are listed here. Mostly CDs of all types of Music are listed here. Art books & Fine Art from my collection may be seen here. NighthawkNYC.com has been entirely self-funded & ad-free for over 7 years, during which over 275 full length pieces have been published! If you’ve found it worthwhile, PLEASE donate to allow me to continue below. Thank you, Kenn.

Written & photographed by Kenn Sava for nighthawknyc.com unless otherwise credited. To send comments, thoughts, feedback or propositions click here. Click the white box on the upper right for the archives or to search them. Subscribe to be notified of new Posts below. Your information will be used for no other purpose.

He had been experimenting with multi-track recording using discs in the 1930s. ↩
More recently, in the digital era, this is less of an issue, but it still is one. Digital copies are supposed to be exact copies. People assume the digital master copy, which won’t disintegrate but it is subject to shortcomings of its own, was made from the original master tape. In many cases in the CD era, it has come to light later that in the rush to market it wasn’t. ↩

William Eggleston’s Secret Lab

Set the Way Back Machine to December, 2016, when William Eggleston: The Democratic Forest was at David Zwirner Gallery, 537 West 20th Street, where all the trouble began. I had one of those “Dubliners” moments, where James Joyce’s Stephen Dedalus has an epiphany and his life (and the story) is forever altered.

My life hasn’t been the same since.

A signed copy of the catalog for the 2016 show, William Eggleston: The Democratic Forest: Selected Works, with William Eggleston’s characteristically vibrant signature, is all that remains to remind me…

As I walked through that show, revisiting the classic images on view (a total of 40, many in a larger size that I still haven’t gotten used to), I left with an overpowering realization that I needed to do a deep dive into the world of contemporary Photography, to catch up on it, Post-Robert Frank’s “The Americans,” 1958 (though Mr. Frank is still with us, of course, and still releasing great books with Steidl. Long may he wave!), and see what’s been going on. I also wanted to do this to gain some perspective on William Eggleston’s place in Photography and his accomplishment to date.

Henri Cartier-Bresson has his cryptic “decisive moment.” Robert Capa has “If your pictures aren’t good enough, you’re not close enough.” Eggleston has his own quote that will keep us guessing indefinitely.

Yes, I knew that famous quote, and William Eggleston’s work, but not in depth. Steidl’s 10 volume set of “William Eggleston: The Democratic Forest,” containing 1,010 images from this body of work, released concurrently with the show, was a sizable step towards addressing that. Never before (or since) had such a large body of color work been published in one set. Add to it the unrelenting quality of the images, and Mr. Eggleston’s extraordinary eye, and you’re face to face with a landmark body of work. From there, I went back to his prior Steidl sets, William Eggleston: Chromes, 2011, and Los Alamos Revisited, 2012, both of which contain his earliest color work (the former his early slides, the latter his early prints). At this point, there was no denying William Eggleston’s exceptional importance in the world of Photography, being one of the few to bring a new way of seeing to the world.

The question became- “Who else is important?” I’ve explored some of the others I’ve discovered in these pages since Mr. Eggleston’s David Zwirner show, this past year and a half, including 4 article looks at The Photography Shows, AIPAD, in 2017 and 2018. How times have changed here at NHNYC. William Eggleston: The Democratic Forest didn’t even get a full article to itself! The spark that started a bonfire. The journey continues.

On the road, again. William Eggleston’s Los Alamos was shot on the road, over trips he took across the country between 1966 and 1974. When he, and his friend the curator Walter Hopps hit Los Alamos, NM, scene of the Atomic Bomb development in WW II, the Photographer commented about wanting “his own secret lab.” Click and photo for full size.

So, after literally hundreds of Photo shows seen, countless PhotoBooks perused and too many bought in the interim, here I was, once again, on the precipice of another William Eggleston show. This one at no less than The Metropolitan Museum of Art, featuring the recently promised gift of one of the seven Portfolios of “Los Alamos,” never previously seen as a set in NYC, containing the Artist’s earliest color print work. A sense of trepidation filled me- What new havoc would Mr. Eggleston wreck upon me now?

Untitled, 1967-74, Gelatin silver print. Perhaps a touch of the lingering influence of Henri Cartier-Bresson here?

I didn’t have to wait long to find out. As I approached the show’s entrance, I realized The Met had decided to give us more. This monumental show of one of the landmark bodies of color Photography begins with two walls of William Eggleston’s comparatively little known black & white work(!), flanking each side of the show’s entrance containing a total of 11 black & white Photographs created between 1959 and 1974 mounted on mustard walls! 11 Photographs might not sound like many but their subjects and styles are so varied they present a fascinating capsule look at where his work was before he turned to color film.

I’ve seen some of his black & white work in the two Steidl books centered on it¹, to feel they are an overlooked realm of his work that deserves a closer look. But, such is the all-encompassing power of his color work that it has garnered only occasional attention.

William Eggleston fell asleep reading Cartier-Bresson’s Les Europeans, Paris, 1964, shown here in this Photo by his wife, Rosa, as seen in William Eggleston: From Black and White to Color, P. 176. (Not in the exhibition. )

Early on, William Eggleston was captivated by the work of Henri Cartier-Bresson. He so worried about copying him that during a trip to Paris in 1964, where the French master lived and worked for many years, he didn’t take a single Photograph. Returning home, he realized that “foreign land” surrounded him right there in Memphis (including the new shopping malls and strip malls that were sprouting like weeds) and he set about Photographing it. That is what we see in these 11 black & white shots- a great Artist stepping beyond influences and beginning to trust his own vision. In the shots with human subjects, the influence of Cartier-Bresson’s infamous “Decisive Moment” would seem to be there, but he’s putting his own stamp on it. By the early 1970’s he was on his way.

Untitled, 1967-74, Gelatin silver print. Light & dark…day & night…this is one of the most “different” images by William Eggleston I’ve seen.

Moving beyond the images with people, some others show a fascination with a wider view, courtesy of a wide-angle lens, in landscapes where it’s hard to discern details of the scene (above). In these people-less works, compositionally, they’re still fascinating and still “democratic,” the term he used recurringly connoting nothing being more important than anything else in the frame. But, overall, they lack the laser focus that permeates Los Alamos, and much of what has followed.

Untitled, 1967-74, Gelatin silver print. This begins to call to mind any number of William Eggleston’s later color Photos, like Los Alamos.

The revelation from these earlier black & white Photos, for me, is they emphasize the Artist’s gift for composition (including a penchant for Photographing from unusual angles). But this really shouldn’t be a surprise. Like Cartier-Bresson and that other great master of early color Photography, Saul Leiter, William Eggleston is also a Painter. Turning to color film, however, he would also have to find his way. “I’d assumed that I could do in color what I could do in black and white, and I got a swift harsh lesson. All bones bared. But it had to be,” he’s quoted on a wall. The stage having been set, the main event beckoned.

Only SEVEN sets of this large 5 volume set were released in 2002, along with 3 Artist’s Proofs. This extraordinarily rare complete set, in, apparently, pristine condition, is a promised gift to The Met, who is showing the 75 Dye-transfer prints it contains, (15 per box) complete, for the first time ever, in NYC, along with 13 others from the extended series.

Walter Hopps’ Introduction to Los Alamos as it appears in the Steidl set. Photo courtesy of Steidl.

The first selection was shown at Museum Ludwig, Cologne in 2002², when this Portfolio was released, along with a catalog for the show, also titled, Los Alamos. The Portfolio consists of 75 dye transfer prints, in 5 boxes of 15, perhaps the most revered type of color print, as they possess a larger color gamut and tonal scale than any other process. Since Kodak stopped making the materials for this process, they are rarely created today³ These images were known to me to now through Steidl’s three volume set, Los Alamos Revisited, where they are supplemented by other images from the series. In the “Editorial Note” at the end of Volume 3, Gerhard Steidl says “Los Alamos is presented in its entirety in this three volume set,” though there are far fewer than the 2,200 images Mr. Hopps says was created, above. As good as Steidl’s books are, no book can match seeing a dye transfer print in person.

The first wall of William Eggleston: Los Alamos.

Along the show’s first wall, the second print is the image Mr. Hopps refers to as being William Eggleston’s first color Photograph.

Untitled, 1965, Dye-Transfer print, as are all the Photos that follow.

This man in this incredibly odd image, that would seem to be as far away from “Art” as one could imagine, is not pushing a shopping cart into a row of them. He’s pushing color Photography into the world of Fine Art Photography. Interestingly, 53 years later, for such a famous Photograph, seeing it in person in a dye-transfer print, it’s not a shot that screams with color, as so many others in Los Alamos do. It’s subtle relative to many of the others in the Portfolio. The colors emerge from shadows. Glimpses of light in a grey world. What strikes me are the subtle shades of silver in the carts- some of which are in the light, some are in shade. Then there’s the shadows. They echo the two figures we see, but the woman in the sunglasses isn’t one of them. They are the Photographer and the shopping cart man. The shadows are, almost, black and white images, something I’ve yet to see someone point out. As part of the “grey world” they wonderfully echo the black & white world he’s left behind in the “new world” of color Photography William Eggleston had embarked upon.

It almost looks like a black & white Photo. Detail of the left center showing William Eggleston, left shadow, taking the photo of the cart worker, on the right.

He would never go back.

Memphis, 1971-74

Memphis, 1965-68

William Eggleston began his career working in isolation “that was almost inconceivable.” “Photography wasn’t even born yet,” he said later. He even had no knowledge of the controversy the appearance of The Americans caused⁴. Going back before The Americans, it must be said that it seems to me that it’s hard to speak about ANY American Photographer of the 20th (or 21st) centuries without mentioning Walker Evans, though he did very little color work, and late in his career. It’s hard NOT to see the influence of Walker Evans everywhere in work created after his FSA works of the 1930’s. That includes the work of William Eggleston. I say that not to diminish his accomplishment by any means. I say it because almost every Artist in the western world has been influenced by someone who came before him or her. William Eggleston’s work has a rawness to it, akin to extremely proficient snapshots that I also see in some of Walker Evans’ work. William Eggleston knew the work of Walker Evans before he embarked on the work shown at The Met, but he proves himself over and over to be among the few who’s own vision is strong enough to overcome “echoes” of any influence. This was first seen in his controversial at the time, now landmark 1976 MoMA show Photographs by William Eggleston⁵,” and in much of what he’s shown us since.

Greenwood, 1971-74

Memphis, 1971-74

Santa Monica, 1974

Speaking of the continuum of influence, it’s hard to walk around this show and not see each image as a jumping off point for the work of so many others. Yet, the big mystery in them- “What do they mean?”- is only answered until you look at them again.

Mississippi, upper right and upper left, Memphis, lower left and lower right, all 1971-74

Part of their “charm” is how the cars, furniture, objects, and places look dated to us now. That’s inevitable with Photography as time goes on. Then, of course, there’s the power of his colors to seduce the eye like few others can.

Louisiana, 1971-74

While I’m eternally pondering the “What is he saying?” question myself, I always come back to studying, and admiring, his compositions. Their balance, or their off kilterness…in both cases, manage to retain interest.

Mississippi, 1971-74. Balance. Well? Almost. But, that’s life, right?

Greenwood, upper left, Memphis, upper right, both 1971-74, Untitled (Bottle on Cement Porch), lower left, and Untitled (White Phone and Vacuum Cleaner, lower right, both 1965-74.

Images like the group of four above spawn countless “I could do that” comments. While I don’t deny the possibility someone could, what’s overlooked is the time and the context. These were taken over 45 years ago, when no one was “doing that.” When seen in the context of the history of Photography, they were, therefore, unprecedented, particularly in color. And yes, today? Countless people, and Photographers, are trying to “do that,” though we’re still waiting for the “next William Eggleston” to reveal him or herself, and so am I.

Louisiana, 1971-74

What to make of this image, with its carefully considered composition, shot from a low angle? I don’t know and my efforts at gaining insights reached a dead end. Ostensibly it’s here because it’s part of the complete portfolio, and as such, it’s now in The Met’s Permanent Collection. Though taken over a generation ago, it remains disturbing and offensive, and puzzling. In a 2004 interview in The Guardian, Sean O’Hagan quoted William Eggleston saying, “A picture is what it is, and I’ve never noticed that it helps to talk about them, or answer specific questions about them, much less volunteer information in words. It wouldn’t make any sense to explain them. Kind of diminishes them. People always want to know when something was taken, where it was taken, and, God knows, why it was taken. I mean, they’re right there, whatever they are.” As a result, I can’t help but think it calls into question the whole sense of “detachment” that exists in all of these works. At this point, it seems these questions are going to remain indefinitely.

The last wall at The Met includes the image taken during the plane trip home, far right, as if to put a “bow” on the project.

My current feeling about Louisiana, 1971-74, and the series as a whole, is that these are glimpses of America, moments that passed in front of the Photographer and his camera, that may, or may not, be gone forever, but will remain frozen in time. Taken as a whole, it’s as compelling a portrait of America as Jack Kerouac’s On The Road, (perhaps an inspiration for Mr. Eggleston), is, in my view, albeit in a completely different way. While Jack Kerouac inspired a generation of “Beatniks,” and countless others, Mr. Eggleston has inspired two generations of Photographers, and counting. In Los Alamos we see the mundane, the beautiful, the ugly, and the never noticed before, all seen by a man possessing one of the most singular eyes in Contemporary Art. If not in Art. Period.

Yes, William Eggleston went to “war with the obvious.” And he imposed his will upon it.

————————————

BookMarks- (A new feature regarding Art and/or PhotoBooks related to this Post). If you want to begin to explore the work of William Eggleston, William Eggleston’s Guide, published by MoMA is the place to start. After that, you really can’t go wrong with any Eggleston book published by Steidl or Twin Palms Publishers, though I would recommend considering William Eggleston: Los Alamos Revisited, next.

If you find yourself taken by Los Alamos, I highly recommend Steidl’s 3 volume box set.” Produced by William Eggleston, The Eggleston Artistic Trust and Gerhard Steidl, given the involvement of the Artist, it’s highly unlikely to be surpassed as a definitive document of this landmark series. The production is first rate in all respects. At Steidl’s booth at The Photography Show/AIPAD this year there was some question around how much longer copies of Los Alamos Revisited would be available. Released in 2012, I wouldn’t wait long to get one. Steidl’s previous William Eggleston Box set, Chromes, released the year before, is now out of print. The asking price for the cheapest USED copy known to me at the moment is $1,500.00.

*- Soundtrack for this Post are “Inventions & Sinfonias” by Johann Sebastian Bach as performed by Glenn Gould. Mr. Eggleston is, also, a Pianist, who recently released his first CD, William Eggleston: Musik (Vinyl). He lists J.S. Bach as his favorite composer. Something we agree on.

Update 5/22/18- Rewatching the fascinating documentary, The Colorful Mr. Eggleston, I saw what sure looks like one of the other sets of “Los Alamos.” At the 7 minute mark, Mr. Eggleston is speaking at what looks to be the Eggleston Artistic Trust, and behind him to the right, there are five similarly color boxes sitting on a shelf next to a “Coke” sign.

William Eggleston speaking in The Colorful Mr. Eggleston, with what looks to be a set of Los Alamos on the shelf behind him. Walker Evans, also, Photographed, and collected, Coke signs.

My thanks to Monika Condrea and Steidl for their assistance.

My previous Posts on Photography are here.
You can now follow @nighthawk_nyc on Instagram for news and additional Photos!

NighthawkNYC.com has been entirely self-funded & ad-free for over 7 years, during which over 275 full length pieces have been published!
I can no longer fund it myself. More on why here.
If you’ve found it worthwhile, PLEASE donate to keep it online & ad-free below.
Thank you, Kenn.

Written & photographed by Kenn Sava for nighthawknyc.com unless otherwise credited.
To send comments, thoughts, feedback or propositions click here.
Click the white box on the upper right for the archives or to search them.
Subscribe to be notified of new Posts below. Your information will be used for no other purpose.

William Eggleston: From Black and White to Color, and William Eggleston: Black and White the latter to be expanded in a reissue later this year. At that time it will serve as the best resource on his black & white work. ↩
The show then traveled through Europe before making 3 stops in the USA until it finally closed in January, 2005. ↩
More recently, the Eggleston Artistic Trust has begun producing larger (often 45 x 65 inch) pigment prints, which were shown in that 2016 David Zwirner show. Personally, I greatly prefer the original sizes in almost every case. ↩
William Eggleston: From Black and White To Color, P.183 ↩
Immortalized by the show’s catalog, William Eggleston’s Guide,” 1976, one of the first essential books of color Photography, still in print. ↩

The 20th Century Is Officially Over- R.I.P. Pierre Boulez

This site is Free & Ad-Free! If you find this piece worthwhile, please donate via PayPal to support it & independent Art writing. You can also support it by buying Art & books! Details at the end. Thank you.

Written & Photographed by Kenn Sava (*- unless otherwise credited)

That was my first thought on hearing that the composer and incomparable interpreter of 20th Century Music, Pierre Boulez, former Music Director of the New York Philharmonic, from 1971-77, had passed earlier today, only months after his 90th Birthday celebration. He took a ton of grief for programming 20th Century Music at the NY Phil back in the 70’s but he opened up the ears and minds of countless listeners who became lifelong fans, like me. If you were struggling with the “extended tonality” of, or looking to get a toehold into, the Music of modern composers like Varese, Messiaen (who he studied with), Bartok, Schoenberg, Berg or even Stravinsky, Boulez’ interpretations were often the ones that, finally, opened their doors for you. He brought more pure excitement to these works than anyone had. He seemed to also have uncanny insights into them, perhaps because he knew some of these composers personally, and perhaps because he grew up in Europe after the First and during the Second World War, he understood what those other European Composers had experienced first hand.

The Hammer of The Master takes up parts of 2 of my shelves. He may be gone, his legacy will endure.

More than anyone else I can think of, including Glenn Gould, he forged my love of 20th Century Music, and I will always be grateful to him for that. His recordings- ALL of them- sit on my shelves and are continually rotated on my listening devices.

But, there is more to his legacy than his state of the art recordings of 20th Century Music. Much more.

His recordings of the 19th Century French literature- especially Debussy, Ravel & Berlioz, remain benchmarks. As time went on, he added a number of non-Frenchmen, like Mahler, to them, in what are don’t-miss performances. His choice as conductor for the annual Wagner-fest at Bayreuth in 1976, the Centennial of Wagner’s birth, caused a storm of protest, but resulted in, perhaps, the greatest and most memorable modern Cycle of “The Ring” Operas we have. I think as time goes on his recordings of all of these 19th Century works will be regarded the way his 20th Century performances are. After all, there aren’t many conductors who were also great composers who conducted as much in the Stereo & Digital ages as Pierre Boulez, and Leonard Bernstein. Hearing composers conduct the work of others has, and will continue to have, lasting historical importance.

Beyond conducting, Pierre Boulez was also one of the most important composers of the post Second World War era. His Music has already made inroads on to concert programs around the world, even without him being personally involved in the program (he basically “retired” a few years back as health issues kept him from conducting). His “Le marteau sans maitre” (The Hammer without a Master) is, perhaps, his most well known work. You can hear in its entirety here. His Piano Sonatas are regularly performed and recorded. They are parts of a legacy that appear likely to continue and endure, especially given the countless students and younger Musicians he taught or directly influenced.

In some ways, it’s tempting to think of him as Contemporary Music’s European Leonard Bernstein, who I’m sure he knew personally, and who he followed at the New York Phil as Music Director. Their own Music couldn’t be more different, though, Lenny’s work seem to get a bit “darker” later. Perhaps, Boulez had a subtle influence on him as well? Probably not.

Even beyond all of this, Boulez founded the French Music organization, IRCAM, which includes a wonderful group for performances of contemporary Music called the Ensemble InterContemporain (a chamber sized ensemble), and personally conducted them in many memorable performances and recordings. They continue their unique and important mission. IRCAM was a founding part of the renowned Pompidou Center in Paris.

Surely, France will honor Boulez as one of their Musical giants. Along with Berlioz, Debussy & Ravel, he has earned a place right along side his Master, the brilliant Olivier Messiaen, in French Musical history.

For the rest of the world, though, when people look back and want to hear the Music of any 20th Century composer who’s work he recorded, and want to hear it in definitive performances ¹, as they say, they will need look no further than the recordings of Pierre Boulez. When you think about it, that’s a monumental thing to say.

And so I say, 20th Century Music is now, Officially, over.

Long may it be played.

*-Soundtrack for this post is “Le marteau sans maitre,” The Hammer without a Master, by Pierre Boulez. I am, however, posting the following performance of what is my favorite classical work, Bela Bartok’s “Concerto For Orchestra,” conducted by Pierre Boulez in concert in 2003, in Memorium, and to say “Thank you” for turning me on to it, and countless other masterpieces-

NighthawkNYC.com has been entirely self-funded & ad-free for over 8 years, during which 300 full-length pieces have been published! If you’ve found it worthwhile, PLEASE donate to allow me to continue below. Thank you, Kenn.

You can also support it by buying Art, Art & Photography books, and Music from my collection! Art & Books may be found here. Music here and here.

Stravinsky, fortunately, recorded extensively conducting his own Music, and those recordings are certainly essential as well. ↩

13 Years At The Metropolitan Museum Of Art, Part 1: The Key

Written & Photographed by Kenn Sava

Home.

August 1, 2015

The Met is my second home.

As I said, I’ve been over 1,200 times since August 1, 2002. I’ve got the buttons, and now the stickers to prove it. No I don’t work there and never have. No, I don’t know anyone personally who does. I’m simply passionate about exploring Art history. I love Art, and great Museums.

July 31, 2014

Still, why go there so often? Don’t you get bored looking at the same stuff over and over?

Ha! First, I’ve NEVER been bored at The Met (i.e. TM). With over 2 million objects in their collection and so many shows going on at any given time, it’s impossible to run out of things to see. In fact, every time I turn a corner and see a part of the building looming in front of me, I still get a chill up my spine. Over 6 million people visited it in 2014, even subtracting me from the total. Still, when I speak to people who don’t go, the spoken or unspoken question is-

Do you realize what this place is?

July 26, 2015

It’s very possibly the greatest repository of Art and Art professionals in the entire world. Yes, Art AND art professionals. It wouldn’t be what it is without both. (Disclaimer- I’m not going to get into the politics or issues about how the collection was formed here. I’m simply speaking about The Met as it is and as I experience it.) Other museums may have collections “stronger” in certain artists or periods (I hate comparative terms when it comes to the Arts), but no museum covers the entire history of man’s creativity across all the world’s cultures in the depth that The Met does.

September 18, 2011. Note the old school fountains, a distant memory now.

About that staff, here’s one example of what I mean…In February, 2012 I took an all night flight to London so I could see the last day of the what was called “one of the exhibitions of the century” by Roy Strong in the London Telegraph, Leonardo da Vinci: Painter at the Court of Milan at the National Gallery. The show “was the most complete display of Leonardo’s rare surviving paintings ever held,” according to the National Gallery’s site, and was a huge success by any measure. Being in the same room as both versions of the Virgin of the Rocks, being shown together for the first time(!!!)….What could I possibly say about it? It so happens that the month before my trip, Met Director Thomas Campbell, announced that the curator of that show, a gentleman named Luke Syson, was leaving the National Gallery, where he was the Curator of Italian Paintings before 1500 and Head of Research, to join The Met as the Iris and B. Gerald Cantor Curator in Charge of the Department of European Sculpture and Decorative Arts, a department Mr. Campbell previously headed for 5 years. He had just mounted an “exhibition of the century,” yet leaves before it closes to work at The Met. Wow. To me, this is only one example of the extraordinary assemblage of talent working at, and for, 1000 Fifth Avenue. ¹

March 7, 2015

Most times I go to TM without a plan. I try and see the Special Exhibitions, including those that I know nothing about, before they close (close as in they end for good). Grabbing a copy of the “On View” list at the admission counter, the first thing I check- “What’s closing soonest?” I don’t think people know how many Special Exhibitions are going on at TM at any one time. I’ve counted 25 at times (what other Museum matches that?), and some of them are not even listed either on the web site, metmuseum.org, or on “On View.” The only way you can know about them is to actually stumble upon them. As I speak there is, what I’m calling, a “Mini- Mozart Tribute” going on in an enclave in the Prints & Drawings gallery that’s not mentioned anywhere and would be a long remembered highlight for any Mozart fan. Where else have you ever seen a portrait done FROM LIFE in 1763-4 of the 7 year old Wolfgang Amadeus? It dropped my jaw. The text under the image lists Wolfgang, who’s seated at the keyboard, AFTER his father, AND his sister…as a composer! Here is it- look at how far his feet are off the floor…

Jean-Baptiste Delafosse, Leopold Mozart and His Children Maria Anna and Wolfgang Giving a Concert in Paris, 1764, Etching and engraving.

Going to the shows, I’ve discovered artists I had never heard of who are now among my favorites. I’ve learned much much more about artists I already knew and loved, and discovered whole worlds of art from around the world and throughout human history.

Oh, and if you ever run out of Special Ex’s to see? There’s always the permanent collection, which as I said, now numbers over 2,000,000 items.

Getting an idea yet of why I’m never bored going there?

So, what’s come from those 1,200 visits? The main lesson I’ve learned through all of this is that Great Art is Great Art. Great painting exists in Ancient Egypt as it did in the Renaissance, the 16,17,18,1900’s, right up to today. I’ve also come to feel, personally, that no Artist is “greater” than another. No work of Art is “greater” than another- comparing Artists, or Art works, to each other is pointless. (Much more on this in an upcoming post). This is one reason great Artists have always looked to, and been influenced by, what has come before. It’s the same in Music, Literature, Film…all the Arts.

Artists have been “standing on the shoulders of giants” for a long time.

I don’t compare Rembrandt to Michelangelo- you wouldn’t have one without the other. Well, Rembrandt would have existed, but he probably would have created work that was a bit different than he did. How different? that would depend on his influences and their influences. You wouldn’t have Van Gogh without Rembrandt. And so on and so on…Even Michelangelo, “El Divino,” possibly the most sublimely talented artist who ever lived, studied the Ancient Greeks and Romans, as did others in his time, hence the term “Renaissance,” the rebirth of what had been known in Ancient times, and forgotten.

That is “The Key.”

For me, that is The Met’s ultimate lesson- Art is Art (IF it’s good enough to get in the front door!). There is no distinction to be made for period, style, medium, culture, or anything else.

You walk in the door and you are face to face with some of the greatest achievement of human kind. You can go in any direction you want- right, to Ancient Egypt, Left to Ancient Greek and Roman, straight ahead up the great staircase to European Paintings, and so on…all 4 City blocks worth of it. Lesson #2- Wear comfortable shoes. Better yet? Go back often.

Until next time…universe willing. It’s only this empty at closing time. November 22, 2014.

This will be an ongoing series and in it I will try and share some of what I’ve seen at TM, now and in the past. I’m blessed to live where I do. Blessed to live in the heart of Manhattan- NYC, NY. A big part of the reason I feel so blessed is because of the culture at hand. Exploring all of it is impossible for any one person. Even seeing EVERYTHING at TM is impossible.

That’s why I say- Bury me at The Met. Face up.

Soundtrack for this post- J.S. Bach “Goldberg Variations” performed by Glenn Gould, 1981 (aka. “The Second Goulbergs”), CBS Records, [amazon text=Amazon&asin=B0000025PM], one of THE most sublime documents of recorded music, ever.