It's good. I'm a fan so I like pretty much everything she does. I have the CD and thr 150g, red vinyl LP which, not surprisingly, sounds better. It is an analog recording.
I'm not sure what to expect sonically. The first album sounds pretty good--above average certainly. The second album is, in my view, not very well recorded. It lacks life, dynamics and is muddled. Anyone out there see it like I do?
I tried but couldn't stay awake. Man my eyelids get heavy whenever she starts to sing. If she comes on while I'm driving the station gets changed immediately for fear of falling asleep at the wheel.
I loved her first cd and still listen to it on a regular basis. I especially like the covers of Cold Cold Heart and The Nearness of You, but all of it draws me into the music. I had more trouble connecting to her second cd. I did like the Tom Waites cover of I Always Take The Long Way Home. So far, I not been moved by her third effort. I agree that there seems to be a sameness to her song writing. I will listen some more, but so far it's a bit dissapointing. John
All this time and I thouht I was alone in my reaction to her. It's interesting to hear I'm not. I love her voice, and some of her songs (I have her first 2 CDs). But to listen to an entire CD becomes boring. I believe it's the songs, and not her performing that causes this. I was waiting for a CD release of consistently good songs, but it doesn't sound like this is it.
I haven't heard it yet, but I'm curious enough to buy it while it's still on introductory sale for $9.99. I agree that her albums become boring after a few cuts. I would like to hear her "step out" a bit and change the tempo a bit.
Seems to me she is very talented, but is underutilizing her talent. I would love to hear her attempt at some rock tunes. How about doing something like Janis Joplin's "Piece of my Heart"! Now that would be interesting. Of course, maybe the reason she has not exhibited any range is because she doesn't have any. But I don't want to judge her until she proves it!
Obviously she is very successful. For someone to sell this many records and be played on this many radio stations playing this kind of music, it's pretty impressive. I wonder how it all came to pass.....
Let me say it, I'm a Norah Jones fan. I too would love a CD of other song writers songs. If you would like a little sample, listen to -Norah Jones-Live in New Orleans- DVD. At the end of the DVD, after the show, after the credits, she does the old Patti Page song-Tennessee Waltz. I would buy a CD if that was the only song on it.
Certainly not from me: B-O-R-I-N-G (including, I have no doubt, the de rigueur pristinely antiseptic studio sound). Kinda cute though I suppose, and that's usually enough for middle-aged male audiophiles when it comes to breathy young female vocalists...Oh well, as long as it helps finance Blue Note reissues of real jazz I guess I shouldn't complain...Enjoy away!
I don't find her boring at all but this wasn't the original poster's question. He wanted input on the new CD and was not requesting opinions on whether we like or don't like Norah Jones.
My red vinyl copy is noisy. I've carefully cleaned it with both RRL fluids with little improvement. Just another example of the total lack of quality control by Classic Records and RTI. I was hoping that the 150 might be better than the woefully inconsistent 200g pressings they put out with regularity. Not to be. This is really too bad with this record considering it is an analog recording that could have been outstanding. I almost always prefer records to cds but if noise puts you off stick with the CD>
OK, I picked it up today for the $9.99 introductory price. So now I'm qualified to answer the original poster. The question was "How is it". The answer is "boring". Sounds very much like the previous two. Actually, I think it sounds like a combination of the previous two.
It's not bad, just "the same". There are about 3 cuts that I would enjoy if they were part of a compliation or came up in a random/suffle along with other stuff I enjoy. But for me, it's way too much of the same thing.
She's wasting her voice on these lullabyes. This girl has got an excellent blues vocal - sort of Eva Cassidy meets Bonnie Raitt with a splash of Janis.
I recommend 'Peter Malick Group featuring Norah Jones - New York City'. One listen to this CD, specifically the cut "All of Your Love" and you'll get the picture. Totally different Norah - I likee.
Keep listening. Some of my most favorite albums I thought were boring on first listen.
(No promises - you may always find it boring. Just that I find that sometimes albums that I have come to love started out sounding the same, cut after cut, until I really got to know them.) Art
Well why, if Eva Cassidy, Bonnie Raitt and Janis Joplin are to be considered "excellent" blues vocalists, then not Norah Jones too? Uh, thanks but no thanks, I'll stick with the real -- meaning black, just in case there was any doubt -- blues singers, and ya'll can have your skinny-voice, no-soul havin' white chicks...
There was an interesting article in the NYTimes about her a couple weeks ago. Apparently, rather than living the life of a diva, she is very 'downtown,' hangs in local clubs without fanfare, and is a jeans and t-shirt kinda gal. (Or her publicist is good enough to create that impression). It is the constant dilemma though, isn't it? Great sonics = very lackluster performances; brilliant performances on mediocre recordings. I have her big hit album on vinyl and though it has nice sonics, and she has a good voice, I rarely play it.
On the other hand, most of my Etta James records are not extraordinary recordings, as such, but I play those much more often (and take the trouble to see her in concert).
White chicks without soul- hmmm, Linda Rondstat, Mariah Carey; Joplin- the stuff with Big Brother & Co. is still amazing to me.
Whart: Not that it sounds like a modern 'audiophile' type recording by any means -- and is all the better for it IMO -- but to me the original vinyl of Etta's "At Last" LP on Argo has wonderful sound. (As for Janis, I feel her most effective performances are generally her least histrionic, which mostly means post-BB&THC and not overwrought efforts at singing the blues, but I'd take her out-of-controlness over Norah's somnolence if forced to choose...)
Just purchased and am listening to 'Peter Malick Group featuring Norah Jones - New York City.' More than half way through and I'm still awake. That is very positive.
60 Minutes did a segment on her tonight. The interviewer brought up some critics' complaints (previously unknown by me) that Nora was essentially, as I opined, uninteresting, both as a performer and a songwriter. She didn't really seem to disagree. Sure is a cutie though...wonder where she'd be if she wasn't...seemslikeanicepersontoo...zzzzzz...
Got rid of the finite elemente heavy duty stand that I bought for the Kuzma XL, given that it didn't really do much to isolate with my springy wooden floors; the HRS platform atop my Chinese prayer table works just fine, as shown in the pics of my system. I like how the GPA works on the preamps, and am now searching for another GPA amp stand, to mate with the one I already have, for use with the Lamm amps (the one I have has the carbon shelf and Apex footers with the upgraded 'balls'). I also like the ease of use of the GPAs. Changing out equipment doesn't require the ability to press your body weight! I have no doubt that the HRS full rack is rockin' but frankly, I don't need it. Regards, (and I note you are an Audiopax owner- nice amps- have used them very successfully with the Avantgarde Duos).
Alot. But in ways that don't make it obvious that there is anything wrong with the Audiopax amps. To the contrary. With the right tube complement, and adjustments to the timbre lock feature, the Audiopax amps are incredibly lively, musical and present a lovely, involving midrange. Jim Smith even advocated what amounts to a cheap guitar tube for the small sockets to make it sound a little rawer/edgier, compared with NOS hi-line brands. He also did not advocate using expensive KT-88s. Now, I had the Audiopax set up with long speaker runs, and the Lamms are running on a long interconnect (XLR terminated from the Lamm line stage to the amps) with short speaker runs. I also changed brands of interconnect, from Cardas Golden Reference, which was highly recommended for the Audiopax-Avantgarde Duo combination, to the K-S Emotion. So there were some variables in the change of amps. The Lamms, by comparison, sounded a little less in your face, and far less mechanical. Not that I noticed the Audiopax amps being anything less than sweet and musical, but the Lamms suddenly sound very relaxed, music just flows out of the system in a far less 'reproduced' way, and the bass is much better (even though I am not really using the Lamms to power the woofers directly, but instead, the amp powers the midrange horn, which has a set of KS jumpers to 'speaker input' terminals on the powered woofer). The Lamms are less hi-fi and more musical in ways that can best be described by the absence of artificiality if that makes any sense. I find these abstract descriptions to be difficult but if you heard the amps, and had the opportunity to compare them, you would probably not disagree. One thing I have noticed as I have continued to improve this system- records that were not sonic marvels before are more involving to listen to now. Go figure.... (and thanks for asking).
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
