O-10, will you please take a deep breath and chill out. No one is trying to “denigrate” anything. The sound of that record is what it is and is a particualr aesthetic. I will not refrain from pointing out or discussing what to me are interesting details about the music just for the sake of somehow not upsetting you or your need to win an argument. I will not walk on eggshells like that. Please hear this and put the issue to rest:
I LIKE “VAUGHN AND STRINGS”. I LIKE IT. I REALLY LIKE IT.
Is that clear enough for you? The argument which you started (as usual) was around which was the “best” of the two versions. This is something that you are always trying to do, “best” this and “best” that. When one is talking about music on such a high level there is usually no “best”; only different and appealing to the different aesthetic sense and sensibilities of different listeners. The reasons why that may be so is interesting to me and many others. It appears it is not be to you.
Btw, with respect, you really should try and learn a bit more about the role of a producer in music production. I assure you that the producer and orchestrator (Q) on that record, not Vaughn, were the primary determinants of the “sound” of that record.
I LIKE “VAUGHN AND STRINGS”. I LIKE IT. I REALLY LIKE IT.
Is that clear enough for you? The argument which you started (as usual) was around which was the “best” of the two versions. This is something that you are always trying to do, “best” this and “best” that. When one is talking about music on such a high level there is usually no “best”; only different and appealing to the different aesthetic sense and sensibilities of different listeners. The reasons why that may be so is interesting to me and many others. It appears it is not be to you.
Btw, with respect, you really should try and learn a bit more about the role of a producer in music production. I assure you that the producer and orchestrator (Q) on that record, not Vaughn, were the primary determinants of the “sound” of that record.

