LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  October 2019

ARSCLIST October 2019

Subject:

Re: [EXTERNAL] [ARSCLIST] Book Review: "Sound Recording" by David L. Morton Jr.

From:

Sam Brylawski <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 2 Oct 2019 18:59:37 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (125 lines)

For the record...I reviewed the book in the ARSC Journal in 2005. It was
full of errors then, too.

Sam Brylawski

On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 5:43 PM George Brock-Nannestad <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
>
> Hello,
>
> what a mess! It is high time that somebody knowledgeable after 13½ years
> finally looks inside the book. However, the fact that Stephanie Bonjack's
> article was published does cause reason for worry about the quality of the
> "peer review" of the ARSC Journal. They ought to have caught her sweeping
> statement about the respective diameters of LPs and 78s. But was the book
> reviewed in the ARSC Journal when it appeared?
>
> If the book does not have a reference to H. Courtney Bryson, "The
> Gramophone Record", Ernest Benn Ltd., London 1935, then in my view it must
> be worthless as a secondary source.
>
> I like your review: however, the reference to "pumice" is in itself
> misinformation. The mineral content of a shellac 78 rpm record is about 80
> percent, however it is rottenstone, barytes or synthetic barytes, finely
> ground.
>
> The Columbia laminated record did have finer grit for the surface layer on
> paper than the solid mass of the other 78s, and hence the background noise
> is closer to a hiss than the noise from solid records, which tends to have
> impulses superimposed.
>
> I thought I had the book, but not yet opened. I do not, and I do not
> intend to pay for it.
>
> With such a confusion, there is certainly room for a book that does it
> right.
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
> George
>
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:
> > > [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ron Roscoe
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2019 12:20 PM
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [ARSCLIST] Book Review: "Sound Recording" by David
> L.
> > > Morton Jr.
> > >
> > > Folks;
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I started reading Stephanie Bonjack's article "The Importance of LPs
> in a
> > > Digital World" in the Fall 2018 ARSC Journal and when I got to the end
> of
> > > the
> > > second paragraph and read that "the LP with its larger diameter" [than
> > the
> > > 78]
> > > and  also "the 78 which could only hold up to four minutes per side", I
> > > wondered
> > > where she got this incorrect information.  The Endnote cited David L.
> > > Morton's
> > > book "Sound Recording, The Life Story of a Technology".
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Folks, this book is full of errors!  The 78 records were issued
> primarily
> > > in
> > > both 10" and 12" diameters, just like LP's are/were!  LPs did not come
> > in a
> > > larger diameter.  And, I believe the 12" 78 could hold 4.5 minutes per
> > > side.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have written a review of the first ~100 pages of this book on Amazon,
> > > you can
> > > read it here:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.amazon.com/review/R33PN2EA7AQX1W/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_
> > > rv0_rv
> > > <
> >
> https://www.amazon.com/review/R33PN2EA7AQX1W/ref=pe_1098610_137716200_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The 9 major errors I found in the first 100 pages were enough to
> convince
> > > me not
> > > to read further.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It's really a shame that such a promising book is so full of incorrect
> > > information.  I hope the author can issue a second edition with more
> > > attention
> > > to these problems.