LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


[email protected]


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 2009

ARSCLIST October 2009

Subject:

Re: Living Presence promo copies

From:

Paul G Turney <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 1 Oct 2009 11:38:39 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (23 lines)

Hi. I did a listening test on the new Winwood/Clapton concerts at Madison Square Gardens.
The discs were a 3 set with white labels.
The vinyl was rejected due to a mismatch of 1.5 dB on the left channel to right balance.
It was returned to the record company after much shouting to be remastered.
These test pressings remain here, and it occurred to me that some of the vinyl you are looking at could have originated from this process.


Sirensound Digital UK
Somerford House
22 Somerford Road
Cirencester
 ++44 (0)...



-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Fine [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2009 11:36 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Living Presence promo copies

So were they still using special-sauce vinyl late in the LP era? I have some RCA and Columbia radio-only records, mainly rock and jazz titles, from the 70's and they don't seem any different from regular records except for the demo-only marks on the sleeves and white or other colored demo-only labels on the records. They seem to be the same paper-thin/semi-quiet vinyl of regular-production records of that era. Also, what about the records NARAS members used to be able to buy at a discount? Those were usually demonstration copies, too, but they always seemed like regular records only with demo-only markings on the sleeve and sometimes inner label.As for the 78 era, I have seen broadcast-only records from both Majestic and Mercury that were pressed on vinyl. The Majestic red-vinyl records were also sold to the public but I am pretty sure the Mercury vinyl 78's from the late 40's into the 50's were for broadcast only. The examples I have play extremely quietly compared to any shellac records I've ever spun. It makes one think that 78 wide-groove could have been a much better singles and jukebox medium than 45 microgroove in the mono era (up to the late 60's for many soul and rock singles) because of much better dynamics easily cut and much less groove distortion after a few plays.For a long time, I had dreams of a classic 45-singles jukebox, but then when I started shopping for a well-restored one, it turned out they mostly sound like crap due to both mid-grade to low-grade phono pickups and also the fact that most singles sound like crap from Play One. So net-net, I decided that they're great for noisy bars and diners but not so much for focused listening at home. I admit still being thrilled when I come upon one that still works in a bar or diner. The first thing I do is feed it dollars so I can sample its contents. Nowadays, if you find it working, it's usually on its last legs and the records are circa early 1990's or earlier. No interest in or use for CD jukeboxes; I remember when those first came out, higher prices per play and less fun to use. Plus much less frequent switch-ins of music, at least in the upstate NY market, so the whole purpose of a jukebox was being defeated. It went from a music-discovery machine to an oldies and stale hits machine.-- Tom Fine----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Biel" To: Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 2:57 AMSubject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Living Presence promo copies>I just came across the folder I was looking for before sending the previous posting. It concerns >the dates of the first marked 78 rpm RCA DJ copies. There were special white labels marked "RCA >Victor Advance Pressing of . . ." that was proposed or used on records 10-1313 (a Robert Merrill >record) and 20-2354 (Beryl Davis) but the label format sheet is marked "Not approved by law >department" 7/27/47 and the numbers of two alternative label formats are given -- and I don't have >sample sheets for those. Then comes the label format they eventually approved, regular looking >ring labels with large lettering at the top NOT FOR SALE and smaller lettering under the label name >"SPECIAL PURPOSE SERIES" with a small "DJ6" above the catalog number 20-2583 in the sample. The >form is titled "Disc Jockey Records, first notice Nov. 18, 1947", and a note that it was "started >with release 47-48", which is probably week 48 of 1947. I do not know when this was replaced by >the Advance Copy white label with the rectangle, or the "Record Preview coming attractions" >label -- but the latter was NOT from 1935 as very incorrectly indicated on page 143 in Mike >Sherman's Victor label book! (That was an early 50s reissue of a 1935 recording!)>> Mike Biel [log in to unmask]> Michael Biel wrote:>> Tom Fine wrote:>>> Hi Roger:>>>>>> Come to think of it, I've seen mono albums with a PROMOTIONAL COPY sticker on the sleeve but not >>> with a white or green label or any sort of different label. I think the whole concept of "for >>> broadcast use only" records came along with stereo FM.>>>> I can assure you that the concept of broadcast promo copies came along long before then, but how >> they were marked differed with different companies. They may not have special labels, but the >> distribution of radio promo copies was in place for the entire microgroove era. In the 78-L >> there has been a lot of questions of when marked broadcast promo records began, and 1947 seems to >> be a sure thing but some might have been done in 46. Debate on whether Capitol or RCA was first >> is the main question, with Decca being not too far behind. There were special labels on these, >> and Decca did a lot of them on vinyl starting around 49. Shortly after 1950 RCA started using >> ultra thin sharp-edged vinyl pressings for their Special Preview discs, and Mercury promo copies >> were also pressed on this material. In 1972 I went to a garage sale around Evanston where they >> were selling about 500 of these thin Mercury promo 78s that a college newspaper record reviewer >> had saved from his 3 or so years, and I bought about 50.>> But I don't recall seeing promo label classical 78s, although I have a lot of classical albums >> that had been from radio stations. I have white label Columbia LPs both pop and classical from >> the early 50s but I don't recall seeing RCA pressings that early with promo labels on LP either >> pop or classical although I have many that were from radio stations. There were some special RCA >> promo LP series, but some of those records were for public distribution as well, such as the SP >> series. I have some early Capitol LPs with white or yellow rubber stamping on the groove area >> denoting the records as store demo copies, but I doubt there were radio copies like this! There >> are some yellow label Capitol promo LPs starting around 54 or 55.>>> The stations were really harsh on record companies that couldn't provide quiet vinyl. So, promo >>> runs were done on the best biscuits in the plant. At least that was how it was explained to me.>>>>>> -- Tom Fine>>>>>>> This was done especially in the case of 45s, especially the ones pressed by Columbia which mainly >> used styrene for store copies. Styrene is very quiet for the first couple of playings -- >> especially when compared with the crap vinyl usually used for 45s -- but develops cue-burn VERY >> quickly. RCA Victor was using crap vinyl for a lot of their LPs in the 60s and since Mercury was >> doing a lot of pressing at RCA, the use of higher quality vinyl for promo copies as well as >> classical records in general was probably insisted on. Red Seal, Original Cast, and Vintage >> Series pressings usually used good vinyl, but the regular black label Victors for a lot of the >> 60s was on vinyl that inherently noisy. I can tell which is which by just looking at them. For >> all its faults, Dynaflex was a blessedly quiet alternative.>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Kulp" >>> To: >>> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 9:36 PM>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Wilma Cozart Fine, RIP>>>>>>>>> Here's a question.I have a bunch of Living Presence stereo promo copies,but I have never seen a >>> promo label of a pre-stereo mono Living Presence.Did they press them ?>>> Roger>>>>>>>>> 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager