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  April 2006

ARSCLIST April 2006

Subject:

Re: Which U.S. Orchestra Recorded First?

From:

Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Sat, 15 Apr 2006 10:52:19 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (150 lines)

Smolian's Response.  Yes, mixed in, perhaps just a couple who were trained 
to not only play the instrument but also had become programmed to aim it.

The the orchestra was probably somewhat reduced in the earlier years. It is 
highy unlikely, however, there were deputies, at least in principal 
positions.  They were, after all, on tour when most of the record were made. 
These were not knee jerk, "okay, we'll be there next Tuesday" recording 
sessions.  No US orchestras of the time were government supported.  The 
pride of the orchestra's underwriters comes into play here as well.  There 
were long and, often, acrimonious board meetings preceeding contract 
signings.  Administratively, allowing recording was not only a thing in 
itself, but also a trial run for radio.  If I ever do a "which US orchestra 
broadcast first" article, there's a lot of strage goings-on there as well. 
Stay tuned.

Sterve


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "George Brock-Nannestad" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2006 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Which U.S. Orchestra Recorded First?


> From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
>
> Hello, Steve and all,
>
> just before leaving for the CHARM Symposium
>
> http://www.charm.rhul.ac.uk/content/events/symp_3_prog.html
>
> I would just like to see if I have understood you, Steve, properly;
>
> you answered on 28 March 2006
>
>> George, et al,
>>
>> I responding from home without a copy of the magine to consult, but I 
>> hope I
>> recall enough of the text to respond accurately below, wherever I start a
>> sentence with "George,":  (what a puntctuation cluster!!)
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "George Brock-Nannestad" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 7:37 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Which U.S. Orchestra Recorded First?
>>
>>
>> > From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
>> >
>
> ...........................................
>> > ----- I am still a bit uncertain about your personal definition of an
>> > "orchestra". It seems that one criterion you use is "massed strings", 
>> > but
>> > several criteria are imagineable. Another could be that at least one
>> > instrument per voice in the original score should be represented in the
>> > recording personnel. A third could be that the players are all chosen 
>> > from a
>> > well-known orchestra, albeit reduced, with corresponding arrangement, 
>> > but
>> > under one of their regular conductors. What is an orchestra?
>> >
>> George,  It's the third- more than one string to a part, as I believe I
>> implied, and not an ensemble assembled only for recording purposes.  I 
>> state
>> that it is a group which charged admission for their performance. 
>> Perhaps
>> this was edited out and, me being too close to the text, didn't notice on 
>> the
>> final draft they sent me.
>>
>> > We do know for a fact that in the Victor Orchestra (conductor Walter
>> > Rogers)
>> > in 1905, all the first and second violin & viola were Stroh 
>> > instruments. A
>> > trombone for 'cello part and another trombone for the trombone part, 
>> > and a
>> > Helicon bass for the bass part. Calvin Child said "We have been unable 
>> > to
>> > use the local musicians [i.e. musicians not from New York] to any 
>> > advantage,
>> > as their style is extremely loggy and heavy". For this reason I doubt 
>> > that
>> > technical recording staff were mixed in with the proper musicians to 
>> > handle
>> > the Strohs.
>> >
>> George,  This is a difference of opinion between us.  I can't imagine the
>> string players chosen for recording being asked to learn to play Strohs, 
>> at
>> least without some anecdotal survival of that experience making it down 
>> the
>> years.  The publishers of CRC also publish Strad and, I assume, infused 
>> that
>> magazine's past content to filter my article.
>>
>
> ----- I may have misunderstood you: you probably meant that members of the
> VTMC in-house recording "orchestra" (not the technical recording staff, as 
> I
> thought at first) were mixed in with those that constitute what you define 
> as
> an orchestra. Would you think that one could say that the proper 
> (admission-
> charging) orchestra was AUGMENTED by Stroh string players? On the other 
> hand,
> first of all, in the beginning, the space did not permit even 64 members 
> in
> the same recording studio, so it was probably first REDUCED before being
> AUGMENTED, secondly, at least in England, the deputy system was at work, 
> i.e.
> those players who were present at rehearsals would not be the ones playing 
> at
> the performance, although the orchestra in question had the same name.
>
> ----- on the other hand, my acoustic test recordings with Strohs showed 
> that
> they are no different to play, only the violin feels lopsided, i.e.
> unbalanced as to weight distribution. So, even the real 
> (admission-charging)
> orchestra members could easly just substitute their instruments. 
> Certainly,
> the Gramophone Co. had sets of Strohs (and other instruments) permanently
> standby in storage at their foreign recording locations, even though they 
> did
> not have a regular recording studio.
>
> ----- all in all I think that if a named orchestra was playing for 
> recording
> it was its normal members and no AUGMENTATION or substitution of 
> personnel.
>
> ----- I am eagerly waiting for the second part of the article!
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
> George
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/312 - Release Date: 4/14/2006
> 

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

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