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  May 2006

ARSCLIST May 2006

Subject:

Re: National Recording Preservation Board (NRPB) Study

From:

Steven Smolian <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 16 May 2006 11:52:34 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (158 lines)

Peter,

I know EMI mastered to disc and to tape at the same time, gradually changing 
to all-tape as money and time to upgrade became available.

Has anyone figured out a clue in the matrix codes which tells us if this was 
done on tape and there is therefore no generational loss on later issues or 
was originally on a lacquer and is therefore one generation earlier on the 
78?

The only hint I've been able to reason out  is to assume that if any part of 
a set is take two or later, it is of a 78 original, assuming tapes would 
have been edited and its 78 iteration was always take 1.

This is reasoning, not real life.  What's the gen on your side?

Off to ARSC this afternoon.

Steve Smolian
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Copeland, Peter" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] National Recording Preservation Board (NRPB) Study


Dear All,
    I'd like to add one halfpennyworth to Tom Fine's comment. Here in
Britain, the 78 versions incorporated "original" matrix-numbers, which
now that both E.M.I and (UK) Decca have bitten the dust, provide the
only way to date a commercial sound-recording. And because this side of
the pond was about five years behind your side of the pond, that is a
very significant tool.
Peter Copeland
Former Conservation Manager,
British Library Sound Archive.

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
Sent: 16 May 2006 11:10
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] National Recording Preservation Board (NRPB)
Study

No, I think he was saying your argument is ludicrous since the 45RPM LP
is what he says is the best
source. Therefore proving my point about late-era 78's, that in most
cases they will be the
worst-case/worst-quality example and therefore are needed only as an
absolutely last resort.

In any case, I wasn't advocating dumpstering anything, just saying that
the late-era 78 material
would not be what I'd take to a desert island or care about very much
unless, as I clearly stated
has been the case a couple of times, that was the only extant source for
something.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Richter" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 2:11 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] National Recording Preservation Board (NRPB)
Study


> David Lennick wrote:
>> Mike Richter wrote:
>>
>>  Tom Fine wrote:
>>  > Well, one question immediately comes to mind. Who CARES about 78's
>>  > issued after the advent of tape (1947-48), unless the tape master
has
>>  > been lost? Even if only a good-condition LP exists (post-1948), it
is
>>  > almost guaranteed to sound better and have a wider
frequency/dynamic
>>  > range than the 78. So I ask again, who cares about what's gotta be
the
>>  > vast majority of late-era 78's? I mean, they might make a nice
novelty,
>>  > but they have little or no historical value since they're a
>>  > worst-case/obsolete-technology version of something.
>
>> Matter of fact, this argument is ludicrous. The only good-sounding
original issue of "South
>> Pacific" was the 45-RPM set. The 78s are overmodulated, the first LP
pressings sound like short
>> wave, the subsequent ones keep adding layers of echo, the CD issues
were a disaster, proving that
>> Sony may own the rights and the original master but doesn't know its
acetates from a hole in the
>> ground about what to do with them. Anyone want to challenge me on
this, meet me out back.
>
> I think David means that Tom Fine's position is ludicrous - since
David and I are in agreement.
> <G>
>
> There is no reason to assume that the source materials still exist. I
know of at least one case in
> which there are no masters for a series of substantial opera
recordings and that the publisher
> does not even have clean copies of many of the LPs. (I've not yet
determined whether they are
> without any copy of some titles.)
>
> The record companies (and film companies) have a shameful record of
failing to keep master
> materials. Those that have been retained may not have been stored
adequately. I have often been
> called on to supply transfers from my own copies for performers who
have been told that the
> publisher has nothing from which to provide a copy.
>
> So it may well be that the reason recent issues of "South Pacific"
have had poor sound is that the
> publishers no longer have copies of the 45s or of the tape from which
they were made.
>
> Mike
> -- 
> [log in to unmask]
> http://www.mrichter.com/

**************************************************************************

Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk

Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. 
www.bl.uk/adoptabook

The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled

**************************************************************************

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally 
privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the 
intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the 
[log in to unmask] : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or 
copied without the sender's consent.

The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the 
author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The 
British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the 
author.

**************************************************************************


-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.6/340 - Release Date: 5/15/2006

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

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