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  June 2009

ARSCLIST June 2009

Subject:

Re: take numbers on emerson records

From:

David Seubert <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:27:37 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (206 lines)

The only way to determine for certain if a record is an alternate take 
is to have access to the original documentation (or a discography that 
used it) and understand the system the company used. Everything else, 
A/B comparisons, "golden ears," micrometer measurements, or my marks on 
pieces of paper are speculative to varying degrees. In the absence of 
concrete information on how a company marked takes in the wax 
(information I don't have for Emerson) it's all just "Bixing."

I was hoping that somebody had information on the take numbering/marking 
system used by Emerson. Without this information, I'm going to choose 
the most accurate and most efficient means of speculating on what are 
alternate takes and what are not. In the cases where I've used my method 
on Victor discs with no marked takes and then compared my results to the 
documentation, my method has been able to reliably predict whether an 
alternate take was issued. Measuring with a micrometer would produce a 
more accurate measurement but without knowledge of the system it still 
wouldn't remove the speculative element of whether a disc is an 
alternate take. I could record my caliper measurements and A/B every 
pair of records in the collection, but that would leave an awful lot of 
more important work undone and I'd have a big warehouse of records that 
are uncataloged, unsorted, and unused rather than an organized and 
accessible archive of sound recordings.

I also still maintain that aural memory is unreliable (though it does 
vary from person to person), and furthermore, simultaneously playing two 
records is great for a night of cigars and trading collecting war 
stories, but is totally unrealistic in an archive. Yet before I get 
attacked again for being lazy or incompetent, I would point out that 
managing an archive is ultimately a matter of managing priorities. 
That's at the core of archival appraisal, something that a few 
collectors might want to take a course in. Archival science is as much 
about the process of making decisions about what not to keep, not just 
about knowing what to keep.

David Seubert
UCSB

Michael Biel wrote:
> From: David Seubert <[log in to unmask]>
>
>   
>> James, George Dick et al.
>> Thanks for your help here. Every company is different, but I'm
>> always skeptical that I'm misinterpreting the data if I find
>> too many alternate takes (except Edison). Above about 10% in
>> a given run of 78s 
>>     
>
>
> Perhaps it would make more sense to bring this up on the 78-L where
> there are far more 78 experts than on ARSCList, but I find nothing
> strange in higher percentages of alternate takes on acoustical records. 
> All the early century records that stayed in the catalog had alternate
> takes, and even in the post WW I years some labels like Columbia might
> have 20% of their sides with alternate takes.  Sometimes three different
> takes.  It wasn't just Edison.
>
>
> And I am appalled that classical collectors and archives do not
> routinely check multiple classical sets for alternate takes.  I find
> them all the time on both Victor and Columbia classicals.  (Some of you
> might remember that I discovered a forged sheet in the Rachmaninoff
> artist file at BMG which re-designated alternate takes as the approved M
> master takes on 9 of the 10 sides of his Rach 2 to hide the usage of
> secondary takes for decades, including all the microgroove issues.)
>
>
>   
>> like Emerson where I don't know the system used for designating
>> takes, I usually question if what I think are take numbers are
>> stamper numbers or something.
>> I've never really relied on aural comparison (though it is obvious in 
>> some cases.) I don't trust my ears enough to detect the often slight
>> variations between takes.
>>     
>
> Surprising statement.  I have no problem in many cases, and if there are
> any doubts it is easy to simultaneously play both records.  Every
> collector I know does it.  I just spent the weekend with jazz collectors
> who can identify a trumpet player in a 12 piece band and identify three
> alternates of some pieces,
>
>   
>> In the acoustic era it's not exactly like different versions of
>> The Dead doing Dark Star (though many would say these all 
>> sound the same too, I suppose), but aural memory is notoriously 
>> unreliable.
>>     
>
>
> You ARE kidding, of course.  Aren't you?  You're not??  You don't hear
> differences in jazz solos?  In inflections of voice even in regular pop
> records?  Timings of instrument or vocal entries?  Emphasis of one
> instrument over another of a note here and there?  All the collectors I
> know can.  My aural memory is notoriously reliable.  I've spotted
> alternate takes in records I am familiar with but might not have heard
> in years.  I was just tonight watching the LaserDisc of The Court
> Jester, and was listening to hear if the soundtrack songs were the same
> as on the Decca LP -- and I spotted where there was a deviation.  I've
> spotted the change in the syncronization of the train bells in different
> pressings of the Original Cast of The Music Man.  I hear these
> difference in acoustical recordings as well as any other kind of record.
>  My VISUAL memory is not as good, and I know that many people have very
> good visual memories but lousy aural memories.  People's brains are just
> wired differently.  But it IS possible for some people, many people, to
> spot alternate takes easily.
>
>
>   
>> My method is usually to lay the edge of a piece of paper across the 
>> center hole of the disc and mark the beginning and end of the grooves. 
>> Then I lay this paper on the other disc and see if they match. Even if 
>> one take is only a few seconds shorter or longer it will be obviously 
>> different as even a couple of grooves difference is noticable.
>>     
>
>
> My method -- and the method of every other collector I know -- is to
> play the records, simultaneously if necessary.  Often time two takes
> will have the exact same time but still sound different.  If the takes
> ARE a few seconds shorter or longer the sound of the recordings will be
> MORE obviously different.  Different copies might have different groove
> lengths because the engineer might have run the machine longer before or
> after the recording.  And of course this doesn't work for Pathe family
> discs since all are dubs.  The take indication for Pathe's is the letter
> above the dash because the number after the dash is more of an
> indication of transfer dub number.  And I can think of many other cases
> where this doesn't work when some blank grooving can be shaved away,
> either because of extra blank grooving, or else they are adding a
> different lead-out.  
>
>
>   
>> I'm sure George's method works too, but the paper and pencil method
>> is very quick and we are essentially measuring the same thing in 
>> different ways.  David
>>     
>
> No, we are measuring the sound, the differences in the sound.  There are
> too many flaws in your method.  Your method does not take into account
> alternate takes of exactly the same time length but yet are different. 
> Etc etc.
>
> Mike Biel  [log in to unmask] 
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 19, 2009, at 11:15 AM, James L Wolf wrote:
>
>   
>> David,
>>
>> I've worked a lot with Emersons in the LOC's collection, and while 
>> we don't have many duplicates of the same record so that I could 
>> aurally compare different takes, I did notice that the matrix 
>> information (e.g. 3391-1) was usually matched by the known 
>> discographical information. Which, of course, only means that 
>> previous discographers have taken that matrix info to be take-number 
>> information, but that may count for something.
>>
>> Furthermore, for the acoustic era I don't see anything odd about one 
>> copy have 2 first takes and another having a second/third takes. 
>> I've seen similar situations on many labels in the acoustic era; 
>> Victor, Columbia, Edison, etc.
>>
>> Until something definitive comes along saying otherwise, I think it 
>> would be safest to assume that the matrix information refers to the 
>> take number.
>>
>> James
>>     
>>>>> David Seubert <[log in to unmask]> 6/19/2009 1:42 PM >>>
>>>>>           
>> I'm de-duping a stack of 9" Emerson discs and in the dead wax there is
>> what appears to be a matrix followed by a take number. However, there
>> are too many different take numbers for me to believe they are take
>> numbers. For example, I have one copy of #9118 with 3391-1/3397-1 and
>> another with 3391-2/3397-3. Are these stampers? Does anybody know 
>> how to
>> distinguish alternate takes on Emerson discs?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> David
>>
>> -- 
>> David Seubert, Curator
>> Performing Arts Collection
>> Davidson Library
>> University of California
>> Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9010
>> Tel: 805-893-5444 Fax: 805-893-5749
>> [log in to unmask]
>> http://www.library.ucsb.edu/speccoll/collections/pa/
>>     

-- 
David Seubert, Curator
Performing Arts Collection
Davidson Library
University of California
Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9010
Tel: 805-893-5444 Fax: 805-893-5749
[log in to unmask]
http://www.library.ucsb.edu/speccoll/collections/pa/

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

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