Baoshan Sheng | International Classical Music Database wrote:
> Hello Steven C:
> Thank you for the valuable information on collection management.
> I agree mostly what you said. We'll pay attention to 78 rpms recording data
> compiling and their uniqueness (e.g. Matrix number).
> But did you notice we do put many attention to the "recording date"
> information? Almost every page in our site show the recording date in the
> proper place. You can see them in any link I provided in last talk.
> When you want to target a classical recording, whether it's a 78 rpm or a
> compact disc. You use some certain approach pattern to interact with the
> information system. That's mostly formed by one's cognition experience. NOT
> ALL habits or pre-existing discography structures are good. Sometimes we
> need to move things forward, move our time forward, and we need your
As an example, one of my favourite recordings is Sergei Rachmannanov
playing his own "Second Piano Concerto!" IIRC, this was cut in 1927,
In my "perfect world," I could look this record up in my "Classical
Discograpy" and find out the recording date!
Steven C. Barr
> Last, you can get some information about Rachmaninov plays himself at:
Knowing the matrix and TAKE numbers are important because there are
three distinct different recordings he made of this work. You don't
list one with the 1924 date of the acoustical recording, but even if you
did there would have to be a note as to whether the last side of the
first movement is from the acoustical set or was an electrical recording
of this side substituted before Mark Orbet-Thorn discovered where Victor
had misfiled it. As for the electrical recording, except for side eight
there are two sets of issued takes, and I discovered that in the early
50s Victor falsified the recording sheet in the artist's file to show
the alternates they used since the early 40s had been the original
approved takes. Victor doesn't even know which takes are on somo of
their CDs -- one you illustrate has come out with both sets of takes.
Mike Biel [log in to unmask]
> I love the semantic and clean link, I think that's something belongs to our
> You can sort the discography by date, or by work. I'll appreciate your
> patient very much if you can find that's definitely DIFFERENT FROM A
> EXCEL/ACCESS file.
> Baoshan Sheng
> Director | International Classical Music Database
> + 86 10 5162 6468 | [log in to unmask]
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Steven C. Barr <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>> From: "Baoshan Sheng | International Classical Music Database" <
>> [log in to unmask]>
>>> Hello Steven:
>>> "Steven C" to be more accurate?!
>> Thank you for the important information and critics you gave. We're trying
>>> to make you and other collectors like you satisfied through our research
>>> programs. Although you and me do not share a similar collection structure,
>>> but this doesn't change the truth that we both would like to have a better
>>> experience in collection management.
>>> I'll try to sort our your needs line by line, please correct me when
>>> 1: Include 78 rpm recordings rather than digital formats only.
>>> Not "rather than," but "In addition to!" AFAIK, there are still many
>> collectors who search out and collect those original 78 albums of noted
>> (in some but not all cases) performances of classical works. The collecting
>> of classical vocal records was the first form of "78 collecting" and
>> WELL before the collection of jazz/dance band 78's...! As well, we 78
>> collectors inevitably encounter and acquire numbers of classical 78's
>> (often as album sets!) and have neither a source for data thereupon nor
>> any idea what to do with them...?!
>> 2: Include information as : recording venue, recording date, performers,
>>> matrix number, and also need the information of the composer and the work.
>>> Recording date is vital...and easily found for Columbia and Victor
>> since both labels' ledgers still exist! Performers need only be noted
>> they are (1) noted, and (2) audibly featured in the recordings. Matrix
>> are VERY important, since most discographies specifically omit any data
>> on classical recordings! The "venue" data should include mainly city/state
>> and studio, if that data can easily be established. Composer and Work are
>> probably required, but should be easily established...?! Beyond that, I
>> "yield the floor" to collectors of classical 78's; I don't actively collect
>> them, but have accumulated a number thereof...?!
>> 3: Show information "discographical".
>>> Refer to Brian Rust's "American Dance Band Discography." We record
>> collectors have become accustomed to Rust's format for discographies;
>> while it is less than perfect, it has essentially become the "default
>> format" for discographic works...?!
>> There are also some things you didn't mention, but is important for us to
>>> achieve our goals without compromise:
>>> First, a definition of possible "discographical" presentation you would
>>> to see:
>>> Will it be arranged by classical compositions? e.g.
>>> Will it be arranged by conductors? e.g. http://a9music.com/karajan
>>> Will it be arranged by ensembles? e.g. http://a9music.com/aam
>>> Although the current design is not satisfying, but I think it's very clear
>>> to clarify the concepts we need to agree on. Each way has its audience,
>>> has its own design consideration.
>>> Here, NOT being a collector of classical 78's, I shall step out and allow
>> that group to define their needs/desires/wants! Again, see the works
>> of Brian Rust for guidance...?!
>> Second, do you care about the musicology facts beyond the discography?
>>> the compositions by J.S.Bach.
>>> What kind of presentation do you need? Chronological / By BWV catalogue /
>>> BC catalogue / By genre or something else?
>>> This data is probably appreciated by collectors of classical 78's;
>> however, it
>> is NOT needed in the "basic discographic data source!"
>> As far as the arrangement of data, I think that could be selected by
>> the viewer of the data...?! I know I can choose how I see a MS Access
>> database...I assume that a "web viewer" has the same choice...?!
>> What I want is this: IF I acquire a bunch of 78's, I can look up the
>> data on most of the "popular" discs and find when (+/-) they
>> were recorded, as well as whether any musicians "of note"
>> participated...! I'd like to see a similar work covering classical
>> We lack information source of the 78 rpms which are very precious in
>>> meaning. But if you would like to help us in obtaining some raw materials,
>>> we believe we can compile a *meaningful, useful, beautiful and
>>> modern*discography which really belongs to our time. What I mean here
>>> is a new
>>> version of *World's Encyclopedia of Recorded Music* is not we need. Am I
>>> Yes...and no! What I am thinking of is a discographic volume which lists
>> EVERY known recording of classical music...and provides the known/
>> estimated recording date of each side, as well as where (city/state,
>> studio if known) it was cut...?! Note that "personnel" only becomes
>> important for featured soloists (or person on early recordings),
>> UNlike jazz/dance band sides. However, it could be useful to
>> know about any important participants...?!