I was unaware that some of the sides had FOUR takes! Mike, could you
please post ALL of the matrix/takes info?
It would be much appreciated.
joe salerno
On 12/7/2010 6:19 PM, Michael Biel wrote:
> Since I was directly involved, let me give the details. The 1924
> acoustical version was issued a disc at a time, not as a set, and they
> never got the set finished before electrical recording came in. They
> have metal parts and pressings, both shellac and vinyl, but for decades
> nobody had ever seen the parts for the unissued side. Finally, during
> a trip to the Victor vaults to pull parts for the Stokowski society,
> Mark Obert-Thorn got the bright idea to look in the TEN-INCH section,
> and by golly, there were the missing parts for the side. The new
> versions of the CD include it instead of the electrical side. I don't
> have the sheets for the session at hand and do not know if they give
> horn info.
>
>
>
> However, this is only the story about the acoustical recording. My part
> of the story is the electrical one. When RCA put out the first CD issue
> of the 2nd it was done while John Pfeiffer was on vacation. When he
> returned, the completed and issued CD was on his desk, and according to
> Mike Gray, he hit the roof. He was furious. It sounded HORRIABLE.
> They had used the forked stylus to play the metals and it was a dreadful
> transfer. He immediately withdrew the CD but luckily I was able to find
> a copy. It is DREADFUL. Next step was to dump the RCA engineers and
> contract Ward Marston do do another transfer. He did and the resultant
> issue has the exact same number and packaging as the first -- it doesn't
> even say RE.
>
>
> About a year earlier I had found a scroll label set. I had always
> wondered why the four ring label sets I had did not have oval VE logos
> except for side eight. This set had the oval VE logo on all ten sides.
> I then checked the take numbers. EVERY ONE WAS DIFFERENT except for
> side eight. The differences are minor, but most noticable is on side
> ten where there is a section where several runs of notes are played
> one-at-a-time-in-perfect-rhythm. On the take used for the scroll label
> set they are in precise proper rhythm. In the ring set there is one
> note that is played out of rhythm. Checking every LP version and the
> first CD, the rhythm was broken.
>
>
> Then, before I had a chance to get the reissued CD, I saw that Musical
> Heritage Society was offering it on their label so I got it. It is
> licensed from BMG and credits Ward. And the notes are in absolutely
> perfect rhythm. I called Ward up. First of all, he was astonished it
> was on MHS because they didn't tell him or PAY him for it. Then I asked
> him what masters he used. He told me it was his personal Z shellac set.
> And no, he hadn't bothered to ask anybody to read the take numbers, and
> he never reported to Victor what takes he used. They still listed the
> old set of take numbers, not the ones Ward actually used.
>
>
> I checked the session sheets. I first went to the manila artist folder
> which compiles all the recordings of a performer. The session sheet
> lists the later set of takes as M for master. If that is true, why do
> the EARLIER pressings have a different set of masters? Answer, the
> sheet in the artist folder is a forgery. I went to the ORIGINAL session
> sheets still in the binders. Those sheets show that the scroll label
> takes were the M takes, with one or two other takes on all sides except
> side eight are marked HC, or Hold Conditional. Other takes -- some
> sides had four takes -- were marked D for Destroy. On side eight there
> were only two takes, one was marked M and the other was marked D. We
> checked the computerized warehouse inventory, and most of the takes that
> were not marked D still exist.
>
> Next thing I know I get a phone call from Mark Obert-Thorn. He does not
> have any ring label sets and could I loan him mine so he could put out
> an ALTERNATE RACHMANINOFF CD. I did, and he did Biddulph LHW-036. Mark
> also remastered the proper set of takes on Naxos Historical 8.110601.
>
> Last year at ARSC when I had the chance to meet Ward Marston in person
> (we had only had phone calls and letters) when I introduced myself he
> immediatly responded with "Oh, Mr. Alternate Rach Two!"
>
>
> Mike Biel [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Rachmaninoff Concerto #2 recording by the
> composer
> From: Karl Miller<[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, December 07, 2010 5:04 pm
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> --- On Tue, 12/7/10, Tom Fine<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
> From: Tom Fine<[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: [ARSCLIST] Rachmaninoff Concerto #2 recording by the composer
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Tuesday, December 7, 2010, 3:13 PM
>
>
> Factual information on the following questions much appreciated.
>
> 1. The date listed for the Rachmaninoff-Stokowski recording on the 1992
> CD reissue is 1924. So this is originally an acoustic recording? Any
> information on how this was done, for instance were multiple horns used?
> Where was it done?
>
> 2. Any information on the source material and the transfer methods used
> for the 1992 CD reissue?
>
> 3. Any information on the source material and the transfer methods used
> for the RCA reissue LP LCT 1014?
>
> *************************************************************
>
> I will look up the exact information when I get home, but for starters,
> he recorded the Second Concerto acoustically and then electrically.
> There is an interesting story about the first (to the best of my
> knowledge) LP issue of the acoustic recording. It was part of a multi
> disc set of the "Complete" Rachmaninoff. Yet, it did not include the
> piano rolls. When they issued the acoustic recording on LP they "could
> not find" the last disc of the first movement. That was because they
> were looking in the file of 12 inch records and the last part of the
> first movement was recorded on a 10 inch disc, or so I was told. I think
> my source of that information was Harry Anderson....So, to fill in the
> "missing" part of the first movement, they spliced in the electric
> recording. It makes for curious listening.
>
> Subsequent issues, the CD set in particular, included the "lost" side.
> I also have a vague recollection that the original shellac issue of the
> acoustic recording was limited to the second and third movements, (all
> single sided) but I will need to check.
>
> Since you have the CD, is the producer listed?
>
> You might also like to look at
>
> http://victor.library.ucsb.edu/index.php/talent/detail/28362/
>
> Karl
>
>
|