So is LCT-1014 the same or not as LM-6123? (first complete reissue in a 
set of the 4 Concerto and Paganini Rhapsody).

(This was a Christmas present that I begged for. When I opened the 
package, which was obviously records, I was greeted by a recording of 
Bach Organ Music! My mother had found one on the Somerset label or some 
cheapie groc store label and included that on the top to throw me off 
and surprise me, which she did!)

I didn't own LCT-1014, but there was a public library copy that I heard 
a long time ago. I never compared the two. I didn't realize all this 
about the alt takes until I heard the complete LP reissue, which is 
different from LM-6123, (and by then the library's copy of 1014 was long 
gone). Or some sides are different. I have never done a detailed 
comparison. I remember my astonishment at first hearing of the little 
slip towards the end of the third movement.

joe salerno



On 12/8/2010 11:28 PM, Michael Biel wrote:
> From: Tom Fine<[log in to unmask]>
>> BTW, no doubt the Rach 2nd on that old RCA LP is the electronic recording.
>> The timing is slightly different from the acoustic version on the CD and
>> some of the playing is different, but remarkably similar interpretations,
>> I guess Rach and Skoki liked how they did it the first time. I thought the
>> instrumentation was clever on both versions, working around a limited
>> medium to get the point across clearly.  -- Tom Fine
>
> I could have (and should have) told you that LCT-1014 was the electrical
> because I have it, and that RCA never issued the acoustical version on
> microgroove (incomplete, of course) until the box series "The Complete
> Rachmaninoff".  You never did identify the 1992 CD with the acoustical
> -- is it RCA from the box set or a pirate issue -- and whether side
> three is the newly found acoustical or the segment from the electrical.
>
> I am not so sure about whether it was Rach and Stoki liking the original
> recording as much as the fact that Rach performed this in concert more
> than 100 times and HE knew how he wanted to play it.  But remember,
> LCT-1014 like all the microgroove issues of the electrical are NOT from
> the approved M (Master) takes but from the secondary HC (Hold
> Conditional)takes.  You are not really hearing the takes that Rach
> really preferred.  For that you have to go to the Ward Marston reissue
> CD or Mark Obert-Thorn's Naxos issue.  These are the only issues of the
> approved takes since the scroll label pre-war pressings.
>
> When I discovered the substitution and the forged paperwork at BMG my
> feeling was that there was not all that much difference among the takes
> other than perhaps a bit more precision, most obviously on side ten.  A
> review I came across yesterday when I was looking for the issue numbers
> makes a statement that there is an interesting comparison between the
> two sets of takes of the 1929 electrical recording by Jonathan Yungkans.
>   No mention of a comparison with the acoustical version from five years
> earlier is given.  This is from the review of the Biddulph of the
> alternate takes from my sets transferred by Mark, and he also reviews
> the Naxos Mark did on the same page.
>
> http://www.flyinginkpot.com/2001/03/rachmaninov-the-second-piano-concerto-recordings-survey-part-3-historic-inkpot/
> "The alternate and original takes are similar in general approach.
> However, numerous details arise that accrue to a substantially different
> performance – not really better than the approved takes, but with
> altered weights and measures – more impetuous in some spots and looser
> in others. Playing this disc and the Naxos side by side, I was amazed
> how the changes added up. Since Rachmaninov re-recorded very little of
> his music, this disc becomes a doubly-fascinating document, as well as a
> rare glimpse into the composer’s mind."
>
> Mike Biel  [log in to unmask]
>
>