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  April 2012

ARSCLIST April 2012

Subject:

Re: EMI, opera and 35mm?

From:

Carl Pultz <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:26:08 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (92 lines)

Tom, this brings up one item in the MLP catalog I've been curious about. One
rare point where the seams show is in the finale of the Dorati/LSO Concerto
for Orchestra. There are lots of edits, including after the first note. The
passage with the trumpets after 3:00 gets really microscopic and they had a
hell of a time with a bunch inserts there. Not all of the joins match in
level (nothing they could do about that after the session), but the cuts
themselves seem to bump over the heads roughly. My thought was that the 35mm
editing was not as good for such short highly-exposed bits vs. regular tape.
I can picture those spots flying past the heads, with the tape hardly
regaining contact before the next one comes along. Even the easier joins
seem noisy on that session.

Was that master always trouble, or by 1990 did your mom find those edits
hard to play due to deterioration? I don't have an old LP to compare.
Elsewhere in the recording some disturbances don't sound like edits, but
just rough spots in the tape. Maybe this was early in their experience
working with 35mm?

In any case, I feel their pain, as it's a blemish on an otherwise excellent
production. I think it's one of Dorati's very finest recordings and the
deepest realization of that score I've heard; a hard-won victory. The LSO
earned every shilling that day, July 3, 1962. (I'll drink a toast to them on
the 50th.)

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 3:21 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] EMI, opera and 35mm?

Hi Peter:

Regarding your last comment, about editing 35mm for classical music ...

I am pretty sure that Everest used a standard Moviola editor for their 35mm.
However, I think they 
prefered not to do note- or even few-measure inserts. So I don't think they
were doing a lot of 
nit-picky splices. I might be wrong on that.

When Mercury decided to undertake 35mm classical recording, Harold Lawrence
wanted an editing setup 
similar to what he was used to for tape. So my father and Bob Eberenz built
him a modified Ampex 300 
transport with 35mm guides probably kludged off a spare dubber and a spare
3-track play head, I 
think it might have been custom made by John French's father or Tony Preto
out in Illinois. The head 
was custom mounted so it worked on a 300 form-factor (this isn't trivial
work but not impossible 
with access to a machine shop). I would guess they made sure the head was
the proper impedence to 
interface with Harold's 300-3 electronics. Unfortunately, not photos exist.

Mercury, too, was not prone to make tiny-length inserts, so Harold told me
that he didn't have too 
many problems with reverb tails or the like. He used a standard 35mm
splicing block, although I 
suspect there was some facility to cut on an angle through several sprockets
so you don't get bumps 
and ticks at splices. In any case, to my ears, the splices on the Everest,
Mercury and Command 35mm 
recordings aren't any more or less obvious than well-done 3-track tape
splices. I don't know the 
details of Command's 35mm editing rig, but they certainly edited enough 35mm
masters over the years.

The larger issue with classical recording is the need for a minimum length
per reel. I think the 
35mm portable units in stock configuration maxed out at 15 minutes or so per
reel. Fine Recording 
eventually modified the Westrex machines with new reel motors mounted in a
"penthouse" box above the 
original case, to accomodate up to 30 minutes recording time. This was
mainly to allow for edited LP 
side-length masters to be cut to disk. The modified machines were definitely
in use in the late 
Command Classics years, but I think Mercury was done with 35mm by the time
the machines got 
modified.

The logistics of 35mm mag-film were more cumbersome vs. tape, but that
wasn't what killed off the 
fad. Cost was the main killer, the economics of mag-film don't work in
music-album recording but do 
work in higher-margin Hollywood. Also contributing were improved tape
formulations and tape 
recorders in the early and mid 60's.

-- Tom Fine

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

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