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  August 2012

ARSCLIST August 2012

Subject:

Re: New-ish EMI set

From:

Carl Pultz <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Sat, 11 Aug 2012 08:28:31 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (426 lines)

Roger, that's one I haven't heard. I do have Boult's earlier version with
the London Phil. on a London blue back. Starts off rather sleepy. The
Cavatina is nice and the Toccata catches fire, but none of it seems to get
very close to the unique character of the symphony. The contrast is a pretty
good illustration of the differing personalities of these two conductors.
Perhaps it took longer for the piece to get under Sir Adrian's skin.

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Roger Kulp
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 8:22 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] New-ish EMI set

 I have no idea what you are talking about.Mercury used FR,SR,RFR,e


 I have no idea what you are talking about.Mercury used FR,SR,RFR,etc. for
their stampers.It is generally accepted the RFR stampers are inferior.RCA
used numbers like 1s,2s,etc.I need to check,but I don't recall Mercury
records being pressed by RCA,and I have all kinds of records pressed in the
US by RCA,even Deutsche Grammophon.

The Adrian Boult V-W #8 on EMI is not to be missed either.Dug out my HMV
"postage stamp" pressing and played it on the Maggie today.

Roger



________________________________
 From: Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] 
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] New-ish EMI set
 
Hi Carl:

I do think side A has more pronounced hiss than side B on that record. Check
your deadwax and see if 
it's got "I" and something like "A1" on side A. If so, it's a first pressing
by RCA in Indianapolis 
and should be very good vinyl. If no "I" then it's a later pressing, Mercury
Richmond IN and thus 
might well be noisey. My theory about different orchestra setup and perhaps
mics further out could 
lead to more hiss, likely from having to boost the record levels and picking
up hiss from the mics 
or tape electronics. Or, if the levels weren't readjusted, then the overall
level on the tape would 
be low and thus higher s/n ratio and more pronounced tape hiss.

Thanks for prompting me to re-listen! I really like the V-W 8th, it's an
interesting piece of music 
and that's a good performance (I prefer it to Previn's later version).

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Carl Pultz" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] New-ish EMI set


> Thanks for the comparison! Was hoping you would check it out. You may be
> right either about the seating or acoustics, but it also seems that you're
> hearing a better record. Did you also note more hiss than normal? On my
> copy, it's loud. Knowing how fastidious Mercury was, I was ready to assume
> it was how it came to them from Pye, exceptional as that my be. Might just
> be a funky pressing. According to a sticker on the cover, somebody paid
> $2.99 for it at Sam Goody.
>
> Today, I read the essay by Harold Lawrence about tape editing, where he
> talks about cutting the tapes Miss Cozart brought back from England during
> his first months with Mercury in 1956. This record was probably one of the
> first he worked on in his long tenure.
> http://ronpenndorf.com/journalofrecordedmusic3.html
>
> If I seem to always remark about the exceptions, it's because you can
learn
> a lot (or guess a lot) from them about the conditions under which these
> companies did business. If all the product was perfect, you wouldn't have
> that chance. One thing I've learned from experience is that every project
is
> different.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
> Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 12:59 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] New-ish EMI set
>
> One followup on this. The liner notes specifically discuss a "Schubert"
> orchestra -- greatly
> augmented with percussion and also including a harp. My bet is that the
harp
> had to be placed in
> front of the strings to carry through, and thus the basses sound like they
> are further back on the
> right than normal and the violins and viola sound like they are front left
> and front right, with the
> cellos perhaps in the middle. It's definitely not the same orchestral
> seating as on the
> Butterworth/Bax side.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 12:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] New-ish EMI set
>
>
>> Hi Carl:
>>
>> I'm playing back an original SR90115 right now. It sounds to me like the
> orchestra is arranged
>> differently than typical, especially the strings. However, the stable
> placement of everything and
>> the clarity of locations convinces me that it was a 3-spaced-omni
> recording. I do think the 3-2
>> mix isn't as center-strong as usual, but I wonder if this has to do with
> the unusual-sounding
>> seating of the orchestra? Perhaps you get weird dynamics if you make the
> center too strong, or the
>> center mic had to be further back due to strange dynamics or orchestra
> arrangement? The
>> composition also has complex counter-rhythms in parts, so the composer
may
> have spread the strings
>> in order to articulate each separate part most clearly. Finally, the V-W
> side is long for early
>> stereo days, so the overall level was probably reduced to accomodate the
> dynamics and fit the
>> side. I ordered the EMI CD set so I'm interested to compare what they
did.
>>
>> -- Tom Fine
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Carl Pultz" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 4:34 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] New-ish EMI set
>>
>>
>>> Ah, now I see the complication of this VW Sym 8 issue. While the
symphony
> is
>>> the work of Mercury 6/19/56, the flip side is Auger's from 12/1957. But,
> on
>>> the LP, the symphony doesn't sound like a Mercury production. A few
> things
>>> speak from the center of the stage, but it's mostly got a L/R bias and
> poor
>>> focus. The LP also has a strong high-frequency hiss that is louder and
>>> higher-pitched than other SRs I have. Not on the lead-in, the noise
> starts
>>> with the music, and is steady between movements. Not from the pressing
>>> itself. Side 2 is similarly afflicted. The music is lower in level and
> not
>>> as dynamic as, say, Capricorn Concerto. There are no production credits
> on
>>> the sleeve.
>>>
>>> Tom, maybe these sessions had to be edited in Manchester in order to get
> the
>>> mono version out quickly, given the premiere of the symphony a few days
>>> before recording? Possibly a 2-track master like you heard about was
> edited
>>> alongside the mono, and shared with NY later for the stereo Mercury
> issue.
>>> Depending on how they handled approvals, that might be true for the
whole
>>> history of the Pye collaboration. Maybe the 3-tracks were never touched.
>>> Possible?
>>>
>>> The Dutton/Barbirolli Society CD, a mastering from EMI 1992, is missing
> the
>>> top-end noise, but is rather generic in its sense of place and occasion.
> Its
>>> imaging also sounds nothing like Mercury, but what I suspect to be some
>>> reverb applied to hide the aggressive CEDAR filtering does fill in the
>>> center a bit. The soundstage is different than the LP, but neither are
>>> correct.
>>>
>>> I know a lot of Auger's work, so let's blame somebody else for whatever
>>> happened.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 9:26 PM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] New-ish EMI set
>>>
>>> Hi Carl:
>>>
>>> Bob Auger was a great engineer, a real giant in British audio
production.
> Do
>>> some googling on him,
>>> he was a major force over there. He was a staff engineer for Pye Records
>>> when Mercury and Pye worked
>>> together, and he and my father became good friends. Auger engineered
many
>>> Kinks recordings for Pye,
>>> among many other things. He also taught Eddie Kramer engineering, and
> Kramer
>>> said in at least one
>>> interview that his drum mic technique was a varient on the 3-spaced-omni
>>> approach, taught to him by
>>> Bob Auger who learned it working with the Mercury crew. If I'm recalling
> Bob
>>> Auger's obit correctly,
>>> he also went on to be a major force in sound-for-TV engineering in the
> UK.
>>>
>>> I would say, if a Barbirolli recording was made for Pye Records after
> 1957,
>>> it was an
>>> Auger-originated recording. If it was made for EMI originally, it was
>>> probably not engineered by
>>> Auger. EMI's approach to classical recording in the stereo era varied
> from
>>> relatively few mics to
>>> many mics, at least that's how I interpret what I've read and seen in
>>> photos. And there was a whole
>>> different approach taken by Carson Taylor for U.S. sessions, but that's
>>> another discussion for
>>> another time. I've seen photos are Abbey Road where you can count 40+
> mics,
>>> but I've also seen
>>> photos from Kingsway where there seem to be a dozen or fewer mics.
>>>
>>> If/when UMG acquires EMI, it's possible that the combined vaults will
>>> straighten out the Barbirolli
>>> master tapes and we may one day get a complete box set, using both Pye
>>> first-generation tapes and
>>> Mercury 3-track masters, plus later EMI masters. I suspect one issue
with
>>> the Mercury/Pye stuff is
>>> that all the documentation may not be together in one place, which would
> be
>>> solved by a consolidated
>>> UMG/EMI vault.
>>>
>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>
>>> PS -- I agree abouit the V-W 8th, which was dedicated to Barbirolli and
>>> premiered just before the
>>> recording took place. There was all kinds of excitement surrounding that
>>> session and the performance
>>> was electric.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>> From: "Carl Pultz" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 8:38 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] New-ish EMI set
>>>
>>>
>>>> Tom, I've been curious about that situation, too, as another of my
>>> treasured
>>>> discs is the Pye/Mercury V-W Sym #8. I have both the Mercury LP and the
>>>> Testament/Barbirolli Society CD reissue. The neighborhood is too quiet
> now
>>>> to put either on (at the right volume!) to refresh my memory, but I'll
> do
>>>> that tomorrow.
>>>>
>>>> Did Auger work for Pye? He engineered the Halle 'A London Symphony"
>>> session
>>>> the next year, 12/1957. It appears on the same CD.
>>>>
>>>> I was actually referring to the V-W sym 5, made in Kingsway in 1962.
> I've
>>>> only heard the Angel LP and the ca. 1994 CD versions. Sonically,
they're
>>>> quite a disappointment, sounding rather muted and cloudy. Surprising
for
>>>> both the team and location, and the fact that the session was the
return
>>> to
>>>> EMI for Sir John, after a long absence from the label. You'd think
> they'd
>>>> have pulled all the stops. Is there a Barbirolli maven out there who
has
>>> an
>>>> EMI LP pressing of this session? Does it sound woolly to you?
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 7:45 PM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] New-ish EMI set
>>>>
>>>> Regarding the Barbirolli material that was recorded by Mercury and Pye,
> I
>>> am
>>>> pretty sure that EMI
>>>> used the Pye 2-track masters for their early-era CD reissues. I think
>>> those
>>>> digital masters were
>>>> later leased to the Barbirolli Society, which put out some of the same
>>>> material. According to the
>>>> Mercury tape logs I've seen, all of the Halle/Barbirolli 3-track and
> mono
>>>> masters were sent to EMI,
>>>> many of them in the early 60's and the rest by 1971. I am not clear
>>> exactly
>>>> what the Pye 2-track
>>>> master were.  I was told by one first-person participant that they were
>>> made
>>>> by Pye from the feeds
>>>> of the left and right mics, which would explain what I perceive as a
>>>> non-Mercury-like weak center in
>>>> the EMI CD reissues. Another first-person participant told me that Bob
>>> Auger
>>>> did his own on-location
>>>> 3-2 mix and recorded to a 2-track master. A more logical explaination,
>>> based
>>>> on other Mercury
>>>> operating procedures, is that Pye would have gotten a 2-track made
> during
>>>> the first American LP
>>>> cutting, so it is a "first generation 3-2 mix" tape. However, as I
said,
>>> the
>>>> EMI CD reissues do not
>>>> sound the same as the original Mercury LPs or mass-duped 2-track tapes.
>>>>
>>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>>> From: "Carl Pultz" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 7:23 PM
>>>> Subject: [ARSCLIST] New-ish EMI set
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I was happy to find that the 'Sir John Barbirolli: The Great EMI
>>>> Recordings'
>>>>> box set contained a mix of transfers from across the digital era, the
>>>> newer
>>>>> ones excellent. A few tunes that had been the subject of earlier
issues
>>>> are
>>>>> updated. One example is the famous Tallis Fantasia session, which
> Bernard
>>>>> Herrmann had a hand in. The 2000 remastering in the box is
dramatically
>>>>> different than the 1980s reissue and just clobbers the Angel LP.
>>>>> Unfortunately, the V-W 5 is not updated, but the glory shines through
>>>>> anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> As someone here recently said, much of the EMI catalog has lagged
>>> somewhat
>>>>> behind the state of the art. With such a huge catalog, that might be
>>>>> understandable, even without all the corporate drama.
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
>>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 3:06 PM
>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] New SONY sets
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike, do you know if there's a policy as to WHICH digital transfer to
>>> use?
>>>>> In the case of both
>>>>> Columbia (Sony) and RCA (BMG), there were many not-so-good attempts
>>> before
>>>>> good remasters were
>>>>> obtained. For Sony, I'd put the ones that Dennis Rooney oversaw in the
>>>> late
>>>>> 90's as their best. For
>>>>> RCA, the CD layer of the SACDs done by Soundmirror are vastly superior
> to
>>>>> earlier attempts.
>>>>>
>>>>> For their box set, Decca went back and re-did some material that had
> been
>>>>> previously remastered,
>>>>> with good results. I think DGG did new transfers for some of the
> material
>>>> in
>>>>> their budget-priced
>>>>> boxes, for instance the Kubelik Mahler cycle seemed to have all been
>>>>> remastered in the late 90s as
>>>>> opposed to some of the earlier remasters of some of the symphonies (I
>>>> don't
>>>>> think all were
>>>>> previously released prior to the box set). I believe everything was
>>>> brought
>>>>> up to the era and
>>>>> quality of the "DGG Originals" series, so circa late 90's.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>>>> From: "Gray, Mike" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 2:47 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] New SONY sets
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> As a rule, no new transfers are made from analog originals save where
> no
>>>>> prior digital transfer
>>>>>> has already been
>>>>>> made.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike Gray
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 

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

December 2020
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