Hello-I've re-issued all my Associated Glee Club recordings. you can listen
to samples of the mp3s at this link - cheers-Mickey
Follow me on Twitter
M.C.Productions Vintage Recordings
710 Westminster Ave. West
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Stamler" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 3:04 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Early electrical disk recording
> On 10/8/2012 3:42 PM, Donald Tait wrote:
>> I might be incorrect about this, and would welcome being corrected,
>> but I have understood that the earliest commercially-released electrical
>> recording was from March 1925, live:
>> US Columbia 50013-D (Black Label)
>> Trad. arr. Mark Andrews: "John Peel"
>> Associated Glee Clubs of America
>> The label reads "850 Male Voices"
>> "Recorded at their performance at Metropolitan Opera House, N.Y."
>> Matrix #98163
>> The other side:
>> "Adeste Fidelis"
>> Associated Glee Clubs, Met.Op. Hse.1925 (as above)
>> 850 Male Voices
>> "Augmented by the audience of 4000 voices at the Metropolitan Opera
>> House, N.Y." Matrix 98166
>> Nowhere do the labels indicate that a new or different recording
>> method was used.
> As far as I know, those discs were Columbia's first electrical issues, and
> since Columbia signed with WE before Victor did, they're probably the
> first electrical issues period.
> Here's a question: Columbia and Victor were both testing the new system
> during most of 1924. Were any of the test recordings issued
> commercially -- does anyone know? I looked at the Patrick Gaffney
> recording I found; it was Matrix # 140472, which (according to Barr) would
> place the recording date sometime around March 1925. The Glee Club
> recording described above, from its matrix numbers, would have been
> recorded about January 1925. The issue number of the Gaffney record is
> 350-D, which Barr places (by interpolation) about May 1925. What's
> interesting is that, like the Glee Club record, the Gaffney record has no
> indication on the label of electrical recording, and no W on the matrix.
> That leads me to wonder why. Were they just waiting for the new labels to
> be printed? Were they concerned that advertising the new process would
> kill sales of previous acoustical recordings?