This is a wonderful article, Tom, and it is made even better by its
ignoring of that disastrous Nimbus Preme Voche series of
acoustical-playback CD reissues which set back the science of reissues
70 years and almost derailed it.  

As for him sitting on an ARSC panel, he was invited to this roundtable
as EMI's rep along with those from BMG, Polygram, etc.  This was in the
Q&A, and I will admit to ambushing him on this subject, although I had
no knowledge of his vehement negativity.  I got my opening when he
mentioned plans to do Chaliapin's Albert Hall concert which Bill Moran
had discovered clear examples of accidental stereo.  It makes perfect
sense that the back-up recordings be made with an entirely independent
mic chain to avoid BOTH cutters being deprived of a signal for this
one-time-only event. I honestly did not expect his answer!!  I expected
him to say "That is very interesting.  I'll go check this out."

Mike Biel  [log in to unmask]  


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Accidental stereo (again)
From: Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, September 03, 2014 9:18 pm
To: [log in to unmask]

Here is an interesting Billboard piece about Keith Hardwick after he
passed:
http://tinyurl.com/mv9zqma

I'm even more mystified why he'd be so adament. He was not hostile to
trying new things with
transfers, and he knew EMI's vaults. Why would he be so resistent to the
idea that two microphones
and two cutters could have been used on some sessions? I'm reading that
semi-new book on Abbey Road
and, back in that era, they were supposedly experimenting and raising
the bar on fidelity all the
time. It's only logical that "shootoffs" between cutters, mics and/or
mic placements would take
place at recording sessions.

Why would Hardwick even sit on an ARSC panel if he was so opposed to the
ideas that were clearly
very popular with ARSC members?

I'm still mystified why this seemed to be such a hot potato with EMI???

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Biel" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Accidental stereo (again)


> Not only was I the one who shot the videotape, I am also the one who
> asked the question. I think it was something that had become personal
> with him. He knew he had gone out on a limb publicly -- my camcorder
> couldn't have been more obvious since I was front-row center -- and I
> don't think I was the first to have asked him about it. Just look at
> how Gerald Plano squirms as Hardwick pontificates. The classical
> examples I cited were from Bill Moran, and there was no greater expert
> in this field than Bill -- unless you also considered his partner, Ted
> Fagen. Both Brad and Bill were crazy Californians! I suppose Keith just
> had a hard wick.
>
> Mike Biel [log in to unmask]
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Accidental stereo (again)
> From: Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, September 03, 2014 11:42 am
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Hi Mark:
>
> Do you have any insights as to why Hardwick was so hard-set against the
> accidental stereo material
> being released? I'm curious as to his motivation. Why was taking such a
> stance against reality and
> at least some market demand a good move for EMI? Why did EMI back his
> stance?
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Mark Obert-Thorn" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 11:20 AM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Accidental stereo (again)
>
>
>> On Wed, 3 Sep 2014 10:12:07 -0400, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>The old EMI guy who took such a vehement stance at the ARSC Conference has
>> been proven wrong. I
>>>think he just had wrong information from stodgy, hidebound EMI executives
>> (of which he was perhaps
>>>one), or he was outright lying. I'm not sure what his motivation would be.
>> Why would EMI care so
>>>much about the entire topic to outright lie? Why would it
>> be "controversial" in the first place?
>>>That's why I think it's more a case of old, hidebound executives being
>> defensive and relying on
>>>sloppy or incomplete record-keeping.
>>
>> It's interesting to note that when EMI was preparing their "Elgar Edition"
>> CD series in 1992/3, someone there (probably Andrew Walter) put together an
>> accidental stereo version of Elgar conducting the Prelude to "The Kingdom",
>> which was recorded at the same session as the "Cockaigne" Overture, whose
>> final side had already been circulated as accidental stereo. EMI initially
>> announced that this was going to be released; but after objections raised
>> by Keith Hardwick (the "old EMI guy" on the YouTube video), they withdrew
>> the idea. So, it's not a case of EMI not being open to the concept of
>> accidental stereo at all.
>>
>> Mark Obert-Thorn
>>
>>
>
>