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]>
>>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