Print

Print


Hello Michael:

Only experienced like you can provide that valuable knowledge. But so many
recordings need such modification (we call it *calibration* in our office).
So in order to collect / preserve / disseminate such precious information as
much as possible. What should we do?

Should we compile data by in-house staffs and ask when necessary.
Or should we make the compilation process community-based?
Or could some one provide (donate) his knowledge actively?

That's a problem to the classical music information compilation process.
--
Baoshan Sheng
Director | International Classical Music Database
+ 86 10 5162 6468 | [log in to unmask]


On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Michael Biel <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Knowing the matrix and TAKE numbers are important because there are three
> distinct different recordings he made of this work.  You don't list one with
> the 1924 date of the acoustical recording, but even if you did there would
> have to be a note as to whether the last side of the first movement is from
> the acoustical set or was an electrical recording of this side substituted
> before Mark Orbet-Thorn discovered where Victor had misfiled it.  As for the
> electrical recording, except for side eight there are two sets of issued
> takes, and I discovered that in the early 50s Victor falsified the recording
> sheet in the artist's file to show the alternates they used since the early
> 40s had been the original approved takes.  Victor doesn't even know which
> takes are on somo of their CDs -- one you illustrate has come out with both
> sets of takes.
>
>
> Mike Biel  [log in to unmask]
>
>> I love the semantic and clean link, I think that's something belongs to
>> our
>>
>> time.
>>
>> You can sort the discography by date, or by work. I'll appreciate your
>> patient very much if you can find that's definitely DIFFERENT FROM A
>> EXCEL/ACCESS file.
>>
>> Regards,
>> --
>> Baoshan Sheng
>> Director | International Classical Music Database
>> + 86 10 5162 6468 | [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Steven C. Barr <[log in to unmask]
>> >wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>> From: "Baoshan Sheng | International Classical Music Database" <
>>> [log in to unmask]>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hello Steven:
>>>>
>>>>  "Steven C" to be more accurate?!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>  Thank you for the important information and critics you gave. We're
>>> trying
>>>
>>>
>>>> to make you and other collectors like you satisfied through our research
>>>> and
>>>> programs. Although you and me do not share a similar collection
>>>> structure,
>>>> but this doesn't change the truth that we both would like to have a
>>>> better
>>>> experience in collection management.
>>>> I'll try to sort our your needs line by line, please correct me when
>>>> needed.
>>>>
>>>> 1: Include 78 rpm recordings rather than digital formats only.
>>>>
>>>>  Not "rather than," but "In addition to!" AFAIK, there are still many
>>>>
>>>>
>>> record
>>> collectors who search out and collect those original 78 albums of noted
>>> (in some but not all cases) performances of classical works. The
>>> collecting
>>> of classical vocal records was the first form of "78 collecting" and
>>> started
>>> WELL before the collection of jazz/dance band 78's...! As well, we 78
>>> collectors inevitably encounter and acquire numbers of classical 78's
>>> (often as album sets!) and have neither a source for data thereupon nor
>>> any idea what to do with them...?!
>>>
>>>
>>>  2: Include information as : recording venue, recording date, performers,
>>>
>>>
>>>> matrix number, and also need the information of the composer and the
>>>> work.
>>>>
>>>>  Recording date is vital...and easily found for Columbia and Victor
>>>>
>>>>
>>> recordings,
>>> since both labels' ledgers still exist! Performers need only be noted
>>> when/if
>>> they are (1) noted, and (2) audibly featured in the recordings. Matrix
>>> numbers
>>> are VERY important, since most discographies specifically omit any data
>>> on classical recordings! The "venue" data should include mainly
>>> city/state
>>> and studio, if that data can easily be established. Composer and Work are
>>> probably required, but should be easily established...?! Beyond that, I
>>> "yield the floor" to collectors of classical 78's; I don't actively
>>> collect
>>> them, but have accumulated a number thereof...?!
>>>
>>>  3: Show information "discographical".
>>>
>>>
>>>>  Refer to Brian Rust's "American Dance Band Discography." We record
>>>>
>>>>
>>> collectors have become accustomed to Rust's format for discographies;
>>> while it is less than perfect, it has essentially become the "default
>>> format" for discographic works...?!
>>>
>>>
>>>  There are also some things you didn't mention, but is important for us
>>> to
>>>
>>>
>>>> achieve our goals without compromise:
>>>>
>>>> First, a definition of possible "discographical" presentation you would
>>>> like
>>>> to see:
>>>>
>>>> Will it be arranged by classical compositions? e.g.
>>>> http://a9music.com/beethoven/symphony-no.5
>>>> Will it be arranged by conductors? e.g. http://a9music.com/karajan
>>>> Will it be arranged by ensembles? e.g. http://a9music.com/aam
>>>>
>>>> Although the current design is not satisfying, but I think it's very
>>>> clear
>>>> to clarify the concepts we need to agree on. Each way has its audience,
>>>> and
>>>> has its own design consideration.
>>>>
>>>>  Here, NOT being a collector of classical 78's, I shall step out and
>>>> allow
>>>>
>>>>
>>> that group to define their needs/desires/wants! Again, see the works
>>> of Brian Rust for guidance...?!
>>>
>>>
>>>  Second, do you care about the musicology facts beyond the discography?
>>>
>>>
>>>> e.g.
>>>> the compositions by J.S.Bach.
>>>> What kind of presentation do you need? Chronological / By BWV catalogue
>>>> /
>>>> By
>>>> BC catalogue / By genre or something else?
>>>>
>>>>  This data is probably appreciated by collectors of classical 78's;
>>>>
>>>>
>>> however, it
>>> is NOT needed in the "basic discographic data source!"
>>>
>>> As far as the arrangement of data, I think that could be selected by
>>> the viewer of the data...?! I know I can choose how I see a MS Access
>>> database...I assume that a "web viewer" has the same choice...?!
>>>
>>> What I want is this: IF I acquire a bunch of 78's, I can look up the
>>> data on most of the "popular" discs and find when (+/-) they
>>> were recorded, as well as whether any musicians "of note"
>>> participated...! I'd like to see a similar work covering classical
>>> recordings...?!
>>>
>>>  We lack information source of the 78 rpms which are very precious in
>>>
>>>
>>>> meaning. But if you would like to help us in obtaining some raw
>>>> materials,
>>>> we believe we can compile a *meaningful, useful, beautiful and
>>>> modern*discography which really belongs to our time. What I mean here
>>>> is a new
>>>> version of *World's Encyclopedia of Recorded Music* is not we need. Am I
>>>> right?
>>>>
>>>>  Yes...and no! What I am thinking of is a discographic volume which
>>>> lists
>>>>
>>>>
>>> EVERY known recording of classical music...and provides the known/
>>> estimated recording date of each side, as well as where (city/state,
>>> studio if known) it was cut...?! Note that "personnel" only becomes
>>> important for featured soloists (or person on early recordings),
>>> UNlike jazz/dance band sides. However, it could be useful to
>>> know about any important participants...?!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>