 |
 |
Actually it was 1929 for the electric. joe (we are watching you) salerno Michael Biel wrote: > Baoshan Sheng | International Classical Music Database wrote: >> Hello Steven C: >> >> Thank you for the valuable information on collection management. >> >> I agree mostly what you said. We'll pay attention to 78 rpms recording >> data >> compiling and their uniqueness (e.g. Matrix number). >> >> But did you notice we do put many attention to the "recording date" >> information? Almost every page in our site show the recording date in the >> proper place. You can see them in any link I provided in last talk. >> >> When you want to target a classical recording, whether it's a 78 rpm or a >> compact disc. You use some certain approach pattern to interact with the >> information system. That's mostly formed by one's cognition >> experience. NOT >> ALL habits or pre-existing discography structures are good. Sometimes we >> need to move things forward, move our time forward, and we need your >> understanding. >> > > As an example, one of my favourite recordings is Sergei Rachmannanov > playing his own "Second Piano Concerto!" IIRC, this was cut in 1927, > In my "perfect world," I could look this record up in my "Classical > Discograpy" and find out the recording date! > > Steven C. Barr > > >> Last, you can get some information about Rachmaninov plays himself at: >> >> http://a9music.com/rachmaninov/plays/rachmaninov >> > > 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...?! >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >