Print

Print


But why did it become so personal with him that he was willing to stake EMI's reputation on 
non-truth in the face of facts? I can't understand why this would be such a touchy subject 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
>>
>>
>
>