[78-L] Dubbed contemporary matrix questions (Columbia related).

[Michael Biel]

David Lennick wrote:
> This was when the companies had all but stopped issuing mono LPs, too. The real 
> reason for fake stereo was that Schwann had relegated mono discs to its little 
> brother, Schwann 2 instead of listing them in the main catalog.
>
> dl
>
>   

When I set up the 1977 ARSC conference I had a panel of record producers 
, and my real purpose in setting up that panel was to ask that 
question.  I did, and they agreed that this was the real reason for 
electronic stereo releases, not "public demand".  But then Schwann 
caught on to the ploy and put electronic stereo over into Schwann 2!  
How did the record companies retaliate?  They stopped MARKING the 
records as either mono, stereo, or electronic stereo!!!!!!!  And so, 
many companies stopped doing electronic stereo because why bother if it 
will get into the main monthly Schwann by just not saying it was 
anything but an LP!

Mike Biel  mbiel at mbiel.com

> Royal Pemberton wrote:
>   
>> That's one of the things that did make it worth buying for me--they
>> kept everything mono which, for all too many things back then, was a
>> dirty word.
>>
>> On 12/28/08, David Lennick <dlennick at sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>     
>>> I was still glad to get that album when it came out in 1968, and even more
>>> glad
>>> that they hadn't done it in fake stereo.
>>>
>>> dl
>>>
>>> Royal Pemberton wrote:
>>>       
>>>> True, that  CL 2830 isn't exactly a sonic masterwork (ahem).  The
>>>> three titles it has in common with the earlier volume three of THE BIX
>>>> BEIDERBECKE STORY (GL 519 or CL 846) sound better on the older album.
>>>>
>>>> And thanks for the info!
>>>>
>>>> On 12/28/08, David Lennick <dlennick at sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>> The files (i.e. the Columbia Books) explain WHAT was done but not why.
>>>>> Quote:
>>>>>
>>>>> NOTE:- Matrix 149158 was rejected as such on all three takes [there were
>>>>> 3],
>>>>> but each was dubbed onto a new master, numbered 194379 in sequence (so
>>>>> 149158-1
>>>>> became 194379-1, 149158-2 became 194379-2, 149158-3 became 194379-3). No
>>>>> explanation was given.
>>>>> (big edit)
>>>>> dl
>>>>>
>>>>> Royal Pemberton wrote:
>>>>>           
>>>>>> Here's a case in point, that sparked me to ask about this.  I just got
>>>>>> a copy of the 1968 LP PAUL WHITEMAN AND HIS ORCHESTRA FEATURING BING
>>>>>> CROSBY [Columbia CL 2830] and the title 'A bunch of old love letters'
>>>>>> is shown as being recorded 18 October 1929, matrix W 149158-3 but
>>>>>> 'remastered and released as W 194379-3' on 2047-D.   (Why this was
>>>>>> done at the time is not explained.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The sound quality of this track is definitely poorer than any other
>>>>>> track (much more wow), leading me to believe they used a disc pressed
>>>>>> from 194379-3 rather than 149158-3 as their source.  I can appreciate
>>>>>> the use of 194379-3 in the LP for historical accuracy, but I have to
>>>>>> wonder why was 149158-3 both not used originally for the 78, nor used
>>>>>> as the dubbing source for the LP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would think, if 149158-3 still existed in 1968 in such a condition
>>>>>> that a good vinyl pressing could have been made from it, they should
>>>>>> have used it instead, with an explanation of this being the take, but
>>>>>> not strictly speaking the actual originally issued master, being at
>>>>>> last made available on this album,  particularly since they did have
>>>>>> some blurb on the LP regarding use of a 'unique piece of filtering
>>>>>> equipment developed in the Columbia laboratories' to make the old
>>>>>> recordings sound better than they ever could have before.
>>>>>> _____________________
>>>>>>             
> _______________________________________________
> 78-L mailing list
> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l
>
>
>