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

[Royal Pemberton]

On 12/28/08, Michael Biel <mbiel at mbiel.com> wrote:
> 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!

What's also strange is the inconsistency with which some albums were
designated stereo or whatever name they gave their fake stereo (like
Duophonic).  THE BEATLES' SECOND ALBUM:  three of its eleven tracks
are fake stereo, but the album is represented as stereo.  THE BEST OF
THE BEACH BOYS:  one or two titles fake stereo, the others true
stereo, yet it's designated Duophonic.

And then there's those oddballs like DUSTY SPRINGFIELD'S GOLDEN HITS
(Philips 200/600-211) which can turn up with a mono sleeve and labels,
but the mono labels have what looks like a matrix number, 2/600-211 A
or B, and the entire disc is fake stereo!  (Presumably the same
matrices were used for both mono and stereo versions of the album.)