[78-L] Electronic stereo and Schwann (was: Dubbed contemporary matrix questions (Columbia related).
Michael Biel
mbiel at mbiel.com
Sun Dec 28 05:00:32 PST 2008
Bertrand CHAUMELLE wrote:
> I disagree.
>
> Fake stereo appeared long before Schwann made a segregation between
> records.
>
But it was done selectively at that time. Stereo itself was selling
only a small percentage of all recordings, and practically nothing in
regular popular. But perhaps David and I should have been more
precise. We were discussing historic re-issues in an era when there
no longer was a dual mono / stereo inventory, but on;y one release that
was either mono or electronic stereo but not both. When we could chose
to get a mono copy it didn't matter what they did for the "masses" but
when the decision was made to issue only one version it did matter.
And then when the companies went back and deleted all dual-inventory
monos, the situation became worse. They should have chosen to delete
the electronic-stereo version, but this is where Schwann came in.
The Schwann interaction is complicated. In late 1968 they put all pop
records over two years old -- mono or stereo -- into the semi-annual
Supplementary. Eventually the dealers screamed that how could you take
all of the Beatles out of the monthly catalog? In 1970 Schwann also
moved the monos over, and that was at the same time when the dual
inventory was ending. Groups of my Schwanns are in boxes so I can't be
precise right now, but somewhere around 73 they put back all of the
older records into the monthly IF they were stereo. By this time most
of the companies had deleted the mono part of the dual inventory,
leaving us with only electronic stereo if there had been both. But when
Schwann returned the older stereo and electronic stereo issues to the
monthly, mono reissues were doomed because these were in the monthly
only if they were electronic stereo. Mono reissues immediately were put
into the semi-annual. By Spring 77 Schwann put the electronic stereo
back into Schwann Two alongside of the monos, and this is when the
companies stopped marking what the discs were. I started pinpointing
the specific issues when these things happened when I did my ARSC talk
on the history of Schwann a couple of years ago, and I realize now that
I might want to prepare it for publication and need to get access to any
of the issues I am missing in order to get this down to specific months.
> It was a German "innovation" almost as old as 45/45 stereo itself. The
> first RCA (e) appeared around 1961 (Toscanini)
Why do you claim it was a German innovation?? It was purely American.
R.D. Darrell the article about the three Toscanini LME discs -- I have
all three -- and the article was included as an insert. He describes
one of the mixing sessions, probably done in NYC. They sold practically
no copies. It took me years to find my third one.
> then it quickly spread
> to pop (Elvis), and to other labels (Capitol Duophonic...).
>
>
Not so quickly. Because of the dismal sales of the three LMEs, the
concept was almost abandoned. Its resumption was fueled by the record
clubs, and as I said, it was done very selectively at first, only to
things that were selling big in the record clubs like Belefonte's
Calypso, Perry Como Golden Hits, and a couple of the Elvis albums. One
of the reasons it was needed for things like these was that these
records were in the ads for new members and they did not want mono-only
discs in the ads so they could entice people into joining the stereo
division.
> In view of the stereo craze, record labels were anxious to make
> "obsolete" mono recordings more attractive to the public. So it wasn't
> public demand, but an anticipation of public demand !
>
What stereo craze? Even in the U.S. mono pop far outsold stereo until
the prices were equalized. Even mono classical was selling well until
then. In England in 1963 I had friends in the London area finding it
impossible to get stereo copies of some albums for me, and not all the
records were being issued in stereo versions -- even if they were issued
in real stereo in the U.S. And this was with the prices having always
been equalized for mono and stereo in England!
> I'm far removed from these things, being in France, but that's my view
> of the problem.
>
> BC
>
>
Those of us who were early adapters of stereo tend to forget that the
average customer did not rush to change over to stereo. And even when
they did, they were selective as to what they would spend the extra
dollar on. My brother-in-law is a perfect example. He put together a
fine stereo system but still mainly bought mono copies until stereo
didn't cost a dollar more.
> Le 28 déc. 08, à 07:04, Michael Biel a écrit :
>
>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 78-L mailing list
>> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
>> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 78-L mailing list
> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l
>
>
>
More information about the 78-L
mailing list