[78-L] Electronic stereo and Schwann (was: Dubbed contemporary matrix questions (Columbia related).

[Bertrand CHAUMELLE]

Le 28 déc. 08, à 14:00, Michael Biel a écrit :

>
> Bertrand CHAUMELLE wrote:
>> I disagree.
>>
>> Fake stereo appeared long before Schwann made a segregation between
>> records.
>>
>
> But it was done selectively at that time.
***Right. But it would be useful to date precisely the whole thing. On 
the classical side, I don't have the references, I just remember  the 
French classical music magazine 'Diapason' reviewing (favorably) the 
electronically re-processed Toscanini.
I have kept a Schwann for each year beginning in May 1963. They list 
several Presley LPs, and several new (old mono, in fact) LSP(e) 
references were added the following years.

For instance, Elvis' first LP LPM1254 appeared as LSP1254 as early as 
February 1962. In fact all his mono LPs got the fake stereo treatment 
in the course of the 'sixties.
What about reel-to-reel stereo tapes? Were there fake stereo references 
among them at the time ?

> Stereo itself was selling
> only a small percentage of all recordings, and practically nothing in
> regular popular.
***What period are you referring to ? The late 'fifties ? the early 
'sixties ? the mid-sixties ? All I know is that compared to other 
countries (since you're talking about Britain), the American stereo 
market probably was the strongest. In France, there was some enthusiasm 
in 1959 but practically no sales and by 1963, some studios were 
recording in mono only; record labels were issuing the dealers 
instructions to "hide" the stereo discs.
In the States, stereo's progress was regular (even if you would qualify 
it as 'slow') and the dual-inventory a common fact. There was no stereo 
"crisis".

>   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.
****OK, but I think I have demonstrated that fake stereo itself wasn't 
a by-product of Schwann's policy.

>   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?
***OK, if you're talking about dealers vs. Schwann at that precise 
time, 1968, I follow you.
>  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.
***Well, as I said in reply to Chris Zwarg's mail, let's find out when 
the Toscaninis were released, and then compare that to the February '62 
Elvis.

>   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.
> ***However, at least one record club, Citadel, made it clear on its 
> lists if it was real or fake stereo.

>> 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.
***I would be really interested  to know the exact figures (in units). 
In August 1958, Sam Goody was already making 5 % of his sales in stereo 
and that's not bad...
>   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!
***That's right, all the American stereo releases weren't available in 
England. So, their stereo market was smaller. Same thing (but worse) in 
France. That's why I was saying that, compared to Europe, America was 
StereoLand.
>>

BC
>