[78-L] New Lead-ins and outs (was: label Info.)

[Michael Biel]

From: David Lennick <dlennick at sympatico.ca>

> I think Steve was referring more to dubs of black label Victors
> which were best sellers and where new parts were needed..not
> necessarily for the jukeboxes and for changers but just because
> the old parts were no longer serviceable. 

No, that is absolutely not what he was referring to. He SPECIFICALLY was
discussing masters which originally did not have lead in grooves or the
type of lead-outs that would meet the new standards for newer changers. 
Read what he said:

>> (RCA) Victor dubbed virtually ALL their reissues of 78rpm
>> material...apparently to allow the inclusion of run-in and
>> run-out grooving amenable to "record changers!"  [his ...]

That is TOTALLY different from what you describe:

> This applies to Dorsey and Shaw and Miller and Waller sides
> kept in print through the 40s, although in numerous instances
> Canada was able to continue pressing from the original parts. 

These Dorsey and Shaw and Miller and Waller sides DID have lead-in and
appropriate lead-out grooving.  He was not referring at all to worn
masters.  He was claiming incorrectly that Victor dubbed ALL their older
masters if they did not have those lead ins and lead outs.  He was not
discussing wear at all, only the lead-ins and lead-outs.  

> The post-war reissues of Red Seal and important black label discs
> for nostalgia sake often did manage to use originals, and often 
> alternate takes, but these weren't going to sell in large quantities.

Which again proves my point and totally invalidates Steve's contention
that Victor always dubbed their masters not because of wear, but because
of the lead-ins and lead-outs.  He was not discussing wear on masters,
which had always been a reason for dubbing all the way back into the
acoustical era when there were no lead-ins and lead-outs on Victors to
worry about.  And when they did start to add or change the lead-outs in
the 20s, the new lead-outs were NEVER was a reason for dubbing masters. 
And they were not a reason in the 30s, but that was Steve's contention.

> And Columbia DID dub all its reissues from about 1948 on.  dl

That also has nothing to do with Steve's contention that Columbia's
dubbing was done a decade earlier to all of their older masters because
of the smaller size pressings that Columbia was using in the late-30s. 
The pressings did not get any smaller in 1948 than they had been in
1939, so the size of the masters was not the reason for the 1948 change.
 By 1948 perhaps ALL Columbia 78s were dubs, and many of them had been
so since the early 40s.  

There are exceptions, of course, but Steve was saying that ALL or
Virtually all the reissues were dubbed for THAT reason -- size or
lead-outs.  But there had been occasional -- very few -- examples even
back to the acoustical era where a master had to be dubbed because of a
mistake that had been made in the recording in the size of the master. 
But it was not a problem with EVERY master as Steve seems to be trying
to convince us of.

Mike Biel  mbiel at mbiel.com 


Michael Biel wrote:
 From: "Steven C. Barr" <stevenc at interlinks.net>
>> Columbia's usual problem was that their 78 masters (Columbia and Okeh)
>> were too large to fit on their later (1939-onward) 78's, necessitating
>> dubbed sides on reissues! As well, (RCA) Victor dubbed virtually ALL
>> their reissues of 78rpm material...apparently to allow the inclusion
>> of run-in and run-out grooving amenable to "record changers!"
> 
> I hate to see "folklore" like this being posted on 78-L over and over
> and over, because it just is not true. Repeating it over and over and
> over (perhaps because you forgot you have posted it already) will not
> make it any more true than it wasn't the first time you passed this
> falsehood on. There are many 20s and early 30s original master Columbia
> and OKeh's on later Columbia pressings, and likewise there are many,
> many, many early original master Victors -- even operatic ACOUSTICALS --
> on 1940s and 1950s RCA Victor pressings. How else do you think Graham
> Newton did the red vinyl Heritage Series in the post war 40s? I've got
> 15-1001 sitting right in front of me and you can even see part of the
> handwritten info that extended outside of the smaller label area of this
> issue. It has "run-in and run-out grooving amenable to 'record
> changers'", and evidence where the original release number was shaved
> off or filled in on the master. Lead-ins and lead-outs were routinely
> grafted onto early masters over and over and over and over, etc. The
> records exist. STOP FEEDING US THIS FOLKLORE that can be easily refuted
> by the actual records. I know better, and Lennick knows better, but you
> are misleading the newbie who asked the question. YOU ARE JUST PLAIN
> WRONG. 
> 
> Mike Biel mbiel at mbiel.com 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "David Lennick" <dlennick at sympatico.ca>
>> And Columbia added new run-out grooves over top of the old ones on
>> brand new issues if they didn't think the groove ended close enough
>> to the label. Look at all those late 30s (into 1940 I think) LA recordings.
>>
>> The reverse stop-groove situation happens on German pressings of US
>> Deccas in the 30s (maybe on Brunswicks as well) where they added a
>> deep non-concentric "you vill stop" groove cutting through the original.
>>
>> I've seen evidence that run-out grooves were not cut in the original 
>> masters. Some Brunswick pressings of Polydor masters have no run-out
>> while the Polydors do, and I have two similar-era pressings of a
>> Raymond Scott disc that appear to be from the same master but have
>> different run-outs and no evidence of one being filled in. dl
>>
>> Charles Bihun wrote:
>>> Thanks for the heads up. ChuckB
>>>
> ________________________________
>>> From: Michael Biel <mbiel at mbiel.com>
>>> To: 78-L Mail List <78-l at klickitat.78online.com>
>>> Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2009 3:32:57 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [78-L] label Info.
>>>
>>> From: Charles Bihun <csintala79 at yahoo.com>
>>>> I pretty much have the technical facts down. I was told how
>>>> to tell if a reissue of a record from the 20s was from a
>>>> master or dubbed (the masters won't cut lead in grooves,
>>>> while a dubbed record will have them). ChuckB
>>> Don't be so quick. Unless you know that a specific reissue label does
>>> not add lead-in grooves, this is not a good indication. Most reissues
>>> in the late 30s and 1940s I know that used original masters, added
>>> lead-in grooves and often cut their new lead-out groove style right over
>>> the original lead-outs, sometimes making a rather confusing mess! While
>>> the lack of a lead-in is a dead give-away, I usually pay attention to
>>> the lead-out area.
>>>
>>> Mike Biel mbiel at mbiel.com
_______________________________________________
78-L mailing list
78-L at klickitat.78online.com
http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l