[78-L] Widely separated matrix numbers..!

[David Lennick]

Victor? Victor began changing old matrix numbers to the new system! Not sure if 
this began in the 40s or early 50s, but masters from 1900 through the 1930s 
would have "retro" new numbers. Perfect example: C8-VB-0001..Artie Shaw's 1938 
"Indian Love Call" on an early 50s reissue.

dl

Royal Pemberton wrote:
> I wonder how late Columbia continued that old practice of keeping the same
> basic matrix number, just extending the take counts at subsequent re-make
> sessions?  (Was Victor still doing so that late too?  Did they discontinue
> it when they went to the alphanumberical combinations in 1942?)
> 
> On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 3:26 PM, David Lennick <dlennick at sympatico.ca> wrote:
> 
>> An object lesson in not estimating recording dates from matrix numbers,
>> even
>> when they're close to known ones (or adjacent to them!), has just played
>> itself
>> out here.
>>
>> The following two records, by cellist Gregor Piatigorsky, have consecutive
>> matrix numbers but were recorded TWO YEARS APART.
>>
>> XCO 25682/3 (11380-D)    HAYDN: DIVERTIMENTO IN D - January 8 1942
>>
>> XCO 25684/5 (69836-D)    SCHUMANN: FANTASIESTUCKE OP. 73 - January 17 1940
>>
>> Seems that good ol' Gregorovich did record the Haydn piece on January
>> 17/40,
>> and again in October that same year, but it took a third try..with a
>> different
>> pianist and in a different studio (Liederkranz Hall)..before they got it
>> right.
>>
>> This is a useful (if very slow) site for finding recording data. Not
>> perfect..I
>> found the above recordings listed there, including the unissued versions,
>> but
>> no take numbers shown.
>>
>> http://www.dismarc.org/index.php?form=index&db=0
>>
>> dl
>>
>>
>>