[78-L] Alternate takes?

[Milan P Milovanovic]

Dear Julian and all the other members,

perhaps there are some more examples we can think of. I found such cases in 
some other sessions, but for really precise observation here is one with Ida 
Cox, from 1939. Breakdown take is market as V25511-5-Vo, while others are 
marked -4 and -6.

Probably there are some more separate breakdown takes that were 
electroplated and processed to test pressing, right?


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Julian Vein" <julianvein at blueyonder.co.uk>
To: "78-L Mail List" <78-l at klickitat.78online.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 1:13 PM
Subject: Re: [78-L] Alternate takes?


> On 17/05/12 03:19, Milan P Milovanovic wrote:
>> Alternate takes?
>>
>> Dear members,
>>
>> listening to jazz music a lot, I always wonder how alternate takes or 
>> breakdown takes survived till nowadays. OK, it is clear to me that after 
>> 1939 or so they used 16" lacquers for master recording machine (and later 
>> on they transfer successful takes to 10" discs).
>>
>> But, how about before that? Why on earth will anyone keep, electroplate 
>> and press non finished fragments - I think that it wasn't so cheap to do 
>> such processing? Also, was main purpose of getting alternate takes 
>> possibility to get another set of mother/father/stampers, or these were 
>> only to producer choice what to put on final finished record? I know 
>> about that Armstrong case where both takes were issued on various 
>> labels - but is it exception or there were some more examples of such 
>> procedure?
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>> Milan
>> _______________________________________________
>>
> I don't recall offhand any fragments that were processed before the 1939
> lacquers. If a performance was rejected on the spot (or was incomplete),
> didn't they shave the wax to reuse it?
> _______________________________________________
> 78-L mailing list
> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l