Re: [ARSCLIST] National Recording Preservation Board (NRPB) Study

["Copeland, Peter" <Peter.Copeland@xxxxx>]

Dear All,
    I'd like to add one halfpennyworth to Tom Fine's comment. Here in
Britain, the 78 versions incorporated "original" matrix-numbers, which
now that both E.M.I and (UK) Decca have bitten the dust, provide the
only way to date a commercial sound-recording. And because this side of
the pond was about five years behind your side of the pond, that is a
very significant tool.
Peter Copeland
Former Conservation Manager,
British Library Sound Archive.

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
Sent: 16 May 2006 11:10
To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] National Recording Preservation Board (NRPB)
Study

No, I think he was saying your argument is ludicrous since the 45RPM LP
is what he says is the best 
source. Therefore proving my point about late-era 78's, that in most
cases they will be the 
worst-case/worst-quality example and therefore are needed only as an
absolutely last resort.

In any case, I wasn't advocating dumpstering anything, just saying that
the late-era 78 material 
would not be what I'd take to a desert island or care about very much
unless, as I clearly stated 
has been the case a couple of times, that was the only extant source for
something.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Richter" <mrichter@xxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 2:11 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] National Recording Preservation Board (NRPB)
Study


> David Lennick wrote:
>> Mike Richter wrote:
>>
>>  Tom Fine wrote:
>>  > Well, one question immediately comes to mind. Who CARES about 78's
>>  > issued after the advent of tape (1947-48), unless the tape master
has
>>  > been lost? Even if only a good-condition LP exists (post-1948), it
is
>>  > almost guaranteed to sound better and have a wider
frequency/dynamic
>>  > range than the 78. So I ask again, who cares about what's gotta be
the
>>  > vast majority of late-era 78's? I mean, they might make a nice
novelty,
>>  > but they have little or no historical value since they're a
>>  > worst-case/obsolete-technology version of something.
>
>> Matter of fact, this argument is ludicrous. The only good-sounding
original issue of "South 
>> Pacific" was the 45-RPM set. The 78s are overmodulated, the first LP
pressings sound like short 
>> wave, the subsequent ones keep adding layers of echo, the CD issues
were a disaster, proving that 
>> Sony may own the rights and the original master but doesn't know its
acetates from a hole in the 
>> ground about what to do with them. Anyone want to challenge me on
this, meet me out back.
>
> I think David means that Tom Fine's position is ludicrous - since
David and I are in agreement. 
> <G>
>
> There is no reason to assume that the source materials still exist. I
know of at least one case in 
> which there are no masters for a series of substantial opera
recordings and that the publisher 
> does not even have clean copies of many of the LPs. (I've not yet
determined whether they are 
> without any copy of some titles.)
>
> The record companies (and film companies) have a shameful record of
failing to keep master 
> materials. Those that have been retained may not have been stored
adequately. I have often been 
> called on to supply transfers from my own copies for performers who
have been told that the 
> publisher has nothing from which to provide a copy.
>
> So it may well be that the reason recent issues of "South Pacific"
have had poor sound is that the 
> publishers no longer have copies of the 45s or of the tape from which
they were made.
>
> Mike
> -- 
> mrichter@xxxxxxx
> http://www.mrichter.com/

**************************************************************************
 
Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk
 
Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. www.bl.uk/adoptabook
 
The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled
 
**************************************************************************
 
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the postmaster@xxxxx : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. 
 
The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. 
 
**************************************************************************