[ARSCLIST] Early stereo LPs: subject to mononuclearosis?

[Rob Bamberger <rbamberger@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I seem to recall hearing in the early 1960s (when I was a mere youth
developing an instinct that would, in due course, mistrust a
civilization that could come up with reprocessed stereo) that playing
stereo pressings on a monophonic record player would harm the stereo LP.
 Was this a myth?  At some point, stereo LP covers indicated that they
were mono-compatible. Was the prior warning meant to discourage people
from playing stereo records with their older, heavily weighted tonearms
and mono cartridges that would chew up the stereo groove?  

As a footnote to stereo "simulation," I bought a Design label LP of
what (I would later learn) were 1935 World Broadcasting transcriptions
by the Dorsey Brothers Orchestra.  On this LP, the music would
periodically shift from the left to the right and back again, leaving
only some muddy bass on the other channel. It took stereo simulation to
a whole new plain of time and space.

>>> lyaa071@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 08/24/06 1:28 PM >>>
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, steven c wrote:

> In going from a catalog "discography"/database (which lists the data
on
> SPECIFIC
> phonorecords) to a discographic database, you are assuming the
general from
> the specific...that is, you are assuming that every copy of Victor
12345
> is the same. This is usually...but NOT always...true; thus, there is
a
> caveat in making that assumption. As well, a catalog database may
(usually
> will) include data specific to the single copy of a phonorecord to
which
> it refers. For example, that specific copy is on a certain shelf in
a
> certain room of a cetain building, and cost its owner a specific
price.
> None of those facts would apply to EVERY copy of Victor 12345!

Reading the mention of price...I am reminded of the OCLC records I
have
encountered which have included not only the price the library may
have
paid for the item (or the cost listed on the item) and the barcode as
well.

 There are
> some facts which would apply to all copies (the artist, the label,
the
> number, the size, etc.) and some facts which would have to be
verified
> for each copy (the label design/variety, the take used, etc.)...the
former
> can be copied from a discographic database to a catalog database,
while the
> latter need (at least in theory) to be confirmed as correct for the
copy
> being catalogued.

Again, there is that point where the notion of an "average" user comes
into consideration. It seems to me that many with an interest in pre
microgroove recordings could very likely be interested in a take
number.
True, some, especially those new to research, might not even be aware
that
multiple takes were issued. So, would the inclusion of a take number
for a
MARC record of an early recording be as important to include as a
stamper
number for an LP.

> On the other hand, if your (or someone's) catalog database happens
to
> include a phonorecord for which no corresponding data record exists
> in a discographic database which should include it, you can copy the
> data for that specific phonorecord into the discographic database...
> and by doing so assume the data applies to EVERY copy of that
phonorecord.

I guess I don't see the need for the differentiation between catalog
and
discography. I understand the each can have its own functionalism, but
for
me, a discography is only a selective part of a catalog.

I believe we complicate finding information making such distinctions.

> And therein lies the problem! In practice, there is no such thing as
a
> "typical user." In fact, it's folks like me that are the *A*typical
users!
> For example, the person cataloguing the phonorecord holdings of a
> library may be thinking of "typical users" who are looking for
> current hit CD's...meanwhile, an Atypical user may be looking for
> "Chamber quartet works of the 18th century" and another looking
> for "recordings with Benny Goodman as sideman." Finally, I wander
> in looking for a recording which includes the alternate take of
> a given Ellington side, just to see whether it was ever reissued
> and if so on what CD label...and the vice-president in charge of
> cataloguing will be found in some secluded corner tearing out his
hair!

Well, actually my guess is that you will find the cataloger in some
corner
hidden by the piles of recordings needing cataloging, someone highly
trained in the rubics of AACRII and the MARC format, and less trained
in
the particulars of recordings. If however, from my perspective, one had
a
system that used the technology creatively (making the "rules"
transparent), it could open up the process to increased efficiency and
to
those with discographic knowledge.

> Agreed...and what fascinates me (and, in fact, has done so since
personal
> computers finally became reality) is the tremendous power these
machines
> have to help us organize and collect data!

Yes, and consider that the MARC format and the related methods for
data
entry haven't changed in over FORTY years! How many people do you know
who
are still using software designed 40 years ago?

> However, the problem is that at some point data entry has to be
done...
> and data entry, at least at present, requires human beings...but, at
> least ARSC could help standardize which data needs to be entered
(and
> into fields of what name and what approximate size, so somebody
> could in theory combine my catalog data with Joe Gabroni's catalog
> data...)

Well, that is what OCLC-RLIN tries to do. However, your catalog and
Joe's
won't work with theirs...they won't trust your "uncertified"
data...and,
as far as I can tell, they just aren't interested in thinking outside
of
their little box.

>From my perspective, a tragic loss to those who could find value in
that
information...and a tragic waste of already limited resources afforded
to
libraries.

Karl