[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] Westminster numbering question
They did.
They abandoned the 5000 series and put the catalog, often coupled with
additional selections, into the 18000 series. There were four reasons.
1. They remastered using the groove-cramming technolgy based on reading
heads that could find quiet, relatively bass-shy segments and move the
grooves closer together until the audio became louder/more bass heavy, thus
allowing for longer sides.
.
2. They could shift to RIAA equalization since that was now or about to
become industry standard.
3. They could cut 45/45 mono so the records wouldn't have only noise in the
vertical when played on stereo machines.
4. They also went to a thrift as well as a deluxe packaging system
packaging system a la Angel.
No. 1 also accounts for why many Period/Renaissance releases were redone
earlier, only they didn't change the catalog number. The Starker Kodaly
unaccompanied 'cello sonata originally occupied two LP side but later had an
extra selection added. The clearest example is the Renaissance "Pecheurs"
which went from three to two LPs, though it kept the same number. There
were some prefix variations but were inconsistently applied.
Steve Smolian
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Lennick" <dlennick@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 8:50 PM
Subject: [ARSCLIST] Westminster numbering question
Did Westminster's 18000 series have a couple of sets of numbers running
parallel, or did they actually manage to go through 300 numbers in 1956?
Or did they renumber a lot of older 5000 series titles at the same time?
NOBODY puts out 300 classical LPs in one year!!
dl
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database:
269.14.4/1056 - Release Date: 10/7/2007 6:12 PM