[Table of Contents]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ARSCLIST] Aren't recordings original sources?

From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad


I thought that Keith Hardwick had fortunately been forgotten - his shoddy 
work really messed things up during his "reign". Bryan Crimp was just as good 
as Anthony Griffiths - his Patti, Melba, and Rosenthal on LP were school 
examples of good transfer work of its period. The nearest equivalent to 
Hardwick's work is precisely to spell Bryan Brian.

It is so long ago, but Hardwick had a knack of boosting - sharply - the 
region around 4,500 Hz, and I would agree - with a hearing disorder stemming 
from a naval career giving you a dip in that range it would be the only thing 
he could do to get back the impressions of his youth. The rest of us 
suffered. The proof of my assertion is easily obtained: make a Long Term 
Average Spectrum of an original and a hardwickized version and subtract the 
two spectra.

And Hardwick did not work from old tapes for his LPs, he had pristine vinyl 
pressings made and kept the unplayed ones (you would never just press one 
after having gone throught the trouble of metalworks) for his own collection. 
Harwick's earlier work for smaller labels (EPs) was, relatively speaking, 
much better for their time. 

I rarely denigrate performances, people do the best they can, but some 
results are directly misleading and hence unethical. To use an expression 
borrowed from Sean Davies to cover the present case: Hardwick suffered from 
delusions of adequacy.

Kind regards,



> I strongly disagree.  The transfers of Brian Crimp which followed were even
> worse.  EMI transfers were mainly rubbish until Keith Harwick returned to 
> the fold.  However, he seems to have put everything through a Packburn.  His
> work on CD was mediocre, to say the least.  He was forced in many cases to
> work from old tapes (presumably made by Griffiths) rather than original 78s.
> With regard to Andrew Walters work noted by Don Cox, I would say this is 
> variable.  Not in the same class as Obert-Thorne and Marston, neither of 
> whom are really state of the art.
> Steve Abrams
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Robert J Hodge" <rjhodge@xxxxxxx>
> To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 3:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Aren't recordings original sources?
> And I still consider Anthony Griffith's transfers for HMV- especially
> Sir Edward Elgar's performances reissued on LP, to be first class!
> Without Exception, And Second To None!
> Unflinchingly Yours,
> Bob Hodge
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> [mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Don Cox
> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 4:21 PM
> To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Aren't recordings original sources?
> On 20/10/08, Clark Johnsen wrote:
> >
> > Quite so. But in my view there was another, earlier golden age,
> > roughly 1928-1936. Many of those records sound superb, when rightly
> > reproduced -- such as they never have been, in my experience, either
> > on LP or CD.
> >
> The transfers of jazz recordings from that period done by JRT Davies for
> labels such as Frog, Hep, and Retrieval sound superb on my equipment.
> Especially the Victors.
> I haven't heard quite such good transfers of any classical material,
> although Andrew Walter at EMI has done a few very good ones recently for
> the "Great Recordings of the Century" series.
> Regards
> -- 
> Don Cox
> doncox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents]