[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] Discographical puzzle
Here's some more information on Yale's copy, inserted in your comments.
At 12:03 PM 1/19/2008, you wrote:
On closer examination:
The label designs appear identical. However, the copyright notices differ:
The one lacking the takes says, "This Record (made by patented
process) must not be sold below price fixed by patentees"
The other says, "Copyright,patented Record. Not to be publicly
performed without license nor sold below price fixed by patentees."
****Yale's copy has this notice.
Both Faery Song sides say (A 3551) at the 9 oclock position on the label.
For The Minstrel, the one without the take says (A 3817) there. The
one with the take has "speed 80" and the matrix number without
parentheses is beneath the publisher's logo at the bottom of the label.
****Both sides of Yale's copy have matrix number without parentheses
at 6 o'clock on the label.
So much for them appearing to be identical labels at first glance.
I'm not an expert on the sequence of English Columbia labels, but
they seem to be from the post WW II era, my guess from having
handled many of them over the years.
****Yale's copy seems to me to be post WW 2, as well (relatively thin
pressing and general "appearance").
All four sides have the W in a circle in a position different from
that where the matrix number appers.
The copy without the takes has th R following the number on the label.
A3551, Faery Song, is preceeded by the W in a circle before the mx
no as well. On the other side, A3817, there is no W in a circle in
****Yale's copy has W in circle before each mx. no. and has no R on
either label -- to me the "no R" suggests late pressing.
On the copy with the takes, there is an R following the number on
the label on the Faery Song side but not on The Minstrel.
The circled W preceeds each matrix number in the dead wax.
The old single side number in the dead wax is
**** Yale's copy has the same numbers in the same postions. I very
much doubt that these recordings were ever issued single-sided, so
we might want to consider these numbers as side numbers.
Physical measuremnts from groove beginning to end is identical on both copies.
So it is with variable reluctance that I ask again, "what's going on
here?" Perhaps there are significant discographic clues that may
flow from this comparison, but can't figger out what they might be.
Is one a dub?
I recall a similar problem on some post-war English recorded
Parlophone Tauber discs but don't remember which ones fit into this
There may be some underlying factory practice at the root of this.
At worst, this should indicate earler or later pressings or,
perhaps, different factories. The sequence of labels should come
clear once the reason for the change in wording is learned.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Warren" <richard.warren@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 10:41 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Discographical puzzle
I've seen that before, too, and would guess that you have copies from two
different stampers, only one of which shows the take number. I suspect that
what that your copies tell us is that practices at the factory or factories
varied about what numbers got onto pressing parts. Perhaps the disc was
popular. Are there any differences in the labels of the two copies
? Any other
differences between the pressings (graininess of shellac ...) ?
Quoting Steven Smolian <smolians@xxxxxxxxx>:
My point is that of my two copies with thr R suffix, one has take
numbers and one doesn't. So how com?
In the larger sense, does this tell us anything we need to know
(discographically speaking) about English Columbia's matrix numbering policies?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Warren"
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Discographical puzzle
3546 [original, no -R] has matrices A 612 and A 1186 for Boughton
and Martin, respectively, published April, 1925 (apparently no
logs survive to tell rec. date)
3546-R [copy also at Yale] is as you list: matrices are as you
and the book about Columbia 10-inch discs agree, Boughton
recorded Aug. 26, 1926, Martin rec. Aug. 31, 1926. Columbias this
age do not usually show take numbers in the dead wax, so you're
lucky this one did on one side. The "R" does normally indicate a
remake or replacement.
At 11:04 AM 1/18/2008, you wrote:
I've two copies of English Columbia 3546 R. One side is The
Faery Song from Boughton's "Immortal Hour," matrix A
3551-5. The reverse is Easthope Martin's song, "The Minstrel,"
matrix A 3817-1. The singer is Philip Heseltine.
The "R" indicates "remake," as far as I can tell, and replaces
an earlier, idenical coupling.
One copy has the take number after the matrix number in the dead
wax, the other the matrix number only.
What's going on here? Is one a dub? Any idea?