Funny That Way Fields Hmv Shellac

uem Member Offline Location: Horgen, Switzerland Posts: 67

Dear all, I know I'm probably re-hushing an old topic; but I wish some clarification Re: Recording date or rather the actual production date or age of a shellac records My sample: I've this Bluebird record B-10253, Jelly Roll Morton, where it states the recording date as 15. September 1926. The Discography of American Historical Recordings (DAHR), seems to confirms this. http://adp.library.ucsb.edu/index.php/objects/detail/58899/Bluebird_B-10253 However, I've got my doubts, whether my copy is really that old. If not : How was the music stored in those days ? – AFAIK, the tape or wire recorder was not available at that time. Any comments, corrections - or confirmation  ?? Thanks & Regards Urs

Logged

RR1957 Member Offline Age: 65 Location: Haarlem, Holland Posts: 3,499 Music!

Recordings were done on wax records. These wax records were stored. Emile Berliner (the inventor of the flat disk and founder of HMV) lost a lot of them when his archive burned down in the beginning of the twentieth century. There was a special table for the recording proces with weights to give a continuous speed. In fact this mechanism comes from the beginning of recordings and was used very long till recordings were done on tape, after the second WW. In the thirties the weights mechanism was changed by an electric motor. It was Bing Crosby who confiscated some Ampex taperecorders from the Germans and took them with him to America. Cutting machine 1938 for recording for shellac records (Ramie Union): Swiss mad Motosacoche S.A. model 2290 XD 1943 for recordings of 78's and 33,3's:

« Last Edit: May 03, 2015, 06:18:46 PM by RR1957 » Logged

uem Member Offline Location: Horgen, Switzerland Posts: 67	Rene, Thanks, That means the actual record could be (re-) produced quite some time after the stated recording date. And there were probably (countless)  re-issues, too. Urs
	Logged

Chris65 Administrator Member Offline Location: Auckland, New Zealand. Posts: 5,088

Wax records were not generally stored, if so, it was only for a short time. They were far too delicate & fragile to be preserved for long. Apart from the earliest recordings, a metal matrix was produced from the wax master, & this is what was stored. But, of course for how long?            Record companies came & went, artist's titles didn't sell, metal was needed during WWII, etc so many were re-used or simply destroyed. Emile Berliner actually used zinc masters so these could be stored & were destroyed in the laboratory fire in 1897. Some links with info: http://www.charm.rhul.ac.uk/history/p20_4_1.html http://www.normanfield.com/78manufacture.htm http://www.stokowski.org/Creation_of_Metal_Stampers_from_Wax_Masters.htm Just like Lp's, 78rpm discs would be re-issued if popular & there is often no way to date when a particular pressing was made. Sometimes a change in label design might date a disc to a particular era. In the case of your Jelly Roll Morton, it is a re-issue as Bluebird wasn't created until 1932, after Morton's commercial recordings had stopped (about 1930), the original recordings being on Victor. If you click on the Matrix No. in your link, it shows the original issue was on Victor 20221 as well as issues in other countries & later re-issues.

« Last Edit: May 04, 2015, 12:25:32 AM by Chris65 » Logged Chris "The Blues is the roots, everything else is the fruits" - Willie Dixon

RR1957 Member Offline Age: 65 Location: Haarlem, Holland Posts: 3,499 Music!

You are far more accurate in explanation than I was. I kept it too simple ( which I did on purpose, I didn't tell about the production of the records ). Indeed it is better to find this on Internet. Enough to look up about this subject. If customers wanted to buy records in the first decades when 78 records were on the market, they had to bring back their old and worn out records, which were recycled.

Logged

uem Member Offline Location: Horgen, Switzerland Posts: 67	Rene & Chris, Thanks again for this excellent summary. I need to get familar with these various databanks, labels and codes, etc... Urs PS: One of the fascinations of shellacs for me is the "historic aspect" - what was recorded when, and how old is the actuall copy I've got myself. (which may be way of the recording date, as I just learned !!) We call that "Kulturgut"   -   "cultural heritage"
	Logged

richardz Member Offline Location: Southern England Posts: 491

With 78s the original recording date is usually the most important factor in determining the correct stylus and EQ to use. But there were times when a new master was created by copying an older disc, especially when the original became damaged or worn out. Usually the then current groove shape and EQ would be used. Usually a new matrix number was issued, but not always. The most important detail is the matrix number written or stamped on the record. This is the key that will tell you who made the recording and when it was recorded, and from there the stylus and EQ. Records issued abroad would usually be pressed from stampers taken from the original master and mothers, so one master might serve many record companies around the world. About 1950, tape took over for master recordings and I don't usually regard 78s made from tape masters as artifacts, or really as historically of any real value in the way that the original directly cut records are. But they may have financial value to collectors or completists. Historic Masters are still issuing new 78s on vinyl pressed from stampers over a hundred years old I have a couple and they are a wonderful way of hearing a past age. There are lots of resources about to check the dates of master recordings. Regards

Logged It's good when it goes around to make a sound

Chris65 Administrator Member Offline Location: Auckland, New Zealand. Posts: 5,088

Hi Richard, You raise good points. In the case of the disc discussed by Urs, the Bluebird re-issue of the Jelly Roll Morton title is listed on the DAHR site (Discography of American Historical Recordings) as a 'dub'. That is the original metal matrix was not available & the disc was made using an ordinary 78rpm disc to create a new set of mothers & stampers. Would that carry the original Victor matrix number? or a new matrix number? I see on the DAHR site that Victor usually indicated dubbed 78rpm pressings by inscribing "S/8" in the ride-out area of the disc. Can you check Urs? just as a matter of interest.

Logged Chris "The Blues is the roots, everything else is the fruits" - Willie Dixon

stiften Member Offline Age: 65 Location: Denmark Posts: 946	This may be useful - or at least entertaining: All the best.
	Logged Hans Henrik Pedersen

uem Member Offline Location: Horgen, Switzerland Posts: 67	Fascinating video ! Some scenes  nearly remind me of my own past time as a chemical engineer in the Australian mining & bauxite processing industry…! Chris, no there is no such marking. On one side there is ,  beside the full label number  B-10253-A or -B edged into the ride out area,  a simple H and on the other a T, barley visible,  and a D. Urs
	Logged

richardz Member Offline Location: Southern England Posts: 491

Hi all, clues to whether it is a dubbing would include a lead in groove where there wasn't one on the original, I think they came in about 1935ish. The spiral locked groove might also give a clue due to it's position (earlier Victors tended to have the spiral start almost straightaway, later ones had a leadout to a smaller spiral). Mind you, lead-ins and locked spirals have been added to earlier masters, so it isn't always an infallible test. The joy of 78s

Logged It's good when it goes around to make a sound

richard Member Offline Location: Southeast Tennessee, USA Posts: 7,798

There is a lot about this subject that I don't know, but certain facts and stories stand out. One date that I recently learned was 1928: this was when electronic recording began. The use of microphones and electrical cutting equipment caused a profound change in the music. No longer was most recording limited to loud instruments. The reason why Enrico Caruso's shellac singing was accompanied by a band, and not an orchestra, was simply that the grouped stringed instruments were not loud enough to modulate the wax. In popular music (often called "jazz" and recorded by jazz players), there is the introduction of what sounds like a baritone sax, but on closer listening, is bassoon! And vibraphone. Balance between instruments is improved and singing is quieter, more natural. Crooners begin crooning. All this begins around 1927 (I think). I've heard that some time after electrical recording started, Columbia started making oversized master disks with sound being electrically transferred to release records. With this process, there was no need to mechanically copy the original master disk. In doing electrical copying in this way, record companies (at least Columbia) were able to precede one of the advantages of tape mastering, which came into use in 1950. The introduction of the LP in 1948, with the ability to capture uninterrupted long-form music, was a sea-change in classical music. Before that, "classical" recorded music often consisted of simple short bonbons that would fit onto shellac sides or long pieces chopped up into artificially-ended pieces. Quite simply, before the LP, the recorded classical music experience was awful. And it was the LP that allowed modern jazz, with its extended lengths, to propagate, too. This work was all direct-to-disk. Just two years later, tape was introduced, and with it, the ability to splice together recorded performances. Sometimes, continuity of long form music could suffer when excessive splicing was used. And I have been present at recording sessions in which the musicians' were instructed to alter their playing by the producer to facilitate later intended splices. I'm interested in the history of recording, but aesthetically, my recorded music interest really starts in 1948. Pop music can be fun but it only goes so far. My mind follows the intricacies and sustained development of long-form music. That's why classical (and some jazz) is where I live.

Logged Richard Steinfeld Author of The Handbook for Stanton and Pickering Phonograph Cartridges and Styli.

RR1957 Member Offline Age: 65 Location: Haarlem, Holland Posts: 3,499 Music!

Good story Richard. And I agree. But what I know electrically recordings started in 1925. My interests are in the period before it because it is a period of the first pioneering, struggling to get sound recorded. It is one of the most important inventions man ever made, accept for the wheel. For hundreds of years man tried to capture the human voice, even the old Greecs were a bit busy with this. In this the acoustical recordings are fascinating to me. Accept for jazz I am not so much interested in electrical recordings from 1925 till 1948, when vinyl started to come on the market. And then it starts again for me: pioneers work in recording for vinyl. My interests stop when stereo came on the market. For me stereo is just an artificial trick, specially when it is overused as is in the last decades in pop music. Just artificial effects. But when I was young I liked it too. Now I know better..... Music with extreme Left - right effects, even the piano is in stereo, is not natural for me. So for me it is not high fidelity, how good it even sounds. So I keep it mostly on the period 1948 till about 1962. Sometimes I make the joke it stops for me with Please Please Me of the Beatles. But of course there are a lot of exceptions. A lot of recordings are made in stereo but sound natural too in mono. All the music which is played or can be played acoustical is suitable for mono listening. I came to this when I visited the concert hall in Amsterdam a lot, a building with one of the the best acoustics all over the world. In this beautiful hall I found out for myself stereo is just noncence because here you do not hear the music in stereo.

« Last Edit: May 10, 2015, 01:26:45 PM by RR1957 » Logged

richard Member Offline Location: Southeast Tennessee, USA Posts: 7,798

René wrote, In this beautiful hall I found out for myself stereo is just noncence because here you do not hear the music in stereo. I agree. I have listened and performed in a number of different fine halls, each wonderful in its own way. And, of course, in some bad spaces. Even in the middle of an orchestra, the stereo effect is pretty diffused. I've recently listened to the Mercury mono recording (Dorati; Minneapolis Symphony) of Ravel's Daphnis and Chloe, which is the finest rendition that I have ever heard of this most difficult, elaborate work. This is with Mercury's classic single microphone technique. The amount of custom-made equipment listed for this record is impressive, as is the care and precision of the single microphone work. The company didn't attempt the full length of this work, nor with a chorus, in stereo. Mercury's stereo effect with two microphones is diffused, and it can be good. Stereo classical can be good, even with multiple microphones, and can make things distinct, but it's not concert-hall accurate. I can live with this as long as we're not claiming that accuracy, but with the instrumental timbres portrayed faithfully. That's damn hard to do. I think that there have been certain very exciting periods in music recording, with people pushing the boundaries to see what they could accomplish. The "jazzy-pop" of the late 1920s was one. I'm just thinking right now about Fats Waller recordings, pushing the envelope with bassoon, vibraphone, close vocals, backup vocal group work, ukalalie, and weird experiments with him on pipe organ: all stuff that just couldn't be captured in acoustical records. I think that there was another exciting experimental period like this during the early LP years, with another wave in the first few years of stereo LP. I think that something economic happened in the industry that caused a lot of the technical fun to vanish from the work, maybe during the early 60s. In my own recording industry work, I observed a lot of excellent quality, but it seemed that the fun had gone out of it. There was a wave of direct-to-disk recording for a few years, later, with the dramatic nervous energy that we'd expect to go along with that. I saw the automation and artifice begin in the pop field beginning around 1958. I could accept the production/artificiality in the Beatles because there was freshness, originality, and fun in their work (their early stuff was so cheap and dreary).

Logged Richard Steinfeld Author of The Handbook for Stanton and Pickering Phonograph Cartridges and Styli.

uem Member Offline Location: Horgen, Switzerland Posts: 67

Just got a few older shellacs recently. Beethoven's symphony no 3 and piano concerto no. 3 Symphony: by "The Symphony Orchestra", Conductor Albert Coates, recorded probably Oct 1926. Concerto:  Albert Schnabel, with the "Philharmonic Orchestra London", Dir. Malcolm Sargent, recorded probably Feb 1933. Both are HMV on 12 inch discs Besides the pleasure of having some "historical" records I realized, that I may have to acquire an additional skill: Repairing the albums, e.g. bookbinding or such !! A short listening gave an interesting musical  insight: Schnabel plays the concerto faster than  some of the more modern interpretations; however, I need to admit, that the speed of 78 may not be appropriate, and I'm not qualified to state, whether the pitch is correct. On the Symphony it does state 78 rpm. though I've got some of these 3.5 mil and  4. mil bigger stylus on order  - I wonder what effect these will have, as I make no secret: the records are well "run-in", meaning pretty noisy Urs

Logged

drewhichat.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.lencoheaven.net/forum/index.php?topic=20031.0

Share this post