Re: [ARSCLIST] Early stereo LPs: subject to mononuclearosis?

[Roger and Allison Kulp <thorenstd124@xxxxxxxxx>]

Over the years,I have passed up some mono Wing reissues.What of these ?
Roger Kulp

Tom Fine <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Hi Roger:

Don't be confused with mono versions of the stereo (post-late-1955) recordings. Mercury did keep the 
50000 series numbers, running parallel to the 90000 series stereo numbering, into the early 60's. 
Those mono records have the same sleeves as the stereo "first string" issue, but no stereo indicator 
across the top of the sleeve. They were made from the center (mono) mic feed, not some amalgam of 
the 3 mics like some labels did. In other words, those mono records, all the way into 1964, had 
their own unique method and quality-control system, so they are not afterthoughts or 
combined-from-stereo like others did. The late 50's reissues I speak of -- perhaps re-pressing is 
the more precise term -- are of the first 25 to 50 orchestral issues, records that were never made 
in stereo. As I said, the main purpose of the reissue was to cash in on a new wave of enthusiasm for 
high fidelity recordings and also to produce new factory parts and to get the entire catalog in 
compliance with the RIAA curve. I believe RCA and Capitol did similar programs with their very early 
hi-fi records. In all 3 cases (and probably Columbia too), some of the early titles had sold so well 
that the factory parts were simply worn out, so there was a good imeptus to modernize the product 
without repackaging or changing the cover art.  I think you'd call this a "soft rollout" for a 
product today.

-- Tom Fine

PS -- regarding the point of mono out of 1 speaker or two. This is an interesting question today and 
I'd be very interested what others think.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roger and Allison Kulp" 
To: 
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Early stereo LPs: subject to mononuclearosis?


> Tom,
>    I assume you mean the 35mm ones your mom did with Svatiaslav Richter.Killer stuff.I also think 
> the Mercury/Philips first pressings of the Szell/Concertebow,and London Monteuxs of the period,are 
> actually superior,to the European pressings of the  time.I have some of both.The US-pressed 
> Philips Mengelbergs of the time,are well worth seeking out,too.You mention RCA pressings.I have 
> quite a number of White Dog era,deep groove pressings of Deutshce Gramophon,and London Lps.(They 
> sound as good as you would think.)The latter,being both rock and classical,the former marked RCA 
> "Made in USA",at six o'clock,on the labels.Some of these DGGs have US cardboard covers,some have 
> the German.All are large "tulips",of course.I always thought these were record club issues.They 
> are some of the most underappreciated pressings of the period.
>   I have a couple of the late 50s/early 60s US Mercury pressings you speak of.They DO sound really 
> different.(They both have thier charms,IMHO.)The later ones I have, have photo covers like the 
> stereos,but retain the original 50000 series numbering.
>  Roger Kulp
>
> Tom Fine  wrote:
>  Yes, I think Philips did do a discount crapo label in the mid-60's, mainly to issue some of their
> old mono stuff in North America. Philips tried from Day One to establish a brand but they never
> really did it here. I notice that the Philips classical label has been dormant since Universal
> bought Polygram. London, Decca and DG continue to be active labels. The other one I could never
> understand is why Sony killed off Columbia Masterworks -- a very well-established brand -- and
> changed it to Sony Classics.
>
> On the other hand, Philips did some really fine jazz records under their own brand, moving Jack
> Tracy over from Mercury as soon as they took control. I'm speaking of the excellent Dizzy 
> Gillespie
> and Woody Herman records made in the early and mid-60s. And on their front-line (non-discount)
> issues, Philips whipped some good pressing knowhow into the Mercury plants. As you probably know,
> Mercury Living Presence was pressed by RCA due to Mercury's inability to meet the expected quality
> levels. The jazz, unfortunately, was pressed in-house. Philips took the classical pressing 
> in-house
> by late 1964, but they did a better job of it. Many Mercury titles remained in print until the 
> 70's.
> In fact, I just bought a used copy of Quincy Jones' 1964 "Plays Henry Mancini." The label and 
> vinyl
> quality were early 70's Mercury, in excellent condition. Sound quality was very good indeed. 
> Sleeve
> material was that late 60's/early 70's non-laminated paper over cardboard, not the first-issue
> litho/laminated stock Mercury used until about 1966.
>
> One more Mercury tidbit I recently discovered. As stereo LPs were dawning, before the format 
> reached
> a mass-market, but while there was sudden new attention to high-fidelity, Mercury went back and
> remastered and reissued the original MG5000 series mono records from the very early 50's. You can
> tell these reissues if the record title is printed on the spine of the jacket and if the inner 
> vinyl
> is stamped either P followed by a number (for George Piros) or JJ for John Johnson. The vinyl will
> also be more flexible than the 1951-53 thick/hard material. These versions generally sound 
> superior
> because RCA's pressing was fabulous by then and also because they were cut in real-deal RIAA curve
> (early 50's Mercury were AES curve, which was close but not RCA's New Orthophonic, which became
> RIAA). Also, the very first Mercury's, from 1951 and 1952, were before the excellent Miller cutter
> head with 200 watts of McIntosh behind it was used. So the net-net was more dynamic cutting, 
> quieter
> vinyl, genuine RIAA curve and the album title on the spine. It also might be true, but I'm not 
> 100%
> on this, that the tapes were played back on Ampex tape decks, which had better playback specs than
> the old Fairchilds.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "David Lennick"
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 8:07 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Early stereo LPs: subject to mononuclearosis?
>
>
>>I remembered another "compatible" label from the same people, something like Philips World Series.
>>Cut
>> very low level, or maybe only the Canadian pressings had this problem.
>>
>> dl
>>
>> Tom Fine wrote:
>>
>>> Wing was also a recession-fighter, introduced during the early 60's downturn. The series was
>>> discount price and cheaply packaged. Not all Mercury executives thought it was a good idea but
>>> the
>>> pop guys prevailed and the rack-jobbers loved it because they could stack 'em high and sell 'em
>>> cheap. Simulated stereo was just a bad idea on all fronts, but it prevailed up into the 70s.
>>> There
>>> were some interesting experiments done in a better reprocess method, both at Columbia Studios 
>>> and
>>> at
>>> Fine Recording. But it was costly -- book expensive studio time, set up an excellent full-range
>>> speaker in a nice live room like the 30th St. studio of the Ballroom and then play the mono
>>> material
>>> thru the speaker and record a stereo pickup to a new master. It actually works very well,
>>> especially
>>> with recordings originally made close-mic'd or in a dead room. But it begs the question, why
>>> bother.
>>> Just enjoy a well-mixed mono presentation. Electronic reprocess of mono into psuedo-stereo is a
>>> degradation 99+% of the time.
>>>
>>> -- Tom Fine
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low  PC-to-Phone call rates. 


 		
---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger?s low  PC-to-Phone call rates.