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.