Re: [ARSCLIST] Early Polydor electrics, the depression, etc

["Steven C. Barr(x)" <stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "George Brock-Nannestad" <pattac@xxxxxxxx>
> Steven Smolian wrote (snipped)
>
> > I have no documentation to prove it but feel certain that the reason
> > Columbia made paralell recordings acoustically to their electrics, the
> > former issued on Harmony, was to cater to the old wind-up market.
> >
> ----- I have always thought that when Frank Andrews in his discography of 10"
> English Columbia records speaks about "electrical re-recording" in 1925 he
> means taking the acoustic record, playing it and creating a new electrically
> recorded master, while retaining the old catalogue number.  So I never
> thought that they were making parallel recordings
>
> ----- someone with a better collection than mine (or better finding aids) may
> be able to confirm this - there is a chance of a change in the background
> noise at the beginning of the electrical one (if in pristine condition)
>
> ----- on the other hand, I would prefer positive proof that parallel sessions
> were used.
>
Okeh...first, the Columbia recordings were NOT parallel recordings
to the same songs on Harmony. Usually, different artists were used
for the two versions, if nothing else!

Second...I can't say exactly to what extent Columbia remade its
popular acoustic discs in electric form...but, to the extent that
was done, I believe the electric versions were assigned a different
and current catalog number. That is the way Victor did it...with
the single exception of Dalhart's "Wreck Of the Old 97" which was
NOT renumbered when redone electrically.

And my guess (admittedly not based on my experience) would be
that when Andrews wrote of "electrical re-recording," he meant
recording new electrical versions...sometimes with the same
artist, and possibly sometimes not (?)...of "standards" that
they wanted to continue selling.

Steven C. Barr