Pristine release: The birth of Mercury's Living Presence
Andrew Rose
BARTOK Music for Strings, Percussion & Celesta - BLOCH Concerto Grosso No. 1
Pristine Audio PASC 201
The Chicago Symphony Orchestra
conducted by Raphael Kubelik
with George Schick (piano obbligato)
Recorded 1951
Transfers and XR remastering by Andrew Rose at Pristine Audio, November 2009
Total duration: 51:52
�2009 Pristine Audio.
http://www.pristineclassical.com/LargeWorks/Orchestral/PASC201.php
* BARTOK Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta
Recorded Orchestra Hall, Chicago, 24th April, 1951
* BLOCH Concerto Grosso No. 1 for String Orchestra and Piano Obbligato
Recorded Orchestra Hall, Chicago, 23rd April, 1951
Both recordings issued as Mercury MG 50001
Sample: http://tinyurl.com/PASC201
(Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta, 4th mvt, 224kbps Ambient Stereo)
--
Andrew Rose
Pristine Classical: "The destination for people interested in historic
recordings..." (Gramophone)
td
Hmmmmmm.
You should know that these recordings have been released on CD in
Japan from the mastertapes.
TD
Bob Lombard
Should we know that their release in Japan has particular significance
to Westerners? I.e. does that release make the recordings readily (or
even reasonably) available? Since AR's release - transferred from the
LP - is legal in France, is there anything worthy of consideration
beyond sound quality?
You are free of course to consider these questions as harassment, Tom,
but I am interested in your sentiments regarding them.
bl
td
You are never harassing, Bob. It's simply not in your DNA.
The items in question - ALL of Kubelik's CSO recordings on MLP - were
issued in Japan (they said only 500 copies were made of each) by
Philips Japan.
There is no question that WCF's transfer of a few of these recordings
were better, but the Japanese transfers weren't bad, I would say. The
point is that anyone with these CDs would provide a far superior
source than any LP AR could put his hands on. They are all out of
copyright, Bob, so fair game for any interested parties. I would have
thought, incidentally, that the world no longer divides itself into
Westerners and Easterners, Bob. As far as music on CD is concerned,
the world is completely flat.
TD
Bob Lombard
Thanks for the considered response, but...
1. The 'ready or at least reasonable availability' of CDs issued and
distributed only in Japan, even if not limited to 500 copies, does not
achieve compliance with the Global Village concept.
2. AR cannot (nor can any other unlicensed party) use *any* CD as a
source. They are all too recent.
So, Joe Schmoe in Oshkosh can either locate LP copies or download the
music from AR. Those limited edition Japanese CDs are beyond his reach.
bl
AN
> So, Joe Schmoe in Oshkosh can either locate LP copies or download the
> music from AR. Those limited edition Japanese CDs are beyond his reach.
>
> bl-
And Joe Schmoe in the UK isn't fleeced for import duty and taxes,
making such a purchase economically silly.
MiNe 109
Bob Lombard <thorste...@vermontel.net> wrote:
> So, Joe Schmoe in Oshkosh can either locate LP copies or download the
> music from AR. Those limited edition Japanese CDs are beyond his reach.
What about the Amazon mp3 store?
Stephen
td
I cannot imagine it is that hard to secure such copies.
>
> 2. AR cannot (nor can any other unlicensed party) use *any* CD as a
> source. They are all too recent.
What is the prohibition? Are you suggesting that such CDs have
established a "new copyright"?
>
> So, Joe Schmoe in Oshkosh can either locate LP copies or download the
> music from AR. Those limited edition Japanese CDs are beyond his reach.
Joe Schmoe in Oshkosh doesn't even know how to spell Rafael Kubelik,
doesn't know or care who he was or what he did, and probably doesn't
even have a CD player.
TD
Rugby
> Joe Schmoe in Oshkosh doesn't even know how to spell Rafael Kubelik,
> doesn't know or care who he was or what he did, and probably doesn't
> even have a CD player.
>
I knew Joe Schmoe, and you're no Joe Schmoe !
Rugby
Andrew Rose
I would personally argue (and comments from many of our customers would
appear to back me up) that the benefits of the remastering I've been
able to bring to this far outweigh the much narrower sonic arguments
over LP versus master tapes.
There are major tonal flaws in the original recordings which I've
endeavoured to correct, which - in my opinion - are far more fundamental
than the differences between the sound of the master tapes and the LP issue.
I have no illusion that this is a controversial opinion that many will
disagree with - which is why I persist in offering large chunks of our
own output for free download, listening and comparison.
If you don't like it, or don't think it does anything to improve the
recording, please - don't buy it.
But a lot of people do like it a lot, it would appear, as an ultimately
unfulfillable (due to lack of time on this Earth) in-box of requests
would appear to suggest...
Matthew�B.�Tepper
be typed in news:2c32f5e3-580c-4b3c-b3ae-d2832949dea2
@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
Considering that "schmo" seems to be a U.S. variant of "schmuck," you might
want to rethink that statement.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Bob Lombard
> Rugby <steve...@gmail.com> appears to have caused the following letters to
> be typed in news:2c32f5e3-580c-4b3c-b3ae-d2832949dea2
> @k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Nov 21, 4:51 pm, td <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Joe Schmoe in Oshkosh doesn't even know how to spell Rafael Kubelik,
>>> doesn't know or care who he was or what he did, and probably doesn't
>>> even have a CD player.
>> I knew Joe Schmoe, and you're no Joe Schmoe !
>
> Considering that "schmo" seems to be a U.S. variant of "schmuck," you might
> want to rethink that statement.
>
Nope. Joe Schmoe is a variant of Joe Doaks, a 'short subjects'
character you are too young to remember. Turned out that Doaks is a
real family name, so....
bl
Steve de Mena
> AN wrote:
>> On 21 Nov, 18:28, Bob Lombard <thorsteinnos...@vermontel.net> wrote:
>>
>>> So, Joe Schmoe in Oshkosh can either locate LP copies or download the
>>> music from AR. Those limited edition Japanese CDs are beyond his reach.
>>>
>>> bl-
>>
>> And Joe Schmoe in the UK isn't fleeced for import duty and taxes,
>> making such a purchase economically silly.
>
> I would personally argue (and comments from many of our customers would
> appear to back me up) that the benefits of the remastering I've been
> able to bring to this far outweigh the much narrower sonic arguments
> over LP versus master tapes.
That's not the real argument. The real argument is what could someone
of the likes of you or a Mark Obert-Thorn do with the master tape,
versus what you could do with an LP.
Steve
Ward Hardman is an asshole. Ward Hardman is an idiot. Ward Hardman is a psycho. Ward Hardman is a useless turd. Ward Hardman is a Group Destroyer. Ward Hardman is a Troll. Ward Hardman is a Spammer.
Ward Hardman is an asshole. Ward Hardman is an idiot. Ward Hardman is a psycho. Ward Hardman is a useless turd. Ward Hardman is a Group Destroyer. Ward Hardman is a Troll. Ward Hardman is a Spammer.
Anti-Troll-01
Thread-Mender
Andrew Rose
Speaking for myself and not for Mark I can only say that would depend
entirely on the material and the preservation of both. What I'm trying
to suggest here is that the differences between the two would often be
so relatively minor - in a best-case scenario - that the advances to be
made in many cases to recordings made in the early to mid 1950s far
outweigh the marginal differences between master tape and vinyl.
All too often master tapes are seen as the be-all and end-all in this
kind of discussion. Well, they certainly would have been in, for
example, 1951, but those original master tapes have now suffered
58-years of gradual but inevitable deterioration, both magnetic and
physical.
Where this leaves them, sonically, compared with a near-mint vinyl
pressing of the same, is questionable. In both cases we're talking about
what was then still quite new technology, and there'll be as many poor
pressings as there are disintegrating tapes.
But the chances are that in this era the biggest obstacle to honest
reproduction is likely to be the microphone(s) and other recording
equipment. Fixing the fundamental tonal flaws inherent in recordings can
bring far greater benefits than the theoretical and probably marginal
differences between a well-restored vinyl transfer and a well-restored
tape transfer.
Bob Harper
see Andrew able--economically--to work with the master tape. But as
we've noted here ad nauseum, that does not appear to be possible. So
whether his work with an LP is or is not superior to the existing CD
made from the master *is* a real question. I have the MLP CD of the
Bartok MSPC. I may just break down and get Andrew's version so I can
burn a CD of it for comparison. Should be interesting, though I
entertain no illusion that a positive verdict on my part will convince
either you or TD of the value of Pristine's work.
Bob Harper
Andrew Rose
Can I just reinforce my own argument a little by suggesting that
correcting what I analyse to be a tonal aberration of approximately 8dB
centred around 5.5kHz (too high on the original) and a similar amount
centred around 75Hz (too low) in the original master and to be heard
both on the LP and the 'official' Mercury CD transfer of this particular
recording again far outweighs the much more subtle differences one would
expect to find between tape and vinyl.
I've seen this same discrepancy on both the Bloch and the Bart�k on the
LP, analysed independently against very different reference recordings,
as well as on the Bart�k issued on Mercury's CD (I don't have the Bloch
on a CD transfer). This, in my opinion, is where I should be focussing -
fixing this is where the major gains are to be had.
And if there's one flaw I love, it's an elevated treble. Sorting this
out by equalisation will inevitably result in reduced hiss without
needing to resort to any significant digital noise reduction.
So take your pick - a transfer of an exhausted 58-year-old tape which
has a badly skewed tonal response leading to weak bass, overly strident
treble and an excess of hiss, or something that sounds cleaner, clearer,
more believable, and packs a real percussive punch.
I'm not claiming perfection - I don't believe it exists in this field -
but I think the opening here sounds pretty damn good, and a significant
improvement on the Mercury CD:
td
Glad to hear it!
TD
td
> If you don't like it, or don't think it does anything to improve the
> recording, please - don't buy it.
Happy to oblige.
TD
td
Correct.
TD
td
You would say that, wouldn't you, specially as you seem too lazy, too
cheap, or perhaps just too stubborn to license one and find out for
yourself.
This blanket attack on the quality of mastertapes - together with the
concomitant elevation of the poor LP to the status of an "original
source" - is entirely self-serving.
Can you imagine the outrage if the majors were to start dubbing LP
copies and selling them as "remasterings"
td
td
> LP, analysed independently against very different reference recordings,
> on a CD transfer). This, in my opinion, is where I should be focussing -
> fixing this is where the major gains are to be had.
>
> And if there's one flaw I love, it's an elevated treble. Sorting this
> out by equalisation will inevitably result in reduced hiss without
> needing to resort to any significant digital noise reduction.
>
> So take your pick - a transfer of an exhausted 58-year-old tape which
> has a badly skewed tonal response leading to weak bass, overly strident
> treble and an excess of hiss, or something that sounds cleaner, clearer,
> more believable, and packs a real percussive punch.
Just play the tape.
Leave me - or the consumer - to fiddle with the sound should he or I
wish to do so.
And if you can't play the tape, get thee to a nunnery!
TD
William Sommerwerck
How do you know that?
Frank Berger
> td wrote:
>> On Nov 20, 9:20 am, Andrew Rose <and...@pristineaudio.com> wrote:
>>> New release today:
>>>
>>> BARTOK Music for Strings, Percussion & Celesta - BLOCH Concerto
>>> Grosso No. 1 Pristine Audio PASC 201
>>>
>>> The Chicago Symphony Orchestra
>>> conducted by Raphael Kubelik
>>> with George Schick (piano obbligato)
>>> Recorded 1951
>>>
>>> Transfers and XR remastering by Andrew Rose at Pristine Audio,
>>> November 2009 Total duration: 51:52
>>> �2009 Pristine Audio.
>>>
>>> http://www.pristineclassical.com/LargeWorks/Orchestral/PASC201.php
>>>
>>> * BARTOK Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta
>>> Recorded Orchestra Hall, Chicago, 24th April, 1951
>>>
>>> * BLOCH Concerto Grosso No. 1 for String Orchestra and Piano
>>> Obbligato Recorded Orchestra Hall, Chicago, 23rd April, 1951
>>> Both recordings issued as Mercury MG 50001
>>>
>>> Sample:http://tinyurl.com/PASC201
>>> (Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta, 4th mvt, 224kbps
>>> Andrew Rose
>>>
>>> Pristine Classical: "The destination for people interested in
>>> historic recordings..." (Gramophone)
>>>
>>> www.pristineclassical.com
>>
>>
>> You should know that these recordings have been released on CD in
>> Japan from the mastertapes.
>>
>> TD
>
> Should we know that their release in Japan has particular significance
> to Westerners? I.e. does that release make the recordings readily (or
> even reasonably) available? Since AR's release - transferred from the
> LP - is legal in France, is there anything worthy of consideration
> beyond sound quality?
>
> You are free of course to consider these questions as harassment, Tom,
> but I am interested in your sentiments regarding them.
>
The Japanese release, which I bought for a pretty penny on Ebay a few years
ago, has been OOP there for a long time, if I am not mistaken, so Deacon's
observation has no relevance anyway.
I have the MSPC on 3 different Mercury releases. The Japanese one with the
Bloch (one of my favorite recordings of anything), and two U.S. releases,
one with Dvorak 9 (475686) and one with Pictures at at an Exhibition
(434378). I have no idea if these all sound the same or not.
td
wrote:
> > So take your pick -- a transfer of an exhausted 58-year-old tape...
>
> How do you know that?
The question will remain unanswered. He doesn't.
TD
td
wrote:
But not "unavailable", Frank.
A determined buyer will manage just fine, specially one who wants to
make money from it.
> I have the MSPC on 3 different Mercury releases. The Japanese one with the
> Bloch (one of my favorite recordings of anything), and two U.S. releases,
> one with Dvorak 9 (475686) and one with Pictures at at an Exhibition
> (434378). I have no idea if these all sound the same or not.
One has to ask the question, then why you are bothering to comment.
TD
Norman Schwartz
>>> So take your pick -- a transfer of an exhausted 58-year-old tape...
>>
>> How do you know that?
>
> The question will remain unanswered. He doesn't.
Add to that an "exhausted 58-year-old tape" _deck_?
O
<2e9082f7-b50a-4739...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, td
<tomde...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > That's not the real argument. �The real argument is what could someone
> > of the likes of you or a Mark Obert-Thorn do with the master tape,
> > versus what you could do with an LP.
An argument that is essentially moot, not knowing the quality and
condition of either source. Certainly a well engineered master tape
should have more sonic quality than an LP, but back in the the 60's and
70's, the engineers who produced the sounds from the master tapes to
put them on LP's were truly wizards, and the sound on the master tape
might not have the benefit of their expertise in getting the sound they
knew they could get on an LP.
-Owen
td
> In article
> <2e9082f7-b50a-4739-8976-eddbab1a8...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, td
>
> <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > > That's not the real argument. The real argument is what could someone
> > > of the likes of you or a Mark Obert-Thorn do with the master tape,
> > > versus what you could do with an LP.
>
> An argument that is essentially moot, not knowing the quality and
> condition of either source. Certainly a well engineered master tape
> should have more sonic quality than an LP, but back in the the 60's and
> 70's, the engineers who produced the sounds from the master tapes to
> put them on LP's were truly wizards, and the sound on the master tape
> might not have the benefit of their expertise in getting the sound they
> knew they could get on an LP.
No need for wizzardry.
Just basic competence.
That said, fewer and fewer engineers have the slightest acquaintance
with tape decks these days. Those who do are probably working for the
majors, I should think, who still own millions of mastertapes.
TD
O
<c19a81fd-1738-463b...@x31g2000yqx.googlegroups.com>, td
<tomde...@mac.com> wrote:
> On Nov 22, 1:23�pm, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <2e9082f7-b50a-4739-8976-eddbab1a8...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, td
> >
> > <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > That's not the real argument. �The real argument is what could someone
> > > > of the likes of you or a Mark Obert-Thorn do with the master tape,
> > > > versus what you could do with an LP.
> >
> > An argument that is essentially moot, not knowing the quality and
> > condition of either source. �Certainly a well engineered master tape
> > should have more sonic quality than an LP, but back in the the 60's and
> > 70's, the engineers who produced the sounds from the master tapes to
> > put them on LP's were truly wizards, and the sound on the master tape
> > might not have the benefit of their expertise in getting the sound they
> > knew they could get on an LP.
>
> No need for wizzardry.
>
> Just basic competence.
For whatever is lacking, despite three remasterings, our modern day
engineers working from master tapes can't match the sound I can hear on
my LP copies of the Serkin/Szell Brahms Concerti.
>
> That said, fewer and fewer engineers have the slightest acquaintance
> with tape decks these days. Those who do are probably working for the
> majors, I should think, who still own millions of mastertapes.
The purpose of those tape decks was ultimately to get a good sound on
an LP. I don't know if there were any adjustments or equalization done
to the master tapes that would compensate for that, or if all the LP
sound adjustments were made in the process from master tape to record
cutter. Perhaps others with more knowledge than I could talk about
what they did to adjust sound to the LP's playback curves and what
other tricks they did to get the great sounds of the recordings of the
60's and 70's.
-Owen
Dave Cook
> For whatever is lacking, despite three remasterings, our modern day
> engineers working from master tapes can't match the sound I can hear on
> my LP copies of the Serkin/Szell Brahms Concerti.
Which pressings? I think I have these in a gatefold set around here
somewhere, but nothing like 6-eye or 2-eye pressings. I do have a
2-eye of the Serkin/Ormandy 2nd concerto which is lovely sounding.
Dave Cook
O
<dave...@nowhere.net> wrote:
I have a double LP set on Columbia Masterworks where I haven't heard
yet a CD remastering approach the sonic presence. Most of the CD's I
hear sound muddier and much more tame.
-Owen
Andrew Rose
>> So take your pick -- a transfer of an exhausted 58-year-old tape...
>
> How do you know that?
>
Because I've heard Mercury's CD transfer of it.
td
>
>
>
> <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 22, 1:23 pm, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <2e9082f7-b50a-4739-8976-eddbab1a8...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, td
>
> > > <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > That's not the real argument. The real argument is what could someone
> > > > > of the likes of you or a Mark Obert-Thorn do with the master tape,
> > > > > versus what you could do with an LP.
>
> > > An argument that is essentially moot, not knowing the quality and
> > > condition of either source. Certainly a well engineered master tape
> > > should have more sonic quality than an LP, but back in the the 60's and
> > > 70's, the engineers who produced the sounds from the master tapes to
> > > put them on LP's were truly wizards, and the sound on the master tape
> > > might not have the benefit of their expertise in getting the sound they
> > > knew they could get on an LP.
>
> > No need for wizzardry.
>
> > Just basic competence.
>
> For whatever is lacking, despite three remasterings, our modern day
> engineers working from master tapes can't match the sound I can hear on
> my LP copies of the Serkin/Szell Brahms Concerti.
Neither those versions nor the Ormandy concertos were ever given
proper treatment by Sony. You must know that. Those were very early
transfers, part of the Peter Munves era at Sony: sell the mess for
less.
td
> > That said, fewer and fewer engineers have the slightest acquaintance
> > with tape decks these days. Those who do are probably working for the
> > majors, I should think, who still own millions of mastertapes.
>
> The purpose of those tape decks was ultimately to get a good sound on
> an LP.
Wrong.
Recording engineers wanted and sometimes got the best sound possible.
The compromises came not in the recording itself but in the transfer
to LP. Which is why LP-based transfers are inherently flawed, of
course.
I don't know if there were any adjustments or equalization done
> to the master tapes that would compensate for that, or if all the LP
> sound adjustments were made in the process from master tape to record
> cutter.
You should perhaps try to find out before making silly statements,
then.
Perhaps others with more knowledge than I could talk about
> what they did to adjust sound to the LP's playback curves and what
> other tricks they did to get the great sounds of the recordings of the
> 60's and 70's.
Yes. A little more knowledge would help. Actually, a lot more
knowledge would be even better, but I would not hold out any hope of
your acquiring that.
TD
td
Actually, the Ormandy set is far more interesting than the Szell set,
which is, as usual, driven mercilessly.
TD
td
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
> >> So take your pick -- a transfer of an exhausted 58-year-old tape...
>
> > How do you know that?
>
> Because I've heard Mercury's CD transfer of it.
Perhaps it was just the clapped out transfer producer!
HA HA HA HA
Now Mr. Rose is impugning WCF in her prime.
Quel toupet!
TD
DublinKevin
understand they could not economically licence master tapes for the
small runs they specialise in. But I have a question.
Was it not industry practice to not only make a mater tape, but from
this make a "cutting master" or some such name?
I am not alking about the RIAA eq curve, but the recognition that
elements of the sound might cause difficulties for pick-ups, etc. From
what I've heard I get the impression that the extremes of frequency
were compressed/limited. I also get the impression that the antiphase
or L-R signal in stereo recordings -- which would result in verticle
excursions of the groove -- were also compressed/limited and also
possible re-equed.
The point is then that any dubbing from an LP would be of this
"cutting master" not the original master. Whilst in principle it
appears relatively straightforward to smooth out peaks and troughs
from microphones or even cutters with modern digital techiques, it
seems altogether more difficult to undo the frequency specific dynamic
shaping inherent in the "cutting master". The process of compression
and limiting introduces a number of time variables which enormously
complicate the issue even on a pure theoretical plane.
If this is correct, the master tape would therefore represent, other
things being equal, the purer source. Of course I accept that with
ageing of tape, etc, other things are not always equal.
This is by way of a question to those who might know, not a criticism
of the necessary compromises those engaged in the industry engage in.
td
It was always a habit for MLP to use the actual mastertape in the
production of each LP master. They had an unedited second set of
session masters should anything untoward happen to that edited master.
But most companies did not pursue this idea, as the wear and tear on
the original masters was too great, specially if the recording became
successful. So, a "production master" was made, from which the LPs
were cut.
It is possible that the MLP in question was not cut from the original
masters; that would be impossible to tell. And if a CD was generated
from this recording, the likelihood is that the second unedited
mastertape might have been accessed if the original edited master was
too worn.
Andrew Rose cannot tell anything about which master was used for the
production of the resulting CD from the CD itself, of course, despite
his claims, which are inevitably self-serving and self-promotional.
Indeed, the man is a walking talking promotion machine. That he shills
here with impunity is a disgrace to the forum itself.
TD
O
<5038cc12-7c2c-4acf...@p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, td
<tomde...@mac.com> wrote:
So who owns the mess now - still Sony?
-Owen
Anonymous
Wipe all that egg off of your face, stupid man!
Percy
Mr. Mike
wrote:
>Andrew Rose cannot tell anything about which master was used for the
>production of the resulting CD from the CD itself, of course, despite
>his claims, which are inevitably self-serving and self-promotional.
>
>Indeed, the man is a walking talking promotion machine. That he shills
>here with impunity is a disgrace to the forum itself.
I just did a search on Google for
greatest sounding classical recordings of all time
because I wanted to make some sarcastic post about how Andrew Rose
would soon be "improving" some famous recordings, such as can be found
on this list:
http://www.high-endaudio.com/supreme.html#Div
But what is the first item that I see on the page where results from
this Google search are displayed?
www.pristineclassical.com/index2.html
!!!!!!!!!
(I have no axe to grind with AR, but I did find this rather
"pe-culiar"... ":-)
wagnerfan
Mr. Mike" <m...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:f7dlg5pdcvtich3v1...@4ax.com...
Who the hell cares what that old fool Deacon thinks??- this doddering,
bitter old crud can't tell one performance from another so why should his
opinions about "masters" matter to anyone????? and talk about promotions -
the way Deacon promoted the Hatto frauds is hysterical!!!! Wagner Fan
Gerard
Very peculiar it is not, because the page contains the searched words, mostly in
the title:
"The Greatest Recordings - The Finest Sound"
(I found it as the 3rd item, not the 1st)
This is no "rating" or valuation. It's a search for words.
Mr. Mike
<ghen_nospam_driksen�@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Very peculiar it is not, because the page contains the searched words, mostly in
>the title:
>
>"The Greatest Recordings - The Finest Sound"
This is true ... but there has to be a reason why this appears first
in the list.
Maybe the WWW designer at AR's site used really good keywords or
something.
Gerard
The only reason is the way Google works.
It does not appear so high in the list because they have the greatest recordings
and the finest sound, but because those words are on the page and because the
search was for searching sites with those words.
There are some more reasons, but they are also 'search technical'; it's not
because Google "thinks" that Pristine has the greatest recordings and the finest
sound. Google does not know anything about recordings and sound - actually in
this aspect Google is not different from Ansimaniac.
Note that Ansimaniac is *not* found by this search!
Also not when searching for:
greatest sounding classical recordings of all time ansermet
Mr. Mike
<ghen_nospam_driksen�@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The only reason is the way Google works.
>It does not appear so high in the list because they have the greatest recordings
>and the finest sound, but because those words are on the page and because the
>search was for searching sites with those words.
>There are some more reasons, but they are also 'search technical';
Take the expression
Hawaii Five-O (o, not zero)
If you search this in Google, you should find my own site (The Hawaii
Five-O Home Page) second or third in the list. This has nothing do
with just "the words on the page" but with other things including the
fact that this site has been around for 14+ years and presumably
because I use a lot of keywords. There are other "regional" factors
too ... when I look at this page, my site is #2, but other people in
other cities reported it was #3.
AR's site has been around only a bit less than 5 years, but I doubt if
it is the only instance in the world that has the words that I was
searching for.
Furthermore, if you look at the search terms ("greatest sounding
classical recordings of all time") at the top of the Google page, you
will see:
These search terms are highlighted: classical recordings all time
These terms only appear in links pointing to this page: greatest
sounding
This suggests there is a lot of "technical" mumbo-jumbo behind Google
searches.
Steve de Mena
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:27:13 +0100, "Gerard"
> <ghen_nospam_driksen�@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The only reason is the way Google works.
>> It does not appear so high in the list because they have the greatest recordings
>> and the finest sound, but because those words are on the page and because the
>> search was for searching sites with those words.
>> There are some more reasons, but they are also 'search technical';
>
> Take the expression
>
> Hawaii Five-O (o, not zero)
>
> If you search this in Google, you should find my own site (The Hawaii
> Five-O Home Page) second or third in the list.
Oh wow. My all-time favorite TV program!! I have visited that site
many times.
Steve
Gerard
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:27:13 +0100, "Gerard"
> <ghen_nospam_driksen�@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The only reason is the way Google works.
> > It does not appear so high in the list because they have the
> > greatest recordings and the finest sound, but because those words
> > are on the page and because the search was for searching sites with
> > those words.
> > There are some more reasons, but they are also 'search technical';
>
> Take the expression
>
> Hawaii Five-O (o, not zero)
>
> If you search this in Google, you should find my own site (The Hawaii
> Five-O Home Page) second or third in the list. This has nothing do
> with just "the words on the page" but with other things including the
> fact that this site has been around for 14+ years
I don't think that this (age of a site) is a factor for Google.
But see below.
Anyhow, "the words on the page" are very important.
You can test this by removing some words (some other words, of course - but some
"exclusive" and very typical words) by which you can find your site easily. You
have to find out which words there are (before removing, of course).
After removing you'll have to wait a few weeks, until Google's spider has come
along. By trying to search for those words you'll notice when that has happened.
The results will be really different.
It helps if you use some words nobody uses (because you've invented them).
Probably not an easy thing :)
>
> and presumably
> because I use a lot of keywords.
Those keywords are *only* useful if I am searching for them. But in this case
I've searched only for what you've asked me to search for.
>
> There are other "regional" factors
> too ... when I look at this page, my site is #2, but other people in
> other cities reported it was #3.
If you mean this site:
http://www.mjq.net/fiveo/
- this was #1 (when using "Dutch" Google).
>
> AR's site has been around only a bit less than 5 years, but I doubt if
> it is the only instance in the world that has the words that I was
> searching for.
>
> Furthermore, if you look at the search terms ("greatest sounding
> classical recordings of all time") at the top of the Google page, you
> will see:
>
> These search terms are highlighted: classical recordings all time
>
> These terms only appear in links pointing to this page: greatest
> sounding
>
> This suggests there is a lot of "technical" mumbo-jumbo behind Google
> searches.
The highlighting (Google's) happens when the searched terms are found in the
title.
The ranking by different search machines might be very different. And the policy
behind the rankings is not always clear; only part of it is published.
An important factor with Google is how many times a site (or page) is 'linked
to'.
(But there are other important factors I've forgotten.)
I know about a good (I think) example:
search for: classical budget
You will see around 9,080,000 hits.
One of those is the first -- of course ;-)
But why is that someone's homepage? And why is #3 (Presto Classical) not #1 -
while it has the same "keywords" (in this case the title words work as
keyworks)?
Maybe Presto Classical even is a sponsor of Google, or has payed for a higher
ranking (I don't know).
A very important reason (the main reason I suppose) is that a lot of other
websites contain links pointing to that specific homepage - and probably not so
many websites have links pointing to Presto Classical.
BTW Naxos comes #41 - the serached words are in the text (of a page), and not in
the keywords of the Naxos page.
BTW2 You have really *way too many* keywords.
Most of those are 'hawaii 5-0' terms, combined with very usual words. I don't
think these keywords help.
Maybe they don't harm either, at this moment. But Google might change it's
policy every week. There have been times when too many keywords could result in
"blocking" the page: exclude it from search results. The best thing is using
keywords that are distinctive or characteristic for your site. Words like
"song", "theme", "ringtone", "drum", "travel", "friend", "guide", "tv", "dvd",
"intro" etcetera are not distinctive at all. They will not be helpfull for
better search results.
You could test how removing 95 % of those keywords will result in better or
worse search results.
(Only after Google's spider has come along you will notice any difference of
course.)
weary flake
(with quotes) and pristine classical is fourth place, edged out
by NPR (without following the link):
March 26 -- The 1968 recording of this song by Cass Elliot and The
Mamas and the Papas ... and why it is now considered a touchstone
of late-20th-century classical music. ... "4:33" speaks to the
nature of sound and the musical nature of silence. ..... In 1999,
Time magazine named it the best piece of the century. ...
[sorry, feeling googley. must now fry black pudding for lunch.)
ansermetniac
td
Of course.
But frankly, I think that the Ormandy recordings are now in the public
domain.
TD
O
<d79d9806-258d-4177...@m11g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>, td
<tomde...@mac.com> wrote:
In England, yes, and maybe Canada. Weren't those Szell recordings done
circa 1966 or so? And possibly remastered in the early 70's for the
2-fer LP set?
But if the transfers to CD were lousy, as we both agree, then a new set
could be made from the master tapes, which would carry its own
copyright.
I think that New York decision on the common-law copyright keeps all
recordings out of the public domain in the US until that magic year
when they all become available.
-Owen
Matthew�B.�Tepper
to be typed in news:231120091516278379%ow...@denofinequityx.com:
> In England, yes, and maybe Canada. Weren't those Szell recordings done
> circa 1966 or so? And possibly remastered in the early 70's for the
> 2-fer LP set?
>
> But if the transfers to CD were lousy, as we both agree, then a new set
> could be made from the master tapes, which would carry its own
> copyright.
>
> I think that New York decision on the common-law copyright keeps all
> recordings out of the public domain in the US until that magic year
> when they all become available.
But here in the U.S., Congress will no doubt enact further legislation
(introduced by my representative, Howard Berman, who is actually beholden to
Warner Brothers and Disney) which will push that magic year to 802,701.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Bob Lombard
>
> I think that New York decision on the common-law copyright keeps all
> recordings out of the public domain in the US until that magic year
> when they all become available.
>
> -Owen
I think not. It would have to be tested in other states, maybe go
through the Federal appeals process. Simon may be able to influence a
ruling.
bl
td
See previous paragraph. I think you will find that Ormandy was the
conductor discussed.
>
> But if the transfers to CD were lousy, as we both agree, then a new set
> could be made from the master tapes, which would carry its own
> copyright.
>
> I think that New York decision on the common-law copyright keeps all
> recordings out of the public domain in the US until that magic year
> when they all become available.
Actually, it is mostly to do with photographs, as I read it.
TD
O
Lombard <thorste...@vermontel.net> wrote:
> O wrote:
>
> >
> > I think that New York decision on the common-law copyright keeps all
> > recordings out of the public domain in the US until that magic year
> > when they all become available.
> >
> > -Owen
>
> I think not. It would have to be tested in other states, maybe go
> through the Federal appeals process.
I think it was a Federal Appeals Court ruling which was carefully
written so that the points could be applied to other states which had
similar common-law copyright, which also means that the ruling would be
the only case law available on the subject, which means you have to
show it doesn't apply, vs. starting from a clean slate.
> Simon may be able to influence a
> ruling.
I'm sure he's working on it! :-)
-Owen
Rugby
Here's what one chap tried to argue in court unsuccessfully about his
Beatles copies:
Regards, Rugby
O
<173dc318-b34b-4247...@o31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, td
<tomde...@mac.com> wrote:
My point was that the Szell recordings may have been done early enough
to also qualify in England.
>
>
> >
> > But if the transfers to CD were lousy, as we both agree, then a new set
> > could be made from the master tapes, which would carry its own
> > copyright.
> >
> > I think that New York decision on the common-law copyright keeps all
> > recordings out of the public domain in the US until that magic year
> > when they all become available.
>
> Actually, it is mostly to do with photographs, as I read it.
Maybe you've read a different one, but the one I'm referring to is the
Naxos case. From
http://www.theiplawblog.com/archives/49555-print.html:
The dual system of copyright protection resulted in court decisions
that were difficult to harmonize.#160 In 1971, Congress amended the
Copyright Act of 1909 to expressly include sound recordings within the
classes of artistic and intellectual works entitled to federal
copyright protection.#160 However, the amendment was a prospective
only, so recordings created before February 15, 1972 - the effective
date of the amendment - were not protected by federal law.#160 The
states would have jurisdiction over pre-1972 sound recordings until
February 15, 2047 - 75 years after the effective date of the 1971
amendment.
The court in Capitol, having determined that New York common law is not
pre-empted by federal Copyright with respect to pre-1972 works, then
turned its attention to whether the works being in the public domain in
the United Kingdom would have an affect on the protectability of the
works in the United States.#160 Naxos' entire defense relied on the
presumption that the expiration of the works' copyright term in the
United Kingdom terminated any copyright protection in the United
States.
Naxos' position was not without support.#160 The Berne Convention and
the Universal Copyright Convention both recognize the "Rule of the
Shorter Term," which generally provides that the term of copyright in
the nation where a work is first published should be applied by other
nations that would grant a longer period of protection.#160 These
treaties have the force and affect of federal law. However, neither
treaty applies the Rule of the Shorter Term to sound recordings; sound
recordings fall under the Phonograms Convention.#160 And then, this
provision applies only to recordings fixed after March 10, 1974, the
date this treaty became law in the United States.
The Capitol court came to the reasoned conclusion that neither federal
statutory nor Constitutional law prohibits the states from providing
common-law protection to artistic works that are in the public domain
in the country of origin.#160 The Court found no justification under
New York law for substituting the British copyright term in place of
New York's common-law protection, which would continue until federal
preemption occurs in 2047.#160 As such, although the works had fallen
into the public domain in the United Kingdom, Naxos sale of the
recordings in the United States infringed Capitol's copyright.
-Owen
O
<ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
> In article <0dDOm.262466$Jp1.2...@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com>, Bob
> Lombard <thorste...@vermontel.net> wrote:
>
> > O wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I think that New York decision on the common-law copyright keeps all
> > > recordings out of the public domain in the US until that magic year
> > > when they all become available.
> > >
> > > -Owen
> >
> > I think not. It would have to be tested in other states, maybe go
> > through the Federal appeals process.
>
> I think it was a Federal Appeals Court
!!!Sorry New York Court of Appeals! How silly of me!
-Owen
Mr. Mike
<ghen_nospam_driksen�@hotmail.com> wrote:
>BTW2 You have really *way too many* keywords.
>Most of those are 'hawaii 5-0' terms, combined with very usual words. I don't
>think these keywords help.
>Maybe they don't harm either, at this moment.
I think most of the keywords came from Google itself (from Google
Adsense, for example).
There may be some duplication, which Google doesn't like.
Oh well, at least I am #1 in Holland. ":-)
Gerard
That's right. What else do you want :)
But seriously: try it once with all you keywords thrown out, some really *key*
words excepted - and see what will happen.
Here you cannot score better. But possibly it will stay the same.
A question: do you know if other sites have links pointing to your site?
Mr. Mike
<ghen_nospam_driksen�@hotmail.com> wrote:
>A question: do you know if other sites have links pointing to your site?
You can see this by going to Google and entering
But there are not as many as I would have expected.
For example, from my page, you can link to another Five-O site which
is
http://www.thejacklordconnection.com
On that page there is a link back to me (using the standard link).
But this link is not included in the above Google listing for some
reason.
Bob Harper
(snip)
> The Capitol court came to the reasoned conclusion that neither federal
> statutory nor Constitutional law prohibits the states from providing
> common-law protection to artistic works that are in the public domain
> in the country of origin.
This may have been a *reasoned* conclusion, but was it a *reasonable*
conclusion? I suspect most of us (except, obviously, TD) would argue
that it was not. Since the practical effect is close to zero for the
consumer (we simply buy the forbidden fruit from overseas), are not
Capitol and the other companies which no doubt support the decision
guilty of Dog-in-the Mangerism? In other words, cui bono?
Bob Harper
(snip)
O
<bob.h...@comcast.net> wrote:
> O wrote:
> (snip)
> > The Capitol court came to the reasoned conclusion that neither federal
> > statutory nor Constitutional law prohibits the states from providing
> > common-law protection to artistic works that are in the public domain
> > in the country of origin.
>
> This may have been a *reasoned* conclusion, but was it a *reasonable*
> conclusion? I suspect most of us (except, obviously, TD) would argue
> that it was not.
It certainly was a reasonable conclusion, and it is well worthwhile to
read the decision. The court went back to the 1500's in basing its
opinions and based all of its conclusions on previously established
law.
The opinion (and it isn't that long) is at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2005/2005_02570.htm
> Since the practical effect is close to zero for the
> consumer (we simply buy the forbidden fruit from overseas), are not
> Capitol and the other companies which no doubt support the decision
> guilty of Dog-in-the Mangerism? In other words, cui bono?
It really does affect us. The law effectively limits Naxos from doing
a lot of its best business in the US. In addition, it affects all
other companies from releasing what is still copyrighted material in
New York. And since all states but California have a common law
copyright, it's likely that this decision would easily be adopted by
other states as well.
-Owen
Bob Harper
thought. Too bad.
Bob Harper
Gerard
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:18:40 +0100, "Gerard"
> <ghen_nospam_driksen�@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A question: do you know if other sites have links pointing to your
> > site?
>
> You can see this by going to Google and entering
>
> link:http://www.mjq.net/fiveo
>
> But there are not as many as I would have expected.
I see 29.
That's not bad. Is it? Probably it is.
But I don't think this is a properly functioning feature.
When I tried to do this for the site that can be found by searching for
'classical budget', I found only one other site! At a second try however I found
144 other sites. And with an older address even 612.
If you try:
link: http://www.mjq.net/fiveo
(using a space between 'link:' and the address)
you will find *2280* other sites!
How can this be?
Probably the site you mention below is among them (but after the first 160
entries I've stopped looking for it).
But this explains it all! If 2280 others sites are pointing to yours, your site
will always have a high rating with Google. And you can throw out your keywords
(the really distinctive ones excepted).
>
> For example, from my page, you can link to another Five-O site which
> is
>
> http://www.thejacklordconnection.com
>
> On that page there is a link back to me (using the standard link).
>
> But this link is not included in the above Google listing for some
> reason.
Wait a minute!
I did not notice this before. But now I see at the bottom of your page "Ads by
Google".
I think that this is also very relevant.
I wanted to do some experiment by making a copy of your page on that site about
"classical budget" and see what will happen when it is an exact copy (with a
link to it), or when it is stripped from its keywords.
But the reason for the high ranking has been found now, I think: the linking by
others is very high.
td
> In article <uBFOm.2820$mn3....@en-nntp-03.dc1.easynews.com>, Bob Harper
>
> <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > O wrote:
> > (snip)
> > > The Capitol court came to the reasoned conclusion that neither federal
> > > statutory nor Constitutional law prohibits the states from providing
> > > common-law protection to artistic works that are in the public domain
> > > in the country of origin.
>
> > This may have been a *reasoned* conclusion, but was it a *reasonable*
> > conclusion? I suspect most of us (except, obviously, TD) would argue
> > that it was not.
>
> It certainly was a reasonable conclusion, and it is well worthwhile to
> read the decision. The court went back to the 1500's in basing its
> opinions and based all of its conclusions on previously established
> law.
>
> The opinion (and it isn't that long) is at:
>
> http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2005/2005_02570.htm
>
> > Since the practical effect is close to zero for the
> > consumer (we simply buy the forbidden fruit from overseas), are not
> > Capitol and the other companies which no doubt support the decision
> > guilty of Dog-in-the Mangerism? In other words, cui bono?
>
> It really does affect us. The law effectively limits Naxos from doing
> a lot of its best business in the US.
Wrong.
Naxos doesn't make that much on the Historical line. It's a prestige
item, I think. Their core business is the new recordings.
TD
Mr. Mike
<ghen_nospam_driksen�@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Wait a minute!
>I did not notice this before. But now I see at the bottom of your page "Ads by
>Google".
>I think that this is also very relevant.
This is indeed relevant ... I never thought of this.
I found this out myself when I created a blog on blogspot.com (which
is owned by Google).
If you put Google ads on your page (an option), then suddenly words in
your blog will be found by searching in Google.
If you don't have ads, it is seemingly not searched by Google ... or
maybe your page >is< found, but it's WAY down in the resulting list.
Gerard
The site I told about (classical budget) has no Google ads. But it is at the top
of the Google search list because of those links.
You can experiment yourself (by removing the ads - and wait until the spider has
come along; or by removing the keywords; or by removing both).
Did you find those 2280 others sites which are pointing to yours?
Simon Roberts
says...
That's because you didn't include any typos.
Simon
Andrew Rose
I look forward to the day I employ a "WWW designer", let alone have the
time to figure out Google's rating system...
--
Andrew Rose
Pristine Classical: "The destination for people interested in historic
recordings..." (Gramophone)
david gideon
<b2bd4421-89ca-42b9...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, td
<tomde...@mac.com> wrote:
> What is the prohibition? Are you suggesting that such CDs have
> established a "new copyright"?
This is my understanding. All CDs (in the USA at least) are
automatically copyrighted even if they forget to put on the (P) symbol.
The results of the editing/remastering/encoding process is considered
to be copyrighted work product.
And though I often disagree with you, I think you are correct about the
superiority of mastertape sources. While it may be theoretically
possible for an extraordinary lp transfer to best a one taken from a
mastertape, the tape transfer would have to be pretty poor and/or the
tape itself significantly degraded for those stars to align properly.
LP sources can sound pretty good (I do my best to make them so) and
open-reel releases are even better. But neither should be expected to
equal the sound of a cd transfer from the mastertape. I don't even try
to compete with such transfers as I don't think it's right to do so.
dg
--
CD issues of long-unavailable classic performances from Scherchen, Stokowski,
Paray, Steinberg, and more, exclusively from: http://www.rediscovery.us
ReDiscovery radio internet stream: http://www.rediscovery.us/Listen.html
Kerrison
> In article
> <b2bd4421-89ca-42b9-b831-24d36c611...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, td
>
> <tomdedea...@mac.com> wrote:
> > What is the prohibition? Are you suggesting that such CDs have
> > established a "new copyright"?
>
> This is my understanding. All CDs (in the USA at least) are
> automatically copyrighted even if they forget to put on the (P) symbol.
> The results of the editing/remastering/encoding process is considered
> to be copyrighted work product.
>
> And though I often disagree with you, I think you are correct about the
> superiority of mastertape sources. While it may be theoretically
> possible for an extraordinary lp transfer to best a one taken from a
> mastertape, the tape transfer would have to be pretty poor and/or the
> tape itself significantly degraded for those stars to align properly.
> LP sources can sound pretty good (I do my best to make them so) and
> open-reel releases are even better. But neither should be expected to
> equal the sound of a cd transfer from the mastertape. I don't even try
> to compete with such transfers as I don't think it's right to do so.
>
> dg
>
> --
You say that all CDs are "automatically copyrighted" and that the
results of remastering etc. are "considered to be copyrighted work
product" (considered by whom, incidentally?). Yet that statement
completely contradicts the article by Tony Kent on Sound Recording
Copyright where, he says, such an assumption "has yet to be tested in
the courts."
The copyright dates either from the date of the recording itself or
its publication date, but there is, according to Kent, no new
copyright in a CD which is itself just a copy of an old recording, no
matter how much time and effort went into remastering it. So if
someone issued a copy of a CD already issued by EMI or Sony, those
companies would have to go to law and establish a new legal precedent
which states that a brand new copyright exists in their new
transfers.
But the problem there is that the judgement could well go against them
and simply confirm the copyright law as it currently stands in respect
of the original recording date. In which case, EMI or Sony would be
landed with a massive legal bill and a lost case.
Incidentally, this issue is quite a different situation from the EMI
versus Naxos one of some years ago, as the Kent article explains ...
but please read it for yourself! ... The Section in question is headed
Copyright in Remastered Sound Recordings ...
O
<bfee0abe-ca5d-4e90...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
Kerrison <kerrison1...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
By the US government.
> Yet that statement
> completely contradicts the article by Tony Kent on Sound Recording
> Copyright where, he says, such an assumption "has yet to be tested in
> the courts."
According to the article, he seems to assume the UK courts.
>
> The copyright dates either from the date of the recording itself or
> its publication date, but there is, according to Kent, no new
> copyright in a CD which is itself just a copy of an old recording, no
> matter how much time and effort went into remastering it. So if
> someone issued a copy of a CD already issued by EMI or Sony, those
> companies would have to go to law and establish a new legal precedent
> which states that a brand new copyright exists in their new
> transfers.
In the US, at least, there is no need to do so.
>
> But the problem there is that the judgement could well go against them
> and simply confirm the copyright law as it currently stands in respect
> of the original recording date. In which case, EMI or Sony would be
> landed with a massive legal bill and a lost case.
Which is why many cases never do go to court.
The law is a composite of international treaties, national laws, state
laws, and even common-law.
-Owen
td
It is
> And though I often disagree with you, I think you are correct about the
> superiority of mastertape sources. While it may be theoretically
> possible for an extraordinary lp transfer to best a one taken from a
> mastertape, the tape transfer would have to be pretty poor and/or the
> tape itself significantly degraded for those stars to align properly.
> LP sources can sound pretty good (I do my best to make them so) and
> open-reel releases are even better. But neither should be expected to
> equal the sound of a cd transfer from the mastertape. I don't even try
> to compete with such transfers as I don't think it's right to do so.
It is heartening to read these words. Steve de Mena will also be
pleased that this point has been made. We have both been vilified by
the hoi polloi in this forum for even suggesting that mastertapes are
the obvious best choice for sourcing old recordings.
TD
td
Surely the point is that a copy of an out of copyright recording which
has been released by the original owner while still under copyright,
or even after the copyright has expired, is said to have established a
new copyright.
I have no indication that such copyrights have been tested in the
courts.
Perhaps you have examples of where it has been successfully defended?
If not, it's just a claim, not a fact established in the courts.
TD
William Sommerwerck
> pleased that this point has been made. We have both been vilified
> by the hoi polloi in this forum for even suggesting that mastertapes
> are the obvious best choice for sourcing old recordings.
I always preferred tape to LP, and still do. Unless the tape has been
physically damaged -- or exposed to strong magnetic fields -- it should be
in good shape. (The only "natural" deterioration is a slow self-erasure of
the high frequencies.)
However... I have the Masterworks Heritage edition of "La Boheme", recorded
in 1948. As far as I can tell, it's sourced from the 16" master disks
Columbia used before switching to tape. The sound is unbelievably clean and
transparent, unquestionably "better" than the sound of the "Ehrwartung" tape
recording of three years later.
I realize there are all sorts of factors affecting the final sound of a
recording. But the "Boheme" simply does not sound like a disk recording --
it sounds like tape.
O
<b0a1d277-3c3f-470b...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, td
<tomde...@mac.com> wrote:
Such a work would be classified as a "derivative work" and a pretty
good discussion of the issues involved would be at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work
Case law in all copyright cases is still rather dodgy, especially since
sound recordings have their own set of circumstances, but the above
article probably sums up the state of the art.
-Owen
td
Wiki is not a reliable source for much of anything.
The only thing that would certify the opinion that there is a "new
copyright" established is a case in the UK and the USA which
established precedence. I don't think such a case exists.
TD
Charles Milton Ling
not the hoi polloi
--
Charles Milton Ling
Vienna, Austria
The Historian
No, "the hoi polloi" is correct in English. See the Act One Finale of
Gilbert and Sullivan's Iolanthe.
pianomaven
What can possibly be the distinction?
I have heard and used "the hoi polo" my entire lifetime and never have
I seen it employed without the article "the". Never naked. Never with
an "a".
Perhaps you are speaking of the Chinese use? I am not writing Chinese,
so I follow English usage.
TD
Bob Lombard
Hah! Next time, Tom, just use 'the plebeians', and avoid this sort of
thing.
bl
--
Music, books, a few movies
LombardMusic
http://www.amazon.com/shops/A3NRY9P3TNNXNA
William Sommerwerck
> not the hoi polloi
> What can possibly be the distinction?
Hardly a major one. But almost every noun in English is preceded by an
article. I don't speak Greek, but in English we would say "the common
people", not "a common people". The latter doesn't make much sense.
pianomaven
> On 7/18/2010 6:13 PM, Charles Milton Ling wrote:
>
> > On 27.11.2009 14:45, td wrote:
>
> >> It is heartening to read these words. Steve de Mena will also be
> >> pleased that this point has been made. We have both been vilified by
> >> the hoi polloi in this forum for even suggesting that mastertapes are
> >> the obvious best choice for sourcing old recordings.
>
> >> TD
>
> > hoi polloi
> > not the hoi polloi
>
> Hah! Next time, Tom, just use 'the plebeians', and avoid this sort of
> thing.
Lol
You must be joking, Bob. Why give up the use of a perfectly fine
expression.
Research indicates that there is widespread disagreement on the use of
hoi polo. Apparently Mt. ling favours one use. I, another.
TD
pianomaven
wrote:
You have to be a native English speaker to grasp that concept.
TD
Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in news:915ea97a-6ec1-42f1-95b7-
f96065...@j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> On Jul 18, 6:13 pm, Charles Milton Ling <cml...@teleweb.at> wrote:
>>
>> hoi polloi
>> not the hoi polloi
>
> No, "the hoi polloi" is correct in English. See the Act One Finale of
> Gilbert and Sullivan's Iolanthe.
A Greek remark. (And actually, it is written in Greek in the text.) While
that is the English usage, it is not correct Greek, since "hoi" (actually
"oi" preceded by an aspiration) is the definite article plural here.
Besides, a Greek these days would pronounce it "ee pollee." (Accenting the
last syllable.)
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
***** War is Peace **** Freedom is Slavery **** Fox is News *****
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in news:DhL0o.552659$rq1.116400@en-nntp-
02.dc1.easynews.com:
> On 7/18/2010 6:13 PM, Charles Milton Ling wrote:
>>
>> hoi polloi
>> not the hoi polloi
>
> Hah! Next time, Tom, just use 'the plebeians', and avoid this sort of
> thing.
Or he could just say exactly what he means, which is, "the scum of the Earth,
namely those who are not me."
ivanmaxim
> Bob Lombard <thorsteinnos...@vermontel.net> appears to have caused the
> following letters to be typed innews:DhL0o.552659$rq1.116400@en-nntp-
> 02.dc1.easynews.com:
>
> > On 7/18/2010 6:13 PM, Charles Milton Ling wrote:
>
> >> hoi polloi
> >> not the hoi polloi
>
> > Hah! Next time, Tom, just use 'the plebeians', and avoid this sort of
> > thing.
>
> Or he could just say exactly what he means, which is, "the scum of the Earth,
> namely those who are not me."
>
> --
> Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
> Read about "Proty" here:http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
> To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
> ***** War is Peace **** Freedom is Slavery **** Fox is News *****
> Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers
Yes I thought that was a given!. Wagner Fan
pianomaven
You would, Dickey, but we make allowances for your inferiority complex
as well as for all your it her charming characteristics and phobias.
TD
graham
"Terry" <bo...@clown.invalid> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C869DF2A...@news.tpg.com.au...
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 08:23:34 +1000, The Historian wrote
> (in article
> <915ea97a-6ec1-42f1...@j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>):
>
and since he didn;t write the words, his opinion is worthless.
Graham
The Historian
> following letters to be typed in news:915ea97a-6ec1-42f1-95b7-
>
> > On Jul 18, 6:13 pm, Charles Milton Ling <cml...@teleweb.at> wrote:
>
> >> hoi polloi
> >> not the hoi polloi
>
> > No, "the hoi polloi" is correct in English. See the Act One Finale of
> > Gilbert and Sullivan's Iolanthe.
>
> A Greek remark. (And actually, it is written in Greek in the text.) While
> that is the English usage, it is not correct Greek, since "hoi" (actually
> "oi" preceded by an aspiration) is the definite article plural here.
>
> Besides, a Greek these days would pronounce it "ee pollee." (Accenting the
> last syllable.)
Isn't Gilbert's use of it in Iolanthe cited in the OED?
The Historian
Another word used differently in English than in the source language: