audio interviews with Lon Chaney?
Ed Luskey
amongst traders at all?
Ed
ChaneyFan
amongst traders at all?
I've never heard of any.
===============================
Jon Mirsalis
e-mail: Chan...@aol.com
Lon Chaney Home Page: http://members.aol.com/ChaneyFan
Jon's Film Sites: http://members.aol.com/ChaneyFan/jonfilm.htm
BlakeMF
traders at all?>>
No such animal appears to exist.
Michael F. Blake
Darren
Yes. There is a radio interview in the hands of Universal (unless it
was stolen).
Darren Nemeth
Owner of "Giant Squid Audio Lab" - Specialists in durable, high
fidelity Stereo and Mono miniature microphones for discriminating
Harddrive, DAT and Mini Disc recording enthusiasts.
http://www.giant-squid-audio-lab.com/
Ed Luskey
><<I don't know if Lon did any but if he did are there any that circuate amongst
>traders at all?>>
>
>No such animal appears to exist.
I knew it was a long shot, bummer.
I'm looking so forward to the upcoming Warner discs. I think it's time
to go unwrap my Phantom DVD :-)
Ed
Rob Farr
or earlier can be counted on two hands. If ELizabeth McLeod is lurking
maybe she can confirm this.
Rob Farr
"Darren" <dnem...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:3F73632B...@sprynet.com...
Elizabeth McLeod
>
> Really? Details please. The number of surviving radio programs dated 1930
> or earlier can be counted on two hands. If ELizabeth McLeod is lurking
> maybe she can confirm this.
>
pre-1930 radio recordings I've run into so many myths, legends, and red
herrings that I've gotten to the point where I refuse to confirm the existence
of anything unless I've actually held the recording in my hands and examined
it, or have a complete description of the original source discs from a
professional archivist.
I'll say, though, that there's things about this story that have always
bothered me. There *were* experiments in electrical recording from radio being
done as early as 1923-24 by Western Electric, so it's technically possible for
a recording of a 1925 broadcast to exist. But the WE experiments were being
done exclusively on the East Coast -- most of the radio recordings that
survive from this project are fragments of about three or four minutes in
length, recorded off a phone line connected to WEAF, the AT&T station in New
York. There's no evidence that a Chaney interview originating in Hollywood
could have been recorded by WE, or that such an interview was ever relayed to
WEAF for broadcast in New York.
There were other experiments being done in radio recording by Victor and
Brunswick in New York, by Marsh Laboratories in Chicago, and by General
Electric in Schenectady (these latter using the film-based Pallophotophone
system), but I've never come across any documentation of any such recordings
being made by anyone on the West Coast.
The idea that Universal itself might have made such a recording, I think, can
be dismissed out of hand -- considering they had to borrow a sound truck from
Fox to make their first talkies, I don't think there was anything on hand in
the way of sound recording equipment at Uncle Carl's house, especially not as
early as 1925.
Now, it's possible that if Chaney happened to do a radio interview in New
York, it might have been recorded by WE or Victor -- but there are no
notations in any surviving recording ledgers documenting such a recording. And
there's the most-remote-of-all possibility that some lone experimenter
somewhere might have made such a recording, but given the complexity of making
a master on wax, having it plated, and having it pressed to a finished shellac
disc -- no viable system for making a lengthy instantaneous home recording
existed in 1925 -- I seriously doubt that this could have happened.
So, I'd love to be wrong about this. I'd be fascinated to hear such an
interview if it does, indeed, and against all odds, exist. But unless I
actually see the disc and hold it in my hands, I'm not convinced.
Dwight Frippery
do...@spam.me (Ed Luskey) wrote:
Reliable sources in a reputable interntaional film archive have
unearthed a disc containing an interview that Chaney gave on the
occasion of the release of LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT.
According to those close to the situation,
and who have listened to the recording,
Chaney demonstrates the effect of the
razor sharp vampire teeth on his speaking
voice. The recording was apparently not used because Lon was virtually
unintelligible with the teeth in place.
Mike Goldsman
On the flip-side of the disc is a DVD version of London After Midnight
itself! (With outtakes, a commentary track with Tod Browning and Lon Chaney,
a documentary "The Making of London After Midnight", Production Stills,
Early Lon Chaney shorts)
Back then, of course, they had no machine would would play the flip side....
-Mike Goldsman
"Dwight Frippery" <Fri...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:22569-3F...@storefull-2294.public.lawson.webtv.net...
Darren
Rob Farr wrote:
> Really? Details please. The number of surviving radio programs dated 1930
> or earlier can be counted on two hands. If ELizabeth McLeod is lurking
> maybe she can confirm this.
>
> Rob Farr
>
I emaied her the info a long time ago.
The details are in Riley's PHANTOM book
BlakeMF
And you believe what Phil Riley wrote???
Michael F. Blake
J. Theakston
> Rob Farr wrote:
> > Really? Details please. The number of surviving radio programs dated 1930
> > or earlier can be counted on two hands. If ELizabeth McLeod is lurking
> > maybe she can confirm this.
> >
> > Rob Farr
> >
> I emaied her the info a long time ago.
>
> The details are in Riley's PHANTOM book
Unfortunately, Riley becomes less and less a reliable source.
I cannot say that what he has printed is pure hokery on his part or
not. I don't know if Universal had/has that large disk of radio
interviews or not, but I'm willing to bet that they didn't for reasons
stated above.
I swear, one of these days I'll make a set of cliff notes to go with
that book.
-J. Theakston
Steven Thornton
> Unfortunately, Riley becomes less and less a reliable source.
> I cannot say that what he has printed is pure hokery on his part or
> not. I don't know if Universal had/has that large disk of radio
> interviews or not, but I'm willing to bet that they didn't for reasons
> stated above.
>
> I swear, one of these days I'll make a set of cliff notes to go with
> that book.
Out of curiosty, what other "facts" from Riley's Phantom book are in dispute?
J. Theakston
I have to admit, the first half of the book is pretty much
straightforward, but then you have to take into account the first half
is the script as well as interviews.
I don't have time to read the entire book and annotate, but I'm
flipping through it now as I type and here are mistakes I spot (most
of them are near the end of the book):
P. 56 - Technicolor was not the only process used. Several scenes
were Prizmacolor and Pathecolor.
P. 207 - As earlier discussed, the radio broadcast is fabricated.
P. 210 - The shot of the shadow fleeing is not from the sequence
mentioned.
P. 266 - The line "She has betrayed me!" is in the NY cut, and was not
ommited until the 1929 cut. The CUs are also there
P. 304 - The reference to the Technicolor being used for the unmasking
sequence is unjustified, although probably true (I don't think it was
used for the 1929 cut though). The "outtakes" that were used for the
1929 cut that he mentions were all used in the 1925 cut.
P. 306 - Half of the contracted musical numbers he mentions aren't
even in the final score. No credit is given to Samuel Perry, who
wrote all but one of th original themes. No new Technicolor footage
was shot for the 1929 release, despite what "paperwork" might say.
Mary Fabian only appears in the sound version (I assume this comment
is a typo and he meant Pearson). A reference to the Dwight Frye thing
which is probably false.
P 307 - The comment about cranking on Technicolor cameras isn't right,
and I assume he's just making up the whole speed issue. The speed of
the film was an exact 14 minutes per reel (18 fps). The reels were
cut off at about 1000 feet, which makes it the "proper" running speed
(I'll get slack on this one, I know).
I need not go on too much at this point. Also, be careful to any
facts where he uses terms like "according to some" or "according to a
source". Unless he names the source, it's probably not very accurate.
This isn't to say the book isn't good. It's a great reference book.
The pictures and script are wondefully put together, but be weary of
his facts, which seem to not be double checked.
-J. Theakston
Borzz
tomser...@yahoo.com (J. Theakston) wrote:
> I don't have time to read the entire book and annotate, but I'm
> flipping through it now as I type and here are mistakes I spot (most
> of them are near the end of the book):
You have time to do this, but you don't have the time to send me the
blank video tapes you "promised" me (again and again), nor the time to
respond to my email inquiries?
Let's examine the facts:
At 12:43 AM -0700 4/24/03, Jack Theakston wrote:
>Oh dear!!
>
>Very sorry! I've been extremely busy. I'll send you your stuff
>tomorrow. Sorry so much...I'm quite absent-minded. Thanks for being
>patient.
Here's another chuckler, 1 month later (over 4 months ago):
At 6:46 PM -0700 5/26/03, Jack Theakston wrote:
>Please accept my most humble apology.
>There is no excuse for it, this is completely my fault. I have been
>falling behind the past couple of months on many things. Please do not
>take this a bad gesture towards myself, I'm generally quite considerate
>and speedy. You have my word that you will be send your tapes this
>week. Again, please accept my most humble apologies.
You make Riley look like Moses.
Not only did I immediately send you the movie you requested (First Class
Priority - in FEBRUARY), I went out of my way to add another "bonus" to
the tape which you had not previously seen. Your Chaney knowledge is
impressive, too bad your word isn't.
(No Jon, it wasn't)
Pardon the interruption.
--
....Borzz
J. Theakston
> You make Riley look like Moses.
>
> Not only did I immediately send you the movie you requested (First Class
> Priority - in FEBRUARY), I went out of my way to add another "bonus" to
> the tape which you had not previously seen. Your Chaney knowledge is
> impressive, too bad your word isn't.
>
> (No Jon, it wasn't)
>
> Pardon the interruption.
My mistake.
-J. Theakston