Sock-drawer Vaults and Roll Velocities ...
By Karl Ellison
Howdie -
Can anyone explain why makers of music rolls cut more than one version of a piece over a period of time? I have recently heard a QRS roll played by Pete Wendling - "All the Quakers are Shoulder Shakers". It was a relatively early roll. QRS now puts out a newer one, 10-880, which by it's number tells you that it's not a reissue, and it sounds 'hollow' and 'lacking' compared to Pete's rendition. Man, I'm glad I listened to it first at my dealer before plunking down $8.75 (or whatever)! Just another reason to hear it first before I buy it!! I'm no perfect pitch myself, but it seems to me that when there is a great disparity in the presented quality of two similar versions of music, that someone with a brain would say "Hmm, better stick with this one and simply reissue it". Are there royalty and licenseing concerns that prevent them from doing this? Is the head cheese in charge just being a knucklehead?
On this point, recently PIANOLA@aol.com wrote to me in part:
> The person who would know the exact number etc. would be Don Rand of
> Thomaston , Maine. He has probably the LARGEST QRS collection in the world!
> Telephone xxx-xxx-xxxx, and use my name. QRS borrows rolls from Don to issue
> recordings from their past that they no longer own masters for. So that
> should tell you something right there.
... Are these people (QRS et. al.) nuts?! They really don't keep an archive of their baseline works in a vault, or at least in someone's sock drawer at home? I was incredulous when I read this. I guess the music company's cavalier treatment of their very livelyhood does say something to me too. One can only hope that things are different these days. Give me a job there and I'll whip their buts into shape!
**********************************************************
On Bill Jellen's comments about roll velocity: **********************************************************
> "since the increasing mass (of paper on the take-up spool)
> slows down the low torque pneumatic winding motor."
I only took 1 physics course in college, so don't spam me on this ... IMHO, the velocities we're talking about here are so low, therefore I'm not sure that mass can factor much into a calculation, because we're talking low velocities (no factor), and minute accelerations (very little influence).
A mass in motion tends to stay in motion, so it would take very little energy to increase a velocity from 70 to 85 tempo over a 3 minute time span - I'd think it to be a no brainer even for a low torque pneumatic motor. Anyway, the *total* mass of the system that the motor sees (feed spool + in-between stuff + take-up spool) never changes ... as one spool is relieved, the other is taken up proportionally, and the sum mass effect would be zero. The motor does not see any load-change due to mass per se.
The thickness of the paper however, will induce a speed change. Aren't take-up spools of a universal diameter? If the answer is 'no', then tempo setting purists are doomed. Bill J.: You may want to take a caliper and see if there is an appreciable span of paper thicknesses over different brands and periods of time - then add this y-intercept variable to your existing formula. Especially in the jumbo rolls, you may see dramatic differences. Once you've empirically determined a correct formula based on inputs such as roll length, core diameter, paper gage (perhaps databased by brand name alone!), you can easily pump these attributes into the computer to come up with a straight line formula to adjust the slew rate, electronically (ain't computers great!?).
- Karl |
(Message sent Wed 14 Jun 1995, 11:17:33 GMT, from time zone GMT-0400.) |
|
|
Mechanical
Music Digest™ Archives
