> From: kvinen@orc.ca.geentroep (Ken Vinen)
> To: rolls@foxtail.com
> Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 03:34:17
>
> Subject: 'Shadow Waltz' Recording
>
> Sorry to stir up such a flurry of excitement when only trying to expose
> an interest on how far back mechanical music was recorded for play on
> the home phonograph.
>
        [ lots snipped out which was relevant to the original
          discussion; I'm going to side-track things here.]
>
> Our editor Robbie tacked a comment onto Joyce Brite's letter:
>
>  [ "Puppchen" One-Step, by Jean Gilbert, appears on Welte 3571,
>  [ recorded in 1914 ...
>
> This to me shows that "Puppchen" was in the correct date area: 1914 plus
> or minus a year.
>
> It stands to reason that the flip side of the disc would also be from
> the same era, and would make no common sense that Columbia would hold
> the release of "Puppchen" from 1914 to 1933!
>
> I also must stress that by at least 1920 most, if not all recordings
> were being made with the electric process.  There were absolutely _no_
> acoustical recordings being made in 1933!

By 1920?? I've always understood that electrically recorded phonograph
records appeared ca. 1925/26. Granted, I'm just a dilettante when it
comes to phonorecord collecting, but I can't see myself being 5 years
off. I thought the *first* electric recordings were made ca. 1919/20,
and those (from an example broadcast on the Canadian Broadcasting
Corp) were very, very murky.

Also, how did you arrive at the ca.1915 date? The only record dating
guide I have is Barr's (The Almost Complete 78 RPM Record Dating
Guide, 2nd ed, by Steven C. Barr, 1992), and all it has to say on this
record is "Prefix series: E- are ethnic (not listed)".

> This _is_ definitely an acoustical recording.  I regret that I can't
> put this sound on the Internet.  I do not have the skills or equipment
> necessary, but I can play the recording on an acoustical phonograph and
> make a tape cassette recording if any one really wants a copy.  The
> surface of Columbia records was never really good that far back.

Well, I would be delighted to hear this. I've a soft spot in my head
for these moldy oldies. Will you be at the convention? If so, perhaps
I can get it from you then.

> Because of the surface, original acoustical quality and the general
> condition of this recording now over eighty years of age, playing it
> back with an electric system is hopeless unless a laboratory quality
> sound system were available.

I need to find out more about the transcription technology. Some years
ago I used an electric turntable (yes, with appropriate stylus!) to
transcribe some discs, but the results were inconsistent. What avenues
are there for someone who wants to avoid buying and restoring the
original playback equipment?

> My request is for MMD'ers to rummage through their music collections
> and find the Shadow Waltz in some form, such as a music box disc, a
> cob, card strip of paper roll for a table top organ, or one of the
> early paper roll formats for a player piano or reed organ, in 58- or
> 65-note format from the 1915 era.  It is sure to be there somewhere
> and I guarantee there is no connection to the 1933 version.
>
> It is very unfortunate that on the early recordings, the composer was
> not given a credit, but then the organ that the recording was made from
> was also not given a credit!
>
> Regards
>
> Ken Vinen
> Stratford, Canada
>
>  [ There's a great possibility that the title on the disc isn't correct.
>  [ Imaginative publishers and record producers often invent new titles
>  [ to circumvent copyright claims.  That's why I hope that the good ears
>  [ of the music collectors can help somehow, and I also wager that it's
>  [ a fine tune of the era in its native land! :)   -- Robbie

I've also found cases where a popular, and slightly (by our standards)
risque, song was (re)issued by a major label, it was renamed and
performed as an instrumental. Victor is a known culprit here.

Regards,

- Colin Hinz
  Toronto, Canada
  asfi@interlog.com