label index  ▪  name index jukebox  ▪  lightbox  ▪  memberlist  ▪  help  ▪  about this site  ▪ russian

Home > Latest Comments

Featured  |  Last Comments  |  Search

last comments
Found: 21368 comment(s) on 2137 page(s). Displayed: comment 20921 to 20930.
««  Previous  ...  2091  2092  [2093]  2094  2095  ...  Next  »»   Go to page: 
O give me oblivion | bernikov |  | 06.07.2009 22:22   
A.I. Zhelezny
No, he is not registered here, but we communicate via e-mail.
O give me oblivion | Adrian |  | 06.07.2009 16:57   
Syrena/A.I. Zhelezny
I can understand Russian a (very) little but I can't write it. I was very interested in early Soviet records many years ago and I corresponded with Anatoly almost a lifetime ago! Is he ever online here?
O give me oblivion | bernikov |  | 06.07.2009 14:10   
A.M.Davydov and Syrena
I read (do not remember where) that some pirate companies did not bother to erase the original matrix numbers, especially before the first copyright law was passed in Russia (March 20, 1911). Keeping the original matrix numbers was certainly unwise (if the word “wise” is applicable to the piratical business at all), may be that is why Universal records are so rare today?

There are plenty of gaps in Tomasz Lerski’s book, many records that present on this website are missing there. A.I.Zhelezny currently works on the most complete listing of Syrena records, may be these numbers will be listed there. If you can read this A.I.Zhelezny's article (sorry, it is currently in Russian only), you will find that A.M.Davydov DID record on Syrena and approximately at this time frame (January 1912).
O give me oblivion | Adrian |  | 06.07.2009 07:07   
Pirate or not?
I see what you mean about Syrena numbers. But if these were pirated, I would expect the makers to have carefully removed all traces of the original numbers, like Orpheon I think did. And if these numbers are missing from the Syrena listing, it could mean that Universal paid Syrena to record some issues for their own exclusive use. Or maybe the Universal label belonged to Syrena. A small record company with only a few issues is very likely not to have its own recording equipment, and even more likely not to have its own pressing plant. Certainly in the UK and Germany there were many labels, but only a few manufacturers.
O give me oblivion | bernikov |  | 05.07.2009 22:14   
I have re-scaned labels in order to include mirrors.
There are matrix numbers that pretty much resemble "Syrena-Record" system. Unfortunately, there is a gap in Tomasz Lerski's book, but according to number sequence it could be March, 1912. BTW, it looks like catalog numbers were derived from the matrix numbers by dropping digit "1" from the left.
O give me oblivion | Adrian |  | 05.07.2009 17:03   
1908 Gramo?
Maybe it could be 4-22030 (6748r) of about 1908 or 1909.
O give me oblivion | bernikov |  | 05.07.2009 15:13   
You are absolutely right!
I was too quick with my judgment about the origin... Let's wait until it surfaced.
O give me oblivion | Adrian |  | 05.07.2009 15:06   
but what is the origin?
The audio file has orchestral accompaniment and is surely not a 1902 recording.
Your eyes | Adrian |  | 05.07.2009 12:41   
Re: А вот не стоило бы поправлять Дмитрия)))))
И пo-"русском" благодаря Google

К сожалению, я могу лишь ответить на Английский. Я надеюсь, что вы можете понять.

Эта акустическая система счисления, как представляется, были начаты в 1926 году, потому что номера совпадают с порядком записей в 1926 Muzpred каталог. Кроме того, 'заказ', где число системы тенора имеют серии 15xxx, 18xxx сопрано имеют т.д., может быть начата в период с 1926 каталога.
Этот отчет имеет 15043 номера 1099/1100 и Labinsky 15040 имеет номера 1093/1094, как вы ожидаете.

Акустические числа серий должны были способ организовать всех различных матриц, которые они используют, из различных источников (граммофон, Zonophone, другие дореволюционной этикетки и несколько советских акустические записи).

Это 1926 каталог первой серии этой нумерации, охватывающих примерно до 2500. А вторая серия акустических записей было выпущено несколько позже с более высокой цифры. Я думаю, что же серия была продолжена с электрическим записей. Раннее Muztrest вопросы номера в конце 2000 и 3000s подобного. Я не понимаю, с тем эти дюйм

Илья, другие страны также путать акустических номеров, а электрический серии. У меня есть Muztrest о VR Pikok, но одна сторона вместо акустической записи, электрическое с матрицей с этим номером. Поэтому ярлык говорит Pikok, но запись на балалайке оркестра.
Your eyes | Adrian |  | 05.07.2009 10:06   
Re: А вот не стоило бы поправлять Дмитрия)))))
Golovko wrote:
Вы говорите об ЭЛЕКТРИЧЕСКИХ записях Музтреста. О той нумерации, которая началась с 1929 года, с момента перехода на электрозапись (записи в дискографиях указываются с префиксом МТ).
А эта пластинка имеет номер по нумерации АКУСТИЧЕСКИХ записей Музтреста (с префиксом МТА). Она ведется с 1927 года. С момента упразднения Музпреда и образования Музтреста. В ней процентов 80 перепечаток с дореволюционных матриц (вот как эта), и очень немного оригинальных акустических записей.
Не путайте!!!

Sorry, I can only reply in English. I hope you can understand.

This Acoustic number system seems to have been started in 1926 because the numbers correspond exactly with the order of the records in the 1926 Muzpred catalogue. Also the 'Zakaz' number system where tenors have the series 15xxx, sopranos have 18xxx etc, may have started at the time of the 1926 catalogue.
This record 15043 has numbers 1099/1100 and Labinsky 15040 has numbers 1093/1094 as you would expect.

The Acoustic number series must have been a way to organise all the different matrices that they were using, from various sources (Gramophone, Zonophone, other pre-revolution labels and the few Soviet acoustic recordings).

This 1926 catalogue has the first series of this numbering, covering up to about 2500. A second series of acoustic recordings was issued a little later with higher numbers. I think the same series was continued with the electrical records. Early Muztrest issues have numbers in the late 2000s and 3000s like this. I don't understand the order these are in.

Ilya, others have also confused the acoustic numbers and the electric series. I have a Muztrest of V R Pikok, but one side has instead of the acoustic recording, the electric with the matrix with that number. So the label says Pikok, but the recording is a balalaika orchestra.
««  Previous  ...  2091  2092  [2093]  2094  2095  ...  Next  »»   Go to page: 
Comments per page: 

Powered by 4images © 2002 Template by Karcher © 2005

About this siteTerms of UsePrivacy StatementLinksContact UsGuestbook