Subject: [removed] Digest V2002 #327
From: "OldRadio Mailing Lists" <[removed]@[removed];
Date: 8/19/2002 4:07 PM

To: <[removed]@[removed];

    ------------------------------

                                The Old-Time Radio Digest!
                                  Volume 2002 : Issue 327
                             A Part of the [removed]!
                                     ISSN: 1533-9289

                                     Today's Topics:

      today's sfx                           [ ClifSr@[removed] ]
      Progressive Broadcasting System's Hi  [ pamwarren2002@[removed] ]
      Re: World's Greatest Old-Time Radio   [ JBeck57143@[removed] ]
      Candice Bergan                        [ "Thomas Barnett" <barnettl@[removed] ]
      Brands & purchasing habits            [ leemunsick@[removed] ]
      Re: Be sure to get _____ at your gro  [ Ga6string@[removed] ]
      Premiums                              [ "Stephen A Kallis, Jr." <skallisjr@ ]
      Re: WOTW Sources                      [ Elizabeth McLeod <lizmcl@[removed] ]
      B&A format change                     [ chris chandler <chrischandler84@yah ]
      Re: Wings                             [ Joe Mackey <joemackey108@[removed] ]

    ------------------------------

    Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:52:27 -0400
    From: ClifSr@[removed]
    To: [removed]@[removed]
    Subject:  today's sfx

    Responding to Michael Scott, Larry Albert and anyone else interested in using
    today's sound effects for radio drama ...We geezers who grew up with what is
    now OTR are in a position  to compare the work of the many groups now
    producing radio drama with the "real thing."   The writers, actors and
    producers of OTR understood the medium.  They knew it was truly "theater of
    the mind" and they knew how to  touch our emotions  and draw pictures in our
    minds with voices, music and what we now view as primitive sound effects.
    They were there to tell a story and make you believe it. I submit that they
    generally did a better job of  getting into our heads and hearts than most of
    the radio drama being turned out today. I give the younger guys lots of
    credit  for believing that radio is good for something beyond deejays and
    talk shows, but they have grown up with high definition images and surround
    sound stereo. Can they really understand theater of the mind, anymore than I
    can understand why it's important to own a digital audio-visual system that
    doesn't really look or sound that much different to me than a high-end TV and
    VCR?  Probably not.
    I was disappointed with the work of one well known producer of current radio
    drama that makes a big deal of going around the world capturing  brilliant,
    high quality stereo sounds for use in their exotic shows.  My reaction was
    similar to that of  viewing  surround  sound movies when the side or rear
    speakers, silent most of the time, suddenly erupt with some special effect
    that makes me turn my head.  I'm thinking, "that's not natural."  It might be
    appealing to audiophiles but that's not what it's like in real life.
    Listening to the radio shows in question, I just start to get into the story
    and then the wonderful sound effects  jar me back to reality, defeating  the
    whole purpose, which I assume was to tell a story and get me involved in it.

    All it took to get into my head in the OTR days was one microphone surrounded
    by   thoroughly believable [removed] easy  to find in today's radio drama
    ... a Hammond Organ (or a pipe organ before Hammond came along) and a sound
    effects crew with buckets, boards, miniature doors and ratchets  and gadgets.
      I await rebuttal from today's producers. Should be interesting, eh?

    Clif Martin

    ------------------------------

    Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 15:06:46 -0400
    From: pamwarren2002@[removed]
    To: [removed]@[removed]
    Subject:  Progressive Broadcasting System's History

    I have been looking for the L. Ron Hubbard radio broadcasts from 1950 and 1951
    and I have collected up a lot of information on Progressive Broadcasting
    System that I would like to share with all of the OTR Digest readers. Most of
    the information was gotten from the "Broadcasting Telecasting Yearbook" of
    1952.

    The Progressive Broadcasting System was a radio network that operated very
    briefly from August 10, 1950 to January 31st, 1951. Larry Finley
    (International Tape Association founder) and several other businessmen
    incorporated Progressive Broadcasting System in 1950, as a fifth national
    radio network. Their key originating stations were planned to be KGFJ in Los
    Angeles, WNJR in New Jersey and WCFL in Chicago. However in our research we
    only found evidence of KGFJ broadcasting PBS programs.

    The broadcasting "system" was to provide independent stations with day-time
    radio programming aimed at housewives. The stations paid a minimum program fee
    of $530 a month. The programs were fed both live and via tape recording from
    divisional points.

    PBS went on the air November 27, 1950. At its beginning PBS ran into
    problems:there was an AT&T strike and by the end of the first month of
    operation,financial records showed a loss of over $100,000. PBS suspended
    service January 31, 1951. Some PBS affiliates were then serviced by Liberty
    Broadcasting System (Gordon McClendon's network). Evidence shows that only six
    of the PBS stations went with LBS; others continued as independent stations or
    joined other networks.

    This summary is presented to enter Progressive Broadcasting Systems into OTR
    history. As far as I know the majority involved with PBS are no longer living.

    If anyone has more information or wants to respond to this feel free to do so.

    Sincerely,
    Pam Warren

    ------------------------------

    Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 15:43:26 -0400
    From: JBeck57143@[removed]
    To: [removed]@[removed]
    Subject:  Re: World's Greatest Old-Time Radio Shows

    I received the same offer. It looks like they only sell cassettes. At $[removed] +
    $[removed] shipping (for 2 tapes--4 shows total), that works out to about $[removed]
    per show. Since they send them every 3 weeks, if you bought every tape, that
    would be $[removed], for a total of 56 shows.

    It'd be interesting to see what shows they have. They have Jack Benny
    programs, but I thought Radio Spirits now has the exclusive rights to
    distribute those. They also have Suspense, which a few other companies also
    sell.

    If more than one dealer is selling a program, what "master tapes" do they
    have? How many master tapes can there be?

    Jim Beck

    ------------------------------

    Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 15:59:38 -0400
    From: "Thomas Barnett" <barnettl@[removed];
    To: [removed]@[removed]
    Subject:  Candice Bergan

    I have a "You Bet Your Life" Episode that has Candice Bergan on it. Many on
    this list probably have the same show. Anyway Candice Bergan and Malinda Marx
    (Groucho's daughter) were on the quiz show to win money for the Girl Scouts
    and Groucho and Edgar joined the girls to answer questions.

    George Fenninman (sp) asked the questions and the results were funny. With
    Edgar missing a question on the code of Hammarabi and excusing himslef by
    stating "I haven't read the papaer for three days!"

    Tom Barnett
    Stone Nights Pockets

    ------------------------------

    Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 16:24:37 -0400
    From: leemunsick@[removed]
    To: [removed]@[removed]
    Subject:  Brands & purchasing habits

    In all the recent discussions, I understand that "store brands" and
    "generics" have fuzzied up marketing a lot.  Major marketing companies
    quite often provide those very "Brand X" items and make a very nice profit
    doing so even 'though they're competing with their "name brands", thank you
    very much.

    There are several things at work here.  First, is the old theory that if
    one is going to have to go up against competition, might as well make the
    competition your own.

    Second, although several posters have boldly said they couldn't remember
    when they bought a brand because of advertising, chances are that they have
    done so.  The central idea of advertising is the long pull, and we are
    creatures of habit, so they say.  Your purchasing may well be tainted by
    factors which  which consciously you have no connection.

    Let's get off cigarettes for a bit.  There are many families which for
    years would never buy other than their favorite "brand"
    of  gasoline.  Probably the manipulative shortages of the 1970s did more to
    destroy that brand loyalty than any competitor's promotions.  I think most
    people now buy the best brand they can get at the lowest price
    possible.  The major companies managed to thoroughly mess up their loyal
    retailers in that period, putting many of them out of business in the
    automotive fuel line, as well as the home heating oil profession.

    Same with automobile brands.  Lots of families considered themselves
    strictly "Ford families" or "Chrysler families" or whatever, some even
    limiting to one line within a manufacturer, such as "We buy
    Buicks".  Packard proudly proclaimed, "Ask the man who owns one" for years.

    Recently, one company attempted to take advantage of all of this by telling
    younger prospects, "This is NOT your father's Oldsmobile".   But many
    people my age can remember being thoroughly shocked to hear the first
    advertising which directly referred to a competitor by name--something
    which was always a no-no.  In my case, it was one auto manufacturer
    directly dumping on Chevrolet by name.  Interestingly enough, I can't
    recall who the advertiser was, although now I would assume it was probably
    Ford or Plymouth, the direct competitors of Chevrolet.   I just remember my
    total surprise.

    For years I've loved to twit people in the advertising field.  My home
    state of New Jersey has an incredible number of telephone employees.  I
    delighted in teasing those who bragged about "The Bell System", and the
    fact that they considered themselves the greatest marketers in the
    world.  Anyone who traveled extensively and used telephones around the
    country--especially pay phones--would quickly tell you there was no system
    there at all.  And "The voice with a smile?"  Hah!

    And, I would tell my phone company friends, how great at marketing do you
    have to be when you have a product which virtually everyone must have, but
    can only get from one source?  Marketing implies [removed]
    competition?

    This brings up a point I heard in a consumer discussion on a recent radio
    talk show. Apparently there are tens of thousands of people--by definition
    older folk--who never got rid of their Bell System telephones in the years
    since they had that option.  They're still paying a monthly rental fee for
    their telephones.  It's included in their basic telephone service fee, and
    by now has run to thousands of dollars!  Check your Aunt Minnie's phone and
    her bill, and bail out of those old AT&T/Bell System/Western Electric phones!

    One final chin-chucker for the older folks, bunky:  Picture a little
    character in an old-fashioned nightshirt carrying a lighted candle on a
    candlestick.  Now, what's the slogan, and more important the product and
    maker's name?  I know, dozens of you know, but hundreds will recall the
    image, not be able to tell you.  At one time this was one of the most well
    known advertising campaigns in the country.

    Then there's Hershey, which grew to be the paramount firm in its industry
    without any advertising whatever.  And now it's going to be gobbled
    up--like much of American industry--by its foreign competitor.

    Happy days!  Lee Munsick

    ------------------------------

    Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 17:13:26 -0400
    From: Ga6string@[removed]
    To: [removed]@[removed]
    Subject:  Re:  Be sure to get _____ at your [removed]

    As this discussion has drifted into the area of cereal [removed] I'm 42, so
    I grew up in the '60s and '70s. I missed out on OTR premiums altogether. But
    I can't tell you how many boxes of cereal I bought and ate (and ate and ate)
    just to own the baseball cards or other cards that we either in or on the
    [removed] all those great Kellogg's "3-D" baseball and football cards, for
    example, or the baseball cards that were on the back of a really great,
    now-defunct cereal named Team Flakes, or the [removed] presidents cards on the
    back of Cheerios in the late '60s. I ate so many boxes of Cheerios, to this
    day I don't care for them! :^)

    We'd also buy 7-11 "Slurpees" just to get the cups with the baseball players
    on them. Wonder what those things would be worth [removed]

    Still, getting back to the original thread, it was rare that advertising (TV,
    for my generation) drove these purchases. It's only now, in my later, more
    thoughtful (ha!) years that I'll consider support a product because of the
    programs it sponsors. Lux, where are you?

    Bryan Powell

    ------------------------------

    Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 17:14:19 -0400
    From: "Stephen A Kallis, Jr." <skallisjr@[removed];
    To: [removed]@[removed]
    Subject:  Premiums

    Spence Coleman notes,

>     I also ordered (boxtop + 10 cents?) a ring with a rotating wheel and,
>     when I blew down on it, it would make a siren-like noise (I guess to
>     signal for help, or whatever).  Does anyone remember who offered that
>     one?

    The two most prominent "siren rings" were the Jack Armstring Egyptian
    Whistlwe Ring (1938) and the (1941) Captain Midnight Whirlwind Whistling
    Ring.  (I even saw one of the former sold as one of the latter on eBay.)
    Tom Mix offered one, the Spinning Siren Ring, in 1944.

    Tom Mix had two other "siren" premiums, the Dobie County Siren Sheriff
    Badge (1946) and the Signal Arrowhead (1949).

>     Probably the most influential one, though, was Tom Mix's Ralston
>     cereal.  He offered a decoder badge too.  (If he said the word "gun" it
>     meant "watch out," or something like that.)

    That was the Tom Mix Six-Gun Decoder Badge, a 1941 item.  It had a large
    image of a revolver on the front, that could swivel so that it would
    point at tiny images; a coupled pointer on the back of the badge would
    point at messages.  Pointing the barrel of the gun at the star image on
    the front, for instance, would move the back pointer to the word,
    "Guilty."  The associated message would be, "Bill hopes to see a star
    tonight."  Only the name and the symbol mean anything, and the "real"
    message would be "Bill is guilty."

    Tom Mix used this same kind of code scheme again in the 1946 Decoder
    pinback Buttons, with pictures of Cueley Brasdley ("Tom Mix of Radio"),
    Sheriff Mike Shaw, Jane, Wash, and Tony (the Wonder Horse).  Each had a
    single code word on its back (Tom Mix's was "Yes").

    Both of these were true code devices; the Radio Orphan Annie Pins, the
    Captain Midnight Code-O-Graphs, and :decoders" from Tennessee Jed, and
    The Lone Ranger, are cryptologically cipher devices.  (Tom Mix had a
    cipher "decoder" as part of the 1938 Secret Ink Writing Set).

    Stephen A. Kallis, Jr.

    ------------------------------

    Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 17:18:03 -0400
    From: Elizabeth McLeod <lizmcl@[removed];
    To: <[removed]@[removed];
    Subject:  Re: WOTW Sources

    On 8/19/02 3:09 PM OldRadio Mailing Lists wrote:

>     Does anyone know what we're listening to as far as
>     the original "War Of The Worlds" broadcast?  Are they
>     all copies of copies of copies?  Is there a single
>     original transcription disc?

    There are apparently several sets of copy discs extant, with at least one
    set known to have been dubbed at Radio Recorders in Hollywood in 1948 --
    a set evidently dubbed onto 16" blanks from 12" 78rpm copy discs, making
    it probably third generation at best. Copy discs are not originals, do
    not sound like originals, and should not be considered originals -- and
    certainly shouldn't bring the *price* of originals.

    However, a set of WOTW discs was auctioned off last year by the estate of
    Ralph Murchow, a prominent collector of radios and radio equipment for
    $14,000 -- and while I've never seen any positive authentication for
    these discs, it appears from a picture online
    ([removed]) that these *could* be
    originals. The discs appear to be Presto Green Label "Q" lacquer blanks
    -- and this was in fact a professional grade of blank disc that was
    widely used for broadcast recordings in 1938. There are no paper labels
    visible -- either they've fallen off or were never applied, and it's
    impossible to read the inscription in the picture to see if it sheds any
    light on the origin of these discs.

    There have been a lot of stories over the years about "original discs" --
    someone approached me a couple of years ago about appraising a set of
    "original WOTW discs" for insurance purposes -- but when they wouldn't at
    least show me a scan of the discs I got very suspicious.  There are
    plenty of stories in circulation about "friends of friends' fathers who
    had a set of discs" -- but without expert authentication, I would take
    all such stories with a carload of salt.

    Even if these $14,000 discs *are* originals, though, the audio quality
    depends a lot on *where* along the network line they were recorded. The
    only way to get a studio-quality recording of WOTW is to find a set of
    discs recorded directly off the program amplifier -- and CBS wasn't doing
    this in 1938, instead using various contract studios when recordings of
    various programs were needed. The quality of any discs found would be
    limited by the quality of the line linking the network to the recording
    studio. A recording of WOTW made off the line in Hollywood will be
    inferior in sound quality to a recording made off the line in New York.

>         I can still hear their "noise gates" (makes quiet
>     portions of audio even quieter, like silences between
>     words, etc) working on my best copies of WOTW, I think
>     that today's processing equipment is more transparent -
>     am I hoping for too much?
>         I have heard some other audio cleanups that are
>     like NIGHT and DAY, absolutely incredible.  Can that be
>     done to the original WOTW recording?  Maybe it already
>     has, the original sounds like garbage, and with cleanup
>     sounds as good as it ever will, now.

    So far as my own ears are concerned, *none* of the "digitally restored"
    CD versions of WOTW are worth owning -- they seem to all be bootlegged
    off the early 1970s LP issue, and attempt to mask the surface noise of
    that version with poorly-applied noise reduction. Until and unless a set
    of authenticated original discs shows up for a real remastering, a
    mint/near mint copy of the LP, properly transferred, is probably the best
    bet for decent audio quality.

    This LP is dirt common, and can still be had fairly cheaply on eBay,
    although sealed copies are harder to find. In addition to the original
    double-LP issue, Evolution 4001, this transfer was reissued on the Murray
    Hill label (44217) and -- as a single disc -- on Longines Symphonette
    (4001), with all versions using the same cover art depicting the front
    page of the New York Daily News from the morning after the broadcast,
    against a lurid red-orange background. Look for the "Released by
    arrangement with Manheim Fox Enterprises" credit line on the jacket and
    the disc label to ensure you're getting the right one. If I had to
    choose, an original Evolution pressing would probably sound best, but the
    Murray Hill or Longines versions will still be better than any modern CD
    issue.

    The source discs for the Manheim Fox-authorized issue remain a mystery,
    at least to me. They are clearly *not* the 1948 copy discs. Has anyone
    ever actually *seen* them? Might they be the same discs later owned by
    Ralph Murchow and just recently auctioned? Manheim Fox was a 1970s
    theatrical impresario who had some business connection to Howard Koch
    (his name also appears in connection with Koch's "Panic Broadcast" book)
    but that's as much as I know about him.

    There are other LP versions besides the authorized Manheim Fox releases
    -- the first version issued came out on the Audio Rarities label in 1955,
    but was of very poor quality and was not complete. Avoid this one unless
    you're a manic WOTW collector -- it's interesting to own as a curiosity,
    but it's really not worth listening to.

    Elizabeth

    ------------------------------

    Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 17:19:48 -0400
    From: chris chandler <chrischandler84@[removed];
    To: [removed]@[removed]
    Subject:  B&A format change

    Eddie Ginsburg [removed]

>     I want to know when they stopped doing their
>     vaudeville routine on  their radio show and started
>     doing the husband wife shtick

    This was Autumn, 1941.  B&A's ratings had declined
    precipitously in the latter part of their first decade
    on the air, and the change was a rather obvious effort
    at stemming the dropoff.

    George Burns variously credited himself with the
    inspiration for this innovation (in a supposed
    middle-of-the-night brainstorm that led him to awaken
    Gracie with his epiphany:  "We're playing too old!
    We've got to start ACTING married!"), as well as CBS
    chief Bill Paley, to whom Burns awarded credit on
    Paley's CBS-TV obituary program in October, 1990.  And
    perhaps others.

    Given the time at which it occurred, and Burns'
    longtime penchant for stealing successful ideas and
    characters from practically every hit show on the
    airwaves, it seems much more likely the 1941 format
    change can be traced to the success of the
    domestic-themed "Fibber McGee and Molly" series, which
    had only achieved 'breakout' status a couple of
    seasons earlier, despite its several years on the air.
    The relatively short-lived addition of McGee-ish
    larger-than-life supporting characters like Tootsie
    Sagwell would tend to bear this theory out.

    I've heard various explanations for Burns'
    appropriation of others ideas', ranging from ad-agency
    influence to Friar's club "in joke"; whatever its
    source, this 'copycat syndrome' certainly served the
    comedian well over the years.  And make no mistake,
    this was more than an occasional bow to current
    trends:  by 1948, the B&A series series featured
    thinly-veiled imitations of Bert Gordon's Mad Russian,
    Bill Thompson's Old Timer, Elliot Lewis' Frank Remley
    ("Joe Bagley", actually played BY Elliot Lewis!), and
    Kenny Delmar's Senator Claghorn--usually all in a
    single episode!  Later, on television, when "I Love
    Lucy" mounted its memorable season-long "trip to
    California", the Burnses mysteriously spent the entire
    next season on a "trip to New York", minus William
    Holden and the putty nose, naturally.  And not until
    Ricky Nelson became a teenage heartthrob did Ronnie
    Burns suddenly appear out of thin air to begin a
    three-season run on HIS parents' program.  Mercifully,
    he didn't sing.  And of course, as the show's own
    production staff was first to admit, even George's one
    great TV innovation--that of speaking directly to the
    audience--was lifted from Thornton Wilder's 'Our
    Town'.

    The only thing the series couldn't copy, of course,
    was Gracie herself, and Burns' effort to continue the
    TV series--with the full supporting cast, but without
    his wife--left the air in 1959, after a single season.

    chris

    ------------------------------

    Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 17:34:31 -0400
    From: Joe Mackey <joemackey108@[removed];
    To: otr-net <[removed]@[removed];
    Subject:  Re: Wings

      George Aust wrote --

>     Anybody remember Wings? I think that at one time, probably during the
>     depression, that Wings was the biggest selling brand. But that was because
>     they were the cheapest brand.

      My apartment building was erected in 1906 (and is still more solid
    than most places put up today).  There is a small door in a wall that is
    opens to reveal the pipes in the bathroom.  One day some years ago (I
    moved in here in 1979) I opened the door to see what was behind it and
    laying among the pipes and such was a empty pack of Wings.  No telling
    how long it's laid there.  And, yes, the pack is where I found it.  :)
      Joe

    --
    Visit my home page:
    [removed]~[removed]

    --------------------------------
    End of [removed] Digest V2002 Issue #327
    *********************************************

    Copyright [removed] Communications, York, PA; All Rights Reserved,
      including republication in any form.

    If you enjoy this list, please consider financially supporting it:
       [removed]

    For Help: [removed]@[removed]

    To Unsubscribe: [removed]@[removed]

    To Subscribe: [removed]@[removed]
      or see [removed]

    For Help with the Archive Server, send the command ARCHIVE HELP
      in the SUBJECT of a message to [removed]@[removed]

    To contact the listmaster, mail to listmaster@[removed]

    To Send Mail to the list, simply send to [removed]@[removed]