------------------------------
The Old-Time Radio Digest!
Volume 2001 : Issue 356
A Part of the [removed]!
ISSN: 1533-9289
Today's Topics:
Re: mp3 quality (or lack of quality) [ Michael Biel <mbiel@[removed]; ]
Re: AFRS Edits and What Archivists W [ Elizabeth McLeod <lizmcl@[removed] ]
Hal Stone [ badaxley@[removed] ]
Today in Radio History [ Joe Mackey <joemackey5@[removed]; ]
Mickey Mouse Theatre of the Air [ Bhob Stewart <bhob2@[removed]; ]
Archiving wrinkles [ "Brian Johnson" <CHYRONOP@worldnet. ]
sound quality [ Maxjo@[removed] ]
better than the original! [ "[removed]" <swells@[removed]; ]
Re: Bob Readick and A TIME FOR LOVE [ SanctumOTR@[removed] ]
Rio 500 [ "John Davis" <wolfpackfan@[removed] ]
WOTW B/CAST NOT APPROVED BY H. G. WE [ "Owens Pomeroy" <opomeroy@[removed]; ]
preacher who healed over the air [ "Tim Taylor" <tt327@[removed]; ]
re: the Archers [ "Henry Brugsch" <henry@listentohear ]
Re: Eddie Cantor, et al [ Kenneth Clarke <kclarke5@[removed]; ]
Re: Best Sound? [ Michael Biel <mbiel@[removed]; ]
Twelfth Night [ Dennis W Crow <DCrow3@[removed] ]
AFRS re-broadcasts [ "Doug Leary" <dleary@[removed]; ]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 09:32:54 -0500
From: Michael Biel <mbiel@[removed];
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject: Re: mp3 quality (or lack of quality)
From: "[removed]" <swells@[removed];
Michael Biel Writes: A copy can be no better than its source.
Not true, in the sence that you state it. . . . I have taken
shows that were no "up to snuff" in my opinion and went to
great lengths to restore and in alot of cases completely
re-mix a show that ends up better than the original source.
That is not "copying", that is "restoring." Most otr tapes floating
around in the hobby are copies of copies of copies of copies of copies
of copies of copies of copies etc etc etc. Most OTR collectors just
make a copy of the recordings and pass them on. What you are discussing
is restoration.
Granted if you use a poor "master" then there are limitations
of what you can do, dependant upon the how bad it really is. . . .
I have found reels in my own collection that have a low signal
problem, excess stactic, tape hiss, etc. Well, when I run it
into the system I pass it through a pre-amp that will adjust
for the low signal. Once it's into the system I use a parametric
equalizer to "even out the sound" and make it more consistant.
Of course this has often already been done on past generations of the
multi-generational tapes that you probably have. That sometimes is why
the tapes sound so bad in the first place. One person "eaualizes" the
sound and then another person equalizes them again and on and on and
on. And the problems compound upon themselves.
if the master you are using is really bad, and I mean nearly
unlistenable, then you would be better off getting a better copy
instead, if it's available, then to try to fix it.
The real answer is to go back to the original source--the original discs
or a first or second generation tape from it, not a seventeenth
generation trading copy. Of course I know that this is not always
possible, but so often it is, and people "reinvent the wheel" by trying
to fix up a bad multi-generational trading copy when a better original
master is available elsewhere.
You always want to have a plan "B" though, so if any of my CD's fail
or "turn to dust" ... I will still have the original source material
So many people (and archives and stations) have dumped the originals
after making their copies on what they think is a more permanent
medium. The originals must always be maintiained.
Oh, as for the question about radio shows floating out in space ;
I believe in theroy it is true,
I posted about this a week or two ago. Yes, signals in the bands above
30 MHz. or so like FM and TV do pass out into space, but once you get
above a certain distance from earth your receivers will not be able to
separate stations on the same frequency. So perhaps there are creatures
60 light-years away listening to some of the early transmissions from
back in the 1930s and 40s, but once they would get to the later 1940s
and after there would be too many stations on the air. They would be
hearing every station in the hemisphere that is facing them.
Michael Biel mbiel@[removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 14:26:49 -0500
From: Elizabeth McLeod <lizmcl@[removed];
To: <[removed]@[removed];
Subject: Re: AFRS Edits and What Archivists Want
Greg Przywara wonders,
I'm wondering if some or all of the AFRS re-broadcasts are missing more than
just the commercials. For example, I have some Lux Theatre AFRS programs
that clock in at 48 minutes or less. The original network versions of these
were about 60 minutes. I find it hard to believe that the network versions
of these shows actually had 12 or more minutes of commercials and opening
and closing commentary. Can anyone help me out on this one?
I've never taken the trouble to actually clock it, but Lux shows during
the DeMille era often included a lengthy guest-interview segment between
the second and third acts -- so the deletion of this segment might
account for the odd timings in this specific case.
Much AFRS material was in fact rather brutally edited. Because the
recordings would reach the troops overseas months after the program was
originally broadcast, and because the recordings would be passed from
hand to hand and camp to camp until the discs literally wore out,
anything that was remotely topical or which would pin the program down to
a specific date would be deleted. Topical comedians such as Bob Hope and
Fred Allen were most severely hit by these cuts -- in many instances, the
"Allen's Alley" segment of Fred Allen's shows was shredded by the AFRS
editors, and left jumpy and nearly incoherent by the cuts. In some cases,
the entire segment would be deleted. In such cases, AFRS recordings
should not be considered in any way representative of the program as
originally broadcast.
Which ties a bit into Mark Kinsler's comment --
I want _everything_ says the archivist. That's what archiving is all about.
Editing of any originally-broadcast content is something I find very
objectionable, although the AFRS material should be considered for what
it is: a separate program prepared for a specific purposes, and never
truly interchangeable with the original broadcast. This also has some
relevance to sound restoration: I want everything that was *recorded on
the original discs.* If the recording is a studio linecheck, it should be
free of significant noise or distortion. If the recording is an aircheck,
and storm crashes or adjacent-channel interference were picked up along
with the original program, then these elements need to be left where they
are.
On the other hand, disc surface damage, skips, bad changeovers, speed
distortion, tape crosstalk, sloppy equalization, fake stereo reverb, and
other such defects are not part of the original recording. They are not
what was heard by the original listener, and I personally don't object to
efforts to remove these artifacts -- as long as *new* artifacts are not
introduced in the process. Removing some faults only to replace them with
others is not restoration. Suppressing surface noise to the point where a
sterile and unnatural silence is present between lines of dialogue is not
restoration. It's very, very difficult to do a professional-quality audio
restoration -- and unfortunately all too easy to do a poor one.
And Bob Noble adds,
The weakest link here must be in the recorded quality of the original
material.
Having done a great deal of work with original 1930s transcriptions, I
can say that the recorded quality of these originals is often
breathtakingly good. An original NBC-New York linecheck from 1937 can
sound like it was recorded yesterday if you know what you're doing in
playing it back. An E. H. Strong uncoated aluminum disc from 1932 can
even sound impressive -- if you know what you're doing in playing it
back. But not all the circulating material was transferred that well in
the first place. Playing back a 1932 aluminum disc on modern equipment
with a precision-fit jeweled stylus will yield much better results than
playing back the same disc with a fibre needle in a set-screw crystal
cartridge on a rumbly old rim-drive turntable. And if you take a poor
transfer and then superimpose thirty years of bad tape-to-tape dubbing on
top of it, you're going to wind up with something really horrible. That's
where you'll find the weakest link.
Too many OTR buffs have been brainwashed into accepting poor audio
because they've never had a chance to hear what an original disc actually
sounds like. An nth generation dub of a dub of a dub of a dub of a dub of
a dub, which has gone from quarter-tracked slow-speed reel to cassette to
MP3, will never, never, *ever* sound as good as the original source
discs, no matter how much technological wizardry is applied. It's
unfortunate that for a lot of rare material, these sloppy old dubs are
all that's readily accessible -- but collectors should not make the
mistake of judging the quality of the originals by these poor circulating
copies.
Elizabeth
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 14:27:38 -0500
From: badaxley@[removed]
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject: Hal Stone
Hal, where are you? I sure have missed your informative
and down right funny inputs lately.
Bob Axley
[ADMINISTRIVIA: Right now, he's in Seattle or thereabouts, after attending
the REPS meeting. --cfs3]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 14:27:54 -0500
From: Joe Mackey <joemackey5@[removed];
To: otr-net <[removed]@[removed];
Subject: Today in Radio History
From Today's History and Birthday's --
11/5
In 1934, the first broadcast of "The Gumps" was heard on CBS radio.
Wilmer Walter played Andy Gump, Agnes Moorehead was Gump's wife, Min,
and Jackie Kelk was son, Chester.
In 1950, "The Big Show" premiered on NBC Radio, with actress Tallulah
Bankhead introducing the 90-minute program as "The greatest stars of our
time, on one big program." It remained on the airwaves for three years.
Joe
--
Visit my home page:
[removed]~[removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 14:28:22 -0500
From: Bhob Stewart <bhob2@[removed];
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject: Mickey Mouse Theatre of the Air
I was pleased to finally read something here about Disney's radio
series. I've been curious about it ever since seeing some Disney art
created to promote the radio show. Is there more information of this
series? What was the format? Who portrayed Clara Cluck?
Re 1938 Larry Clinton remote: This was what I was hoping to read re my
past requests for more on dance band [removed] recall hearing an odd
miscue preceding a music remote on MONITOR during the mid-Fifties. NBC
switched to the remote at a club, but there was only the background
noise of the club. Quite a few seconds passed. Then the vocalist Al
Hibbler spoke, informing the remote announcer that they must be on the
air. I thought this somewhat peculiar, wondering how it happened that
the announcer was in the dark while the blind Hibbler was not!
Bhob @ PRE-FUSE @ [removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 14:29:13 -0500
From: "Brian Johnson" <CHYRONOP@[removed];
To: <[removed]@[removed];
Subject: Archiving wrinkles
In the "For What it's Worth Department," here's my two cents and new bone to
chew on regarding our archiving [removed]
I doubt much of what's traded out there is first generation to begin with.
Its either been taken off a purchased cassette, LP or taped off the radio.
Some of it has had "ambience" added ([removed], echo) and others digitally time
compressed to sneak more commercials into it.
I primarily collect Crosbyana and it amazes me how so many people can
digitize a show, look at the total running time and not think that's
something's wrong. I have received shows that run 31 minutes and shows that
run 27 minutes and the most recognizable voice in the history of
broadcasting either sounds too slow and too deep or sounds like the "lost"
member of the Chipmunks. Pitch correction is an easy procedure but without a
master list indicating down to the second what the REAL time should be, its
a best guess thing. But the latter is more preferable to the former.
But here's the wrinkle - When Radio Spirits issued its "Cronkite 60"
collection, they included a Philco Show with Bing, Bob Hope and Dorothy
Lamour. The running time is about 37 minutes. Radiola issued the same show
on LP during the '70's and it clocks in at the normal half hour. The reason?
The latest version is the unedited show with material that never aired.
If you were archiving history, which version do you choose? What happened or
what aired?
Brj
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 14:29:31 -0500
From: Maxjo@[removed]
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject: sound quality
everyone seems concerned about sound quality on tape,cassette,cd & mp3
[removed] i remember radio,and i'll admit to being an otr addict,(i'm 66
years old),the sound quality wasn't very good to begin [removed] lived on a
farm in oklahoma,with a battery operated philco radio,& reception was
sometimes terrible,as an adult when i found you could get the shows on rr
tape,later cassettes& now in mp3 format,i love it .i'll take radio any way i
can get it,amen.
max salathiel
del city,oklahoma
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 14:30:15 -0500
From: "[removed]" <swells@[removed];
To: <[removed]@[removed];
Subject: better than the original!
Mark: I agree with you. It really is a matter of personal taste.
For me, what I try to do is to "clean up" the original source, but stay
true to the show itself. For instance, some of the earliest Lum & Abner
shows are not in the best of shape, allot of surface noise off the nearly 70
year old transcriptions causes allot of headaches when trying to fix them.
This excess noise is evident on the reels I am using, plus all the other
"un-wanted" noises. Personally, I just try to limit those extra noise issues
so that the finished product is more enjoyable to listen to. I can imagine
that there are those who would like to keep those noises in there and that
is their right.
A little while back I bought a new digitally re-stored version of the
Wizard Of Oz that is on DVD. We all have seen this classic, but I have to
say that the new version was far superior than anything other pervious
versions I had ever remember viewing. Now it wouldn't be as good as actually
being on the set when the show was originally filmed in '39 (?), nor could
any show be as good as actually sitting in the studio with the original
actors as it was being produced. But until we "unravel the mysteries of
time travel," I have a feeling that a reproduction is about the best we can
do.
Our discussion on this matter has been great! It's like allot of issues
where both sides have a very good arguments, and really it just boil's down
to one's own taste. I bet 20 years from now I will still be trying to defend
digital media because my whole collection will have been converted to that
format, and someone else will be telling me to change to whatever new thing
is out then. :)
As for the Goon show issue; Available on CD in "crisp , clean
high-fidelity". I think I will hold out for the poorly produced set on a
severely damaged piece of sandstone. heheh :)
Shawn
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 14:31:21 -0500
From: SanctumOTR@[removed]
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject: Re: Bob Readick and A TIME FOR LOVE
In a message dated 11/6/01 9:34:30 AM, [removed]@[removed]
writes:
I'm doing a research on the 1953/54 radio series "A time for love"
starring Marlene Dietrich and found the information that Robert Readick
in his role as Mike Viktor (Marlene's partner) had been replaced by an
actor named Mr. Cowian in November, 1953.
Is there anybody who knows why Robert Readick had been replaced and/or
who this Mr. Cowian was?
***Bob Readick (son of Frank) had a lifelong history of mental illness and
nervous breakdowns . . . one of which occurred on the set of A TIME FOR LOVE
when Bob started attacking the microphones. He was hospitalized and the
show's generous star Marlene Dietrich paid for his hospital stay. These
events were recounted to me by several actors who were present on his last
ATFL broadcast, while Bobby himself told me that Dietrich had paid for his
medical bills. -- Anthony Tollin***
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 14:31:54 -0500
From: "John Davis" <wolfpackfan@[removed];
To: <[removed]@[removed];
Subject: Rio 500
Someone mentioned using the Rio 500 to listen to OTR MP3 programs. Even
though the 500 is no longer a current Sonicblue product, I bought a new one
from Best Buy about a month ago for $79. Some Best Buy stores may still have
some units still available. I had previously owned a Rio 300 and I also own
a Rio Volt. While the Rio Volt is great for carrying a large collection of
OTR programs on the road with you, I prefer the 500 for everyday listening
because of it's very small size and the Bookmark feature. One thing if you
have or get a 500, search arond the Internet for some of the free software
programs that have been written specifically for loading programs to the
500. There are a number of software programs that are much better than the
clunky program that comes with the 500.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 15:38:57 -0500
From: "Owens Pomeroy" <opomeroy@[removed];
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject: WOTW B/CAST NOT APPROVED BY H. G. WELLS
There is a wonderful new coffee-table size book on WOTW just released by
Brian Holmsten & Alex Lubetizzi called THE COMPLETE WOTW, including the
story behind the broadcast, the script and the original novel by H. G.
Wells, with an accompaning CD that contains excerpts from the book and
broadcast, narrated by John Galloway plus the original novel also read by
Galloway.
One interssting chapter deals with the aftermath of the b/cast and comments
from around the world. One note-worthy comment by H. G. Wells said that he
and CBS never mentioned anything about an adaptation of his work. He thought
that Orson Welles was going to read the novel on the air. The drama was
done with liberties taken that amounted to a complete rewriting of the novel
and making it a news event, therefore making it an entirely different story.
It was (Wells') understanding that the broadcast was to be presented as a
work of fiction, not as News. He gave no such permission for alteatiions,
which led people to believe it was real news. (Talk about your copyright
infringements. WoW!)
There was no law suit filed - however, due to the fact that sales of WOTW,
one of Wells' lesser-known novels, skyrocketed immediatly after the
broadcast.
Owens
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 15:39:07 -0500
From: "Tim Taylor" <tt327@[removed];
To: <[removed]@[removed];
Subject: preacher who healed over the air
Hi all:
My wife remembers a radio preacher who had listeners touch their radios as
certain moments so he could heal them. This was the 1940s. Anybody know who
this might be?
Thanks
Tim
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 18:14:30 -0500
From: "Henry Brugsch" <henry@[removed];
To: <[removed]@[removed];
Subject: re: the Archers
I am not an expert, since I am not a total convert.
But, back in about in 1949, I think. It replaced a great show here in the
UK, Dick Barton special Agent.
Dick Barton vanished into the pages of history, whilst the Archers went on,
on, and on.
It's still going on, and on, and on.
Originally it was set up as a device for bringing relevant bits of
non-trivial info to farmers, whilst providing a bit of the glue that holds
communities together.
down the years, the people didn't do very much, were civilized, and general
nice to each other.
Then, Television started to get popular, and when (I am not sure of the
date) I think it was 1954, one of the main characters, the wife of the young
farmer Phil who headed up the Archer clan died in a barn fire.
Apparently, this episode came on the same night that [removed] first came on
the air.
Not withstanding this, apparently, the whole country was listening.
Lately, the series has become more dramatic, the characters less lovable,
and in general, I think the series has lost a lot of tone. But, what it
lacks in tone, it probably has gained in pace.
As I said, not a lot happened in the earlier episodes, and in the '70s,
there was talk of scrapping the series.
But, I think due to the pace changes, and everything else, the show has
grown from strength to strength.
You can read about this I'd think on the BBC website
[removed]
and do a search for archers. If you are really lucky, you may be able to
hear the current episode, Or is that unlucky. (g>)
--
MAILTO:HENRY@[removed]
[removed]
g0gku/k1hbj
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 23:56:51 -0500
From: Kenneth Clarke <kclarke5@[removed];
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject: Re: Eddie Cantor, et al
>From the stories I've heard, and books I've read, certain
radio stars had some trouble with the radio censors
when it came to the content of their shows. Case in point:
I read somewhere that performers such as Eddie Cantor
and Bob Hope were approached by censors for taking
a stand against our enemies during World War II on their
respective shows.
Surely not. I would have thought that vocalizing patriotism
over the radio would have been in vogue. My question to
the members of the mailing list is why would the radio
censors disagree with this? Eddie Cantor was against
anti semitism and professed his pride in America openly.
Bob Hope has always admitted his pride in this country.
Why would the powers that be be against using the radio
programs to make their patriotism known?
Were there certain standards that censors asked performers
to stick to? What were they?
Kenneth Clarke
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 23:58:30 -0500
From: Michael Biel <mbiel@[removed];
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject: Re: Best Sound?
Stephen A. Kallis, Jr. suggested that somebody restoring an OTR program
might want to edit in more realistic sound effects than were used in the
original:
Assume he or she did. The new recording would sound more realistic
than the original broadcast ("better" in presentation) but different
from the original ("not better" in fidelity to what was aired).
This brings us to an interesting philosophical point: do we want the
"best possible sound," or the "best reproduction" of what was aired?
I would never consider doing something like this--this would be a
totally unethical distortion of the original broadcast. Unfortunately
the TV people do this all the time. They take an historic film and add
phony sound effects to it. While they wouldn't consider it ethical to
modify the picture, they--being visually oriented--don't understand that
it is equally unethical to falsify the sounds. They put sound effects
to film shot silent, but what is potentially worse is when they
"sweeten" the real soundtrack of the natural sounds with added phony
sound effects. For example, explosion sounds have been added to the
Herb Morrison Hindenburg Disaster recording in several TV documentaries
in the past decade. We worked with Moondance Films to make sure they
were able to get back to the original source for their recently aired
documentary. We were so successful that there is even a section
showing Les Waffen of the National Archives holding the original disc
and showing in close-ups the disturbances of the grooving at the point
of the explosion.
In 1994 I attended a conference outside of Berlin, Germany, of the
International Federation of Television Archives, and I chided the group
for the use of phony sound effects in historical documentary footage
that we had just been shown. And I got booed. They do not want to be
told that they are falsifying history.
Actually, let me make an exception to what I had said about TV
documentarians not considering it ethical to change the visual image.
The HAVE done it. Almost every time you see a documentary discussing
the Apollo 11 moonlanding TV coverage you see them cut away from the
pictures of the newscasters to the film of actual landing, showing the
lander "kicking up some dust." That film was not available until a week
after the astronauts returned--which means it was never seen till about
3 weeks after the event. What was ACTUALLY being shown at that time was
either an animation or a plastic model of the lander being lowered on a
string to a mock-up of the lunar surface. These original visuals got
out of sync with the actually events because the landing took longer
than planned. So that mix-up, coupled with how they look, make them
seem childishly crude now, and the networks are usually embarassed to
show it. There have only been a couple of times when the orignal
unaltered images have been re-aired. The unethically altered footage
was shown in the Cronkite Years series and in many documentaries at the
turn of this century. When TV Guide did their listing of the 100
greatest moments of TV they described #1--the moon landing--with a
discussion of how thrilled every viewer was to watch the live image of
the kicking up of the dust as the lander landed. In 1984, the late ABC
Science Editor Jules Bergman even described the program in that fashion
on an Entertainment Tonight interview--and he had actually DONE the
broadcast!
So, to again answer Stephen Kallis' question, no, it would be unethical
to change the horse whinnys in the 1940 Jack Armstrong program you
cited. But I would try to get back to as original a source as I could
to get the cleanest sound possible, or to clarify the available source's
quality.
Michael Biel mbiel@[removed]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 00:01:49 -0500
From: Dennis W Crow <DCrow3@[removed];
To: OTR Digest <[removed]@[removed];
Subject: Twelfth Night
I just listened to a dandy "Gunsmoke" episode from December 25, 1955,
entitled "Twelfth Night." The program featured John Dehner, Vic Perrin,
and Helen Kleeb. I recommend it to any family as a wonderful Christmas show
even though it doesn't appear so from the beginning. It contains superb
dialogue, crackling, inventive, authentic humor, and brilliant
characterization.
"Gunsmoke" writers have always had a reputation for careful research and
often a listener can learn Western history from its scripts. However, I
was taken aback by the episode title, "Twelfth Night," which authors
SuzAnne and Gabor Barabas [GUNSMOKE: A COMPLETE HISTORY; McFarland, 1990]
state is "derived from the Ozark custom of celebrating Christmas on January
6." (p. 397) That particular fact is a key ingredient in the story.
Can anyone give more details about the origin of this custom?
Dennis Crow
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 00:02:02 -0500
From: "Doug Leary" <dleary@[removed];
To: <[removed]@[removed];
Subject: AFRS re-broadcasts
A couple of the Scarlet Queen episodes I have (mp3) contain little
mini-documentaries, not commercials. In one of them Bob Hope tells a short
history of the Pony Express.
Doug Leary
--------------------------------
End of [removed] Digest V2001 Issue #356
*********************************************
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]
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]