Subject: [removed] Digest V2001 #356
From: "OldRadio Mailing Lists" <[removed]@[removed];
Date: 11/6/2001 10:05 PM

To: <[removed]@[removed];

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

                                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]