NitrateVille.com

Universal is presenting its music archive from 1926-1948 to Library of Congress. LOC gets masters, Universal keeps copyright. It includes WHITE CHRISTMAS among the songs.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/ ... s-20110110

I'm guessing this is from Decca and the music division. Universal supposedly has retained very little in the way of film music elements.

missdupont wrote:Universal is presenting its music archive from 1926-1948 to Library of Congress. LOC gets masters, Universal keeps copyright. It includes WHITE CHRISTMAS among the songs.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/ ... s-20110110

I wonder if there are any restrictions on future LOC use, in the unlikely event that (snark alert) anything ever passes into the public domain ever again.

Universal maybe a "large" conglomerate, but in terms of tango they are a very weak sister compared to RCA and Odeon, since they entered the fild past the prime time. They have absolutely nothing for those years.

Their catalogue starts in 1958, under the Phillips and Polydor labels, includes the last 14 recordings by Carlos Di Sarli, several recordings by Osvaldo Pugliese, Edmundo Rivero and Horacio Salgán. They also have a few recordings by Astor Piazzolla, including his all time worst LPs (they fired him in the middle of the recordings of the final one, leaving it unfinished... although they should have buried it).

In the sixties they were more successful with Argentine folklore. But some of Tránsito Cocomarola have never been officially reprinted, so I pretend to believe that they lost those versions.

missdupont wrote:Universal is presenting its music archive from 1926-1948 to Library of Congress. LOC gets masters, Universal keeps copyright. It includes WHITE CHRISTMAS among the songs.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/ ... s-20110110

From the article:
"The collection features major works by greats such as Louis Armstrong, Billie Holiday, Ella Fitzgerald, Judy Garlard and Bing Crosby."

That's great that they've got Judy Garlard covered...let's hope they don't forget about Judy Garland!

It should have stated Bing Crosby's "versions" of "White Christmas" since he re-recorded it for Decca in 1947 (original session was in 1942 when HOLIDAY INN was released).

I heard about the Universal donation on a recent NPR segment. They said that Crosby re-recorded "White Christmas" in 1947 because the metal mother (stamper) from the original 1942 recording had worn out from overuse, and they couldn't press any more records from it.

That makes a good story, but it implies that you can only make one "mother" from the wax master, and I don't know if that's actually true. Maybe what NPR really meant was that it was technically impossible to make any more new mothers from the 1942 wax master, or any new copies from any metal mothers at that time.

Perhaps one more argument for digital preservation, which permits the making of an infinite number of perfect copies? SETH

sethb wrote:They said that Crosby re-recorded "White Christmas" in 1947 because the metal mother (stamper) from the original 1942 recording had worn out from overuse, and they couldn't press any more records from it. SETH

For the better part of my life, I assumed the commonly heard version of White Christmas WAS the original 1942 recording. It wasn't until MCA released a two disc set of Crosby Christmas recordings back in the 90's that I heard the '42 version for the first time. They even included a blown take from the '42 session.

dr.giraud wrote:I wonder if there are any restrictions on future LOC use, in the unlikely event that (snark alert) anything ever passes into the public domain ever again.

According to the NPR report, the Library plans to set up a feature on its website called "the American Jukebox," with selections from this collection available there.

sethb wrote:I heard about the Universal donation on a recent NPR segment. They said that Crosby re-recorded "White Christmas" in 1947 because the metal mother (stamper) from the original 1942 recording had worn out from overuse, and they couldn't press any more records from it.

That makes a good story, but it implies that you can only make one "mother" from the wax master, and I don't know if that's actually true. Maybe what NPR really meant was that it was technically impossible to make any more new mothers from the 1942 wax master, or any new copies from any metal mothers at that time.

Perhaps one more argument for digital preservation, which permits the making of an infinite number of perfect copies? SETH

One significant new practice that Decca instituted between the two "White Christmas" sessions, beginning in about mid-1943, was to capture all its recordings on 16" 33 rpm lacquer discs in addition to the 78 rpm masters. Thus when a new master was needed, they could simply dub one off the lacquer disc instead of creating new stampers from the metal mother. Whether that provided further impetus to re-record the song, I don't know.

I've often wondered what the actual sales figures were of Decca 18429/23778 before the new recording was issued. There can be no question that it was a huge hit, but the shellac rationing in effect for part of the time the original recording was in the catalogue must have dampened sales from what they otherwise could have been. (RIAA certification didn't begin until the late 1950s; any of their audits would have included both versions.)

[post-script: I should add that there *were* gold records awarded before 1958, but they were bestowed by the record companies themselves and not subject to outside verification.]

-Harold