Tweet
I am interested in collecting more desirable DECCA Classical records, especially the versions pressed in the UK. Larry has been so kind to share his deep knowledge of RCA and DECCA in the RCA Shaded Dog US vs UK thread that it is worthwhile to start a DECCA thread. I am especially interested in the best titles to get along with how to tell if the LP is a UK version if you can't see the label (Made in England), ect....SXL series. Below I have cut and pasted background information that Larry and Myles have shared in the RCA thread about DECCA.
It's complicated. Basically, Decca took over distribution of RCA in the UK from EMI, and started to press RCA records and even engineer many RCA releases (including some of the finest recordings). RCA would have the rights to those albums for 10 years and then they would revert back to Decca, which released many of them on their midpriced and bargain labels (including some on their London Stereo Treasury label distributed in the US.) One must remember that RCA's golden era was fairly short because of their disastrous decision to change to Dynagroove in 1963 (Although a few artists held out for the normal technique) The earliest catalogue number for a Dynagroove record was LSC-2614 the Reiner Beethoven Pastorale Symphony. (Chesky later rereleased the album in a non dynagroove issue Chesky RC-109). Decca pressed RCA's had a distinctive orange coloured label and the earliest ones had a groove in the label, like early Decca recordings. You can see the characteristic Decca markings in the deadwax of these records.
I have several British RCA's and the same issue in US pressings. Generally I find the US pressings better, BUT the Brits tend to take better care of their records than the Yanks, especially when you are talking about records that were released from the late '50's to the early '60's. One major problem was that the US used automatic record changers much more commonly than the UK. So you can imagine having records drop down onto one another. The multirecord sets were generally numbered in automatic sequence (for a 3 record set it would be 1-6, 2-5, 3-4) in the US releases, but in a manual sequence in the UK (1-2, 3-4, 5-6).
As far as the Decca engineered RCA's from that golden era ("Witches Brew", "Gounod Faust Ballet, "Venice", etc), Decca released all of those beginning in the early '70's on their cheap labels and using the transistor based cutting lathes which are different from the tube based lathes of a decade earlier. You are can find some of these in the $1 bargain bin in the US when they were issued on the London Stereo Treasury label - pressed in the UK at Decca's New Malden pressing plant.
One of HP's TAS Super Disc's is a Decca reissue of one of their RCA engineered albums, Decca SPA-122 Sibelius Symphony 5 by Gibson which first appeared as RCA LSC-2405. The original RCA is much more expensive than the Decca issue. It was also reissued in the late '90s by Classics Records.
After 1963, Decca continued to press and do some engineering for RCA. However, eventually RCA started pressing their own records in the UK (red labels, but no doggies - since EMI owns the doggie trademark in the UK and Europe - "His Master's Voice"). I have a good number of British pressings of the dynagroove era RCA's and they are almost universally better than their US counterparts. Decca was forced to cut the RCA's to the dynagroove spec (Decca engineer Tony Hawkins complained about having to do that), but to my ears, their dynagroove is much milder than the atrocities of most RCA US dynagrooves.
Larry
I have several British RCA's and the same issue in US pressings. Generally I find the US pressings better, BUT the Brits tend to take better care of their records than the Yanks, especially when you are talking about records that were released from the late '50's to the early '60's. One major problem was that the US used automatic record changers much more commonly than the UK. So you can imagine having records drop down onto one another. The multirecord sets were generally numbered in automatic sequence (for a 3 record set it would be 1-6, 2-5, 3-4) in the US releases, but in a manual sequence in the UK (1-2, 3-4, 5-6).
As far as the Decca engineered RCA's from that golden era ("Witches Brew", "Gounod Faust Ballet, "Venice", etc), Decca released all of those beginning in the early '70's on their cheap labels and using the transistor based cutting lathes which are different from the tube based lathes of a decade earlier. You are can find some of these in the $1 bargain bin in the US when they were issued on the London Stereo Treasury label - pressed in the UK at Decca's New Malden pressing plant.
One of HP's TAS Super Disc's is a Decca reissue of one of their RCA engineered albums, Decca SPA-122 Sibelius Symphony 5 by Gibson which first appeared as RCA LSC-2405. The original RCA is much more expensive than the Decca issue. It was also reissued in the late '90s by Classics Records.
After 1963, Decca continued to press and do some engineering for RCA. However, eventually RCA started pressing their own records in the UK (red labels, but no doggies - since EMI owns the doggie trademark in the UK and Europe - "His Master's Voice"). I have a good number of British pressings of the dynagroove era RCA's and they are almost universally better than their US counterparts. Decca was forced to cut the RCA's to the dynagroove spec (Decca engineer Tony Hawkins complained about having to do that), but to my ears, their dynagroove is much milder than the atrocities of most RCA US dynagrooves.
Larry
I believe there is a balancing act here.
Of course, no one can directly compare the fresh master tapes of 1960 with the same tapes in 2016. The closest we have are master tapes done by Jonathan Horwich, Ed Pong, Bob Attiyeh, Open Reel in Italy, and some of the Tape Project tapes (including TP-30 of the Cypress String Quartet recorded this past year and currently being edited for release soon). There is a freshness to these tapes which is remarkable. But I can say that my reaction listening to most of my safety masters made in the late '80's from masters which were 10 to 30 years old at that time is very much the same as listening to these fresh tape copies. Of course the selection is very limited. I have more tapes and records than most people - but my record collection of 15,000 records dwarfs my 15ips 2 track tape collection of less than 500 reels.
I have spent (invested?) a very large amount of money on early original pressings of RCA, Mercury, Decca and EMI classical vinyl, and a lesser, though considerable amount on tapes, both recent issues like Tape Project, and safety masters, as well as much less money on vinyl reissues from old tapes - Chad, Speakers Corner, Classics Records, etc. It is very, very difficult to find pristine records from the "golden age", even when spending hundreds of dollars for a single record.
Most of the problem is the playback equipment from that time. Very early stereo records started being issued in 1958 and the golden era for RCA was over a scant 5-6 years later when Dynagroove was introduced. Mercury was done by 1967 and Decca and EMI continued with analogue until about 1980. Original records from the Decca SXL2000 series and early SXL6000 series as well as the EMI ASD three digit and SAX series are from the late '50's to the mid '60's. So we are talking about the earliest commercial stereo phono equipment playing the earliest stereo records. Needles - not styli, were often not even diamond. Turntables and tonearms were much more primitive. A common trick, when a record wouldn't track or had a scratch, was to tape a penny or nickel onto the head of the tonearm to increase the tracking force. People also had, by our standards, very primitive ways of cleaning vinyl and keeping dust off records+ - a swipe of an antistatic cloth, and there were the infamous automatic record changers I mentioned earlier. Remember, on an automatic changer, the record dropping onto a stack of already playing records would gain speed buy the friction with the played records. The records have a raised edge to minimize the groove damage from these collisions. Finally for Mercury, in particular, there are two major issues - the quality of vinyl of the original pressings was often not that good - quite noisy, and the practice of cutting the records very close to the label (almost no dead wax in many of their records) makes inner groove distortion very common.
My observation is that classical recordings, particularly grand opera, are easier to find in decent condition than pop/rock/jazz recordings of that era. I surmise that classical music lovers took better care of their records and did not play them to death. They may have had better (more expensive) playback equipment. Of course one doesn't know the provenance of a used record, unless one partakes in estate sales. The best success I have had with buying old classical vinyl is through trusted dealers who play grade their vinyl (at least sampling). Starting almost 20 years ago, we began visiting the UK annually and I would load up on classical vinyl (mostly Deccas and EMIs) from local vinyl shops, where I could at least visually inspect the records. I also developed relationships with several dealers throughout the UK who had good stocks of classical vinyl. Unfortunately, except for one shop in London - which is a shell of its old self, there is nothing left. I do still have a very few dealers in the UK who have emerged over the past decade and whom I still buy from one occasion.
Chad, Speaker's Corner, etc., although using master tapes which are 50 years old to make their records, are producing the best versions of these classic records that most people are going to hear. I generally agree with Christian's observations that when the old record is in fine condition, it does have qualities that the reissues don't. Chad with his RCA reissues and Speaker's Corners with their Mercury reissues are about the best I have heard for reissues. The Speaker's Corners Decca reissues from a decade or more ago aren't up to that level.
Larry
Of course, no one can directly compare the fresh master tapes of 1960 with the same tapes in 2016. The closest we have are master tapes done by Jonathan Horwich, Ed Pong, Bob Attiyeh, Open Reel in Italy, and some of the Tape Project tapes (including TP-30 of the Cypress String Quartet recorded this past year and currently being edited for release soon). There is a freshness to these tapes which is remarkable. But I can say that my reaction listening to most of my safety masters made in the late '80's from masters which were 10 to 30 years old at that time is very much the same as listening to these fresh tape copies. Of course the selection is very limited. I have more tapes and records than most people - but my record collection of 15,000 records dwarfs my 15ips 2 track tape collection of less than 500 reels.
I have spent (invested?) a very large amount of money on early original pressings of RCA, Mercury, Decca and EMI classical vinyl, and a lesser, though considerable amount on tapes, both recent issues like Tape Project, and safety masters, as well as much less money on vinyl reissues from old tapes - Chad, Speakers Corner, Classics Records, etc. It is very, very difficult to find pristine records from the "golden age", even when spending hundreds of dollars for a single record.
Most of the problem is the playback equipment from that time. Very early stereo records started being issued in 1958 and the golden era for RCA was over a scant 5-6 years later when Dynagroove was introduced. Mercury was done by 1967 and Decca and EMI continued with analogue until about 1980. Original records from the Decca SXL2000 series and early SXL6000 series as well as the EMI ASD three digit and SAX series are from the late '50's to the mid '60's. So we are talking about the earliest commercial stereo phono equipment playing the earliest stereo records. Needles - not styli, were often not even diamond. Turntables and tonearms were much more primitive. A common trick, when a record wouldn't track or had a scratch, was to tape a penny or nickel onto the head of the tonearm to increase the tracking force. People also had, by our standards, very primitive ways of cleaning vinyl and keeping dust off records+ - a swipe of an antistatic cloth, and there were the infamous automatic record changers I mentioned earlier. Remember, on an automatic changer, the record dropping onto a stack of already playing records would gain speed buy the friction with the played records. The records have a raised edge to minimize the groove damage from these collisions. Finally for Mercury, in particular, there are two major issues - the quality of vinyl of the original pressings was often not that good - quite noisy, and the practice of cutting the records very close to the label (almost no dead wax in many of their records) makes inner groove distortion very common.
My observation is that classical recordings, particularly grand opera, are easier to find in decent condition than pop/rock/jazz recordings of that era. I surmise that classical music lovers took better care of their records and did not play them to death. They may have had better (more expensive) playback equipment. Of course one doesn't know the provenance of a used record, unless one partakes in estate sales. The best success I have had with buying old classical vinyl is through trusted dealers who play grade their vinyl (at least sampling). Starting almost 20 years ago, we began visiting the UK annually and I would load up on classical vinyl (mostly Deccas and EMIs) from local vinyl shops, where I could at least visually inspect the records. I also developed relationships with several dealers throughout the UK who had good stocks of classical vinyl. Unfortunately, except for one shop in London - which is a shell of its old self, there is nothing left. I do still have a very few dealers in the UK who have emerged over the past decade and whom I still buy from one occasion.
Chad, Speaker's Corner, etc., although using master tapes which are 50 years old to make their records, are producing the best versions of these classic records that most people are going to hear. I generally agree with Christian's observations that when the old record is in fine condition, it does have qualities that the reissues don't. Chad with his RCA reissues and Speaker's Corners with their Mercury reissues are about the best I have heard for reissues. The Speaker's Corners Decca reissues from a decade or more ago aren't up to that level.
Larry
Just make sure that the later 6000 series Decca recordings were pressed in England, not Holland. The latter, done for Decca by Phillips, are decidedly inferior. (IIRC you have Decca mastered and pressed in England; Decca mastered in England and pressed in Holland; Decca mastered and pressed in Holland.) Just as you can hear when Decca started using solid-state electronics as Larry previously pointed out.
Don't forget the 20th century composer series on Nonesuch. Some great music there produced by Joanna Nickrenz and engineered by Mark Aubort.
Myles B. Astor, PhD, Administrator
Don't forget the 20th century composer series on Nonesuch. Some great music there produced by Joanna Nickrenz and engineered by Mark Aubort.
Myles B. Astor, PhD, Administrator
But both the Maazel Pines of Rome (SXL6822) and the Britten Prince of Pagodas (GOS was part of the midpriced SDD series) were on HP's TAS Super Disc List. BTW, the Britten Prince of Pagodas came in early and later British pressings, before the Holland pressing. The earlier is better (with a groove label), but the latter is easier to find and is still quite excellent. It also was issued as a bargain London Stereo Treasury which is also quite fine.
I could go on at length about the Decca transition to Dutch pressings when Polygram bought Decca Records around the beginning of 1980. Suffice it to say, the Decca engineers were not pleased (John Dunkerley told me when I interviewed him for my Decca book that they were shocked at the initial test pressings they got back from Baarn - "where did the bass go"). Philips did improve things, but they were never of the quality of the New Malden pressings.
Maybe a different thread about the Decca vinyl and the transition from New Malden to Baarn (UK to Holland)?
I could go on at length about the Decca transition to Dutch pressings when Polygram bought Decca Records around the beginning of 1980. Suffice it to say, the Decca engineers were not pleased (John Dunkerley told me when I interviewed him for my Decca book that they were shocked at the initial test pressings they got back from Baarn - "where did the bass go"). Philips did improve things, but they were never of the quality of the New Malden pressings.
Maybe a different thread about the Decca vinyl and the transition from New Malden to Baarn (UK to Holland)?
) , the readings or interpretations of each work is not a subject im qualified to debate. If you don't like the reissues he lists then opt for the original press, either way its a good compendium of music that doesn't list the 'usual suspects' you see everywhere else
Comment