Broadway Melody - The Wedding of the Painted Doll (Layton & Johnstone) - Columbia 5462 (1929)

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ม.ค. 2025

ความคิดเห็น • 7

  • @happyinspite
    @happyinspite 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    The condition of the vinyl is literally how I scramble samples 💀.

  • @Wolfganger
    @Wolfganger 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    The French pressing correct? I have a copy of this too, I think it’s the British pressing, I don’t know why but the credits are formatted differently to the more common British pressing, “American Duettists With Piano And Dulcitone” is spread across two lines like in this copy, however the font is that of the British pressing. I’ve only seen this with one other record, that being “My Ohio Home”. On Discogs there are two pressings, both released in the UK, with differently formatted credits, the same situation as what I mentioned earlier. Weird. Cool record though, would be good for a EATEOT fan album!

    • @jonathandemiguel1458
      @jonathandemiguel1458  6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Yeah, for a bit of post-awareness though...
      True, this is the French pressing, due to the odd font and it being sent by a dubious person in France (of course in an LP mailer🙃).
      If I'm not mistaken there are also several Spanish pressings on Regal, but they are much rarer.
      Also - American and Australian imports!

    • @misstoki
      @misstoki 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      There are the mention "FABRIQUE EN FRANCE" (Made in France) on label

    • @Wolfganger
      @Wolfganger 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@misstokiI noticed blawg swarg larwg

    • @Wolfganger
      @Wolfganger 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@jonathandemiguel1458Doubt my copy is an Australian/American import, I have one American import L&J record and it has is even more distinctive differences than a French pressing. I’ve seen Australian pressings on Discogs and they are also slightly different from British pressings. I assume mine is a pressing from a couple years later maybe? I’ve seen a later pressing of this record from around 1932 and it too is formatted differently, the catalog number specifically. It was where all catalog numbers are on the post 1929 Columbias, although there was no DB before it. Probably because Columbia only started putting DB numbers on their records in very late 1929, maybe even early 1930, and they obviously didn’t put DB before older recordings that were still in the catalog, instead they just moved the place of the catalog number. At least that’s what I’m sure of anyway.