The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

Columbia A6109/ A6110, Peer Gynt Suite, recorded in 1919, Columbia Symphony Orchestra, Charles A. Prince. One of the very early Columbia symphonic "sets". First record is 1 and 2, second is 3 and 4. Visual E- with slight scratches/ scuffing. Plays better.

$50 OBO- correct packing/ worldwide shipping available.

Interesting--I have the same suite with parts 1 and 2 played by "Prince's Orchestra," billed simply as "Peer Gynt Suite," on A5220 (matrices 30511 and 30512), parts 3 and 4 played by "Prince's String Orchestra" and "Prince's Orchestra," respectively, billed as "Peer Gynt Suite no. 1," on A5227 (matrices 30524 and 30525). Labels are the predecessor to yours (the ones with the big notes). Did Columbia renumber the records and matrices and reissue the same recordings with the new performer attribution? Or is yours, implausible as it seems, a *second* acoustic recording of the same work, in a period when having a *first* was unusual? Curiouser and curiouser...

drh wrote:Interesting--I have the same suite with parts 1 and 2 played by "Prince's Orchestra," billed simply as "Peer Gynt Suite," on A5220 (matrices 30511 and 30512), parts 3 and 4 played by "Prince's String Orchestra" and "Prince's Orchestra," respectively, billed as "Peer Gynt Suite no. 1," on A5227 (matrices 30524 and 30525). Labels are the predecessor to yours (the ones with the big notes). Did Columbia renumber the records and matrices and reissue the same recordings with the new performer attribution? Or is yours, implausible as it seems, a *second* acoustic recording of the same work, in a period when having a *first* was unusual? Curiouser and curiouser...

I guess matrix numbers would tell, yes? I think this label is correct for early 1919, which is the recording date for this set. I have a feeling yours is an earlier version, likely the December 1915- January 1916 session listed here on P. 121:
https://books.google.com/books?id=6iYRV ... nd&f=false

gramophone-georg wrote:

drh wrote:Interesting--I have the same suite with parts 1 and 2 played by "Prince's Orchestra," billed simply as "Peer Gynt Suite," on A5220 (matrices 30511 and 30512), parts 3 and 4 played by "Prince's String Orchestra" and "Prince's Orchestra," respectively, billed as "Peer Gynt Suite no. 1," on A5227 (matrices 30524 and 30525). Labels are the predecessor to yours (the ones with the big notes). Did Columbia renumber the records and matrices and reissue the same recordings with the new performer attribution? Or is yours, implausible as it seems, a *second* acoustic recording of the same work, in a period when having a *first* was unusual? Curiouser and curiouser...

I guess matrix numbers would tell, yes? I think this label is correct for early 1919, which is the recording date for this set. I have a feeling yours is an earlier version, likely the December 1915- January 1916 session listed here on P. 121:
https://books.google.com/books?id=6iYRV ... nd&f=false

You'd think so--but my matrix numbers don't match up with what's on 121; they're 30511, 30512, 30524, and 30525. If it was peculiar for Columbia to record the work twice, it would be bizarre for Columbia to have done it three times so close together. Yet that's how things are beginning to look. Too bad the Google preview omits all the pages where my matrix numbers would be reprinted.

Open to offers!

Hey, drh, your matrixes are there, just follow the indicators at the right margin of the googlebooks search feature, here they are

Reduced 50% to $50

I remember having this on a Victor Record years ago........

Any feedback on which is a better performance?

Don't know where mine is. Like this music.

Think it was a Orthrophonic or VE record, but memory is going.

Any feedback is helpful.

Thanks, Bob

studebakerphonos wrote:I remember having this on a Victor Record years ago........

Any feedback on which is a better performance?

Don't know where mine is. Like this music.

Think it was a Orthrophonic or VE record, but memory is going.

Any feedback is helpful.

Thanks, Bob

I've had several versions of this on Victor. I don't know how one could decide which is "better"... they're all great in their own way. What is interesting with these early acoustical sets is how the engineers often brilliantly "compensated" for the shortcomings in their equipment to produce a great rendition of a familiar piece.