If you don't like it, get some facts that can be backed up and change the 
article- that's the whole point of Wikipedia!

Eric Stott
(Just finished correcting a few small problems in a Freemasonry article)


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert Wright" <esrobe...@hotmail.com>
To: "Antique Phonograph List" <phono-l@oldcrank.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 8:44 PM
Subject: [Phono-L] P.S. Wikipedia sucks.


> Bad news about good ol' Wikipedia.  They just lost my business permanently
> with the following quote, from their entry for Fred Gaisberg:
>
> "A musically talented youngster, he encountered the fledgling recording
> technology in the early 1890s, and got a job working for the 'Graphophone'
> [sic] company in America. Sound quality and short playing time, however,
> meant that recordings were more an amusing novelty than a serious means of
> reproducing music. In this decade the first of the recording industry's
> format wars was taking place, with the original cylinder recordings
> gradually being ousted by the superior and more convenient flat disc.
> Gaisberg played an important part in this, helping to establish 78
> revolutions per minute as the standard playing speed and shellac as the
> standard material for making discs."
>
> Of all the inaccuracies, generalizations, and needless oversimplifying
> there, I'll only address one glaring falsehood:  the only disc records 
> ever
> capable of competing sonically with Edison's cylinders were Edison's 
> Diamond
> Discs.  Non-Edison disc records never even approached Edison cylinders'
> tonal neutrality and naturalness, or got near their frequency response
> extension in the top end, until Columbia's Viva-tonals, which came out 
> well
> past the timeline of this article's first two paragraphs.  Too bad the
> world's greatest inventor was the world's worst A&R man.
>
> r.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Phono-L mailing list
> Phono-L@oldcrank.org
>
> Phono-L Archive
> http://phono-l.oldcrank.org/archive/
>
> Support Phono-L
> http://www.cafepress.com/oldcrank
> 

Reply via email to