Buying Classical Records RCA Mercury

For audiophiles, likely the most famous RCA ever. Don't think about finding this in the bins. Some of my favorites are pictured below.

Talk Vinyl: Buying Classical Records, a Beginner's Guide, Part III
Labels: RCA, Mercury

Please Read Part I for Basic Pointers, Resources

Attention: I have created a blog label Classical Music - Buying Records. Just click and all posts so far in the series shall appear. The blog label is also in the sidebar (roll down).

RCA (wiki) US recording giant RCA was a great rival of Columbia. Make sure you read the wiki entry for the rich history. And, of course, should you ever be in NYC, make sure you visit the resplendent RCA building in Rockefeller Center. And then you owe it to yourself to go to the nearby Radio City Music Hall where, during the Holiday Season, you can catch the Rockettes kicking their legs much like the cover album (my personal RCA favorite). Forget about fine arts, there is nothing better than that. :-)

• Living Stereo It can safely be said that no respectable audiophile would be without one of these (unlike Columbia, shunned by many). The long running series contain many gems but these were by a few artists, and forgettable items outnumber them. I just found out there is a website devoted to it, where you can browse all the great covers. Now, a Living Stereo recording is most often marked by the iconic black strip running across the top of the cover, but as you can see from the website, some have smaller and less pronounced captions. The Living Stereo series was, and still is, the bread and butter of RCA; so many titles were in continual production even into Red Seals days, so it is important to look at the inner label. Stereo/Mono are coded (for classical's) LSC/LM. Make sure you check. the term Living Stereo lasted well into the Red Seals age, and they are not as desirable. In general, judge by the inner labels.

• Recording and Halls The excellence of the recordings were in no doubt from the start. the producer/engineer team of Richard Mohr/Lewis Layton, like EMI's 2 Christophers, always delivered. While the Boston Symphony Hall is acoustically world renowned, the Chicago Orchestral Hall is more problematic. It is testament to the team that the recordings were so consistently good.

• Inner Labels As RCA pressings declined in quality later, it is important to identify earlier pressings. However, many of the famous ones have been over-used and traded thrice over, so paying good money is a risky proposal. Shaded Dog refers to the earliest and most coveted pressings (in the vinylbeat link provided it is label 2I; the dog and phonograph are shadowed, hence the name). White Dog Later the shadow disappeared (4A), and these are still very good pressings. Dynagroove (4D) Even later on, RCA introduced the Dynagroove. These have a "bad" audiophile reputation, but most of the ones that I have sounded quite good! More info here too.

• Soria (wiki) This is an odd series, supposedly deluxe, and they are not often seen. The most famous issue is the Royal Ballet pictured above (Ansermet actually recorded everything in that album with his own Swiss orchestra, in performances and Decca sound just as splendid, that are worth nothing; just figure). It should be noted that quite a few of Soria's offerings (like VPO, Karajan, Monteux) actually originated from Decca, and they were later reclaimed by Decca/London and re-issued in the STS budget series. Not for the Royal Ballet though. :-( So, no need to fuss over this series otherwise.

• Red Seal Then RCA entered the Red Seal era (label like 6E), and the pressings (and quality of artists) rapidly declined. Later on, pressings were wafer thin and problematic in terms of noise, even tracking. In the 70's and 80's I mostly avoided buying RCA for these reasons.

• Victrola Stereo/Mono are coded VICS/VIC, so beware. Like Odyssey and Seraphim, this long-running budget label of RCA cannot be neglected. Many of the best Living Stereos were re-issued in this budget label, and you are going to come across tens of these (many in dollar bins) before seeing a Shaded/White Dog. In fact, Reiner's earlier However, more than their counterparts at Columbia and Angel, their quality declined even more rapidly, and it is important to pick and choose. Basically, stick with the earlier maroon label (5B). Later pressings are in light pink (like 6A) and the earlier of these are still thick and sturdy, whereas very soon they turned thin and floppy. The sleeves of the later iterations, unlike the elegant early duo-tone with drawings, have horrible graphics. Avoid the latter.

• Gold Seal (label like 7) This latter day budget/mid-priced label attempted to improve things but I don't like them. Some of these have been remastered and they simply sound different. Pressing quality is highly variable, and I had worse luck than my friend Andy. Cover art is lousy. Given the abundance of Victrola's etc, I'd pass.

• Camden Lousy quality and totally forgettable.

• Artists Early On Like Columbia, RCA started out recording mostly American artists, but later on they were barely competitive in my opinion. Early On was the Golden Age. Orchestral Music Here, the Chicago Symphony under Fritz Reiner made many excellent records (essential Strauss, Bartok, and surprisingly, Mahler, French and Spanish music) that most audiophiles have at least read about. Keep in mind that, aside from the sonic blockbusters, Reiner's recordings of the regular repertoire (Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, etc) are not held in high esteem. Jean Martinon, the unlucky successor, also made some excellent records, mostly French music, but also a good Nielsen 4th (also excellent Prokofiev with French orchestra). The other orchestra was the Boston Symphony, which made many good records under two conductors. Claude Monteux is a giant, not showy but always good. If you see his records (whether on RCA, Decca or Philips), just grab them. Although on RCA, the Monteux recordings with the London Symphony and Vienna Philharmonic (all excellent) originated from Decca, and equivalent high quality LPs could be more cheaply obtained in the later London STS issues. The other is Charles Munch, who was the opposite, fiery, flamboyant. Munch could be exciting (essential Berlioz and Saint Saens), but sometimes the playing could be a little coarse due to his urgency. Get a few of his on Victrola and see if you like him as much as I do (for me, he's never boring, even in German repertoire; one day I should read this lengthy and dry scholarly discography). Later on, BSO was headed by Eric Leinsdorf, a kappemeister who is reliable but seldom inspiring; I'd avoid the many recordings of his. RCA also recorded 2 essential albums of Russian favorites with the excellent Kiril Kondrashin (one pictured above, the other being Capriccio Italien/Espanol). And let us not forget another audiophile fav, Leopold Stokowski's Rhapsodies. I'd forget Morton Gould's recordings. Pianists The field is totally dominated by Arthur Rubinstein, whose recordings during this period are almost all excellent (unlike his later remakes; the Saint Saens Concerto No. 2 is a must). In concerto recordings, he also had excellent support. And then the excellent Byron Janis made some wonderful recordings (essential Rachmaninov). Although Van Cliburn caused a sensation by winning the Tchaikovsky Competition at the heights of the Cold War, his many recordings are just serviceable, and none provide any real insight - avoid. Rather, a few others pianists recorded one- or two-off gems: Sviatoslav Richter (essential Brahms Concerto No.2 and Beethoven Concerto No.1); Malcolm Frager (essential Prokofiev Concerto No.2, rare) and Emil Gilels (anything of his is essential). John Browning also made quite a few records, and he is usually good. Violinists Here the domination of Jascha Heifetz is total and deserved, and there is no need to dwell on this legend. But I'd like to bring your attention to another fiddler, the great Henryk Szeryng, whose Lalo Symphonie Espagnol and Brahms Violin Sonatas (with Rubinstein) are still definitive. Cellist The late recordings of the great Gregory Piatigorsky are still worthwhile. Chamber Music Aside those made by the star soloists with others, the Festival Quartet, though austere, is collectible. The early Juilliard Quartet recordings tend to be over-shadowed by their extensive Columbia discography. 

• Artists Later On After the Golden Age, by the time of Red Seal, RCA really lost steam. Orchestral Music Slim picking. In Chicago, they recorded a few good albums with young Seiji Ozawa (an early Messiaen Turangalila stands out), but by the time of Solti lost the CSO to Decca. And, after the lackluster Leinsdorf, by the time Ozawa assumed leadership of the BSO, lost it to DG. RCA recorded a bit of Andre Previn with LSO (very good Vaughn Williams cycle, Walton symphonies) but later lost them too to EMI. Without an orchestra of their own, they poached Eugene Ormandy and the Philadelphia from Columbia, and needlessly re-recorded a lot of what Columbia had recorded before. Problem is, Ormandy by this time was getting old and jaded, and smooth sound became lax. None of his RCA recordings are better than the earlier Columbia equivalents, so avoid. Then came young James Levine, who recorded, among other things, a good Mahler cycle with various orchestras (sonically less so). Pianists Rubinstein, by the Red Seal age, was pretty old, but RCA kept on re-recording many concertos, usually partnered by Ormandy - NONE of them are better than his earlier efforts on Living Stereo, so avoid. RCA also recorded Horowitz, now in his late age; given his extensive Columbia catalogue, there is really nothing new. Peter Serkin, son of Rudolf, was an excellent pianist and he recorded some interesting material (more in chamber music). And RCA also recorded John Ogdon in some off-beat repertoire. In the age of the LP, I cannot recall any other pianist of unusual merit. Violinists No one could follow in the footstep of Heifetz, whose recordings remained best-sellers forever, not his disciple Erik Friedman (though his Sarasate/Chausson/Ravel album has become a Chinese audiophile favorite), nor the likes of Eugene Fodor. Cellist Lynn Harrell made a few records, but I always find him too smooth. Chamber Music Here RCA did better. The Guarneri Quartet recorded just about everything over their long career. The Cleveland Quartet was younger and more ardent (later they recorded for Telarc). Both were quite accomplished but of course face vast competition in this field. Try a few. Then there is the unusual formation of TASHI (a super lineup of pianist Peter Serkin; clarinetist Richard Stoltzman; violinist Ida Kavafian and cellist Fred Sherry) who recorded innovative programs (including Messiaen's Quartet for the End of Time), and they are recommended.

My personal favorite, not even classical. But the popular arrangements of folk music like Troika and Midnight in Moscow will melt any heart. Try it out by streaming!

Mercury (wiki) No record label inspires more awe (and headaches) in the audiophile. Awe, because the audio press fuss endlessly over the re-issues, be them CDs, SACDs or LPs. Of course, they were also popularized by HP's List. Headaches, because most audiophiles fail to play back most Mercury's to their satisfaction (usually too shrill). All this is moot. It is not often that one spots a good Mercury LP, not to mention one with a good price. When I started buying LPs in the late 70's, Mercury was already over, so it is embarrassing for me to write this capsule, as my few copies were all acquired later. However, I did own most of the worthwhile Mercury CD re-issues, so I can rate the musical performances.

• Mercury Living Presence We are only talking about Living Presence. The cover art is basically divided into 3 types: a broad red "Stereo" stripe across the top; a smaller red ribbon diagonally strapped to the left upper corner; and the most iconic, a broad film tape across the top, indicating magnetic film tape recording (brought over from Everest). It has to be said the cover art is usually excellent.

• Recordings Even more than RCA and Decca, Mercury used minimal miking (see the links), but the results are perhaps more fabled than real (heresy!). More than RCA and Decca, the top tends to be quite dry and hot, and the earlier the recording, the more so. Usually, the Minneapolis recordings are quite dry. The Detroit Symphony ones fare better. And the London recordings all sound very good - I tend to think, like for RCA, these were done by Decca engineers (I could well be wrong, as many of these bear the magnetic tape stripe).

• Inner Labels Read this excellent Label Guide. Mercury's pressings deteriorated rapidly. The Maroon labels were good, but even the so-called "lighter maroon" (more like light raspberry) can be noisy, but some are still acceptable.

• Wing This is Mercury's latter-day budget re-issue label. They are generally horrid! Avoid! Quite a few are electronically re-channeled too.

• Artists Given the short span of Mercury, this is the easiest task I have had so far in this series. Orchestral Music The most interesting thing is, although Mercury lacked "star power" in terms of both orchestras and conductors, they did amazingly well. Detroit Symphony/Paul Paray Even now, they are totally under-rated. Paray not only recorded the French repertoire exceedingly well, he excelled in almost everything he did, whether it was Sibelius or Schumann. IMHO, he is no less great a conductor than Munch, Monteux and Ansermet, not yet given his due. Antal Dorati/London Symphony Down to the last one, these were great recordings, the most famous of which being likely Stravinsky's Firebird. But I like him in just about everything, from Brahms to Dvorak and the second Viennese school. Great conductor. Now, he recorded profusely earlier with the Minneapolis Orchestra but, as mentioned, those were often sonically challenged. And then there was Howard Hanson, whose own compositions and recordings with the ok Rochester Symphony were by now surpassed. Wind Band One of the most prolific recording artists was Frederick Fennell, but I am not a fan of this kind of music, and pass. Soloists In piano, Mercury had the great Byron Janis, recordings of which duplicated his own RCA recordings (but I give the edge to RCA). In Violin, I treasure those recordings by Henryk Szeryng. And in Cello, all of the Janos Starker's recordings are desirable (cool, but excellent).

• Philips Golden Import After Mercury was acquired by Philips, their recordings appeared under this label, covered in my Philips survey (Part II).

Mac Attack! McIntosh MA-5100 Integrated Amplifier McIntosh MR-67 Tuner JBL Studio 590

Mac Attack! McIntosh MA-5100 Integrated Amplifier McIntosh MR-67 Tuner JBL Studio 590

By mrgoodsound 

Editor: I really knew relatively little about mrgoodsound when he came on board. After some exchanges, I became more and more surprised by the scope of his vintage interests. I am delighted he has started to write about his system and vintage equipment. I have a lot more to comment on McIntosh etc, but I'll leave that to the comments section.

12" Stentorian HF-1214 drivers

A Transitional Phase

I am currently stuck in loudspeaker purgatory. I have 3 DIY speaker projects on hold for one reason or another, 2 or 3 more DIY speaker ideas, and a shortlist of (vintage!) commerical loudspeakers that you just don't see come up for sale every day. The desire to rid myself of my current inefficient modern tower speakers for high-sensitivity, low-loss, alnico-magnet loudspeakers from a bygone era is at the top of my mind these days. Even stronger still is the desire to continue to enjoy music every night, which means making the best of the acoustic system I currently have.

JBL Studio 590

As to what I currently have, the Studio 590 is still enjoyable. It is a 2.5-way design using a compression driver in a bi-radial horn and two 8" woofers. The Studio 5 series has been around for a few years now and was reportedly Greg Timbers' (JBL Everest, JBL 250Ti) last design work for JBL before his departure. It's primary shortcoming is the nature of its crossover design, the complex filter networks and attenuation required to match the horn-loaded compression driver with its lower half. Efficiency is lost, electrical (and musical) energy is converted to heat and the critical middle frequencies shy away from the spotlight or a chance at expressiveness until the volume is increased. The sound is very modern and 'straight-up', and experiments with well-designed high-power push-pull pentode amplifiers showed that solid-state amplification is still a necessary evil, despite a published 90dB @ 2.83V sensitivity rating.

Still, this model is available factory direct and often on sale for about $1,000 US a pair. For this price, I find them recommendable and superior to the large majority of commercial loudspeakers at this price point. Much has already been written about these speakers online and I will not go into too much detail other than to say I like them but yearn for better. The best review I found, complete with measurements, was published in Aussie mag AVHub here.

McIntosh MA-5100

I browse local audio classifieds daily, for opportunities to acquire desirable vintage equipment, although this often gets me into cases of buying things I don't actually need in any way. This amplifier was one of these purchases, but I am fairly pleased with it. I picked it up along with a MR-67 tuner from a gentleman who had lived with them for over 20 years. He was a retired combat veteran and could no longer enjoy the equipment in his living situation. I felt rather bad, but he expressed satisfaction that both pieces were going to a good home.

My new (to me) MA-5100

The MA-5100 is a full-function integrated amplifier with phono section and 45 watts per channel. It was manufactured in 1966 and was one of the early solid-state units offered by McIntosh, based on silicon transistors. Firstly, my bias against McIntosh. I think modern (post 1979 production) McIntosh equipment is a travesty. The quality (I speak only of internal construction and circuit design for integrity of sound, not fit & finish) has only declined over the years, and it is to a point where they produce amplifiers that look more like computers than audio equipment inside, not to mention the frequent re-issuing of classic models that perform worse and worse than the original. Misguided engineering via over obsession with specifications (1 kilowatt amplifiers!) to produce products to appeal to those who wish to show off or are truly on the path to audio hell. Like present-day Klipsch, their sales are sustained on brand power and marketing only.

The subject of today's article is from a different era, and I am fond of McIntosh gear of the 1960s and prior. The MA-5100 is gorgeous, especially with its wood grain enclosure and original fascia lighting. It has tone controls, loudness contour, old 'LP' phono equalization, and two phono inputs; all features which I use and appreciate. The sound has traces of harshness associated with early transistor equipment, but despite this it plays with great immediacy and presence. This is only once a critical volume threshold is reached, as is the case with nearly all solid-state amplifiers. However, still impressive, and perhaps the hallmark of McIntosh equipment from this era. Tonal and timbral quality is there, and the sound is not awfully washed out like modern McIntosh amplifiers. It can be used to enjoy jazz and classical. The MA-5100 was an 'entry-level' piece and can be found for reasonable prices today. It is not autoformer coupled on the output, but this is frankly an unnecessary feature,  unless you advocate the use of Wilson speakers with 2 ohm impedance troughs.

McIntosh MR-67

The MR-67 tuner is a piece I have wanted for a while. Yes, I still listen to FM, frequently so. In Toronto we are fortunate to have many great stations still to enjoy classical and jazz music. It is a tube tuner and an aesthetic mate to the MA-5100, although their production was a few years apart. Even with a simple copper wire used as an antenna, reception is very good, and the local 96.3 Classical FM can be enjoyed. I prefer to listen to FM in mono as the sound is even more immediate and present, and without multiplexing the signal path is technically shortened. A good broadcast with this tuner sounds warm and inviting, even the commercials sound good.

For a classical novice, FM is a great way to not only hear new pieces, but learn more about them. In between or before playing a piece, the radio host will often give context to the music and who is performing it. I keep pen and paper handy while listening and write down the times when hearing something I like, then look up what was playing on the station's website later.

A tuner will remain a mainstay in my system for background listening, to provide a constant signal for warming up or breaking in other components, as well as when I come home from work too tired to think critically about what I want to listen to. I love this piece although I forsee myself replacing it with a Scott 310E if the opportunity presents itself. The Scott is nowhere near as pretty, but is on another echelon of FM quality compared to any McIntosh tuner. Unfortunately, good examples of the Scott are getting hard to find, and command high prices.

Who am I writing for?

NY Diary (20-6): Who am I writing for?

New Feature: With this article, I have instigated a new feature. There will be a new series blog-labeled as Classical Music - Basic Repertoire. Each will introduce a piece or two of music. Instead of being full-blown articles, each will be a short capsule appended at the end of some, but not all, new articles. Incrementally, I hope to cover quite a bit of "basic" repertoire, which is admittedly different for everyone.

This Blog is in its 13th year, and I am still asking that question.

Even as the blog inches closer to a million "Unique Visitors" (take it with a large grain of salt), I ask: Who is my "client"? Well, judging from the most-read posts, the answer can be surprising, even sobering. Anyone, really, usually referred by a search engine. I do think most have a small budget and are researching affordable gear. Some of the most popular posts are: my Overview of Integrated Amps, my sole article on a vintage Rotel solid state amp, both written a long time ago, near the inception of the blog; and, more recently, the article on Schiit Saga. That fits the "cheap" but not the "tube" part of the blog's admittedly idiosyncratic namesake and declared mission. Mind you, that doesn't bother me at all. In fact, the opposite, I am very happy that so many people find them helpful!

Not even knowing who my "clients" are, where is my business model? For sure, I don't have a business model. If I did, I'd have accepted ads long ago, and who doesn't want to make a few bucks? But when I think of ads from manufacturers that I don't like (OK, one can block those) or know little about, I frown. I got curious enough at one point that I almost wanted to let ads in for a while, just to see what would appear, but I let that thought go. Although far from the far left, and not overly hostile to big business, I do disdain advertisements for their forced intrusions into our lives (if you live in HK, a mandatory survival skill is to mentally block out ads). Now, on the internet you have to pay to stop seeing ads, kind of perverse, don't you think?

Come to think of it, though I am a tube and vintage aficionado, I lack even an audio model, which I believe is pivotal in my achieving the sound that I like. To explain, many vintage aficionado believe doggedly in "the older the better" but usually the sound gets more and more subtractive in nature - one has to use everything at one's disposal, vintage or modern, to get the best sound. This is also why I have surprisingly dabbled in quite a number of solid state devices, and expensive stuff that are certainly not "cheap" (as some readers have taken me to task for that). Some of my friends only buy desirable vintage, so as they can increase in value and let them make money, but I have always allowed myself quite a bit of leeway. It is OK to occasionally buy something that loses value quickly, if that is what brings you instant, if not sustained, gratification. We learn from our mistakes, and if one doesn't make mistakes, one doesn't learn. One learns more from mistakes than from research, I remain convinced.

The blog has gained enough traction for me to regularly get solicitations to increase traffic, but what for? I write about everything, whatever I think of at the moment, but, from comments posted, I do think there is a small subset of readers who read the blog regularly as a webzine, and these are the readers I most value. And they are not my friends, rather strangers, as, aside from Andy, most of them are too busy in DIY or hunting over Ebay to bother with my blog. This is actually fascinating, and gratifying, to me. If you ask me, I may be a bit verbose, and compulsive in detailing my own workings. What I write is actually very useful to me, as I sometimes check back as notes when in doubt, but I always wonder how much the articles will be useful to others. But then, if I think about my reading trade magazines, there is stuff I will skip but also stuff I'll read just for curiosity (an example is Art Dudley on Shindo amps, which I have no interest in, though I like their preamps). Another thing is, my beliefs and ways are voluminously, and nakedly, displayed over time, so readers can get to know me, and decide for themselves whether what I say is of any value.

I instigated the Buying Classical Records series basically to fulfill the need of a reader. It is time consuming, and I doubt there will be many readers, but it actually has been something on the back of my mind for the longest time, so I am glad it has come to fruition. I was pleasantly surprised that I got another comment on the first article, so now I have at least two readers - good enough! After this series, which will take a good while, I may embark on a Buying Classical CDs series, as I think it is a niche that will grow in value.

Whoever you are, I welcome you.


Sent by an audiophile friend. Caption says "The Secret to Coronavirus Prevention". A reader has informed me that the original illustration is by Ilya Milstein. Someone blanked out the bookcase and replaced it with the Chinese slogan. 

What am I waiting for? Man in the Holocene

By the time you are my age, mortality weighs in. More so, given the current Wuhan Coronavirus situation. As a professional who had weathered SARS in HK, I salute the heroism of medical workers everywhere, particularly in China. Like the police and firemen, they put their lives on the line for us, and no respect is ever enough. Everyone in the world is indebted.

Of course, there is panic around me, but not that much. Mind you, regular readers know that I live in New York City (in Flushing, with a large Chinese population). There is definitely less people on the streets, not to say in indoor gathering spaces, like restaurants (which are closing by the dozens in HK). Where are they? Likely staying at home as much as possible, not a bad idea. But I still go to the library every day, and read my dose of newspapers and magazines. Incidentally, of the hundreds of magazines there, not one is on audio. We are forgotten, but perhaps we are as narcissistic as fashionistas.

Many years ago, Swiss writer Max Frisch wrote Man in the Holocene, about erosion, encroachment and other questions that are just as relevant today. It is likely available at your local library. It seems, like the protagonist, we are all waiting for something - or something better. A new tomorrow, will it arrive? We will never be disease free, and the current episode, like it or not, shows the world how fragile the freedom of movement we take for granted is. Meanwhile, populism, isolationism, trade wars and simplistic slogans all hurt more people than they satisfy. Both the Right and Left have gone farther than far. That leaves us gasping, and perhaps more people now resort to wishful thinking and gambles in the decisions of their lives. But all that is perhaps not important next to the destruction of the planet by pollution and climate change.

I am proud of my green credentials. I go green with all my statements, have bought only one pack of paper in the last twenty years, and I don't own a printer. If there is something I must print out, I do so at the library. When I worked at the University in HK, I was stunned by the amount of paper wasted in a day, and together with my boss' secretary organized recycling through an outside company. I still don't own a car. I almost never order a take-out. I use a reusable bag when shopping. I use a handkerchief instead of tissues (Hanky vs tissues). One of my few sins is to operate inefficient tube amps. My flea powered amps don't waste so much electricity and, yes, I frown upon high-powered tube amps, for sonic as well as environmental reasons. And yes, I frown upon equipment chassis carved out of a big block of aluminum. And yes, I mostly buy second-hand, which is where most of my LPs and CDs come from. Maybe it is about time for someone to organize an audiophile group for change. When I read Jeff Bezos donated 10 million to fight climate change, I was actually surprised, because I have always regarded Amazon (and internet shopping and shipping in general) as a big polluter (sure enough, there is this critique). I have to confess I buy things from the internet too, but not too often. I actually wonder, all these activists, do they use tissue, buy from the internet and order take-out's? I bet they do it a whole lot more than I do! We need fundamental changes to our lives of instant gratification.

Whoever we are, we are not doing enough.

Since you have made it so far, I have something for you. This is a new feature. It is too tiring to write a Classical Music Basic Repertoire series, so from now on I'll just introduce music piecemeal at the end of various articles. This will have its own Blog Label: Classical Music Basic Repertoire. I'll start with two pieces everyone likely knows.

Basic Repertoire: Pachebel's Canon and Albinoni's Adagio

Pachebel's Canon (wiki) is one of the most famous cross-over tunes. Even if you don't know the name, you have heard it before. As mentioned, it first gained prominence after the Erato recording by Jean-Francois Paillard and his chamber orchestra, but it gained the highest ground after RCA licensed the music. I have always like Paillard's musicianship (very good in Bach too). The RCA version is often seen in dollar bins. However, good as the Paillard is, my favorite version is that by Karajan, actually issued before the RCA in 1973. Here, the lush Karajan sound takes the music to another dimension. Purists today will decry the romanticization, but I think the (simple) music can take it, and I usually prefer historically informed performances for baroque music! Beware that Karajan, as was his wont, re-recorded it digitally in 1984, and that performance and recording were not up to the earlier analog effort.

Albinoni's Adagio (wiki) The Pachebel has a peaceful and stately grace, which cannot be said about Albinoni's Adagio, to which it is often coupled on records. This piece gained traction long before the Pachebel, as you can see in the wiki entry the long list of films that have used the music. Again, Karajan for me is better than anyone here, turning the melancholia to perfection. It is like a film by itself! So, in this recording, you get the best of both. Two weeks ago, I came across it in the dollar bin and just had to buy it again. Listening to it was just like the first time - I never tire of it.

Below are youtube's of these 2 pieces. The Pachebel is from 1973. The Albinoni is only available from 1984 (at 11:47 even slower than 1973). And while researching, I came across this lovely Doors version that I never knew about (and I have 3 Doors CDs). Great!

Buying Classical Records, Decca, London, Philips

Click pics to enlarge. Left, for the audiophile, likely the most famous Decca LP ever, followed by the Espana below. Forget about finding these in the dollar bins.

Talk Vinyl: Buying Classical Records, a Beginner's Guide, Part II
Labels: Decca/London, Philips

Update 2/20/20: Karl Munchinger added to Decca/London; 2/18/20: In Philips section, Baroque Music added. Oistrakh and Rostropovich/Richter added.

Please Read Part I for Basic Pointers, Resources, and the Deutsches Grammophon, EMI and Columbia Labels. In Part II, we move on to two more major labels. Again, this is not meant to be exhaustive.

Attention: 1) I have already made several amendments to Part I (like adding Karajan and Kempe to EMI). As I go along, I recall some important omissions - this is going to persist, so re-visit sometimes ; 2) I have discovered another valuable (albeit pop) vinyl site cvinyl.com that has useful inner label info; 3) This shall be a long-running series. To facilitate your viewing all Parts and all Record Labels, I have created a blog label Talk Buying Classical Music. Just click and all posts so far in the series shall appear. The blog label is also in the sidebar (roll down).

Decca/London

Although most labels have recordings of great sound, for most audiophiles Decca remains the best known and best loved. For the history of Decca (UK) (wiki) and what their Inner Labels look like, read Watson Records (UK).

• London Almost all Decca recordings were released in the US on London. The London LP's were pressed in the UK, allegedly using the same masters, though affixed with a different label. Audiophiles swear there is a difference in sound. It seems to me the vinyl used for the US is a little thicker and not as shiny; I do think the UK Decca pressings also seem to be sonically a little sharper. As London LPs are ubiquitous, they are a lot cheaper than Decca LPs. For me, the sound of London is superb and I don't go out of my way to hunt for corresponding Decca's for the records that I like, which is a lot. By now, you know I am a Decca/London fan. London's recording technique was (is) so good and so reproducible that they obtained excellent results in more halls than any label, and also transitioned smoothly into digital recordings (unlike their rivals, including EMI and DG). This all started with one man (actually, maybe two). See below. Record Sleeve Although for the vast majority of issues, the London LP sports the same artwork as the Decca, the difference is great. The Decca is lacquered, with a thin spine, and looks quite a bit sleeker than the cardboard and heavier London. the artwork is more sharply etched for Decca, more diffuse for London. The liner notes are not always the same, with the London again not as spiffy. The London also sometimes have different sleeve designs, most prominently around the times of the "Bluebacks". I cannot go into it here, but the US collector had a thing for the Blueback, which I am not sure is totally justified, although do remember here the older the pressing is the likelier better it is (the pic shows a stunning recording by the unsung Peter Maag, also available on later budget STS).

• Kenneth Wilkinson (wiki, Independent) has long been revered by audiophiles, indeed regarded as the patron saint of stereo recordings. Just google his name (add "Decca to exclude other namesakes) and there will be a lot of piecemeal info on him and his work. The number of recordings he did is VAST, and you will go crazy hunting for them. But imho, one should not get too hung up on this, as it is not necessary, because most of the other recording engineers of Decca, many trained by Wilkinson, were no slouch (James Lock, John Dunkerley, Colin Moorfoot, Stanley Goodall etc, to name a few). More than any other label, most Decca/London recordings are likely excellent in sound, and there is no question this is due to the way Decca used its microphones, developed by Roy Wallace and Wilkinson, and it was the foundation of everything (here is a great article on this subject most important to audiophiles, and it talks about the various venues too). Famous Recording Venues Almost as much as Wilkinson's name, the favorite Decca recording venues almost guarantee good results: 1) Kingsway Hall (link) is the most famous of them all and Decca recorded here more than at anywhere else, though this hall was also used heavily by EMI; 2) Walthamstow Town Hall (link) First used by Wilkinson (see his wiki link above), it was also used often; 3) Victoria Hall (official) This Hall in Geneva was used to record what are probably my favorite Decca recordings, those made by the Orchestre de La Suisse Romande under Ernest Ansermet. Mind you, Wilkinson never recorded here, but they all sound great; 4) Decca obtained great results in Vienna, Chicago (Solti) and Cleveland (Maazel) too, and many of those recordings made it to TAS list, so that testifies also to their prowess in general. The Producers Decca had great producers, such as the great John Culshaw; together with engineer Gordon Parry they recorded the most iconic Decca recordings of all times, Wagner's Ring cycle with the VPO under Solti  (highly thrilling indeed). RCA and Reader's Digest Recordings Some of the best sounding recordings of those Labels were made by Wilkinson (more on that later).

• Artists  Although not quite at the level of EMI, London has depth and breath. Early On in the late mono (a lot of Decca mono recordings are superb sounding, and coveted) and early stereo era, Decca had conductors Erich Kleiber (Beethoven), Clemens Kraus (Strauss), Adrain Boult (Vaughn Williams), Josep Krips (Schubert), Peter Maag (Mendelssohn), Georg Solti, and in particular, my favorite, the prolific Ernst Ansermet (known for his authoritative ballets, Stravinsky, Debussy and Ravel, but his records are generally of very high standard in interpretation, even in German works such as Beethoven and Brahms). And there were fine works by Schmidt-Isserstedt (Beethoven cycle), Pier(in)o Gamba (my favorite Rossini overture), Karajan and Raphael Kubelik with the VPO (for Karajan, many better than his later BPO work) and let us not forget Willi Boskovsky in his extensive survey of Strauss waltzes (believe me, there is nothing more enjoyable than a suavely performed and superbly recorded Viennese waltz). In terms of soloists, violinist Alfred Campoli, Ruggiero Ricci (although often over-the-top, I like his many recordings), pianists Wilhelm Kempff, Wilhelm Backhaus (Beethoven cycle), Julius Katchen (Brahms survey, many romantics and chamber music), and Clifford Curzon (Brahms, Schubert, Liszt). In the realm of chamber music, Decca also in this era made the greatest series of chamber music with Viennese musicians from the VPO, named the Vienna Octet, Quartet, what have you. Not a dud among them, they represent the highest point of Decca chamber music. When it comes to Baroque Music, basically the early Stuttgart Chamber Orchestra recordings by Karl Munchinger held sway early on, until Decca got their Argo and L'Oiseaux Lyre catalogue going. Their recordings were old world, well played but a little heavy. Later On I'd say things became even more interesting (EMI is to me the other way). Georg Solti became the house conductor, and recorded an even more all-encompassing repertoire than Ansermet (including complete Mahler and Brucker, which the latter did not do). Earlier, he made many recordings with the VPO, then some excellent recordings with the LSO (Russian warhorses, Bartok, Mahler 1 and 2), then a huge number with Chicago (of these, I like the Beethoven and Brahms Symphonies) and a few with the LPO (excellent Elgar). With Solti, as with Karajan, the earlier recordings are usually better, and avoid the digital recordings. Many other conductors are worthwhile of investigation: young Claudio Abbado (Prokofiev, Bruckner 1st), Istvan Kertesz (a renowned Dvorak series, Bruckner 4th), Walter Weller (Prokofiev series, some Rachmaninov), Horst Stein (Bruckner 6th, Sibelius), all made worthwhile recordings. Composer Benjamin Britten not only recorded definitive versions of his works, but was also a very good conductor (e.g. Mozart). Lorin Maazel, generally not a favorite of mine, recorded very early on a semi-successful Sibelius cycle with the VPO, and a lot later with the Cleveland Orchestra (a few were deservedly rated high by audiophiles (Prokofiev Romeo and Juliet, Gershwin Porgy and Bess, Respighi). Another conductor that was extensively recorded was Zubin Mehta, a few early on with the VPO, and a large number with his own LAPhil and Israel PO. In general, Mehta is not my favorite, but he was definitely better here than later on with the NYPhil and on Sony. I collect his LAPhil recordings because I particular like the sound of this orchestra, said by some to have a Viennese quality and, of course, because they usually sound excellent, but then I collect most things Decca! The Israel PO recordings were basically less good (a Schubert series was good though). When it comes to violinists, Kyung-Wha Chung left many memorable recordings, not matched by anyone who came later. The piano literature was dominated by the reliable (but only at times truly inspired) Vladimir Ashkenazy (Prokofiev Concertos), but I like more the more eccentric and grimmer Radu Lupu (Brahms, Schubert). And let's not forget the one and only, petite and classy Alicia de La Rocha who was not only the reigning queen of Spanish music (Granados' Goyesca) but fluent and elegant in almost everything, particularly works of the classical era (pristine Mozart, Bach, Handel). Straddling the Digital Age I made a mention of this because Decca/London issued many worthwhile digital LPs, in much better sound than rivals. Bernard Haitink, the house conductor of Philips for a long time, recorded a great Shostakovich cycle that stretched into the digital age. Ashkenazy became also a conductor by now, and made some memorable recordings (great Rachmaninov symphonies with the Concertgebouw; a very good Sibelius cycle with the Philharmonia - I have the LP of the 4th recorded by Wilkinson and it is a sonic stunner). Another is Charles Dutoit, who put the Montreal SO on the map with his stunningly recorded series of Ravel works, and some good Stravinsky. It can safely be said the excellent sound of Decca promoted the careers of some of their artists! Antal Dorati also made some fine and unjustly neglected recordings with the Detroit Symphony.

• STS (Stereo Treasury Series) This is the budget label of London, and the best budget label ever, bar none, because, just as London, most of them were pressed in the UK also! The quality is very high, well nigh indistinguishable from London. For many earlier recordings, you'd see tens of STS before you spot even one London. Earlier STS have a white sleeve, bold black letters and a generic artwork; later ones have better and more colorful artwork. Many are found in the dollar bin, and buy with confidence. Say, just buy every Ansermet STS you see, and you will have a library! Richmond This is the early, mostly mono, budget label of London, pressed in the US, and inferior in quality, liner notes, artwork, everything. Basically, there is no need to buy them, just wait for the STS counterpart.

• Phase 4 (wiki) This is a crazy series unto itself. In terms of recording technique, it deviated very far from the Decca norm and this is reflected in the sound. For many recordings, you can easily hear the multi-miking, highlighting and level manipulation that were more ubiquitous in the pop arena. However, not all recordings are bad. Leopold Stokowski and others recorded quite a few under this label, and some were quite good (like Stoki's Beethoven 7th), but the greatest of them all must surely be Bernard Hermann's fantastic movie scores conducted by himself, collector's items (I only have the CD's).

• Argo Not to be confused with the American jazz label, this is one of the two Decca Labels specializing in Early Music. Being a Decca company, sound is superlative. Best selling and hence ubiquitous were Neville Marriner and the Academy of St Martin in the Fields (ASMF), the most famous (and very good) recording of which is Vivaldi's Four Seasons, beloved by audiophiles (and easily available). ASMF actually were pioneers in the Historically Informed Practices (HIP; gut strings and original instruments, vibrato-less playing, lower tuning, small orchestra) movement but less draconian in style than many later ensembles. Many of the players went on to found other famous HIP ensembles. The ASMF recorded a lot of later classical and even romantic chamber orchestra material, usually to good effect (Stravinsky's Pulcinella is one example). Argo is also very strong in choral and organ (they go hand in hand) material. I am not a big choral person, but I love the sonorous Haydn Masses, recorded to perfection, quite stirring. Another is Allegri Miserere (aside: the Argo version is very good, but my desert island choice is the one by the Tallis Scholars on Gimell, goosebump galore - I was shopping in Tower Records when I heard it overhead, and I just had to buy it right there and then.). Choral stuff are worth nothing and Dollar Bin material generally. Argo also recorded smaller scaled modern British music, not of concern to the general public.

• L'Oiseau Lyre This is the second early music (again, not exclusively) label, and to me the more important one, with more worthwhile artists. Based on what came later, one can largely forget the earlier work of Thurston Dart. Instead, concentrate on Anthony Hogwood and Academy of Ancient Music. This ensemble recorded even more early music than ASMF, with a style that is more "advanced" than ASMF, closer to current HIP practice, and that means a leaner sonority that some old-school folks might not like, but I think they did very well in almost everything they recorded, not only Bach, Handel, Vivaldi, Haydn, but also Mozart (complete symphonies!) and Beethoven. Worthwhile box sets, such as Bach works, Mozart symphonies and Vivaldi concertos, can often be found in dollar bins. This label also recorded many early chamber music, among which I like most Viol (older strings) Music, by the likes of Purcell.

• Inner Labels Please refer to vinylbeat's London page for the following comments. Many of the labels shown there are for pop records that do not concern us. London Talking only about classical stereo, for London LPs, greater than 90% of what you'd encounter would be 5B (there is actually a similar earlier variant that is not shown), with a smattering of a red equivalent of the earlier 1H (the shown black one is for opera/vocal works, not covered here). Later on, the label got less contrasty, as in 5D, and this persisted into the early digital age, when the LPs were no longer pressed in the UK, but in Holland. Later Dutch pressings have labels like 8, but in silver color with a Decca blue and red rim (the shown one is STS). STS All of the UK pressings have labels like 5E. Later on, STS were mostly pressed in the US, and the label is yellow, kinda like 7. Phase 4 Most of the ones would be like 2A.

• Sound Although Decca is significantly more valuable than London, personally I'd just stay with London and STS. Two Pointers: 1) Dutch pressings are inferior to UK ones, but still decent (inner label is usually blue color like the Sibelius pic); 2) For unknown reason, German Decca just do not sound good to me.

• Decca (US) Despite the name, this early US label did not issue Decca recordings, and shall be dealt with later.

Philips (Holland) (wiki) Like EMI, the history of Philips in the US is convoluted. Aside from the wiki entry, two UK sites (here and here) give detailed history and show many inner labels, as does cvinyl.com. However, again, keep in mind that all these sites are pop-oriented, and the label colors are different for classical records.

• Early On in the US Select Philips recordings were first issued by Epic, a Columbia subsidiary, which also issued some of their own on this label. For classical issues, the inner labels would be gold, like those pictured, later 1D (but blue) and 3D. It is slim picking, except perhaps for some early Arthur Grumiaux recordings, and forget those no longer competitive Felix Ayo and I Musici reccordings. Later came Philips (US), which is more interesting, as it issued many early and excellent recordings. The labels would look like 1A, 1E and 4. Keep in mind a lot of LPs around this time were issued in Mono, even stereo recordings, and Philips US are much more often seen in mono.

• Later On Philips started to import their Dutch Pressings, of much higher quality, and the rest is history. Basically, unless you know what you are doing, just buy Philips Holland. The Inner Label had stayed largely the same; for stereo recordings, it would be like a red version of UK5 or German 3 in this cvinyl.com link. Once in a while, one also comes across Fontana, another of Philips early budget labels (label like shown, different from US Fontana, which is of no import to us).

• Artists Philips had been remarkably consistent in this regard, possessing breath and depth. What has always been a little puzzling to me is that, while audiophiles usually like Philips recordings, they are usually more excited by Decca/London, EMI and even DG. My guess is, as audiophiles are into sensational if superficial stuff (witness HP of TAS), perhaps because they recorded more bon bons? And Philips is a very continental company with good taste. Orchestras and Conductors As Holland had (has) many good orchestra, the Dutch label naturally records mostly Dutch Orchestras and Maestros. Even dating back to early mono Wilhelm Mengelberg days, and up to the present day, the conducting of Dutch Maestros could mostly be characterized as "serious" and belonging to the "objectivist" school - not much distorting and pulling things around; not much podium antics either. Earlier on, meaning starting from the late mono era, there was Wilhelm van Otterloo, Eduard Van Beinum and Eugen Jochum. Then came the 30 (!) year reign (lasting into the digital age) of Bernard Haitink at the helm of the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra (RCO), one the very best orchestras, and together they recorded a huge amount of material, many of which are worthwhile. Some people may sometimes find Haitink a little plain, but more sophisticated listeners will likely find his balance and subtlety highly satisfactory (essential are Bruckner, Mahler, and shimmering Debussy and other French music, even Tchaikovsky). A great orchestra, under an excellent conductor, well recorded in one of the world's acoustic marvels! What is not to like? With the RCO, Josef Krips did an enchanting Mozart Symphonies series (essential) and Eugen Jochum a solid Beethoven series. In comparison with the RCO/Haitink, other orchestras like the Rotterdam and Hague, and conductors like the Dutch Edo de Waart and American David Zinman were just also-run's. Because Philips, Haitink and Jochum all had close relationship with the UK, Philips also recorded quite a bit with the London Symphony (LSO), usually under Colin Davis, most well known for his Berlioz series (also a good Stravinsky series with both RCO/LSO, and very good Haydn and reasonable Dvorak with the RCO). While we are on the LSO, it must be mentioned that two older complete symphony cycles are still amongst the best ever - Igor Markevitch's Tchaikovsky and Witold Rowicki's Dvorak. As for the LPO, Philips recorded some with Haitink, but as a rule they are not particularly memorable. Before we leave this section, what is it with Dutch conductors? van Otterloo had 5 wives; de Waart and Haitink are with their fifth and fourth wives, respectively! :-) String Players There is bounty galore here! Just collecting violinists Arthur Grumiaux and Henryk Szeryng, two of the greatest violinist ever in my opinion, will take a long time. Every one of their recordings is worthwhile, and many are top choices. The excellent concertmaster of the RCO, Hermann Krebbers, also recorded a few memorable LPs. Salvatore Accardo and others can be dismissed under their shadows. For cellist, Philips had the great Maurice Gendron, but his LPs are early and not so plentiful, so grab them as you see them. Later, there is the attractive American Christine Waleska, whose recordings are all very good (but pricier). Pianists Early Philips pianists like Ingrid Haebler (Mozart, Schubert), the great Clara Haskil (Beethoven, Mozart etc), Nikita Magalof and Adam Harasiewicz (Chopin) etc are only seen piecemeal on the early labels and Dutch re-issues. A few of the great Sviatoslav Richter too (essential: the sonic spectacular Liszt Concertos; Beethoven, etc). Into the stereo era, basically the Philips piano literature were dominated by two pianists, Alfred Brendel and Claudio Arrau. Both recorded the complete Beethoven Sonatas. Brendel has always been lighter in tone, intellectual, but quite reliable, recorded most of the classic works, like Mozart Piano Concertos, and Schubert Sonatas (essential). His records are so ubiquitous as to be often found in the dollar bin. Arrau was in a later phase of his career, when his playing became heavier, more probing but also more ponderous sometimes. His tone is sometimes described as "bronzen". And so he recorded a lot of the romantics, a lot of Chopin, Brahms, Schumann, Liszt and Debussy. You should at least sample some of those (I'd pick Chopin and Debussy). Another pianist often seen is Steven Bishop, younger and more interesting than he later became. He recorded sparkling Beethoven and very good Bartok concertos with Colin Davis. Chamber Music Philips again recorded just about everything here. Earlier on, Arthur Grumiaux recorded the Beethoven and some Mozart Sonatas with Clara Haskil (a must, but not often seen). And the wonderful Grumiaux Trio, often in conjunction with other artists, recorded a lot of chamber music, particularly those of Mozart. Every LP is worthwhile. Henryk Szeryng also recorded an excellent set of Mozart Violin Sonatas with Ingrid Haebler. Richter and Rostropovich recorded an essential set of Beethoven Cello Sonatas, whereas David Oistrakh and Lev Oborin recorded a good set of Beethoven Violin Sonatas. The evergreen Italian Quartet recorded a huge repertoire and are generally recommendable. Their beauty and smooth blend are very pleasant to listen to, but some may want more drive at times. And then there is the equally long lasting Beaux Arts Trio, who recorded everything too, even complete Haydn Trios. But here, I have a distinct preference - I prefer their original violinist, the subtle Daniel Guilet, to the later, more pedestrian Isidore Cohen, so that disqualifies a lot of their recordings for me. Baroque Music Philips This is Philip's achilles' heel. Despite Holland being a hotbed for the HIP movement, those early activists instead recorded for other labels. Instead, Philips for the longest time offered I Musici, which, aided by stunning cover artwork, sold tons of records. However, despite their high polish, a lot of it just sounded routine, not spritely, as we now expect baroque music to sound. I'll largely avoid them, except perhaps in Italian music by Vivaldi and Corelli etc, where you can sample a few if found in the dollar bin. A reasonable one is again Vivaldi's Four Seasons, with Roberto Michelucci as soloist (earlier, much less often seen version sported Felix Ayo). The same can be said of Raymond Leppard and the English Chamber Orchestra - avoid! They sound hopelessly out-dated now. Better are the recordings that straddled the digital age, by the ASMF, first under Neville Marriner and then Iona Brown and they (re-) recorded a lot of Bach. However, all of their work do not sound as fresh as when they recorded for Argo (above). So, not much in this department.

• Festivo and Universo are Philips Budget Label, and just as good. In fact, many of the earlier artists can only be found in these re-issues. A few of the Mercury recordings were also re-issued under these labels, such as the AWESOME LP pictured on the right. 

• Golden Import After Philips acquired Mercury, they re-issued them under this label, which has a golden strip on the sleeves (see items pictured in link). As the original Mercury's are scarce and expensive, many are worth collecting (details will be treated later under Mercury). People always say the sound is different and less desirable, meaning less exciting (or piercing), which is why these are not expensive usually.

• Sound and Pressing Almost always, the sound is excellent and the surfaces impeccable. One does come across Philips pressed in other countries. French pressings are excellent. One thing I know for sure: UK pressings are inferior, and noisy, avoid.

After this, I think I shall take a short rest and write about some other
small things before resuming this series. Part III shall be RCA

and maybe another label.

Buying Classical Records Deutsche Grammophon EMI Columbia

Click pics to enlarge. Left: If anyone thinks DG's sound is bad, they will change their mind when they hear the Hungarian Fantasy on this album. Cherkassky's performance is perfect and the piano sound is resonant.

Talk Vinyl: Buying Classical Records, a Beginner's Guide, Part I
Introduction: What to Look For and What to Avoid
Labels: Deutsche Grammophon, Angel, Columbia

Amended 2/29: Horowitz, Stravinsky and Boulez added to Columbia  2/20: A lengthier discussion of EMI pianists and Beecham added; 2/13: 1) an excellent link posted under the "Inner Label" Bullet; 2) Herbert von Karajan and Rudolf Kempe added to EMI.

Attention: This shall be a long-running series. To facilitate your viewing all Parts and all Record Labels, I have created a blog label Classical Music - Buying Records. Just click and all posts so far in the series shall appear. The blog label is also in the sidebar (roll down).

Collecting Records is a Lifelong Hobby - for the vinyl junkie (less lofty but more appropriate name) there is nothing better than going through bins, frequently to the chagrin of significant others. There are different kinds of collectors - some only buy "collectible" items in demand that they know they can sell (for a profit); others just what they like (Like I, I hunt for particular artists, many obscure). There are a lot of well developed sites and societies for composers, but much less general information, understandable for the vast ocean that is Classical Music. This shall be a many-part series aimed at the beginner. I also came across this short article in goldmine magazine, but I think many of the prices quoted are seriously inflated. If you think collecting classical music can make you money, I'll tell you that is not so, unless you know what you are doing.

General Guidelines

• Don't Forget Digital For a serious classical listener, there is no getting away from Digital Recordings, which is everything made from the early 80's till now. Although we are analog die-hards, my friend Andy and I firmly believe that digital replay should sound very close to analog, and we don't understand why some audiophiles cannot make their digital system sound good enough. Practically, if I were to start anew, vinyl would be only for selected older recordings (the list is very long) of favorite works - and I'll have the rest in digital. And yes, I do still buy CDs.

• New LPs If you are into classical music, congratulations! Unlike pop music, used classical LPs are usually in very good condition and not hard to come by. AVOID current re-issues, which are expensive and not as good sounding as the old ones (with few exceptions). Don't believe what you read in trade magazines, or Fremer. But, if you don't want to pay, we say, you have to get down on your knees (all the dollar bins are on the floor). Believe me, as one advances in years it gets harder.

• Where to Find Them LP Stores Googling (including Yelp) will tell you what LP stores there are in your local area. Unless you are in a large city like NYC, you are not going to find any store with a large classical LP collection. Most LP stores sell pop and jazz and basically have no knowledge of classical music. But that could be your gain. Whenever I see a store, I go in and see. If they have dollar bins I'll go through those and sometimes I'll find something worthwhile. Used Bookstores Many used bookstores have a music section and some will sell LP. Recently in one I found many items, including an Arthur Grumiaux LP for $1 (should be more than $10). Thrift Stores Many thrift stores sell LPs and this can be serious hunting ground, especially around large cosmopolitan centers. Many Salvation Army and Goodwill stores have LPs, as do smaller charities. Ask Around Always ask your co-workers and friends if their families have records they want to get rid of. I have received more than a few. Internet Unless there is something you want badly, I'd not buy on the internet. Even if the price is right, the postage sucks.

• The Right Attitude Believe me, I am qualified to talk about this. I have over 10,000 LPs. I steadily bought new LPs from the mid 1970's (when I started to get into classical music) to the mid eighties, when most LP sellers (New Yorkers will remember stores like Sam Goody and Record Hunter) closed their doors. The second wave started in the late 80's, when a humongous  number of LPs were dumped in favor of CDs, and I started buying used LPs like crazy. The LPs we are seeing now are mostly from older people who want to sell, or estates, and the number is still significant. This has lasted into the present day, but on a much smaller scale. As I ran out of space to house the collection, and as I evolve as a listener (it is true you learn till the day you die), I have realized many things. Here are some advice which I hope you will heed: 1) There is always something new under the sun and there is nothing you must have now; 2) Don't be a completist, you don't have to listen to every note Mozart wrote, or collect every single one of Heifetz's recordings; 3) choose carefully, don't binge buy, have patience; good things will come; 4) if you are starting out in classical music, even if you prefer analog, a subscription to a digital streaming service (not available in my days) will benefit you immensely in your quest (so as you can get acquainted with the music); 5) Consider buying a hard copy of All Music Guide to Classical Music, which is out of print but available used, a lot more convenient than using the computer; 6) as your collection will expand rapidly, develop a good filing habit. I personally suggest filing by record labels. Within a label, file composers alphabetically. Within a composer, use the order Symphonies, Concertos, Chamber and Solo works, lastly Choral works and Opera; 7) have an out bin for records that did not please you in either performance or sound (there will be many of those) and periodically give them to friends or donate them to charities (I donate to VVA). If you are a beginner, you may make mistakes but you can always re-acquire them.

• What to Buy This is obviously very personal. As we are audiophiles, we tend to buy better sounding records, which does give more pleasure. Beginners should not immediately get into historical performances (they are available on streaming services and youtube anyway), no matter how great they are from what you have read, as many are seriously sonically compromised. Here are some advice: 1) Buy mostly single records rather than big box sets. While you'd certainly want all the Beethoven and Brahms symphonies, you may not feel the same about the early Dvorak symphonies. And few conductors can excel through an entire series; 2) However, box sets are usually cheaper per disc and are a good way to learn, just do your research first before taking home many bulky boxes. You can take your time, that box will likely still be there next time you go; 3) Mostly avoid opera recordings - it is rather cumbersome to change sides all the time, which is why they are of no value; 4) if you like something, explore the composer's other works or other recordings of the performer(s) - this is where streaming comes in handy; 5) if you really like something, consider buying a different interpretation of it. No two recordings are alike. Again, streaming can come in handy.

• What to Pay By this stage of my life, I don't want to nor need to pay more than a few dollars, and the majority of my new purchases are $1, sometimes even for a box! But perhaps beginners should browse too the regular bins, but I'd do research before buying anything over $5. In HK audio circles, buying is likened to paying tuition - you pay through your nose as a novice to get educated. Is there really any way to avoid that? I don't know, but with streaming I believe one can learn more than by owning.

• INNER LABELS As junkies well know, the label and stamp on the LP tells us a lot of information on the age of the pressing (the older the better). For this article I am indebted to vinylbeat, which has an incredible number of pics, to which I link liberally. However, the site is not classically oriented, so there are gaping holes. Watson Records (UK) fills in some of this by giving the history and showing pics of Inner Labels of Decca, Columbia (UK) and HMV (EMI), but these are only UK labels. This excellent post also shows some inner labels. See below also for discogs.

• Record Sleeve Covers are also important in giving a complete picture of the disc. There is no systemic exploration of this, but an indispensable tool is the vast discogs site. If you want to know more about an LP, use Google, fill in the label and artist and work AND the word "discogs" and the discogs link will show you not only the one you have, but also variants, and even value (not accurate but it gives you an idea). A must for any serious collector. It is also a huge marketplace. If you are curious about any record company, record sleeve artwork or inner label, discogs will tell/show you, just search!

• MONO and STEREO Before the full adoption of Stereo, for many years companies issued both mono and stereo records, and as the word "stereo" or "mono" are not always there, they are easily confused. Keep in mind if the label says Long Play or LP, it is mono. The Mono and Stereo have the same catalogue number, but the prefix is different, e.g. Columbia ML (mono) and MS (stereo); RCA LM (mono) and LSC (stereo); Vanguard VRS (mono) and VSD (stereo)...In contrast to jazz or Beatles, if a classical record is available in stereo, the mono version is worth very little, usually dollar bin material. BUT, from a sonic viewpoint, if you have the right equipment, a great mono pressing can often sound better than a crappy stereo one. As an example, it is not uncommon to come across Heifetz' concerto performances in mono in the dollar bin. If his violin is what you want to hear, the mono is no less attractive than the stereo (though I have to say his supporting orchestras and conductors almost always turned in great, and unsung, support, which will shine in stereo). Ditto Arthur Rubinstein.

• Thickness of Vinyl Older Vinyls are thicker, and sonically better. Many later vinyls, being wafer-thin, warp easily and are not very good sounding. Worst offender here is RCA, in their Dynaflex Red Seal and Victorla pressings. A reader alerted me on this point and he's right - the thickness of the vinyl per se is not the only factor. The best example is London vs Decca. The US London is thicker than the UK Decca, yet many think the latter sounds better and they certainly fetch more on the market. Today, many very think 180 gm vinyls sound disappointing!

• Warpage This is not necessarily easy to assess. Generally, I find amusement when my needles can track (most) warped records, and I actually like to watch the needle go up an down like Sinbad's ship in Scheherazade. But sometimes not. The other day I got a Dylan John Wesley Harding for a dollar, and guess what, NONE of my cartridges could track it, not even close. It is not easy to spot a fatal impulse (even square wave) type of warpage, but that is collateral damage. This is to tell you there are disappointments in collecting, part and parcel of the game.

• Electronically Re-channeled "Stereo" This is a horrible thing which usually compromises the sound. The info can be in very small prints, even inside on the label, so you better watch out. Companies that do quite a bit of this were usually budget labels like Monitor, Vox, Odyssey, Mercury Wing ((but these two usually spell it out clearly), and even Decca UK does it on their budget Eclipse label (stated on the back, top, close to the spine).

• Quadraphonic Records For a period in the 70's there were many quadraphonically encoded LPs (Angel, Columbia, Supraphon etc), which failed to take off commercially (see wiki entry here). Somehow, I do think this muddles the sound for 2-channel playback. I'd avoid these.

• Many Artists Recorded The Repertoire More Than Once Another thing to watch out is, given recordings started early in the mono era, by the time stereo came, the companies and the artists wanted to record again for stereo. Examples: Wilhelm Kempff recorded the Beethoven sonatas twice for DG, the first one in mono; Bruno Walter recorded the Brahms Symphonies with the NYPhil in mono, and again with the Columbia Symphony in Stereo; Otto Klemperer recorded with the Philharmonia 3 Beethoven symphonies in mono and a full cycle in stereo (the latter was also simultaneously issued in mono, which means there are 2 different mono versions for 3 symphonies, complicated!) If you are not sure, just refrain.

• Record Clubs It is hard for millennials and the younger to believe we used to have Book and Record Clubs. These issued records from major labels at a discount, but also in a less lavish packaging. The best example is the International Preview Society. Take Milstein's seminal DG Bach Solo Violin box set (essential), the original DG (Germany) now costs significantly more than the IPS (Pressed in Italy); I personally find the Italian pressings quite decent, and I have both.

• Re-Issue Labels I am not talking about the generally lousy and over-rated re-issues of today. There were many labels that specialized in re-issuing lesser known recordings from other, usually transcontinental European, companies. A good example is Musical Heritage Society, which actually lasted into the digital age (making CD's). For a collector, there are hard to find treasures there. e.g. I am a fan of certain French pianists like Annie D'Arco and Jeanne-Marie Darre and American violinist Oscar Shumsky, and MHS issued them all (in the case of Darre, Vanguard did that before MHS). But their quality vary, and unless you know what you are doing, better not buy as they are worth nothing on the market. Nonesuch also re-issued tons of European recordings. People know about the Unicorn Horenstein recordings, but few know that they released many early recordings of now-famous conductors like Gunter Wand and Pierre Boulez. As an esoterica, I grew up with the Nonesuch issue of Carl Schuricht's Hague Phil recording of Bruckner's 7th, and it is still meaningful to me. Again, generally, as they are worth nothing, don't buy them unless you know. More on Nonesuch later. Musically, another label to watch out for is Quintessence, which, despite their lower quality vinyl, did a great service to collectors by re-issuing many great recordings that have not been available for a long time, including many coveted and sonically resplendent recordings buried in the vaults of Reader's Digest, with excellent artists like Jascha Horenstein, Earl Wild, Rene Leibowitz etc. Chesky later also re-issued many of them in LP on better vinyl, and then CD; grab them when you see them). I shall deal with these labels later on in the series.

Below are the more Commonly Encountered Labels. Please note that aside from researching labels, I rely on my memory for artistic examples, so no doubt many will be left out.
This is not meant to be exhaustive. As things go along, I continue to
modify the article. I have deliberately not covered Opera.

Deutsche Grammophon (wiki)
Commonly known as DG, is the Yellow Label. As the link mentioned, the earlier BIG Tulip (thicker) is more coveted than later Small Tulip. Many early DG recordings were issued in the US by Decca (US). DG's pre-classical music (baroque etc) label is called the Archiv, which because of scholarship, are usually even more lavishly packaged than DG.

• Another DG subsidiary is Heliodor, which re-issued many of the older mono and early stereo recordings (like by the great Ferenc Fricsay) also. Early DG pressings and Archiv pressings are usually very good, but Heliodor, many of which were UK pressed, is at best a mixed bag (clicks and pops).

• Most DG and Archiv records were pressed in Germany, but the UK is an exception - most of the DG's available in the UK were pressed in the UK, and they are inferior to the German pressings not only in sound, as they are usually noisy. I believe Canada pressed their DG's too, and I have a few. In general, aside from price concerns, I'd only opt for Germany pressings. In terms of recording quality, DG can be very good (especially their VPO ones) but many are a little bright, controversial in the eyes of the audiophile; also, the Berlin Philhamonie has always been a problematic space. Two audiophile favorites: Jochum's Carmina Burana (often seen) and Shura Cherkassky with BPO/Karajan's Hungarian Fantasy (not often seen).

• Certain Record Clubs, like the IPS mentioned above, issued DG recordings pressed in Italy. The box is not lacquered and not as sturdy or beautiful, but I usually have no issue with the quality of the pressings, pretty good imho.

• DG also re-issued many of their recordings and compilations in various budget series, Resonance, Privilege etc. Most of these are of reasonable quality but, if you are not in a hurry, wait for the original issues, which are ubiquitous.

• DG is ubiquitous, easy to get second-hand, so avoid current DG re-issue LPs (they are lousy in sound and quality).

• Early On In terms of artists, DG was dominated by Berlin PO/Karajan, who recorded many things more than one time. Usually the earlier analog version sounds better than the later digital ones. Karajan also sold more records than anyone, which is why we encounter him a lot more than others in the stable. Although I own many of his recordings (he is best in Beethoven, Brahms, Bruckner, and the Second Viennese School), overall he is not my favorite. Personally I'd look out for recordings with the Vienna PO/Karl Bohm (almost all worthwhile) or Eugen Jochum (almost all worthwhile, Bruckner in particular; the audiophile favorite is Orff's Carmina Burana, often seen in the dollar bin; the Haydn London Symphonies with the LPO is also a classic set) and Ferenc Fricsay (who died young). Raphael Kubelik remains under-rated but his Schumann, Janacek, Dvorak, Mahler (of less hysterical, more gentle nature) and a late Beethoven cycles are all very good. In terms of pianists, DG is strong: Geza Anda (essential Bartok; great Chopin and Mozart), Frederich Gulda, Wilhelm Kempff (essential Beethoven, Bach, Schubert), Emil Gilels (essential Brahms, Beethoven, Grieg, everything really), Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli, Sviatoslav Richter (everything); When it comes to string soloists, early violinists like Joanna Martzy and Erica Morini fetch astronomical sums and basically you don't see them, so look instead for Wolfgang Schneiderhan (essential Beethoven concerto) and the few Christian Ferras and David Oistrakh recordings; and, oh, don't forget the great Henryk Szeryng's handful of recordings (a magnificent Berg Concerto and an excellent set of Bach Solo Violin Works); you can safely buy any of the great cellist Pierre Fournier's concerto or chamber music recordings. There are also a few early Mitislav Rostropovich recordings. In chamber music, I find the in-house Amadeus Quartet usually not to my taste. The later Melos Quartet was lackluster too.

• Later On Except for some of the aforementioned artists who continued to make worthwhile recordings, into the late 70's and 80's things got progressively less interesting. Boston SO/Ozawa made many recordings, but few outstanding ones. Claudio Abbado was better in his earlier recordings (CSO/Mahler, LSO/Stravinsky etc) than in his later boring BPO tenure. Daniel Barenboim as conductor is not generally recommendable (same for his piano playing during the DG era). Most interesting, though idiosyncratic, are Carlos Kleiber, who made few recordings, and Leonard Bernstein in his sunset years (Mahler, Sibelius, Brahms etc). For string instrumentalists, Anne-Sophie Mutter was pretty good as a girl, but her mature recordings were largely not competitive imho, except in modern music, which she contributed to significantly. Violinist Gidon Kremer is idiosyncratic and not a fav, but his modern music recordings are good. A huge number of violinists are all good but not artistically outstanding (Itzhak Perlman, Pichas Zuckerman, Schlomo Mintz, Gil Shaham, all forgettable), Cellist Misha Maisky to me is just affected, and I cannot think of a single recording of his that I like. The best violin recording is likely Nathan Milstein's Bach Solo Violin Works. In piano, at least we have the great Martha Argerich (every record is good), some early (talented but idiosyncratic) Ivo Pogorelich and Christian Zimerman. Maurizio Pollini made some great early recordings (Chopin, Stravinsky, Berg) but got progressively bland later on. and I personally like the technically imperfect recordings by elderly Rudolf Serkin, and the late Horowitz series (Return to Moscow is often seen).

• DG also issued some Eastern-Bloc and Russian recordings but not at all to the extent of EMI (an essential is Evgeny Mravinsky's Tchaikovsky).

• Archiv Because of scholarship, the LPs are usually even more lavishly packaged than DG. As I generally favor more modern interpretations of Baroque works for their historically informed practices (HIP, such as vibrato-less playing and lower tuning)), many of the recordings of the older artists, like Karl Richter, can sometimes (but not always; sometimes there is more grandeur) feel out of date, but as they are available cheap it is good to sample to see if you like them. But Archiv did have one great HIP ensemble - the now disbanded Reinhard Goebbel's Musica Antiqua Koln (almost all of their recordings are collectibles). The English Concert/Trevor Pinnock was also a reliable, middle-of-the-road HIP guide through baroque standard repertoire. Of course even among the older generations, there were outstanding artists. My favorites are the blind Organist Helmut Walcha, whose magisterial Bach survey is all you ever need (can your system handle organ?); pioneering baroque Violinist Eduard Melkus is unsung but his Biber and Bach are exceptional.

EMI Although I favor Decca/London recordings myself, no company is more important than EMI, but US collectors will encounter mostly Angel. Those who want to know the history of this company should read the link in Watson Records (UK).

• Angel If you look at the labels, I'd say up to the Blue Label is pretty good. Later pressings vary all over the map, and certainly avoid the Digital DMM Remastered LPs.

• In terms of conductors, EMI has had greater breath and depth than any rival. Straddling the mono age is Thomas Beecham (good stereo recordings of French music, bon bons, Berlioz and Strauss). Then came the great Otto Klemperer (with the Philharmonia at its prime), who recorded extensively (and most recordings are worthwhile), Andre Cluytens (in French repertoire, but he is actually excellent in German repertoire, as in his excellent Beethoven cycle), Adrian Boult (Elgar, Vaughn Williams, Holst, surprisingly good Wagner), John Barbirolli (Elgar, Brahms, Mahler) and Carlo Maria Giulini (a little sedate for younger listeners), but many other earlier and forgotten conductors are just as great, and I count Rudolph Kempe, Constantin Silvestri, Paul Kletzi (excellent Mahler), Carl Schuricht (excellent Bruckner 3, 8, 9 with the VPO), Nicolai Malko (brilliant Prokofiev) etc among them. And, yes, Malcolm Sargent was pretty reliable too. Herbert von Karajan also recorded extensively, first with the Philharmonia (very good Beethoven and Sibelius), then with the BPO (performance often better than the later DG ones, but the sound is sometimes over-reverberant - as in Bruckner's 4th and 8th). Much later on, EMI signed Eugen Jochum, who recorded with the LPO (a good Brahms cycle but the Beethoven cycle is not as good as his previous with the RCO). Later, there was Eugen Jochum excellent second complete Bruckner cycle with the Dresden Staatskapelle (acoustics a little reverberant). Then came the Philadelphia Orchestra with Ricardo Muti, who recorded a lot of mainstream repertoire. Except for his Prokofiev, I don't find them truly outstanding. Then, there are odd sets of merits: Kurt Sanderling's Beethoven cycle, Mitislav Rostropovich's Tchaikovsky cycle.

• And then sonically there is the legendary series of recordings by the Bournemouth Symphony. First, under Louis Fremaux they produced an audiophile fave, (El Cid). Later, under Pavvo Berglund, much more substantial fare - Shostakovich and Sibelius recordings that are sonic spectaculars. Also, Andre Previn made many outstanding recordings (Rachmaninov, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Tchaikovsky ballets) with the London Symphony (Messiaen's Turangalila Symphony is well known to audiophiles). He was frequently produced/recorded by the 2 Christophers (Bishop/Parker), a guarantee of sonic excellence (this team worked on most of Boult and Giulini's recordings too).

• In terms of String Players, Russian violinists David Oistrakh and Nathan Milstein, and of course cellists Jacqueline Dupre and Paul Tortelier must be mentioned, and all of their recordings are good. I know, Itzhak Perlman recorded everything competently, but I always find him lacking somewhat in character. Yehudi Menuhin's output was uneven because he suffered from failing technique, but his heart was always in the right place. Mitislav Rostropovich made a few new recordings with EMI (Dvorak and great Prokofiev), and a lot of his Melodiya recordings were issued (see below).

• In terms of pianists, EMI did not do so well: their older mono era had great pianists such as Edwin Fischer, Arthur Schnabel, Solomon, Walter Gieseking and Dinu Lipatti. Early on in the stereo era, Witold Malcuzinski and Emil Gilels made some fine records, and then there were the earlier recordings of Arrau (later for Philips) and of course those of Sviatoslav Richter (all worthwhile) and a few by the legendary Annie Fischer. Things got less interesting later on. Because they had the French Pathe division, EMI often had French pianists in their stable. One who recorded a lot was Aldo Ciccolini, who was always good but never great. Later on, Jean-Philippe Collard can be dismissed (I heard him in HK, one of the worst recitals I have ever heard). Alexis Weissenberg made many discs but his steely and objective manner was controversial (I don't mind it, and they are usually well recorded). And then there were Augustin Anievas, Christina Ortiz and latter Cecille Ousset, and all of them, while good, have sunken into near-oblivion. All these are dollar bin material. Some Russian pianists (usually favored by me) also got the limelight for a while, among them Andrei Gavrilov (very objective too) and Yuri Egorov.

• Capitol This US subsidiary of EMI is known for its excellent FDS (Full Dimension Sound) and mostly concentrate on American artists, the biggest names of which are conductor Leopold Stokowski and violinists Nathan Milstein and Michael Rabin (many issued later on Angel and Seraphim). All of their recordings are excellent. But I'd add the brilliant Hollywood String Quartet to my favs. Capitol usually has very good sound and pressings, but mono's are seen more often than stereo's.

• Angel/Melodiya For a Russophile (in terms of music) such as me, EMI did classic music an immense service by issuing a HUGE number of Melodiya recordings, making us familiar with great Russian artists: Conductors Evgeny Mravinsky (Shostakovich etc), Kiril Kondarshin (a definitive Shostakovich cycle that unfortunately has subpar sound), Evgeny Svetlanov (usually so-so sound) and Gennady Rozhdestvensky (usually good sound), and innumerable Soviet instrumentalists (all very good). I probably have at least half of what they issued in this department. Keep in mind the inner labels don't look anything like their UK/Angel counterparts, but you can tell by the thickness and stiffness whether it is an earlier or later pressing (earliest is monochrome bright red, later with a Kremlin pic).

• Seraphim Collectors should also not dismiss Angel's budget label, as its catalogue is chock full of great performances. E.g., it is rare to see an Emil Kogan recording on Angel or Michael Rabin recordings on Capitol, but they come up relatively often in Seraphim, and you should grab them as soon as you see them. Many of the most famous Capitol's too are much more often seen on Seraphim than Capitol. Also, not a few EMI releases were issued first on Seraphim, and some of these are great. In particular, the recordings of under-rated Rudolph Kempe (a series of Richard Strauss with the Dresden Staatskapelle and an excellent Beethoven cycle with the Munich PO). In my experience, the brown/yellow duo-toned label is usually OK, the later off-white a matter of luck. For the same recording, you come across the Seraphim re-issue at least ten times more often than the original Angel or Capitol. Most Seraphim's should not be priced higher than $1. 

• French and German EMI French Pathe and German Odeon were acquired by EMI, which also established in Germany the Electrola records. Many of the records produced by these continental divisions of EMI were not well known to the general American buyer and were available only as imports. Many records would say EMI but with a Pathe, Odeon or Electrola sticker over the EMI logo. French EMI in particular had many interesting older artists, such as Afred Cortot, Yves Nat, Marcelle Meyer etc, to name a few of my favorites. One well known series is the Référence series of historical performances. Angel only issued a small fraction of French EMI recordings.

Columbia Masterworks is another headache to many audiophiles.

• Their recordings could sound good in some (tubed usually) systems but often coarse in others. In the link provided, only look at the labels with the word "Masterworks" for guidance to inner labels. For me, up to the grey label is pretty good.

• Artistically, Columbia is basically American artists and so, for a Europhile like me, one really has to cherry-pick. In terms of orchestral works, it is the big three. Leonard Bernstein and the NY Phil are often challenging, but idiosyncratic, and given the wide choice out there, not a safe bet in core repertoire, but I'd pick their Mahler, Sibelius, Schumann and Haydn as amongst the best; after Bernstein, Pierre Boulez took over, and his particular modernism sometimes were interesting (very good Stravinsky, Bartok, Schoenberg, Berg and Webern of course; also excellent Varese). Eugene Ormandy and Philadelphia Orchestra recorded just about everything, but mostly in a somewhat lush, homogenized way, and my picks are their Rachmaninov and Prokofiev. As for George Szell and his Cleveland Orchestra, usually very well played and proper but lacking in soul, so aside from their Dvorak I like them as accompaniment for soloists (e.g. for pianists Rudolf Serkin, Leon Fleisher, and Robert Casadesus). None of them produced as many memorable recordings as Bruno Walter, whose mono or stereo recordings are mostly all worthwhile. The other important legacy is Igor Stravinsky, whose extensive recordings of his own works are excellent documents, and I usually find them highly worthwhile.

• For soloists, their catalogue is pretty uneven. Better for pianists; the aforementioned three were the main staples, and they produced many classic work, along with the very good Gary Graffman (and too-light sounding Philip Entremont). And of course, there is the one-and-only Glenn Gould, a must in Bach. And the legendary Vladimir Horowitz, in his middle period, recorded a lot, and they are highly personal and idiosyncratic (essential Scarlatti and Scriabin; sample too his Chopin). In terms of violinists, an aged Zino Francesscati (kinda thin tone) still produced the most interesting recordings (the Beethoven with Bruno Walter is a classic). Columbia invested heavily in Issac Stern, recording everything, but the problem is that, while he was good enough, he was never more than that, and Jaime Laredo we don't even need to mention. Things improved with the digital age, as Cho-Ang Lin made many very good records, though he never caught on with the public, and in Yo-Yo Ma they finally had a star cellist, who recorded everything, and mostly well done, more interesting than the Columbia staple of years past, the rather matter-of-fact Leonard Rose. In chamber works, I like most things recorded by the Budapest Quartet.

• Odyssey This is the budget label of Columbia, and like Seraphim, it is imho a very important label. In stereo recordings, the art work on the record sleeves are often better than the generally more four-square original issues. It re-issued virtually every recording of the great Bruno Walter, and almost all are worthwhile. Ditto Zino Francesscati's recordings. For the same recording, you come across the Odyssey re-issue at least ten times more often than the original Columbia, and they are usually $1. Odyssey also re-issued many mono recordings, which are generally less desirable. These are distinguished by their sleeves, which have few colors imposed on an austere white background.

• Epic (wiki) This early Columbia label issued some of their early recordings, which can mostly be dismissed, but it also issued many early Dutch Philips recordings, which have some value (e.g. you see Arthur Grumiaux and Andre Navarra on Epic). Again, these are dollar bin material.

• Columbia Special Products This is an odd duck, which for classical lovers can be mostly ignored were not for the occasional mono recordings of the great Dimitri Mitropolous or Robert Casadesus. One of my desert island disc is on this label, the incomparable piano duo Robert and Gaby Casadesus in Schubert. After decades and sampling most available versions, I have not come across a rival yet. I wish I have the original mono ML Columbia, which I have yet to come across.

This is the end of Part I. Part II shall explore Decca/London, Philips

and perhaps other labels.