Sound Recording Services London

Label
HMV
Voralion
Columbia
Parlaphone
Decca
Circle
Vogue
Imperial
Bosworth Record
Swing
Brunswick
Savoy
Mercury
Blue Star
Regal
London
Melodisc
Columbia
Rex
Beltona
Conroy
Theme Music
MGM
Solitaire
Elite Special
Tempo
Embassy
The Master Sound System
Edison Bell Radio

Hello

This is not very easy to answer because it really depends

HMV—> usually not very much, there are exceptions. However, there are English HMVs, where the original Victor stamper was used and Victor (US) didn't issue the record. Example: Lovable by Paul Whiteman Orchestra

(American) Vocalion: It depends on the music on it. Vocalions with numbers between 15500-15999 are usally extremely valuable (more than 300 Dollars). There are also so called race series 1000-1500, which are usually very valuable. Blue Vocalions are usually not valuable. If the blue Vocalion is not jazz but blues (like the ones of Robert Johnson–> extremely valuable)

(American) Columbia: Again… It depends on the music. Red label Columbias are not valuable. Black label Vivatonal Columbias can be quite valuabe, particularly race series (Race series means generally black music made predominantly by African Americans for predominantly African Americans)

Parlophone: American Parlophones are usually around 75 Dollars. English Parlophones can be valuable but not really the so called Swing Series. Older Parlophones with large labels (purple, red, black) are around 50-100 Dollars. It depends again what's on it.

Decca: Usually not valuable. However, there are some exceptions. But usually really nothing special.

Circle: No

Vogue: Vogue is not valuabe. There are so called Vogue picture discs 12" records. Prices are paid between 50 Dollars and 1500 Dollars. But I guess you don't mean those

Imperial: Usually not valuable at all.

Bosworth: Nothing special

Swing: Nope

(American) Brunswick: It depends once again. Race series 7000-7300 very very scarce and valuable, at least 200 Dollars. Usually a Brunswick record is between 5 Dollars and 250 Dollars, depending on the artist

Savoy: Can be valuable. Particularly the ones with Charlie Parker

Mercury: Nope

Blue Star: Nope

Regal: Usually not

London: Not at all

Melodisc: Nope

Rex: Nope

Beltona: Nope

all the others except Edison Bell Radio: There are some rare records among these.

***

If I look at the labels you mention here, you might have a collection of records from late 1940s until mid-fifties. These 78 rpm records are usually not valuable.

The value of a 78 rpm record depends mostly of the artist(s) on the record. Usually, these artists are not known to the general public or it's the early work of a famous musician. Besides that, the condition of the record is extremely important for the valuation of a 78 rpm record.

Popular music is generally not valuable. Early blues records (1920s- around 1935) can be extremely valuable (up to 6000 Dollars for super nice copies of Robert Johnson).

So called Race records are usually very valuable.

In jazz, it really depends on what you have. Usually, 78 records pressed later than 1935 are not very valuable.

Early Rock'n Roll and early Country e.g. on the Sun label (Elvis) are extremely valuable.

This book might be a help:

http://www.amazon.com/American-Premium-Record-Guide-1900-1965/dp/087349282X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222270234&sr=8-1

However, the values there are sometimes a little bit too low.

If you have specific questions on certain records, you can email me. I'll try to help.

Seventy-seven years ago, members of Congress erected a tariff wall aimed at protecting American business concerns. The result was a stock market crash followed by drastic retaliatory tariffs and a shutdown of the global trading system. The 1932 Revenue Act made matters worse by massively raising marginal tax rates on domestic incomes. These blunders set the stage for the Depression and world war that followed.

Current members of Congress appear to have let their history books collect dust: A raft of anti-China currency and tariff legislation is now widely supported by both political parties as the exigencies of political grandstanding subvert the ideals of sound policy. At the same time, Chinese government officials have threatened to dump some of the government’s $1 trillion in U.S. Treasury securities if Congress continues its currency bashing and tariff threats.

This fiscal folly couldn’t come at a worse time. Financial markets have been reeling over the last several weeks as hedge funds deleverage from wrong-way bets on mortgage products. It certainly doesn’t help matters that a tone-deaf Congress, led by a bi-partisan coalition of the economically obtuse, is attempting to advance legislation that would raise tax rates on investment companies as part of a “fix” for the alternative minimum tax (AMT).

Has anyone in Congress ever stopped to contemplate why London has once again become the financial capital of the world? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the rest of the world is lowering corporate tax rates and trying to moderate regulations while the U.S. is stuffing Sarbanes-Oxley down the throat of its businesses.

If that weren’t bad enough, the 2001-03 tax cuts on incomes and capital are essentially on the chopping block, set to expire in several years time unless Congress and the president act to extend them. The current Congress isn’t disposed to extending the tax cuts, while online futures trading points to a Democrat sweep in 2008. In other words, there’s a high probability that tax rates are going up.

Some politicians argue that the current anti-trade sentiment has been driven by wage inequality and poor income growth, “tax cuts for the rich,” and high energy and food prices for the poor. But the data refute this. Personal income has grown at an average pace of 6.2 percent since 2004, despite large swings in reported GDP growth; personal income is up 6.1 percent year-over-year as of June, right in line with the average of the last few years. And thanks to a low unemployment rate and a tight labor market, real non-supervisory wages are growing faster today than they were at this stage of the last cycle (1.6 percent vs. 1.3 percent, year-over-year).

In fact, low-end (non-supervisory) real wages have grown at about twice the pace for this cycle compared to the first 23 quarters of the last expansion. A broader measure of real non-financial compensation per hour also shows superior wage growth during this cycle (1 percent per annum average vs. a 0.3 percent per annum average at this stage of the last cycle). So to call this a “wage-less” expansion is utter nonsense, despite the fact real GDP growth has averaged 2.7 percent per annum this cycle versus a superior 3.3 percent average at this stage of the last cycle.

Attention protectionist stooges: Since the implementation of NAFTA in 1994, real non-supervisory wages have grown at an average pace of 1.2 percent per annum, triple the 1971-2007 average of 0.4 percent per annum. Inflation-adjusted household net worth has jumped $22.2 trillion since NAFTA was implemented while non-farm payrolls have increased by 24.9 million. Manufacturing output, far from falling, actually stands at a record high, and is up 62 percent since 1994.

Undoubtedly some have been left behind by the global economy. But free trade, China, and Wal-Mart for that matter have dramatically increased the standard of living for most people, just as protectionism, a trade war, tax hikes on investment and work, and the absence of Wal-Mart would sink living standards for most people.

While the global boom continues on the back of pro-growth policies around the world, Congress is speeding down the road to ruin with trade protectionism and a raft of untimely tax hikes. It’s time to take a detour and think about the hugely anti-growth consequences of turning our backs on the global economy and pro-growth tax policy.

Let me ask you this…do you favor tainted tooth paste, lead paint on childrens' toys, harmful chemicals in animal feed and in people food? Something has to be done to regulate what China is sending us. Nice rant without evidence cited but nice rant anyway. Dismissed.

One final question for you…Have you enlightened Congress to these facts? If not, perhaps you should. Perhaps they can learn from your great (yeah right!) wisdom.

Complaining to us on YA will do nothing. You need to write letters to the editor, to Congressional reps and even to some of the radio talk show hosts to get your point across. Otherwise you are merely blowing smoke. Your money and your mouth remain separated.

Le Studio, Morin Heights
Abbey Road Studios, London
Rockfield Studios, Wales
Toronto Sound Studios
its a album by rush

It is Toronto Sound Studios

I have a feeling that Christina Aguilera has, and still is 'lipping' a few select songs on her latest 'Back To Basics' tour. When I saw back in November at her London show, her voice sounded amazing, but it was obvious that she lipping to a pre-recorded backing track for some of the more 'demanding' songs. I have 2 other friends, one who lives in LA and one in New York and they recorded her concert. After hearing them and comparing them with mine, it's so obvious that she lips: AINT NO OTHER MAN, SLOW DOWN BABY, HURT AND WELCOME on tour. All you got to do is check youtube and you can see… same at EVERY SHOW she does. Is this wrong do you think?
Thanks for all your answers, but I am NOT a liar. Like I said, I am a serious Xtina fan, but I know for a fact she was lipping those songs. It's only 4 out of a 20 set, so it's not that bad. I think it's just to preserve her voice, but nevertheless when you're paying at least 50 bucks to see someone, it's kinda like daylight robbery. I think she has one of the best voices in the world, but like all human beings her voice must get tired.

My opinion is very simple : you are a singer, then sing. You wanna dance on stage, then be a dancer if you can't do both when you're performing.

I mean if I want to hear the record then I play my CD, no need to pay I don't know how many dollars to see someone lip-syncing, that's stupid.

I think I can say I'm a fan of Christina Aguilera but she lip-syncs just too much these days, I'm disappointed. And we have to remember that a few years ago, she was really harsh towards "fake" singers. This is ridiculous.

The “scientific method” is as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution?

Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.”—The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19.

Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”—The Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p. 199.

According to New Scientist: “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”—June 25, 1981, p. 828.

Physicist H. S. Lipson said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” (Italics added.)—Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138.

Are those who advocate evolution in agreement? How do these facts make you feel about what they teach?

The introduction to the centennial edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species (London, 1956) says: “As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution.”—By W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada.

“A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place—and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . A state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.”—C. Booker (London Times writer), The Star, (Johannesburg), April 20, 1982, p. 19.

The scientific magazine Discover said: “Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent.”—October 1980, p. 88.

What view does the fossil record support?

Darwin acknowledged: “If numerous species . . . have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution.” (The Origin of Species, New York, 1902, Part Two, p. 83) Does the evidence indicate that “numerous species” came into existence at the same time, or does it point to gradual development, as evolution holds?

Have sufficient fossils been found to draw a sound conclusion?

Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter Kier says: “There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world.” (New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129) A Guide to Earth History adds: “By the aid of fossils palaeontologists can now give us an excellent picture of the life of past ages.”—(New York, 1956), Richard Carrington, Mentor edition, p. 48.

What does the fossil record actually show?

The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”—January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.

A View of Life states: “Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.”—(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.

Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.”—Natural History, October 1959, p. 467.

Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”—Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.

Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, candidly acknowledged: “The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.”—(New York, 1980), p. 29.

This "question" is copied in its entirety from pages 121-124 of "Reasoning from the Scriptures", a publication of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Of course, true science harmonizes with the bible.

Learn more:

http://watchtower.org/e/19960122/

http://watchtower.org/e/20020608/article_01.htm

http://watchtower.org/e/20040622/article_03.htm

http://watchtower.org/e/20000922/article_02.htm

http://watchtower.org/e/20040122a/article_01.htm

http://watchtower.org/e/t13/

http://watchtower.org/e/20001008/article_03.htm

http://watchtower.org/e/20000122/article_02.htm

http://watchtower.org/e/20001008/article_02.htm

http://watchtower.org/e/lmn/article_04.htm

http://watchtower.org/e/19960122/

http://watchtower.org/e/jt/