------------------------------
The Old-Time Radio Digest!
Volume 01 : Issue 78
A Part of the [removed]!
ISSN: 1533-9289
Today's Topics:
Fu Manchu Plots ["Robert Fells" <rfells@[removed]; ]
Captain Midnight actors [Jim Widner <jwidner@[removed]; ]
youngsters into OTR? ["Rodney w bowcock jr." <rodney-self]
OTR accuracy ["Martin Grams, Jr." <mmargrajr@hotm]
Re: Accurate References? [Elizabeth McLeod <lizmcl@[removed]]
ARE OTR REFERENCE BOOKS REALLY ACCU ["Lee, Steve (DEOC)" <slee@[removed].]
LISTENING TO TELEVISION ["Ian Grieve" <ian@[removed]]
The great mandala of media, or what ["Mark Kinsler" <kinsler33@[removed]]
In the eye of the beholder [neil crowley <og@[removed]; ]
Accuracy about OTR ["Stephen A Kallis, Jr." <skallisjr@]
Television and radio ["Stephen A Kallis, Jr." <skallisjr@]
Re: In defense of TV [OTRChris@[removed] ]
Cincinnati's 15th Annual OTR Convent ["Kris Rutti" <knrutt@[removed]; ]
Re: re Nick Lucas [Rob Spencer <rspencer@[removed];]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 19:50:54 -0500
From: "Robert Fells" <rfells@[removed];
To: "old time radio" <[removed]@[removed];
Subject: Fu Manchu Plots
I think that Gordon Payton and I are working along similar lines. I too am
listening to the newly-discovered "Lost" discs recently made available by
Ted Davenport and I'm trying to match the episodes with the Sax Rohmer
novels. Gordon, I can tell you that of the new set is based on The
Daughter of Fu Manchu. Since there are a number of missing discs, I'm
reading the novel to fill the gaps. Fortunately, the radio serial was
pretty faithful to the novels.
I plan to summarize the missing episodes and turn them over to Ted so he can
supplement the CDs with them. The mysterious Episode No. 40 from the first
group that have been in circulation for many years is the beginning of The
Bride of Fu Manchu. Mr. Rohmer's last novel was published around 1959, the
time of his death, and was called, curiously enough, Fu Manchu for
President. Talk about a dastardly plot!
Bob Fells
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 19:50:57 -0500
From: Jim Widner <jwidner@[removed];
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject: Captain Midnight actors
Steve Kallis responded to another query:
One of the actors. Other Chuck Ramsays were Billy Rose (not _that_ one)
and Johnny Coons.
If you want to see most of the actors from Captain Midnight, I have
extensive photos through the courtesy of Jack Bivans and Conrad Binyon.
Go to: [removed]
Jim Widner
jwidner@[removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 19:51:01 -0500
From: "Rodney w bowcock jr." <rodney-selfhelpbikeco@[removed];
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject: youngsters into OTR?
Recently there have been comments and postings about why OTR phased out,
and it has kinda evolved into comments on younger people's interest in
OTR. My younger brother who is 14 enjoys listening to many shows. He
doesn't quite have the interest in knowing the "behind the scenes"
stories like I do, but he often borrows my tapes and CDs to listen to at
night before going to sleep. He especially enjoys The Jack Benny
Program, Suspense, Escape, and lately has been listening to Yours Truly
Johnny Dollar. He's also mentioned interest in hearing The Six Shooter
and Adventures of Phillip Marlowe.
What's strange about my brother's interest and my interest in OTR (I'm
22) is that my parents have little to no interest in it. When on a car
trip my mother will listen to some shows occasionally, but my father has
no desire to hear any shows at all. What has enabled my brother and I to
enjoy it so much though, is that we were always taught that just because
something may not be popular, that it doesn't mean that there's no
entertainment value in it, and to never dismiss something because it's
old.
It should also be noted that my brother enjoys lots of old movies too,
especially Laurel and Hardy, Abbott and Costello and anything directed by
Hitchcock. So don't give up hope on the younger generation
[removed]'s still some of us with good taste!
Rodney
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 19:51:36 -0500
From: "Martin Grams, Jr." <mmargrajr@[removed];
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject: OTR accuracy
Owens Pomeroy writes:
Since I have been a member of this list, I have noticed a number of
replies to posting (my own included) quoting passages from reference books
written over the years. But - can we rely on these?
Good question, Owen. The answer relies on more factors than can be written
about in a magazine article. Short and sweet, the accuracy of information
varies between the source of material, the authors, and the publishers.
Below are cited examples so you can see what I mean.
SOURCE - A primary factor is the source. As long as authors go to the
original sources whenever possible, the wrong information won't go
published. For my HAVE GUN - WILL TRAVEL book, as an example, I turned to
the original radio scripts at the Thousand Oaks library in California.
Although I found it to be a very definitive source, such as the dates and
times when each episode was recorded AND broadcast, the cast list suffered.
One episode, for example, featured a cast list of five people, but after
listening to the episode (and the closing credits), I discovered that two of
the actors listed on the script did NOT appear in the actual radio show.
Thus, a radio script lists what and who is planned for broadcast, but that
doesn't mean last-minute changes were made before broadcast - so I had to
correct two cast names before publication.
ACTORS AND DIRECTORS: Even actors and directors have made errors in
recollection, so authors have to double check their interviews. If Norman
Lloyd says he acted in four episodes of radio's March of Time but really did
six, then the correction has to be made. Just because someone was directly
involved during the golden age of radio does NOT mean they're always right.
AUTHORS: Even authors find themselves making mistakes. (I myself have made
corrections to my own work, I'm not without fault.) If an author insists
they never make mistakes - they're lying. The beauty of it is, once
information gets published, corrections can be made for future editions and
those revisions get better and better with age. I did a log of Duffy's
Tavern a couple years ago and a fella e-mailed me shortly after, giving me
the names of guest stars for episodes in December of 1950 I originally had
blanks for.
PUBLISHERS: Yes, publishers can be a major problem. A large publishing
company in Maryland released a book about PETER LORRE some time ago and
among the chapters about Lorre's work, they decided to have a short essay
about Lorre's radio performances. A woman in Harrisburg, who has been
compiling information about Lorre's work for the past twenty years (even
detailing his German radio appearances in the early-mid 1930s) offered to
submit an essay. The publishers asked her what other work she did and she
confessed that she never wrote any published piece in her life. They turned
her down because someone else offered to do the same, and he was an
"expert." Sadly, the author (I'll keep that author's name to myself) wrote
a piece of crap. He mis-spelled Lorre's name twice, gave the wrong dates
for episodes, and worse, one of the horror programs Lorre starred and hosted
in was called NIGHTMARE. About seven episodes are known to exist, yet the
author clearly wrote [I'm paraphrasing] "only about half a dozen episodes
aired before the sponsor took a dislike for one reason or another, and
cancelled the show, against Lorre's protests." Had the author looked up
NIGHTMARE in John Dunning's wonderful book "ON THE AIR", he would have
learned that Lorre's radio series lasted about a year (51 episodes to be
exact).
This is called "assuming" and cheats the readers. I sent a letter to the
publishers informing them of the errors but they prefer to stand by their
author - who has done a lot of other compositions for them in the past. The
publishers choose a "name" who has worked with them before many times,
rather than someone who knows what they're talking about and it's their
loss. The woman in Harrisburg is still looking for someone to have her work
published in a magazine - hint, hint.
Lastly, no book is perfect. Even the most authoritative publications have
their errors - The Twilight Zone Companion by Marc Scott Zicree, the Raymond
Burr book by McFarland, etc. If you have three different sources of
information regarding the same subject, the best suggestion is to look
inside and check their source, and how comprehensive their work is. When
you compare a 500 page book on Gangbusters written by a "nobody," to a sixty
page book written by an "expert," I'm sure you'd be able to see the
difference.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 19:54:28 -0500
From: Elizabeth McLeod <lizmcl@[removed];
To: <[removed]@[removed];
Subject: Re: Accurate References?
Owens Pomeroy wonders,
What I am trying to say is - who are we to believe when reading about
these programs, broadcasters, dates, etc., in order to get an acurate
answer. Most of the people who could answer the questions we have, are no
longer here, so I guess we will have to keep reading the new books that will
no doubt be published in the future, and hope they are accurate. This topic
will probably open a can of worms, but that is what this forum is for, isn't
it?
This is actually a very good can of worms to open, because there *are* a
lot of inaccurate books floating around out there.
The earliest OTR books were casual nostalgia works, written by people
just looking to remember the old days. These books contain many amusing
anecdotes, many fond reminiscences -- but also perpetuate many myths. The
writings of Ben Gross, Jim Harmon, Irving Settel, and a few others fall
into this category. (And even the fact that a book might have been
written in the OTR era itself doesn't necessary mean that it's reliable:
one of the worst offenders in perpetuating assorted press-agent myths is
"There's Laughter in the Air" by Gaver and Stanley -- written in 1945!)
These authors were out to entertain, not to document -- and as long as
one views their works as entertainment, there's no point in nitpicking
every little error. The same is often true of perormers' biographies:
just because they were *there* doesn't mean they are always accurate in
what they say happened. Other participants in the same event may remember
it differently -- and who's right? Stories may be entertaining, but they
also have to stack up against established, documented facts. Oral
histories fall into the same category -- keep in mind the anecdote of the
WW2 officer who addressed a college history class on the events of a key
battle, only to have one of the students point out that he made a number
of chronological errors in describing the event. His reply? "I only
fought in the war -- I didn't major in it."
The real danger comes when OTR authors depend wholly on these secondary
works as sources for their own research. The Buxton-Owen "Big Broadcast"
book, for example, is filled with errors -- Buxton and Owen were working
with the scanty research material available to them in the early 1960s,
which wasn't much, and were forced to draw a lot of their dates and cast
listings from secondary sources. The resulting listings were more often
than not incomplete and inaccurate -- but these same listings have been
freely adopted by many subsequent writers, and after nearly forty years,
these Buxton-Owen errors have become very difficult to dislodge. There
are cast errors in Dunning, for example, which can be traced directly
back to "The Big Broadcast."
When it comes to cast listings, series dates, and similar information,
the best sources are first-generation materials: original scripts,
network program logs, contracts, artist record cards, and other such
documents found in research archives like the Library of Congress or the
various university collections of radio-related materials. Also essential
are broadcasting industry trade publications like Broadcasting magazine,
Variety, Radio Daily, and the annual yearbooks put out by these
magazines. If you're seriously researching a particular program, the
first thing you have to do is ignore previously published research, and
make a committment to digging out the facts yourself from these primary
documents. This sort of research may seem rather obsessive to the casual
OTR fan, but the only way to really unearth the facts is to grab the
shovel and start digging. Eyestrain and carpal-tunnel syndrome and
annoyed looks from research librarians and hefty bills from UMI for
microfilm prints are the price you'll pay, but you'll end up with
information that can be relied upon.
The first thing I look at in examining an OTR book (or any work of
history) are the footnotes. If the author has done his or her homework,
the proof will be there.
Elizabeth
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 19:54:25 -0500
From: "Lee, Steve (DEOC)" <slee@[removed];
To: <[removed]@[removed];
Subject: ARE OTR REFERENCE BOOKS REALLY ACCURATE?
Owens Pomeroy asked:
"What I am trying to say is - who are we to believe when reading about
these programs, broadcasters, dates, etc., in order to get an accurate
answer."
The answer, [removed], is really quite simple. Your question could be
applied to any "written word" in general. Aside from the trust a writer may
gain through reputation, the only other way to verify or believe what has
been presented is by employing an old-fashioned methodology called
SCHOLARSHIP. Research, cross-referencing, interviews, empirical and
comparative analysis,- all tools that good research requires. The best
example I can cite is the outstanding work done by our own MS Elizabeth
McLeod.
Steve Lee
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 20:57:17 -0500
From: "Ian Grieve" <ian@[removed];
To: <[removed]@[removed];
Subject: LISTENING TO TELEVISION
In reply to Elizabeth's strong case for television listening.
I too listen to television. It would have to be very strong visual pictures
or on a subject that attracts my attention, to make me look at the screen.
I was born after the so-called Golden years of radio, though all my life I
have listened to radio. Yes I watch TV, but I have a radio in my car not a
TV, a radio either side of my bed (not a TV, but that is my wife's idea not
mine), a radio in most rooms of the house and we all (2 adults, 3 children)
listen to different shows and listen at different times. In the case of TV,
we are more standardised in the shows we watch.
I find though that certainly in my case, I will read, use a computer or do
other things that keep my eyes off the TV in a large percentage of the time.
I will however be aware of the plot and take great delight in advising my
family what will happen next. If I am on a computer, then I will turn to
watch the TV whilst waiting for a program to load or a site to load, then
back to the computer. The TV rarely holds my visual attention for long.
My wife on the otherhand does not like listening to OTR or even ordinary
radio apart from music, because her mind will wander and she misses the
information. Of course it is my fault because she says I will not stop
listening to bring her up to date when she asks what she just missed.
My son who is 12 is interested in certain shows and will listen to Magic
Island or Hobbit whilst playing with his playstation, but does not share my
interest in Westerns. He totally missed the Western Television era and
cannot visualise what is happenning as easily as I can. That's my theory
anyway. My daughters well, they would be interested in OTR if I could
arrange for some boys their ages to come and listen.
Ian
This email is for its intended recipient only. If this email has been sent
to you in error, or contains priviledged or confidential information, or the
contact details of other persons, then you must not copy or distribute this
information and you must delete the email and notify the sender. Liability
is expressly excluded in the event of viruses accompanying this email or any
attachment.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 21:02:50 -0500
From: "Mark Kinsler" <kinsler33@[removed];
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject: The great mandala of media, or what _radio_
killed.
There was an interesting discussion on the Mechanical Music Digest, whose
members are devoted to musical instruments like player pianos, player
organs, player violins (really!) and the like. Turns out that while the
advent of radio in the 1920's caused severe problems in the phonograph
business, it killed the higher-end player pianos (known as reproducing
pianos) outright. The rest of the player piano business lingered on until
the Depression finished it off. I suspect that the lower maintenance and
software costs of the phonograph saved it, as did the radio-related advent
of electrical recordings, which sounded much better than the old acoustical
disks.
One radio show (The Ampico Hour) was sponsored by Ampico, manufacturer of
perhaps the finest automatic piano mechanisms ever made. The Ampico could
duplicate the keystrokes of any pianist. It used a sophisticated digital
code that the computer scientists over at the Mechanical Music Digest exult
over. Rachmaninoff and George Gershwin both made Ampico rolls, and these
are still available.
It's worth learning about those old instruments. They were perhaps as
sophisticated as mechanical devices ever became, and they're just
fascinating.
I once saw a coin-operated banjo. Put in a nickel and mechanical fingers
played a rousing tune on the noble instrument, mounted upright in a glass
case.
M Kinsler
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 21:02:52 -0500
From: neil crowley <og@[removed];
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject: In the eye of the beholder
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 20:48:21 -0500
From: Elizabeth McLeod <lizmcl@[removed];
Having spent a great deal of my childhood "watching TV", I don't
feel that my imagination was in any way stunted by the experience.
<snip>
-- and I think that if those of you who were kids fifty years
ago actually *ask* those of us who were kids thirty years ago, you'll
find that our experiences really weren't all that different.
Years ago Aldous Huxley made pretty much the same point - that the
unchanging square peg of the past is constantly being forced into the
ever-changing round hole of whatever "present" looks back at it. His
particular concern was the so-called "Dark Ages", named by historians who
thought the period after Rome's fall was marked by an intellectual decline
which only revived in the light of the Renaissance. Huxley disagreeed. He
argued that humans haven't changed through the ages and certainly didn't
become an inferior breed from 500 [removed] to 1300 [removed] Of course, the impact
of invasions, famines, natural disasters, disease, poor education, etc. was
stronger in a low-tech world than they would be today - but the people were
the same. Not more or less intelligent, not more or less imaginative - the
same. We haven't changed since the Cro-Magnon's painted their cave walls.
The same people who built the pyramids built the great cathedrals and
Manhattan's skyscrapers.
Those who grew up with television brought the same human skills to that
experience as their parents brought to radio and didn't lose their
imaginations in the process. It may be that when the genetic manipulators
have their way and every child born is smarter than Einstein and more
talented than Mozart our species will become something better or worse than
mere humanity, but until then we're all just cave dwellers. In a high-tech
world.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 21:02:53 -0500
From: "Stephen A Kallis, Jr." <skallisjr@[removed];
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject: Accuracy about OTR
Owens Pomeroy, noting that some reference books on OTR, observes,
What I am trying to say is - who are we to believe when reading about
these programs, broadcasters, dates, etc., in order to get an accurate
answer. Most of the people who could answer the questions we have, are
no longer here, so I guess we will have to keep reading the new books
that will no doubt be published in the future, and hope they are
accurate. This topic will probably open a can of worms, but that is what
this forum is for, isn't it?<<
Well, there are reasons for various possible inaccuracies. Speaking from
my Captain Midnight researches, I found that there was more than one
probable date for the very first broadcast. The reason for this is that
it was syndicated for Skelly Oil, and at its very beginning and towards
the end of its Skelly run, it wasn't broadcast weeknightly ([removed], before
Ovaltine picked up the show and made it a network program, toward the end
of the Skelly run, it was airing three times a week). Thus, depending on
where it had a debut, the show could have more than one opening date.
I understand that some reference books avoid syndicated shows for this
reason.
Stephen A. Kallis, Jr.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 21:02:56 -0500
From: "Stephen A Kallis, Jr." <skallisjr@[removed];
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject: Television and radio
Elizabeth Mcleod notes that those who didn't grow up on OTR may not have
been imaginationally challenged thereby, writing,
Having spent a great deal of my childhood "watching TV", I don't feel
that my imagination was in any way stunted by the experience. Any medium
that in a single week of viewing exposed a child to personalities ranging
from Mr. Spock to Arnold the Pig couldn't help but stimulate the
imagination -- and I think that if those of you who were kids fifty years
ago actually *ask* those of us who were kids thirty years ago, you'll
find that our experiences really weren't all that different<<
Actually, I'm not one of those who knocks TV because it shows you things
that, presumably, stunts the imagination. One of my fondest memories of
The Muppets was when there was a spot on the Today show where Kermit sang
"I've Grown Accustomed To Her Face." A face on a Muppet was swallowed by
a face beneath it, and the face then started to swallow Kermit, as the
song was reaching its close. Dave Garroway was so astonished by it, they
did an encore a week or so later. Nothing on OTR could match that,
because it was a brilliant sight gag.
Radio and TV are different media. The nonCanonical OTV version couldn't
begin to match the scope of the OTR version, in part because the
production budget of a TV equivalent would have bankrupted Ovaltine. The
TV version of The Lone Ranger came close to the OTR version, because the
Old West was relatively easy to put on film (which is why a lot of old B
movies were westerns). But for the most part, they were different
animals. A moody, dialogue-driven show like Pat Novak For Hire would
have a difficult-to-impossible transition to TV; and likewise, a
sight-gag show like Get Smart wouldn't have worked half as well on radio.
Stephen A. Kallis, Jr.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 22:17:12 -0500
From: OTRChris@[removed]
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject: Re: In defense of TV
Elizabeth McLeod writes:
<< Having spent a great deal of my childhood "watching TV", I don't
feel that my imagination was in any way stunted by the experience.
From Mr. Spock to Arnold the Pig couldn't help but stimulate the
imagination -
Think for a moment about how *you* watch TV. How much time do you
actually spend peering intently at the screen? Not much, I'll bet. You
read a magazine, look at the newspaper, or lie back and rest your [removed];>
I agree with you . Television has offered some very interesting programs. The
more creative ones offer alternate worlds and experiences that we could never
truly experience. For this reason some people find the shows silly because
they cannot
get into this imaginative mode. Not "real" enough for them . For myself the
straight day to day dramas are boring because they are too routine. Very well
cast and well written . However, it's the same old stuff.
I do not watch much television and I do not use it for background noise. For
me I want to watch a show that really intrigues me and makes me watch the
screen .
I recall watching those shows in the 60s as well. And I recall being glued
to the set when the Twilight Zone aired , and even Star Trek, and the early
Mission Impossibles. I just don't recall my mind doing anything else except
for intent viewing while watching those shows. I discovered Old time radio
when Televsion became overwhelmed with Aaron Spelling fluff . The shows just
were not intent enough for me and when I found shows like Suspense and Escape
on the radio I switched immediately to OTR. I am glad I found it .
-Chris
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 22:17:11 -0500
From: "Kris Rutti" <knrutt@[removed];
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject: Cincinnati's 15th Annual OTR Convention
Can someone please provide some clarification of the schedule for the
upcoming OTR convention in Cincinnati?
The flyer which arrived by mail indicates that the hours for the convention
are 9AM - 9PM on Friday and 9AM - 4 PM on Saturday, yet there is a Saturday
evening dinner planned. I assume this is a typo.
Thanks for your help.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 22:17:06 -0500
From: Rob Spencer <rspencer@[removed];
To: [removed]@[removed]
Subject: Re: re Nick Lucas
Thanks to John Henley for his comments re Nick Lucas. I, too, have done an
exhaustive search of the Web, and have turned up virtually nothing aside
from references to the guitar. I find this highly surprising, given Lucas'
importance in the history of popular music. This spurred my interest, so
for about the past year I have sought to accumulate whatever knowledge of
Lucas' career I can find. I have a few interesting interviews from the
early '80s, several of his guitar instruction books, and of course dozens
of his records. I even have a Soundie from 1941, in pristine condition.
But I can't find any radio shows.
I don't have the new CD Mr. Henley mentioned, but I do have the LP of
the
excellent Yazoo collection. I must say, however, that the early-'30s
electrical recordings of Lucas' solos are vastly inferior to the acoustic
versions he did for Brunswick in 1923 (I have never heard the 1922 Pathe
versions). The earlier versions are far more lively, played with evident
joy. I wish Yazoo had used these versions instead.
Regarding his radio career, according to contemporary reports and his
own
words he was quite active in the early '30s. I have seen pictures of him
behind a CBS microphone, and I know he has a few shows of his own. Beyond
this I know [removed]
Thanks also to Nat Shifrin. I love Stoopnagle and Budd, and I would
love
to hear that Nick Lucas episode when it's done! I'm also intrigued by the
process of hand-"painting" waveforms, and wished I understood it; I do a
lot of noise reduction myself.
Rob Spencer
--------------------------------
End of [removed] Digest V01 Issue #78
******************************************
Copyright [removed] Communications, York, PA; All Rights Reserved,
including republication in any form.
If you enjoy this list, please consider financially supporting it:
[removed]
For Help: [removed]@[removed]
To Unsubscribe: [removed]@[removed]
For Help with the Archive Server, send the command ARCHIVE HELP
in the SUBJECT of a message to [removed]@[removed]
To contact the listmaster, mail to listmaster@[removed]
To Send Mail to the list, simply send to [removed]@[removed]