Vinyl Album - David Rose - Holiday For Strings - MGM

Vinyl Album

Artist:	David Rose
Title:	Holiday For Strings
Label:	MGM
Country:	UK
Catalogue:	MGM-D-106
Date:	Oct 1952
Format:	10" LP
Collection:	I Own It I Want It
Community:	3 Own
Price Guide:	Valuation Page
» Search eBay #AD » Search Amazon #AD This site contains affiliate links for which we may be compensated.

PRICE GUIDE

Add Valuation

Track	Artist	Title	Composer	Rating
A1	David Rose	Holiday For Strings	Rose	Rate
A2	David Rose	Four-Twenty A.M.	Rose	Rate
A3	David Rose	Estrellita	Ponce	Rate
A4	David Rose	Sweet Sue	Harris, Young	Rate
B1	David Rose	Laura	Mercer, Raksin	Rate
B2	David Rose	Deserted City	Rose	Rate
B3	David Rose	Manhattan Square Dance	Rose	Rate
B4	David Rose	Intermezzo	Provost	Rate

Notes

Matrix / Runout (Label A): 49-MG-3004
Matrix / Runout (Label B): 49-MG-3005
Matrix / Runout (run-out groove A): 49-MG-3004-2 E506 S1
Matrix / Runout (run-out groove B): 49-MG-3005-2 E506 S2

Images

Comments and Reviews


LouisSidney ● 24th Mar 2018		That's right. Recorded March 12, 1942 (original title: "Monotony For Strings"). Reissued on RCA Victor LPT1015 (10" LP).



Pridesale 24th Mar 2018		Thanks I presume that is RCA Victor 27853



LouisSidney ● 18th Mar 2018		"Holiday for Strings" was first recorded in 1942 for RCA Victor (first use of electronic echo chamber). The latter MGM version is different.



Pridesale 18th Mar 2018		Is the Holiday For Strings the 1942 USA recording?



Boursin 15th Apr 2015		This was released in October 1952, and reviewed in Melody Maker, 11 October 1952, p. 4. In fact this was one of the first LPs that EMI ever released on its labels. In Britain, only Decca had LPs already in 1950. The US version (linked below) is from 1950, and the incorrect 1950 date probably comes from that.



Stanley Mars 11th Jul 2014		I am also interested in this question, but I have not found UK press MGM Records discography. I relied on discogs.com, where some records with catalogue number MGM-D-10? are 1950 (this and this). I'll be glad if you could help me sort out.



LouisSidney ● 11th Jul 2014		I'd rather say 1952.