Delving into Hylands' personality and etc.

It has been a very joyous weekend for all who attended the first Santa Cruz Rag Time festival, and it was certainly a great success. Thanks go all to Kylan who ran this whole thing, and did an amazing  with herding all of us cats(musicians). It was such a fun but exhausting weekend! 

Now I gave a seminar on Fred Hylands on Saturday, though only six people came, but luckily, those people who came were very interested in the subject and very much enjoyed themselves. I used some sheet music as examples, and some of my cartoons of Fred and Marie as images for the seminar, as no electronic devices were able to be used when doing this. The night before I gave this speech, I went through it in order with my grandparents, and that turned out just finely, but after that, we got to talking in-depth about Fred and Marie. It started out just as a single question from my grandma, but then it stemmed outward into something much more complicated. 

Since I am still a little bit stumped in trying to figure out Hylands' personality and why many refused to speak of him later, this conversation helped quite a lot more in trying to understand this whole jag. We discussed how wild and obviously unstable Hylands was, and that any kind of alcohol or deadly drugs could have been responsible for not only his spontaneity and varying characteristics. She had told me that she read something recently on George Gershwin, and most of us know about him. Though when she explained what she read in this book, she spoke of how the key to Gershwin's success was a sort of imbalance, and by this she meant some thing like ADD, or something of that type. That made me think about that for a moment, as it was so often said that Hylands had very winning and charming ways when meeting people, however, he was not mentioned by those who worked with him later. Well, scratch that, he was mentioned by these people, but those who caught them in this way of words did not, as keeping with the politeness of Victorian tradition, speak of Hylands wrongfully. From this, it would seem a trifle suspicious that the interviewers refused to speak of him, to say nothing at all about him. What row of words they must have kicked up when speaking of Hylands! Hmm. It's just very strange. She also brought up the fact that Marie might have been the same way, or similar somewhat. By this, I mean whatever it was that those who remembered him said, might have been a similar story for her. Now that would make sense, as only someone like Fred could be with him. Heh, that must have been something that was an ongoing pun with recording staff at Columbia...

Since he was complicated, and tangled up in a mess of music and emotions, we can look to his music for another bundle of clues. Such as these two things here:

Yep, that one. Sorry I mention it so often. 
And also this one here:

Ooh! Thirty-second notes..... oh boy! 

No, I mean that in a sarcastic way, just look at that! It's very complicated for majorly published music in the late-1890's. 
I'm surprised that Will Rossiter was alright with publishing this, as it's tangled up and complicated(like that cat who wrote it) and this is just the first page of it. Who knows what's next... What you see directly above is actually a great example of how complicated Hylands was, and the same thing can be said about his Darkey Volunteer, as it's just the same amount of crazy.
In fact, you can hear Hylands' orchestra arrangement here.(do excuse the abrupt ending of the sound file, the one first listed is the one I mean). 
There's so much going on here. He expected them to read this:

Yep. What a mess of wonder it is. They read it easily, as they were professional musicians in their day, but Hylands was just a few steps ahead of them always. The orchestra members were all standing on their lily pad a few feet away from Hylands who was constantly thinking elsewhere and ahead. He was like that with everyone he worked with, no matter who they were. Heck! If he was working with stars like Ben Harney or Ana Held, he'd still be his vain and eccentric self. 
Now something that I just confirmed this evening is that one of Hylands' pseudonyms in the early teen's was  Fred Whitney. Why? Well, I learned what Fred's mother's maiden name was, and guess what it was...Whitney(Mary was her first name by the way). Just to prove my point fully, on the back of his The Rag-Time Boardinghouse from 1912, there are two tunes listed on the top of the back page. These tunes are "The BootBlack Rag" and "Trifling", the name listed as the composer is Fred Whitney, and I had the feeling that Hylands wrote these pieces, because of their complexity and interesting melodic choices. Now that I know "Fred Whitney" was certainly one of his pseudonyms, that is out of the way in needing evidence. Now the fact that he used his mother's maiden name is pretty interesting actually. That shows a possible deep mourning for his mother who died when he was 21. It must have effected him for as long as he lived, in some way or another. 

I am still rather unsure of Hylands' personality, but one thing is for sure, he was very intricate chap, and was extremely intelligent. He was so quick when talking with people, that he would point out the smallest of things in everyone's words. Similar to when someone says something quick as a sort of sarcastic joke or just to move along a conversation, Hylands would laugh a little, but then call out the statement, asking deeper questions about it, though that was not the speaker's intention at all. It's very annoying to the person who said it, but Hylands was so bright that he could analyze someone fully in a split second. Adding to his wild mind, and intelligence, he was a strategic manipulator, and when he was drunk, he must have been a nightmare to those around him, though his mind must have still been rather sharp, but not as intense or anxious when he was either sober or on cocaine or opium. How he must have been a real character, even from what we have written about him that still exists to-day. 

Yesterday was actually the birthdate of Fred Hylands, and I played plenty of his wonderful renditions of Rag-Time at the second day of the Santa Cruz festival. 

I hope you enjoyed this! 

Some divided style comparisons(from Gottschalk to Cow Cow Davenport)

I have been listening to much Cow Cow Davenport records recently, and have found some fascinating stylings of his that sound like a little someone I mention often on this blog. 

Yep. That chap. 

I am comparing the thought to have been impossible to! 

Comparing the great Cow Cow Davenport:

with that lily white piano man who worked at Columbia in 1898. It's something that would be considered heinous to most boogie pianists, as well as Rag-Time purists. But here's the point, the style that Davenport had was nothing new to the United States in the 1920's and 30's, it was a style that was just a little more structured before it was recorded regularly, and sounded a little differently. But not much differently. Now here's the first thing about the earliest "boogie-ish" playing, it was all left hand doing that rhythm and style that we all know of. It was a style that married rugged walking octaves with quick Rag-Time melodies in the right hand. 

Now, for the most obvious and clear comparison of these seemingly different styles, listen to this here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJhLNyk86Q0

Hope you've taken a good listen, because here are a few Columbia's with Hylands playing similar sorts of things:

Hylands behind Collins singing "My Castle on the Nile" from 1902

Once Collins gets to the chorus, that's when the boogie like playing comes in, where the walking octaves are very clearly heard, and these are paired with a very blues-like improvisation in the right hand. 

Hylands behind George W. Johnson in 1898

Now this one is a little harder to pull apart. Now the main thing that this one contains that is at all similar to how Davenport played is that one weird thing that Hylands plays in that solo at about 50 seconds in. The thing that he plays in his left hand is something that unaware Rag-Time enthusiasts would he shocked by to hear so early on. It's not a pattern that was written in Rag-Time and Jazz until the late-1910's or early 20's, which is odd , because it certainly had been around for a while! 

Much of the octaves, broken, walking, or not, that you hear Davenport play in the late-1920's is actually what Hylands was playing on Rag-Time records in the late-1890's. It's essentially the same thing, even if it may not sound at all the same to many. Really ponder it for a moment, of how similar the style was, how much of the same sort of rhythmic patterns dominated the left hand notes. Now this next cylinder clearly illustrates the left hand playing I mean:

Hylands and Spencer's "Whistling Rufus) from 1899(skip to 6:00 for the music!)

Now the bass notes were much better recorded on this one for some reason, but it really helps when trying to understand Hylands' craziness in the left hand. 

here's another Davenport recording from 1929:

the first record listed on the page is what I'm referring to here.

It's an amazingly hot recording! Love it! 

Now again, it really isn't all that different from what Hylands was playing almost thirty years before that. Listen to that thing at about 2:54 to 3:00 where Davenport plays the lower inversion of the F and C7 chord with the low octaves, that's something that Hylands not only played in his improvisations, but that was actually printed in his early music! In Hylands' arrangement of "Honey Come and See Me" from 1896, there are a few of those patterns actually written! Amazing isn't it. 

Really anything you hear from the hands of a boogie pianist stems directly from the ways of a very select few pianists in the 1890's. It may be played a little differently, but it's really just the same thing.The methods of recording in the 1890's could not exactly catch all the stylings that went into these style of Fred Hylands and Frank Banta Sr., it's also that if they actually recorded some of these songs as piano solos, we would all have a very different view on the early history of Rag-Time and even Jazz. 

Think back to the things I have said about Gottschalk, it's just a very early mix of everything that the early Rag-Time pianists played, and some of the Creole rhythms stemmed more off to Jazz than Rag-Time, even if the craze of "west-Indian" tangos and danzas was very much prominent in the 1890's and 1900's. 

Here's something to consider, in some newspaper articles from the late-1880's, they were already saying things like, Gottschalks' Bamboula is still played to-day well, running with the powerful dynamics, and the ragged rhythms. Yes, indeed, they were already using "Ragged" as a term for exactly what we Rag-Time nerds know so well. Imagine what those people who heard Fred Hylands play in mid-1890's Chicago said about his playing! They might have said that his playing was "Ragged", but then they might not have exactly understood what he was trying to play, as there are some cylinders where I am not really sure what he'd trying to play. One of them is this the first 45 seconds of this cylinder here. Heh? How? Wha... It's really weird, right? Every time I sit at the piano and try to play along with what he's playing here, I always stop in the middle of it because it's so confusing and quick. This little thing he plays at the beginning can be related back to the boogie/blues playing somewhat, as he's playing a very quick left hand pattern that is a little bit like something I 've heard some boogie pianists do before. 

Now this is exactly why publishers very often turned away Hylands' music, because it was too complicated and unable to be read by most people who bought sheet music. The ability for most people to read the music was very important for the big publishers, and with Hylands, this was just not possible. This is why he self-published most of his music, because no one else would really want to. It's really funny in some ways, but it does make sense. 

Well, that's all I have at the moment, but I will get more into this soon. I won't be posting until maybe early next week because I'll be at the first annual Santa Cruz Ragtime festival this weekend! 

I hope you enjoyed this! 

Fred Bachman, and other items of interest

I had a rather productive evening talking with my dearest friend Craig this evening, and many ideas were exchanged between us, just like any conversation I have with him. It's always a pleasure when we connect. Now of the many things that were exchanged in this conversation, one was the mentioning of Fred Hylands. It would seem that I am starting to find a handful of collectors who are well aware of Hylands, but not exactly sure of any details about him, which does make sense, since he's been largely forgotten through the ages. If you got to a gathering of record collectors, it is likely that you won't ever heard the name Fred Hylands, as you will more likely hear Frank P. Banta or C. H. H. Booth, or if you're lucky maybe Fred Bachman. No Hylands, I would believe that fully. Unless there's a much older collector in the mix, who has been collecting for thirty plus years, then you're more likely to hear Hylands mentioned somewhere, but not really in any deeper context. The mystery as to why Hylands was never spoke of by Jim Walsh was slightly addressed in this conversation, but not the whole "drinking in the studio" thing, though that certainly needs to have been addressed, as that was most likely one of the contributors to Walsh refusing to mention Hylands anywhere(though it's clear he was well aware of Hylands, and probably aware of all his faults). As goes with any conversation about early studio pianists, we did mention Frank P. Banta, and later Burt Green. I had to explain the connection between Green and Hylands(or the rest of the people in the "Columbia Clan" if you will), which led to the Hylands, Spencer and Yeager jag. I got my Hylands Spencer and Yeager piece in a trade this evening, and how I'm happy to see it once again! 

Here you go:

(close up of Ada Jones on the cover)

Close up of logo

(Hylands actually did the slogan part above all their names! I can tell, as the notes are really uneven and not uniform)

You can hear Harding sing this song here!

It's truly a wonder to have this piece back! I immediately framed it when I got back home, and it's at this moment sitting high up on one of the walls in my room, waiting to be taken to the first Santa Cruz Rag-Time festival next weekend! It's amazing to think that this piece was once at Hylands' home, and probably held in his or Burt Green's hands early in its life. Whatever it's history was, it was certainly in the possession of one of the prominent firm members at one point in 1899. Now what's even better about this sheet music is that Hylands' "You Don't Stop the World from Goin Round" is advertised on the back page, which is, actually, the first thing listed(go figure...), and more of their popular publications are listed as well. I would say that this piece was dated more exactly to about May or June of 1899, shortly after the firm was first established. 

Now to get back to this conversation. We threw around many names that some record collectors would know, but not too many would. Craig brought up the very obscure recording artist W. E. Browning, and as it would turn out, Browning was more of a composer than a recording artist, as he only made a few 9-inch Zon-O-Phones, one of which he recently acquired. I have not yet heard this man, but Craig described him as more of an amateur singer, sort of stereotypical as far as composers from that era go(much like Hylands was!). 

It was also mentioned that Billy Murray once spoke of Fred Bachman. The circumstances of this were said to have been Murray's first Victors. Now that was interesting to hear. I had assumed it was Banta or Booth, for the reason that Banta was working the most in later 1903(when Murray made his first Victors), or if not Banta, it could have been the supposed impossible, Fred Hylands. Now it turns out that it was neither of these pianists. Well, that's just what I heard, and it's very believable. I am listening to some of his early Victors just as I'm writing this, and it sounds more like a pianist I have not yet analyzed on this blog, so in that case, it would have to be Bachman. But it's a little harder to figure it out this time, as the piano playing is showy, broken up, with lots of notes, and not with the most steady of rhythm. It sounds a little like I'm describing Hylands, but it can't be, and it's a little shaky and restricted too me Hylands as well. 

Here's his Victor of "Up in a Cocoanut Tree", recorded in September 1903

Now it's starting to make a little sense. But just for a good comparison, here's J. W. Myers' Columbia of that from around the same time. I hope that this illustrates the difference a little more. I think I know what they are now. Hylands was just looser, and at the same time quicker at hitting notes. It's very weird really, something that's hard to explain, but once you know it, it makes more sense. I have a feeling that Bachman might have been aware of Hylands very well, and had heard him as well, more so than Banta probably did. But then again, Banta and Bachman didn't get drunk or drugged between takes, so that factor makes their playing much more uniform and easier to distinguish. There are some records where Hylands sounds so drunk that he sounds almost like a different pianist(though when he sounded like this, his attributes still come though...kind of... ...well, you can tell he's trying to be himself...). 

We also mentioned how the Banta's were much more well off than the Hylands' and I think I might have explained this before, but it's partially because Banta was better with his money, and he wasn't joining in all of these gambling games with publishing music and whatnot. That's truly a great comparison to make when thinking of the early recording business.  Banta to Hylands is a very interesting comparison to make, everything about them were polar opposites in many ways. Their personalities were opposites, Banta being quiet and modest, Hylands being loud-mouthed and arrogant. Banta being very responsible and stalwart, Hylands being insolent and hard to trust. Banta being deep-thinking and steadfast with decisions, Hylands being erratic and spontaneous with decisions. It's really fun to compare them! 

Anyhow, it seems that the word is getting around that Hylands was such an important missing link in knowing about the early recording business. That's really good to know! Get to identifying Hylands out there record nerds! 

I hope you enjoyed this! 

A record slip and other surviving relics of Columbia

Now I have explained the fact that Columbia's ledgers were destroyed in the 1970's, by whatever means were used to rid of all of this precious history. There are some small means of knowing some record information about Columbia records prior to 1901, but it's a terribly complex venture to follow. There aren't complete catalogs existing from 1890's Columbia out there, with recording dates, personnel information, and everything else we need to know other than record numbers and the label, but there are small sections out there that I have seen within the past few years. One of these little things is this here:

with a little section of it here:

These both came from an edition of The Rag-Time Ephemeralist.

I didn't have the chance to actually hold the thing in my hands(unlike an actual Berliner catalog from 1898!), but it would have been a real interesting experience to do so. As something like this is actually the best example of what exists of Columbia's 1890's ledgers. They aren't very specific, with not all the information we really want, but there's enough here to where much of the information could easily be interpreted or assumed safely. The singer isn't listed here in the two examples above, but it very clearly those of Len Spencer, by the numbering system(Spencer's Columbia's number from 7200 to just over 7500 by the way). That's usually a good indication of who's records are who's, as at Columbia, most regular artists were assigned a specific numbering system, after 1895 that is. Before 1895, they didn't really have that, even though they had hints of it sometimes(many of these early titles with old numbers re-recorded with different numbers, which were later recorded again with that second number they were given), it's a little confusing, but once you see lots of Columbia's, one can start to memorize which numbers go with who. Speaking of that, my good friend Tom Hawthorn has a book that is an actual guide to the numberings of Columbia's in the 1890's, and each artist was listed!(couldn't find Fred Hylands listed in the index though, shame on them). 

The record slips I have with my brown wax Columbia's are not originals though, as the originals from old Columbia are sometimes a little hard to read. For those of you who collect early disc records, you might know of the American Record company, one of their records can be seen here:

(from my own collection)

Other than the brilliant blue coloured shellac, and the beautifully styled label, the thing about these records that can be a problem is being able to read the title and performer on the label. This example seen above is a better example, but since the title was stamped on there, the ink can be very faded on many examples of these records. Obviously, the one above has fared better with the ailments of time, all the information is clearly able to be read. Now to connect this back to the Columbia subject, the readability of the label on these "blue Americans" as they are called(though I have a friend who owns a black one of these records...) can be compared to those record slips that came with Columbia cylinders, which were stamped onto the sheets of paper, and that was it.  Here is an example of this my good friend Ryan found on Ebay within this past week:

Yes, see what I mean, it's very hard to read. Here's what it says:

Cake Walk

no. 7272

Len Spencer

Now the thing that I am puzzled by here is that little symbol that is the easiest thing to read on this slip. What is that exactly? I saw this slip and didn't really know what that little symbol of some sort was. Now it was written in ink pen, and that has to be a clue of some sort. Now is it "LS" or just an "H"? If it's an "LS", we all know why it's there(Len Spencer is the singer), if it's an "H", that would indicate an extremely rare (and early!) identification of the pianist. The "H" would stand for Hylands, as in Fred Hylands:

Yes indeed. 

I asked my father what he thought that symbol thingy was, and he saw "LS" there, which I do see as well, but I did think I saw an "H" there when I first looked at the slip. It would be better if there was an "FH" written slanted leftward somewhere on the slip, and that would be purely concrete evidence of Hylands being a Columbia pianist(even though I think this fact has been fully established). Evidence other than that in The Phonoscope. 

Oh, I don't know, I can't seem to find Hylands isn't listed in any of my catalogs, it would have to be Frank P.Banta or Christopher Henry Hudson Booth.

Heh! That's what the old collectors say. Even if the evidence is right in front of them( i.e. the thing JUST ABOVE IT, written in JULY 1898). It's frustrating sometimes, talking with record collectors and enthusiasts who have been so accustomed to not knowing the pianist at all or thinking it's Banta or C.H.H. Booth, and trying to introduce(or argue) that Fred Hylands was the pianist on all of those great Columbia's and even some Zon-O-Phones and Leeds records.  It's hard to argue with a record collector who's ignorant to the fact that there would have to have been more than two pianists in the business in order for all the records to me made. 

There actually were three for each record company I think. One who was primary, a sub, and an operatic/classical pianist. Three for Edison, three for Columbia, and three for Victor. 

Anyhow, back to record slips.  I have seen other Columbia record slips before, and they all seem to be different somewhat. It seems that Columbia didn't really have a straight format to their record slips, unlike Edison's, which all look the same. The thing about Edison record slips is that they actually had the title and type of performer printed onto the sheet of paper, so their slips are much easier to read compared to the Columbia ones. I have seen a slip for a Dan Quinn brown wax where the "................Accompaniment" section is left sadly blank, with no name of the pianist listed. I'm sure if Hylands knew he was completely forgotten by all those who collect the many thousands of records he's on, he'd be really frustrated about it. He wanted to be known, and in the time he made these records, he certainly was. 

Now to share some new old sounds! I was just on that great website this evening called tinfoil.com, a website that I would highly recommend to all record and Rag-Time geeks. Now they have a "cylinder of the month" thing that they do, which is really fun, especially when they have a brown wax as the cylinder of the month! This month's cylinder is a great and fascinating one from earlier-1899 by the crew at Hylands Spencer and Yeager! 

Ha! Not really, it's just a joke because pretty much all of them are here, and it was recorded in the timeframe that the firm was existent. The personnel on this record consists of Len Spencer, Steve Porter, Roger Harding, Dan Quinn, Fred Hylands and the Columbia orchestra. 

here you go!

Did you hear it? The talking at the very end?

It's not impossible to hear either, as many times when this comes up, it's hard to hear by a person with average hearing. My hearing is very pristine, and I can hear many things that most people can't, even those my age can't! 

Now another thing about this cylinder that's so fascinating is that Hylands(who is VERY loud on the piano) slows down quite a lot in the song at the end. He's already behind the orchestra a little bit in the overture, but then he's all slow on the end song. He's a little out-of-sync throughout the songs, just a little bit. 

 Notice! that terrible laugh after Spencer says "he's no better!" at 1:36 just before the end song. Who's that with the horrid laugh? Psst! It' probably Fred Hylands... 
Listen to the second voice at the beginning of this cylinder just after the announcement, here.(there's that terrible laugh at 1:31!)That haunting voice that's hard to understand, that's Fred Hylands alright. 

I hope you enjoyed this! 

Lefties, more history, and other Eccentricities

It's been an interesting evening, with knowing about all of these fascinating recording stars. I had a very pleasant but rather short conversation with my dear friend Jack Stanley, about the early studio pianists, and what's doing in the places we're at. I will get into that subject a little later in this post. 

Being a lefty, I find that finding out about other lefties a fascinating thing really, and many famous historical figures of the past have been left-handed. This recessive gene had long been suppressed through the ages, due to religious connotations with those who write with their left hand, and this is why it's something we don't really hear about too often. Some examples of fellow lefties include Charlie Chaplin, W. C. Fields, Winston Churchill(love it!)Leonardo DaVinci, and Benjamin Franklin! Lefties have long been studied by doctors and researchers, as they have long been believed to have special abilities that those who naturally write with their right hand do not have. Natural lefties first pick up a writing utensil with their left hand, rather than their right hand, it is their first instinct to pick up the thing with their left hand. From there, that's how it remains. 

Why did I get into this? Well because I have long had theories of which of these great old performers and recording stars were lefties. It can make a significant difference sometimes. Now here's the only person who I am almost 100% sure of being a lefty:

Ben R. Harney. Why? Well there's a picture of him from around 1890 out in Kentucky of him holding a banjo left handed. That's all the indication, or proof, I would need to know that this is true. Every other trait of Harney is that of a lefty, and those who are so, usually are the most creative of people who ever live in their eras. Harney was the most creative and progressive of the earliest Rag-Time pianists and performers, doing all of his own original acts and music. Harney was certainly a genius in his own way. And was a lefty! Which makes him even more interesting  as a character. Usually the best Rag-Time pianists are made when they're lefties anyhow, just saying...

Now another who I am really starting to think was a lefty was:

Freddy Hylands. 

Why? Well, first of all, hear all of those notes he plays in his Rag-Time paired with the right hand patterns he played. Secondly, look at that part of the Hylands Spencer and Yeager logo:

 I'm referring to the slogan part of it. This part:

Yes, that part. 

Now the reason I think that Hylands did this part is because of all the notes and the comical and creative nature of it.  It isn't in the same hand as the beautiful script of Len Spencer just below it. It's the work of a true eccentric, and that Hylands probably knew how to write music better than most of those involved in the firm. I'm not saying that he was the neatest when doing this, but he was certainly very skilled at doing this. Look at how that treble clef is drawn, it's very left-leaning, and that is unusual. Hylands also must have been a lefty because of how he played. There's too much going on most of the time for most people to understand sometimes, not even people who heard him play back then probably knew what was going on when he played something very complicated. Since he was so eager for attention, he practically owned the rhythm that any song was played at, as his rhythm was purposely unsteady sometimes, or he was drunk, which was another problem with him. His playing is the work of a lefty, by how his left hand was always perfect in its own way, very strong, complicated, yet simple somewhat. I have enough examples of his playing on other posts here, so I don't really need to put up any more of them. 

Save for the last 15 seconds of this cylinder here!

So perfect! Every bass note can be clearly heard. 

Now into the second part of this post. I was speaking with Jack Stanley not long ago this evening, and I asked the question of where he first  heard of Fred Hylands, as I am still trying to solve the mystery as to why he is forgotten so widely. Jack told me that he met with Jim Walsh back in 1978 at a gathering of all record collectors and historians, which just happened to include Walsh in the bunch. I don't think I've mentioned on this blog that it's important to note that Walsh was a true eccentric, who talked in a southern dialect that was hard to understand, and told all sorts of weird stories, some that didn't have to do with early recording. Once he got through the bizarre side of Walsh, all the collectors began to converse about the two main studio pianists of the 1890's-1900's. It began first with Banta, just as any one of those conversations would. Frank P. Banta, the much more well-known and praised of the early studio pianists, they spoke of Banta's high praise by the studio artists for a while, until someone mentioned Fred Hylands. Jack could not easily recall who it was that mentioned him first, but it might have been Walsh himself. Now that is interesting. If it was indeed Walsh who said this, that would indicate that he did indeed know about Hylands, and that he was a studio pianist for Columbia. It's really interesting though, you cannot find Hylands anywhere in Walsh's writing nor in any of his files that are kept by the Library of Congress. Hmm. Why is this so? It's clear that he knew about him, and that he wasn't forgotten, but who told him of this?

You know what, it just occurred to me that Billy Muarry made a bunch of records with Hylands between 1902 and 1904. Here are two of them:

Murray singing "The Whistling Coon"from 1903(amazing accompaniment, all around!)

"Has Anyone Seen Our Cat?" 1902(amazingly weird accompaniment!)

Now, if it was Murray who told Walsh of Hylands(which he probably did at some point) he would only have known him toward the end of his term as studio pianist, which would be a whole lot different than someone like Len Spencer telling tales of working with Hylands. Murray saw him in his decline, not at the height of his recording term, which would be 1898 to 1901. Murray came in just after that obviously. He saw Hylands a little more "Ragged"(like physically, not musically...) and beat-up from working there. In fact, I don't think very many of the artists who worked with Hylands in the 1890's were living after 1930(0ther than Dan W. Quinn obviously), they were all dying off by 1920, which was before Walsh was out there writing down interviews and gathering mounds of information. So there really isn't a great example out there of describing what working with Hylands was like before 1900. Quinn was probably more likely to have spoken of Hylands more than Murray, as he saw more of him, and had to work with him ore regularly. Murray worked with him in a very short timeframe and probably only remembered him because of how much of a thing it was dealing with him. Something about Hylands stuck with those few recording pioneers for decades, with Joe Belmont, Dan Quinn, George Schweinfest, Billy Murray, Byron Harlan, Steve Porter, Henry Burr, S. H. Dudley, Albert Campbell, and all the rest of the recording stars who lived past 1930. 

More on Fred and Etta Hylands

For some reason, to-day I've had a sparked interest in these two siblings mentioned at the very top of this post.  I have really been trying to piece together the personality of Fred Hylands' obviously progressive and independent sister Etta. I have described Fred many a time on this blog, and it sometimes would seem like the two of them were both very bright and varying characters. In trying to piece together the history and character of Etta Hylands, it must be known that she married several times and had several children from the men she married(and didn't marry!). That in itself is really odd for that time period, as looking up many women from that time, you really won't find too many ladies with a story like that. 

Etta first married in 1893 to a man whose name was  Charles Calkins, but I could be wrong. The research I have done on her is a little confusing. She was 18 when she first married this man, and she was right out of the house, away from Fred and Charles quick. She left bachelor Fred and her father at home after she dashed out with her first husband. She married right after her mother died in 1893, and wasn't seen again by her brother and father until after 1900. As I have explained before, Fred remained single until 1895 when he married Marie and moved out to Milwaukee later that year. Of course, being the man his father was, he followed them to Wisconsin, needing the financial support they could offer. Meanwhile, somewhat near Chicago, Etta was living with this man for only three months after their marriage until he died of smallpox(how odd is that!) the circumstances of her second marriage and third are still to be uncovered. She was probably a lady who would become bored with men if they really weren't that passionate and caring for her. She must have grown tired of him by 1900, as it was around that time that she married again. Once again, I do not recall all the names of her husbands, and I am not exactly sure of who is who. She's a little hard to track down when looking her up. 

It was around this time frame(1898-1901) that her performer children were born, by this, I mean the "The Hylands" children. These kids were an act that was begun by their mother around 1907, where the children would perform, while their mother would be at the piano behind them. She probably had a similar style to her Ragged brother, one that was strange, powerful, and full of musical mirth and wit. I would guess that she was just as comical and eccentric as Fred, from not only what I know about Fred, but also that I have heard from the descendants of her that a cartoon of her playing piano exists. That explains quite a lot, just that fact alone. I wonder if one of Fred exists somewhere... 

Etta's most famous child was her daughter Ethel Mizpah(interesting middle name...), as she was formally known, is the most interesting of and mysterious of her children. Why? Well, she's the one that was born out of wedlock, and also that she was the one who was specifically mentioned in a few issues of Variety. 

One of which is here, from 1911:

It's odd heh? One of Fred's nieces. Hm. Sounds about right. 

 I wonder if any of Fred's recording friends ever got the chance to meet Etta(the only one I am almost certain met Etta was Burt Green, why? Well think about it for a moment, she probably stayed at Fred's house/firm headquarters at some point in 1899-1900, and guess who was there more often? Burt Green.)Anyhow, back to "Little Ethel" as she was known. The fact that she was illegitimate is something that I did not know until the kind descendants of Etta had told me, so what that means is that this fact was never spoken of in that time period, and thinking of the era, it was probably very well hidden. Something like that would never have passed well with Fred, who probably learned of it quick. When he learned of the birth of a bastard child from Etta, he must have rolled his eyes. It's pretty certain that they both heard from each other back and forth about their travels and performances from 1900 to 1913. 

Etta seemed to be pretty busy between 1907 and 1915, with her act showcasing her clearly talented children, dealing with letters from Fred, hearing of their father's death in 1909, and who knows what else! 

Hmm, to stray from the main subject of this  post, I just got sucked into watching the 1942 film The Yankee Doodle Dandy, and I am criticizing almost every scene, not just for those typical 1940's flaws in historical accuracy, like with hairstyles and women's dresses, but for some of the dialogue that comes by. OH! that scene where Cohan's character runs into Eddie Foy at the premiere  of George Washington Jr. just went by and all the esoteric puns by the both of them are hilarious! Eddie Foy was a popular dancer of the 1890's and 1900's by the way. Now, at the next scene, which is the opening of George Washington Jr. , they don't sing the "Grand Old Rag" with the "Rag" part of it, but that makes some sense. they could have easily gotten Billy Murray to come and sing that song as it was originally intended, as I think that Al Jolson did that for one film where he came out in blackface imitating someone else. Shoot, I can't remember what it was he was in, but I just recall that Jolson was older and that he sang an old song in blackface. They could have had Murray come to sing "Grand Old Rag" and it would have made that scene a thousand times better. 

Hm, a lot of what happens in this film could be applied to the story of Fred and Marie Hylands, minus that very weird(and romanticized) dynamic between George and his wife, which certainly was changed by the customs of 1940's and 50's films. 

Hey! Also that scene where the woman is singing "Over There", one, the way she's dressed is very incorrect for 1917, as it looks far too 1940's, from her hair to her shoes. The main problem with the singing at one part of this scene is how the singer syncopates the vocals of it, that that is actually not right for 1917. The original way it was sung(as heard on records by many, including Billy Murray) was supposed to be straight on the rhythm, because it was intended to be a one-step, which was not really syncopated. 

Now just to really nerd out, it's really kind of funny how Fred Hylands released a show on broadway in 1905 called The Yankee Doodle Girl  which, not surprisingly, was overshadowed almost completely by the big Cohan show The Yankee Doodle Boy. But you know what, Hylands' show(which was performed after the first few successful runs of Cohan's) Hylands' show might have actually been a joke response to the Cohan show, which was extremely popular when it was performed. But by how popular the Cohan show was, and how it made Hylands practically broke from the losses, Hylands probably hated Cohan for as long as he lived(thought it's interesting to note that he was a member of the White Rats Union, starting around 1909...). 

Anyhow, sorry about the weird tangent toward the end of this post, the movie was really interesting(even though I've seen it a few times), and I had to get into it a little. It's like whenever I watch Showboat from 1936, there's so much to take in, and for old broadway and vaudeville nerds like me just go crazy over. 

I hope you enjoyed this! 

Edward Issler and other things

Well, yesterday was the birthdate of this chap:

Len Spencer(maybe from c.1900? I don't actually know, but it's not from 1896-1898)

I did not do a post specifically on Spencer because I speak of him so much on this blog, I think just playing a bunch of his records yesterday will do. 

I have been thinking a little of Edward Issler this afternoon:

Yes indeed, that somewhat mysterious pianist who dominated the piano accompaniment on most records made from 1890 to 1896. Many record collectors wonder what his real role was in the recording industry, with the assumption that he did more than just play the piano. Many sources and experts have often said that Issler was also a recording engineer in the studios at Edison, North American, and Columbia. What specifically did he do? Piano balancing? What? It's hard to know, but we do know that he was a master at getting a piano correctly balanced, as just take a listen to some of his parlor orchestra's records!

their version of "Dancing on the Housetops" from c.1896

"March of the Marines"(very quiet cylinder though...) recorded in c.1894

"Thoughts of Home Polka"(amazing sound quality! even if it's also quiet), recorded in c.1895

Those somewhat few cylinders by Issler's orchestra that exist now are among the best sounding cylinders from the 1890's. They sounded great when they were new, and they still sound just as full and clear as they once did. Most are not as loud as they once were, but every note is still there. Even the deep bass notes on the piano are still very clear. From how great they sounded, Issler must have had some special skills with recording and balancing. Even when Issler was behind a singer, he still came through beautifully on all of those records(yes, I know that this was before the era of duplication, so most of these Issler cylinders are original masters), more so than Hylands did, most of the time anyhow. Now whatever it was that he did, he did a better job than the recording engineers that were there regularly, well, with the piano specifically. Everything else must have been done by the studio workers. 

That picture that I use often on this blog:

Yes, that one. 

This picture actually is a little more interesting than one would think. Why so? Well that pianist is actually not George Schweinfest, not Fred Hylands, and not Fred Gaisberg. Who is it then? Well, it would have to be Edward Issler. Here's my theory as to why I think it's Issler. First of all, see that faint beard? Yep, that pretty much give it away. Secondly, the shape of the one ear that's visible is the same as the one you can see in that picture of him I put toward the beginning of this post. Also, the physique matches none of the other pianists I listed. just to give you an idea if ever having to identify a pianist in an early studio picture, here's a little guide:

Ed Issler: About 5 and a half feet tall, with a full beard, long note that flares out a little at the bottom, ears that were slightly pointed at the ends, a slight build and no glasses(just like the picture above pretty much)

Fred Gaisberg: five foot 3, dark eyes, dark hair, a moustache slightly curled, kind of small hands, and a bent but long nose. 

George Schweinfest: Short in height, broad shoulders, almost flat forehead, long nose, large shapely ears, small blue or green eyes(more likely to be blue though), a wide moustache that was well-curled upward at the ends, did wear glasses regularly, but you won't always find him in a picture wearing them. 

Fred Hylands: Very tall(when I say that, I mean at least 6 foot 3), with copper or blondish hair, light-coloured but somewhat thick eyebrows, intense, wide and expressive eyes(that were almost certainly steel blue), a very long bent nose, ears that looked each a little different, sometimes wore gold reading glasses very long legs, long hands, rounded forehead, slicked back hair, you get the rest, I think I've explained this before. 

I wish there was know more about Issler, as we don't even know what happened to him after he ended recording in 1900. That's why every source you will find that has any information about Issler, you will see his dates as 1855-?, and that's all. It makes sense, as not much was known about him when he was popular anyway. He certainly was a fascinating character, that more needs to be known about for sure. 

I find it hard to stay on a single subject this evening, so I feel that this would be a good point to share some of these theories I have about these great recording stars. Not all of them are ones that I would openly share, just to be kind and moderate, but there are some I can share openly here. Here are some:

-Many friends of mine in the record collecting community have come to the notion that Len Spencer was certainly one who had his share of wild parties and late nights. As he not only looked as so, several little things in The Phonoscope and from other friends of his, he was a drinker, and did certainly love the frivolous side of being a "Rag-Time" singer. I do not want to get further into this subject writing here, sorry. That's all I will say, allow your imaginations to wander from here. 

-I have a notion that Frank P. Banta was a much more complicated character than he was said to be. It is certainly true that Banta was a "workaholic" type, who couldn't stay away from the studio, and getting his own music and arrangements written. It is uncertain what sort of troubles Banta had, but they probably weren't too bad, as his family did live in a very nice part of New York City and had house servants, sounds great! But Banta didn't take advantage of this life though, he still lived like a working class employee by working more than he actually had to in the studio, and coming home to write out more arrangements. It's hard to know, as it was hard for him, living with asthma, and having a very intense job. It's hard to know what was behind that very kind and soulful man. 

- I know that I speak of Fred Hylands very much here, but I have the notion that the might have been somewhat bi-polar. Why? Well there must have been a side to him that was never spoken of, as all of those recording stars that were interviewed later never mentioned him(or very rarely did), so there must have been a reason why. What was it? I don't really know, and no one I have asked about it does either. They always praised him for his ability to fill a room with his presence, and his non-pareiled charm. Being a genius type, he was certainly slightly unstable mentally, so he must have been a great manipulator(with people that is). By this, I mean that he could control what people thought of things easily, and that he also could keep someone convinced with anything he believed in. He was hypnotizing if you will. Kind of bizarre to think of it that way, but the analogy works if you think about it. That's what some geniuses can do. 

-I wonder about how Ossman treated the stage partners he had. Such as this one here:

We know that Ossman was a narcissist, and that he had a terribly short temper. How did he treat his stage partners? Other than Frank P. Banta, and Tommy Glynn, Ossman hadn't really very many other people share the stage with him

 (and no, I am not forgetting George and Audley Dudley!), which in itself sounds about right, considering who he was. Ossman did have to be just an accompanist sometimes, like when he worked with Len Spencer, or Arthur Collins. He was probably very unjust with stage partners, probably doing underhanded deals with the stage managers(one of whom was probably Fred Hylands in 1897!) to make sure that he get paid more money than his partner, regardless of their role with him. He must not have ever told the people he played with about these, and if they found out, that's probably why they split with him. In fact, that's part of the reason that Ossman split with the Dudley brothers in 1908, as George Dudley's wife recalled that it was Vess' sly financial injustices that caused them to finally severe their relationship with him at last. This must have also been part of why Banta kindly told him to not have tours with the two of them after 1897. Hylands wouldn't have taken any of that crap! So who knows what he did with him...

I hope you enjoyed this!