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!