A birthday with analysis

Well, since I did a post past year on Spencer's birthday, it would seem appropriate to keep with the tradition, since I so greatly admire Spencer and his work. 

Of course when I say "admire" in this context it's not at all in the more attractive context I use when regarding Fred Hager. I cannot enough emphasize how eyeopening those Walsh articles on Spencer. Seeing the sweet side to Spencer described in such vivid detail was heartwarming, and made me see him as a fully realized and complicated human. I'll not stay on that matter, as I described it in that post regarding that, almost moving myself to tears as I wrote it. 

Anyway...

After really reading through those articles a few times, Spencer makes so much more sense, but when I say that, I actually mean he's more complicated. Most of my critical questions regarding him have still not been answered, even after reading all of the articles in great detail. But one thing was evident, after reading the articles, it's clear that the idea of Spencer having two sides is certainly true. 

He had a good side, and a bad side. 

Unfortunately, we may never really know what his "bad side" was truly like, since it's only the other that is spoken of anywhere, and it's likely only what we'll see. This "bad side" was referred to in the articles, but not at all by the daughters(which is probably a good thing). Only from his second wife "Liz" do we get slight hints of something else within him that never showed to his beloved daughters. Of course, what we are teased with is what we crave to know most, and this is exactly what perpetually peeves me. Any time I get to thinking about Spencer, I am reverted to thinking of what his unspoken side was like. The only one who would have known about Spencer as a whole was his wife "Liz", but she fiercely remained silent regarding her affairs with Len. His daughters were all too young to remember him in the 1890's, and only saw him after he had seemed to have calmed down a little(after 1900). From thinking of how his records sounded in 1894-95 compared to 1898, and then to 1906, he  went from a wild youngster with an infectious laugh to a slicker type with perpetual wise cracks. He had all of these attributes throughout his recording career, but these specific characters he played became dominant in his recordings at certain periods of time. 

(he probably wrote this signature left-handed)

A lot of these changes in character must have corresponded with changes in his life, whatever they may have been. 

Other than typical standards of the time, there must have been a reason that Elizabeth was so quiet, and refused to speak of Len. Since she refused to do so around the girls, it must have something to do with Liz and Len's relationship. The suspicion I've always had around his quick and long separation from her seems to rightfully be there, since Walsh seemed a little weirded out by it when he described their marriage in detail. Just to refresh those who forgot exactly why their marriage was strange, they got married in 1892, but then after a few months they separated, and then they remarried in 1895. Since it's also evident that the studio staff gossiped like mad about Spencer, they most likely spread all sorts of stories around regarding this strange separation. Throughout most of his time working every day at the U.S. phonograph company, he was not having to go back home to see Liz. And as expected from Len, once they  remarried(for whatever reason), they got right to business. Just as a side note, the reason I implied that he got right to marital business is that he did that with his first wife, though to the disappointment of all the family, he was only 18. I hope you all know what I mean here with "getting to business", please, don't make me explain it...

When speaking of why Liz was so quiet and reserved(other than standards of the time), all sorts of theories come up. I have had long conversations detailing why this may have been so, some outrageous claims have been made, but some logical. It wouldn't be surprising at all if Len was a frequent cheat, or that Liz hated his gambling habit with a passion. Both of those are very likely true, but it seemed Len was never immune to the vices of a few Columbia staff members. Russell Hunting and Fred Hylands were particularly bad influences on Spencer, or maybe it was the other way around? 
Len's saintly mother knew he was a "wild child" and spoke often of how that was true. She must have resented him, and he must have felt the same. Another layer to Spencer's complexities, was his bitter relationship with his mother. Though some of The Phonoscope sections that mention her say otherwise, there was no way that she enjoyed hearing of her son's ramblings and capers from work. Since he clearly did not hold Liz to an equitable standard, without doubt his mother was cross with him. His mother must have approved of the kind atmosphere that he provided for his daughters, while at the same time scolding him about spending so much time away from the family. In one of the articles, Ethel recalled that her father didn't see the youngest daughter Clara until she was three weeks old. That alone says quite a lot about Spencer, as I would assume he did that sort of thing often. Of course, I'd assume that this was more common with him before 1900, especially in those days of the publishing firm with Hylands. I'm also sure that the family did not at all approve of Hylands, they probably saw him as insensitive "white trash"(excuse my terminology), and probably was kept out of the house. Many others of his co-workers likely had a similar status to Hylands in their home, though the more respectable ones like Steve Porter and Roger Harding were held to a different standard. 


So all of this brings to me the ever illusive question,
what was his bad side?

Of course there's no way to know at this point in time, but we can piece things together from outside sources(by this it's meant other than the family). Fred Gaisberg's accounts of Spencer remain the most questionable and tantalizing of them all, since they regard a side to him that we wouldn't see with the family. Fred Gaisberg not only described him as "particular pet", and specifically stated thus:

Perhaps because of his unsavory reputation, my particular pet and hero of this time was the handsome Len Spencer. 
Later on in the section, Gaisberg elaborates on the subject of his "hero" of his earliest days at Columbia in 1889. 

Later I was always to remember his handsome face disfigured by a scar, the result of a razor-slash in an up-river gambling brawl. he was said to have been an adroit poker-player.
(both of these sections came from A Voice in Time)
In so many ways I agree with what Gaisberg says here, but what's interesting is that many of these comments were contradicted by the accounts that Walsh collected. However, the accounts of managers and fellow co-workers have a sort of value to them that the family accounts do not. Though Gaisberg is not always the best source for these accounts, as many of them are twisted around and exaggerated, but his accounts of Spencer are very realistic, and help us better understand(to a certain extent) why he had this "unsavory reputation". This exact term that Gaisberg used is exactly what I mean by his "bad side". Long before I had the privilege of powering through that book(A Voice in Time) I got little bits of that reputation from all of the usual sources, such as The Phonoscope, even his fellows were hinting at it here and there. 
A perfect example is this infamous section from August or so of 1898: 

Ah yes, that one. 
This hints at another aspect of him that all of us can see in pictures of him, but have very little written evidence of it. 

We all see his rugged face illuminate any picture he's in. Just as Gaisberg described, his face seemed marred by something, and unlike the account, it didn't seem a razor slash was the culprit. By this, I mean that being a ravaging alcoholic may have been the answer. The evidence lies in pictures of him, and in that single Phonoscope section listed above. I'm sure this idea is nothing that Liz would have spoken of, even if directly asked the question. Being involved and rambling around with those Columbia "sports" must not have helped his case, though since he had so much status at Columbia, he was likely the leader of this group(or "fellowship" or whatever you call it...).

 With his clearly dominant influence at Columbia, he likely took a stand to lead the group whenever orders were given from the management, or some serious changes were made in the studio. At a certain point in time, Fred Hylands attempted to take over this role, since he did essentially have the power to do it when he was their house publisher, but he abused that power far faster than Spencer could have expected. 

Other than his addictive side(whether it be alcohol or drugs of any kind), I have pointed out before how he was also a "two-timer" for all of these record companies. He may have been a leader, but at the same time was a first class hustler who was ever loyal to record companies, at whatever costs. He would even do a midnight raid of one company to earn back trust. As we recall that story of him and the Emerson brothers raiding U.S. for Columbia, keep in mind that his gambling habit may have also forced more sneaky under-the-table deals with record companies. 

For the raid, that's how he covered his tracks...using The Phonoscope.

Other than that bust in 1897, and the one in 1894 or so with the North American lawsuit or that weird thing Columbia went through from 1893 to 1896. He clearly had his hands in that weirdness of Columbia around 1893, much like the second time Columbia almost died in 1896-97. Spencer's greed kept him in a smart place at all times in the early days, his hustling skills forced him to learn which companies were best to remain with. While it was a good thing in terms of remaining in the business, it also became part of the so-called "unsavory reputation" that Gaisberg described. 

So even with all of this information I've pieced together regarding his "bad side", I still have no candid evidence of this side to him, at least not from the most reliable sources(his family). But from what we can see, he was a wild man with lots of complicated layers to his soul. We often wonder about this so-called "unsavory reputation" regarding Spencer, with only bits and pieces of what it might actually be, though there is enough to slightly understand how his fellows at work saw and spoke of him. His friends at work often spread rumors about him, one of them was mentioned one of the Walsh articles, and it was kind of regarding his first wife(?), though the names were all out of whack:

...Margaret Agnes Kaiser, whose foster parents were named Allen, is the "Elizabeth Allen" that old-time Columbia officials thought Len married in a runaway match...

I still do not know for the life of me what "runaway match" means in this context, please, if someone knows please leave a comment on this post.
Okay, at least that kind of explains where Spencer got that strange pseudonym from on his early records. Luckily, someone put up one of those highly desired records by Spencer with that strange "Gary Allen" pseudonym, so now we can hear one of them!
here's the c.1891-92 Columbia with Spencer using that pseudonym
Even though the speed doesn't really sound right, it's still clear that he sounded much different before 1895. He most certainly became a better singer as the years went on. It would be interesting to hear an early "Ethiopian song" that Spencer recorded, as by 1895 he was already well-known for such songs. 

Allow me to zoom in to the little thing on the top of the cover...

This tune was published right before the term "coon song" was used to describe these early "rag" songs. 


At this point, it seems I've said all I really need to say about this matter, since you all know my opinions and feelings regarding Len Spencer. Since it's his birthday when I'm putting this up, everyone ought to get out all their Spencer records, and luckily, there's quite a lot of them out there. 



Still hoping day by day that I am contacted by the descendants of this fantastic family, with so many fascinating characters baring the name Spencer. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nxo1FJev4G4

Hope you enjoyed this! 

Delving into Len Spencer

(that's Spencer well re-touched and dressed dandyish in 1890-92)

It could easily be noticed that Len Spencer is an important name as far as this blog goes, and sometimes it might seem redundant, of which I do apologize. This also goes for Fred Hylands as well, but there's a reason very specifically why I continue to mention Hylands, and his kind great-great nieces know why. I still cannot thank you girls enough for all that you have done to help with Fred and Etta!

Anyway, sorry to get sidetracked, Spencer is mentioned many times on this blog for a variety of reasons, and it truly does surprise me how little collectors speak of him, and the fact that there are some that do not like his records. Not particularly liking his records I can understand, but it does seem like a setback when speaking to a collector who thinks this. There's really a whole lot more to Spencer than just the large repertoire of all the most racist Coon songs of the late 1890's. That's why most people back away slowly after hearing one of his records, as they are the most shamelessly offensive of the early studio Coon song singers. Most of the time, they've got Arthur Collins' records beat by a mile. Once you get past the racist material, there's a whole lot of great irony that comes with Spencer. 

He wasn't particularly prejudiced at all, though sometimes those offensive notions creep in to some of his doings. He wasn't as much so as Fred Hylands, who did not enjoy working with George W. Johnson, and later started a Union only for whites, to keep out anyone of colour. Yes, I know, even with that deed, I still enjoy Hylands, as that sort of thing right there is what makes him more interesting and complicated, I certainly don't think it was the most considerate thing to do, but it's typical for the era nonetheless. Back to Spencer. We know that he was very kind and amiable to George W. Johnson, and helped him along in the last twenty or so years of his life, which was a genuinely good thing for him to do, as there really weren't any more studio stars or record managers who cared enough to do that for him. 

It can be assured that Spencer was good to women, as he grew up around not only a strong mother, but around very influential and revolutionary ladies of the 19th century, which would include Clara Barton, Susan B. Anthony, and Clara Woodhull(look her up of you don't know about her).With all of this enlightened teachings to treat women as equals on all levels, it can be insured that the women he married were lucky as far as men went in the 1880's and 1890's. 

He was first married at 18 to a lady named Margaret Kaiser, who was a few years older than him(unusual for the time!), and this was in 1885. He was, when married to Margaret, a young teacher at his father's business college. What he was teaching, I have no idea, but would love to know!(if you know, input your thoughts in the comments!) One thing is for sure however, he was unhappy as a teacher, and wasn't sure if that was what he wanted to spend his life doing. I've always thought it would be interesting to have him as a college teacher, just to truly see a side of him of which almost nothing has been documented. He was just beginning his family in 1887 when his first child was born, Sara Allen, one of five girls. By 1888, he was still working as a teacher, and occasionally caring for little Sara, but later that year, a new fascination came to the District of Columbia. This was the birth of the Columbia phonograph company. Since Len's father learned of this new revolutionary device, he had a single office dictation phonograph installed at the college, and once Len had learned of this, he went daily to experiment with the thing. He did not use the contraption exactly for what its intended use was, he saw if he could record his voice, and also record various things that made interesting sounds. Soon afterward, his father found out about this, and probably got very cross with him, as he wasn't really doing his job as a teacher anymore, or at least by this time not very well. In late-1889, he was finally reluctantly dropped by his father from the teaching position, as by then, he was beginning to make records for the local Columbia company, taking parts and getting repairs from them for recording on his own. It took until 1890 for his name to begin showing up in Columbia catalogs, and by then, he was officially a Columbia recording artist. I would love to know what his wife thought of this strange and immediate transition, as she was probably not really sure if this new career would work since it was part of such a young new business. 

When thinking chronologically with Spencer, 1891 was one of the hardest years for him, as this was the most important transition year in his life. He was already working for Columbia as we know, but his regular record-making was cut short by the death of his father, which meant that the will and college headmaster position had to go to Len, but we know that he only took some of the money and ran, without wanting to be college headmaster. To only complicate the year even more, his wife caught smallpox, and not long afterward, his little Sara did as well. While caring for them, he couldn't go out to fulfill his duties at Columbia. By the middle of that year, his wife and daughter had both died, which left him broken and unsure of what to do next. As could be guessed, he went right back to working at Columbia, but did not remarry until the middle of 1892. 

His second marriage is one that was very unusual for the time period, and just odd in general. He married Elizabeth Norris in mid-1892, but soon afterward, he split with her. Perhaps we will never know why this happened, and it continues to perplex me. From 1892 to 1895, he was a regular studio worker, doing announcements, sound effects, and making his own records occasionally. He remained single for a few more years, until eventually re-marrying Elizabeth. Very strange indeed.  This marriage is where the two Spencer daughters came from, the ones that were later interviewed by Jim Walsh. 

With all of this background, it makes Spencer very interesting, and it set up much of his almost bi-polar means in situations we read about him from later. What makes Spencer truly like the subject of a period novel is how strange and polarizing he was outside the studios. Most of the articles we read seem really fun and playful, painting a picture of a thrill-seeking, complicated, and humorous character as Spencer. A good example of this is that hilarious 1898 tale of the trolley car crash on Broadway:

I think you could guess that this came from The Phonoscope. 

Wow! Every time I read this it still makes me laugh. I bet that his friends standing outside the studio doors ran down the street once they heard something, that's funny to imagine also(because it would probably include Steve Porter, Russell Hunting and Fred Hylands...). The reference in this section above to the piano flipping over on him was also written of in and earlier edition of The Phonoscope:

Love it every time. 
Like I've said before, that was why Columbia's piano sounded awful for several months of 1897. Thanks Len! 
It's funny how he didn't allow anyone to help him out when moving the piano, as I would think that some of the studio workers would have offered help, but of course, he objected to the logical idea, and made the piano tell him the same. Without knowing much of his personality, these two sections above really say a whole lot about him, and that the ways that I describe him on this blog are not just guesses. A better picture has been painted of Spencer than of Fred Hylands, I can tell you that much. With Hylands, we've really only got his publishing firm advertisement from 1899 and his self-loathing comment from 1898:

Oh sigh, you boys work me too much...

Spencer must have found that hilarious, thinking of his sense of humor from those auction records, and of course that cable car incident. But I hope you can see now why Spencer and Hylands not only got along musically. It's funny, first Spencer was a good friend of Edward Issler, and it remained a strong friendship until Hylands came along and stole Len's heart and ears. 



If there was any one of these early recording stars to write a book on, it would have to be Spencer, and I know that might sound strange coming from the Fred Hylands freak, but it's true. Whether you like him or not, he did the most for the early recording business than any of the other early studio stars. Sure, you can not like that Spencer was an alcoholic, probably did drugs of some kind, got into fights, caught some kind of venereal disease, and did other usually-considered-despicable things, but all of those things make him the most complicated and ever-interesting of these widely-forgotten studio stars. 

Keep listening out there! 

Hope you enjoyed this! 

Connecting Notions and remembering the "'Phone" Boys

The title of this post is something that I have to a whole lot of on this blog. It's just how being a history nerd works. And from this, there are indeed people I come across that don't believe the ideas I throw at them, because the evidence is only something you can hear, and not everyone can hear those little things I point out. 

One thing that I have come to notice on one of the cylinders I shared within the last few days, is that there are only tow voices on it, and one of them has to be Fred Hylands. It is this cylinder here, Harry Spencer's "Side Show Shouter" from 1898. I am pretty sure that voice at beginning, that starts in just after Harry Spencer does his "Ikey! Ikey..." thing just after the announcement, is that of Fred Hylands. It's very odd that Spencer wanted Hylands to do some hard-to-decipher talking at the beginning, of which I cannot understand a word of, but it's interesting nonetheless(if any of you can understand any of the words, if there are any, please leave a comment on this post!). If you think about it, it's not really that odd that Hylands spoke on many records he's on, he wanted to have a place on the records(which he always did anyhow), more than just the background accompaniment. From how the exhibitions of 1898 through 1900 went however, it seemed that the record avid buyers knew that it was Hylands on the piano or organ when they heard a Columbia record. So sometimes I really wonder why Hylands has been so largely forgotten to the record collectors. There's an obvious reason why Rag-Time pianists now don't know of him, and it would be more likely to hear a record collector of this ancient material to say "Hm, I've heard of him." 

I have asked several of the most prestigious Rag-Time sheet music collectors about Hylands before, and all of them had never heard of him. That says quite a lot. He didn't write too much music anyhow, and later he had to use a handful of pseudonyms, so it doesn't make it any easier to identify which pieces are actually his. Only three collector friends of mine had ever heard of him(and probably a fourth if I had met the man, as he is deceased now). 

All I really know is that someone who was one of the pioneers of the recording business said something back in the 1930's or 1940's alluding to Hylands, and I don't know who it was, but there's a handful of names that I would consider when thinking of this notion. I do have the feeling however that it more likely may have been Joe Belmont. But then of course, that leaves open some more names I know of, like the two Spencer daughters, Byron Harlan, Fred Gaisberg, Dan W. Quinn, Russell Hunting, Albert Campbell, and several more. 

I am not entirely sure how much the ladies Spencer remembered of their father, but as I recollect now, I remember that one of them had more memories of him than the other. Their names were Ethel and Clara, Ethel was born in 1898, and Clara in 1902. I'm pretty sure it was Ethel that recalled much more of her father than Clara, and thinking of it logically, since she was the eldest surviving of the Spencer girls. Len did have three daughters before that, but they all died very young, but if any one of those girls lived to adulthood, I would think that our knowledge of Spencer would be much more complete and complicated. There was one born in 1887, 1895, and in c.1896. The girl who was born in 1895 did live until the early 1920's, but that was before any old record geeks or researchers could get to her. 

I have only read snippets of the Spencer girls' accounts of their father(seen above), but I am beyond anxious to read all of them, word by word.  I just went back to my bookshelf a few minutes ago to look something up about Len's daughter Myrtle(who was the girl born in 1895), and didn't realize that she sang with him on a few records, which come to think of it makes sense. It did indeed seem that Ethel was the one who provided most of the information of the two of them, as she was the one to witness his quick and terrifying death in 1914(of which I do not want to get into details of right now). It's odd to think, that Len Spencer, the chap who recorded he most coon songs of any of the early artists, had a love for making records for his daughters. It's very contradicting, he had a great sweet side to him, even if he had a crude sense of humor and loaded every phonograph and graphophone with some of the most cruelly offensive "Coon Songs" of the late-1890's. He had specialties before 1900 with these two songs: 

Yep, that's it. Those are only two of them, he had hundreds more in his repertoire. It must have been very emotional(in many varying ways) for his daughters to once again listen to their father's "Coon Songs" when they were older. 

It's really an interesting thing to think about, the artists that remembered all of these things I speak of on this blog so much. There are always missing pieces to the puzzles of this early business however, as most of the actual artists who were involved in the business in the time period were very old by the 1930's and 1940's. Most of the best possible sources had been dead for at least 20 years in fact, like Fred Hylands and J. W. Myers. If Hylands had lived at least as long as his father did(into his 60's I'm pretty sure), we would have a hell of a lot more information on the early recording business and music publishing business. The house musicians would be better sources for information on this subject than the actual artists, as they endured more, and knew EVERYONE. They even knew the ones that wouldn't be expected. Not too many of these musical saints lived very long though(minus Fred Gaisberg and Edison tuba man Fred Geib). When they got the job at a record company, they were shortening their lives, whether they knew it or not. This is why Frank P. Banta was 33 when he died, and this is also why Hylands was 41 when he croaked suddenly in England. The artists featured didn't have nearly as much to take as the musicians behind them, they gave their lives to the business, this is why most of them are long forgotten. 

I hope you enjoyed this!