After speaking with Ryan Wishner briefly last evening, the idea struck us that Columbia's record slips of the late-1890's were inconsistent and very different from each other. Berliner records from their beginning to 1897-98, had all the information about the record etched onto the wax by the performer. Most of the time, those records are very hard to read, depending on the performers who signed it. Usually, Quinn's Berliners were much easier to read than Billy Golden's, and Russell Hunting's were in-between difficulty. By 1897, most Berliners had the selections and numbers etched clearly on there in print, not by the hand of the artists themselves. Though, in 1898 to 1900, many times you can see the well-printed information, but the signature of the artist one either one of the upper corners of the label, such as on this record here. Yes, I know Collins signed the bottom, but most of the time, the signatures were either in the left or right hand corner, next to the title. On Len Spencer's Berliner of "You Don't Stop the World from Goin Round", he signed the upper left corner, as one of my friends reported from owning the record.
That's Berliner though, all the information is clearly etched or printed on the records there, this isn't like Columbia. Columbia is still a frustrating area for record collectors(not that Berliner isn't), from the absolutely despicable decision made to destroy their ledgers. It makes everyone wonder how they were able to keep track of their heavy recording activity, which sometimes consisted of two or three things going on at one time. This does not count exhibitions however, when they did those, all recording activity upstairs would be suspended until the next morning(so they would send everyone else home!). Of course, with that fact(as described by Frank Dorian), there would have been two or three pianists, like Fred Hylands, Schweinfest, and Issler. That sort of thing is not indicated anywhere however, this is why for decades there was only a handful of collectors who had the thought that George Schweinfest was their regular pianist in the second half of the piano accompaniment era(1897-1905). Most people excluded Issler, because they assumed that once the orchestra split up, he was no longer working there, though logically, they couldn't have dropped him in 1898, because Fred Hylands was working there then.
Anyway, enough of the pianist thing, I could go on for pages about that, because I'm still trying to undo all of the tangles of misinformation that previous record collectors and historians left behind. Of course, if Columbia's ledgers were still in existence, we would all be able to know more about everyone who worked there in the prime of their recording (before 1910), we would also know how they were able to keep track of everything. I have always had the feeling that they not only had certain management workers keep track of things, but they probably also had some of the artists volunteer to write things down and keep track of recording done on certain days. Since a lot of Columbia's functions were done from artists volunteering, it wouldn't be too much of a surprise if Master Easton and Vic Emerson had them do that as well.
I have been told by the one collector friend of mine who has had the chance to read through Len Spencer's notebook that Spencer wrote down recording dates, songs he recorded, and songs to learn and later record. That is exactly what I mean here! That seemingly small thing is actually a piece of Columbia's ledgers! So, if Spencer did that, others probably did too, one other person who most likely did that would be Issler, or George Schweinfest. I want to think that Hylands would do that, but he probably wouldn't. Once I go out to see that notebook, I will make sure to make notes about what sort of information is present there.
There is not a way to know how organised Columbia's ledgers were, though one way to get some hints is their inconsistency with record slips.
Here are a few:
these came from a page of the Dan Quinn CD put out by Archeophone.
the third one on the far right is for a Phonetic record, the other two are Columbia's.
Yep, none of the Columbia's look the same at all.
I have always found that weird.
Why are they all different? Edison record slips pretty much all looked the same, after about 1897 that is. Maybe Edison was just more organised? I don't know. Not sure what the different slips mean, but it says something about how they ran things there. I still don't know if that little thing written in ink on the slip just above is "LS" or "H". If that's an "LS", then that would be Columbia's take on the Berliner label of the time, with the title, number, singer, and the singer's signature(kind of in this case...). The names "M. T. Poland" and "Chas. Carson" on the slips in the picture a little farther above indicate the recording engineer, which, strangely enough, is not indicated in the "LS" slip. The full title of the song is also not indicated either, as it isn't in one of the other slips in the other picture.
I like that they put simply this for two of the slips:
"Cake Walk" rather than "The Grand Coonville Cake Walk"
and
"Wabash" rather than "On the Banks of the Wabash"
They must have not needed all of those extra words, also to save time, which also gives the impression that they had harder to understand ledgers, that were organised, but in a strange way, that is in some places incomplete. Of course, if more of those record slips are out there, then one of them might be a lucky one where the pianist is identified, which, as I have seen from more obscure labels, did happen sometimes. In the earlier days of the piano accompaniment era, there were listings that had the pianist identified, such as in early Edison and North American pages. You can see an example of these on this video here. Of course, North American records didn't have record slips, because they had the channel rim for the paper label. Most of the paper labels are gone, as it is very rare to find one with the original one still in tact.
Here's that channel rim I mean:
Anyway, enough of the pianist thing, I could go on for pages about that, because I'm still trying to undo all of the tangles of misinformation that previous record collectors and historians left behind. Of course, if Columbia's ledgers were still in existence, we would all be able to know more about everyone who worked there in the prime of their recording (before 1910), we would also know how they were able to keep track of everything. I have always had the feeling that they not only had certain management workers keep track of things, but they probably also had some of the artists volunteer to write things down and keep track of recording done on certain days. Since a lot of Columbia's functions were done from artists volunteering, it wouldn't be too much of a surprise if Master Easton and Vic Emerson had them do that as well.
I have been told by the one collector friend of mine who has had the chance to read through Len Spencer's notebook that Spencer wrote down recording dates, songs he recorded, and songs to learn and later record. That is exactly what I mean here! That seemingly small thing is actually a piece of Columbia's ledgers! So, if Spencer did that, others probably did too, one other person who most likely did that would be Issler, or George Schweinfest. I want to think that Hylands would do that, but he probably wouldn't. Once I go out to see that notebook, I will make sure to make notes about what sort of information is present there.
There is not a way to know how organised Columbia's ledgers were, though one way to get some hints is their inconsistency with record slips.
Here are a few:
the third one on the far right is for a Phonetic record, the other two are Columbia's.
I have always found that weird.
Why are they all different? Edison record slips pretty much all looked the same, after about 1897 that is. Maybe Edison was just more organised? I don't know. Not sure what the different slips mean, but it says something about how they ran things there. I still don't know if that little thing written in ink on the slip just above is "LS" or "H". If that's an "LS", then that would be Columbia's take on the Berliner label of the time, with the title, number, singer, and the singer's signature(kind of in this case...). The names "M. T. Poland" and "Chas. Carson" on the slips in the picture a little farther above indicate the recording engineer, which, strangely enough, is not indicated in the "LS" slip. The full title of the song is also not indicated either, as it isn't in one of the other slips in the other picture.
I like that they put simply this for two of the slips:
"Cake Walk" rather than "The Grand Coonville Cake Walk"
and
"Wabash" rather than "On the Banks of the Wabash"
They must have not needed all of those extra words, also to save time, which also gives the impression that they had harder to understand ledgers, that were organised, but in a strange way, that is in some places incomplete. Of course, if more of those record slips are out there, then one of them might be a lucky one where the pianist is identified, which, as I have seen from more obscure labels, did happen sometimes. In the earlier days of the piano accompaniment era, there were listings that had the pianist identified, such as in early Edison and North American pages. You can see an example of these on this video here. Of course, North American records didn't have record slips, because they had the channel rim for the paper label. Most of the paper labels are gone, as it is very rare to find one with the original one still in tact.
Here's that channel rim I mean:
This one unfortunately has lost the paper label as means of identification. Like many records, this is one that you just have to listen to find out what it be!
Anyhow, back to Columbia's strange record slips. Just for a good comparison, here's an Edison one from about 1898:
It makes sense, and is very clearly stated what is one the record. No signatures and stamps included. The signatures not being there is a not much of a loss, but the fact that it can be clearly read and understood makes me wonder about Columbia. As we all dig into Columbia Vs. Edison debates, we learn more about how strangely different these two companies were. The volunteering basis at Columbia is something that Edison never did, as Edison's primary staff weren't a group of friends who went out together after recording days. The two staffs stayed together as expected, but one was more friendly and cordial to new people than the other. They were in the right places though, as the pianists they had, couldn't have done well at the other company, though Banta would have fit in well at Columbia, he just wouldn't have approved of the habitual gambling and drinking as much.
Since I'm on the subject of Columbia's records, I glanced through the record list of their records once again, and I ran across some titles I hadn't seen before. I forgot about the "Vaudeville specialties" section at the 30400 mark numbering system. Unfortunately, there were only ten of these, but each one of them is fascinating.
Here's the list:
All of these look fantastic.
The only one I have heard is the second one listed, Spencer's "Musical Moke". From what I have observed in the ways of Columbia records, there were a few of those sort of "Actor imitations" records scattered throughout their catalog from 1898 to 1903. Wonder who's on no. 30404... There's a strong possibility that Harry Spencer is on that one, since he's on the 1903 take of the second "actor imitations" record Columbia issued. The "Stuttering Specialty" record is probably similar to Len Spencer's "The Stuttering Monologist".
The one record that really has me anxious to look for it is 30407.
Comic Dialogue Between Comedian and Musical Director
That sounds better than fantastic. This not only sounds great for what it describes, but also by who's probably involved. Len Spencer is probably the comedian, and of all the people that the musical director could be, it's possibly Fred Hylands. Well, he was the one musical director who worked at Columbia, so he would have known what the sketch could be, and how to make it most realistic. If it really is Hylands speaking in that sketch, someone needs to find it!!
**If anyone knows if there's a copy of Columbia 30407 out there, please write a comment on this post!**
Hope you enjoyed this!
No comments:
Post a Comment