[78-L] FW: Look at this! Another 'rock historian' telling us about the 1930s

[Michael Biel]

Harold Aherne wrote:
> His most problematic statement: "The one place where records ruled was on jukeboxes".
> It may be true for the mid/late 30s, when coin-operated phonos became common but 
> before record sales to consumers had fully recovered.

But that is EXACTLY the era he is discussing with that phrase.  He IS 
correct.  This is the whole section of what he said:  "The one place 
where records ruled was on jukeboxes. Coin-operated music machines took 
off with the end of Prohibition in 1933, and trade surveys estimated 
that by 1940 they accounted for almost half the records pressed in the 
US, and were driving current recording trends."

>  It is very far from accurate for 
> earlier and later years, obviously.
And he makes that clear, at least he makes it clear to me.
      
>  Less-informed readers might read into the statement 
> that few people owned records prior to the rock years and that old records are, inter alia, unusually rare or valuable.
>   

I don't know the figures, but let's say that 25 million people owned 
phonographs and bought records.  That is a hell of a lot!!  I just 
happen to have the 1941 World Almanac that came in the mail this week 
right here. The population of the country in 1920 was 105 million.  That 
means one quarter of the people listened to music on records, but ALL of 
the people including those who owned phonographs listened to music the 
other ways he discusses.  And three quarters of the people didn't listen 
to music on the phonograph.  The U.S. population in 1930 was 122 
million, and a year or two later the total annual sales of records was 3 
million. 

>  
> I also have reservations about his statement concerning local bands. A glance through
> Rust's ADBD reveals that dozens, maybe more than a hundred non-national bands did
> record, even if not for major labels and not profusely.

That figure covers 40 years total.  I would guess that EVERY DAY there 
probably were between ten and twenty THOUSAND local bands of all types.  
EVERY school had a band, every town had a band.  There were local bands 
playing at EVERY wedding, prom, bar mitzvah, and dance hall.   He is 
right. 


>  Some of their recordings, like 
> Bernie Schultz's for Gennett in 1927, in fact reveal a unique "personality" and not just 
> mimeographs of popular hits.

But those were one-in-a-thousand, the ones that had inventive 
personalities and talent.  They were the hundred or so that got 
recorded, at least a little.  THOUSANDS didn't.

>  Since we *do* lack recordings for so many other bands, 
> I'm not quite certain how Wald assumes that their arrangements were the same as Ellington's or Lombardo's. In the immortal words of Jack Pearl, "Vass you dere, 
> Sharlie?" 
>  
>   
He doesn't say they were the same.  He said they were "roughly the same" 
meaning they might be in "the style of . . ." or "emulating".  There 
were "Fake Books" printed.  He didn't have to be dere, those fake books 
still exist!!!  And all he has to do is remember how the local school 
bands of his day tried to copy the styles of the current hits of the 50s 
and 60s.  Thats what they did in the 30s and 40s. 

> If I were an editor, I would've rejected this article and sent it back for adjustments. Wald
> may not be purely a historian of rock, but his assumptions about music history are largely
> calibrated on the era he grew up in, it seems to me 

But not to me.  I am usually very critical of articles like this, but 
this passes my smell test.  He is speaking in the terms that the reader 
can relate to but says nothing wrong.   I especially  thoroughly applaud 
his statement "In modern parlance, those ballroom outfits would be 
called 'cover bands' but that was not the way people thought of them at 
the time."

> (notice his use of terms like "pop 
> records" and "pop fans"),

There is nothing wrong with the way he uses it.  What word would you 
prefer?  "Popular"?  That word denotes success instead of a style, as 
considered by the opposite word: "unpopular".  Pop indicates a style.  
There are no "unpop" records.  So he IS correct when he says: ". . .  
pop records first became available in the 1890s . . . "  Unless he was 
stating specifically that classical and opera also were available, by 
using only the word "popular" in that sentence, he might confuse the 
issue a lot.  No, I agree with his use of the word "pop".  That's what 
they were.  1890s ephemeral pop.



>  and there is some sloppiness around the edges. That's largely
> what compels me to read further or to avoid an author's work (although my jury is still out
> on Wald, having never examined or read one of his books). 
>   

Neither have I, and I am well prepared to rip those books to shreds here 
if they are like many of the other books I've seen in the past decade or 
so -- just like the ones you ended your discussion with.
>  
> And yet, it's not quite as bad as a series of historical reference books I once found in a university library. They looked beautifully published and very expensive...and their credibility
> went into the dumpster when the 1920s volume categorically stated that record changers
> hadn't been invented yet.
>  
> -Harold

The level of scholarship in our field has gone way, way down in recent 
years,  but I kinda liked this article.  He should have mentioned that 
the vast increase of the number of radio stations in the late 40s and 
50s also affected radio's greater reliance on records, but that fact is 
usually overlooked by everyone.

Mike Biel  mbiel at mbiel.com