[78-L] Record Stores

[Steven C. Barr]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Geoffrey Wheeler" <dialjazz at verizon.net>
> These "pirate" re-issues generated a lot of controversy in the forties!
> Technically, of course, they were illegal in virtually all the states
> (this
> was only partially dealt with in more recent copyright laws covering
> sound recordings) I had, and THINK I still have, a complete set of
> Record Changer magazines...and there wasa LOT of discussion about
> such issues (and the dearth of legal reissues of great jazz performances
> as well...!). The eventual result was that the record companies finally
> realized they were "sitting on a gold mine" and started reissuing jazz
> rarities...often in album-set form...!
>
> Commodore Music Shop, HRS, and UHCA were legitimate and licensed their
> reissues from original ARC, Columbia Phonograph, and OKeh recordings.
> Gennett reissues were probably licensed from Decca. Columbia
> Phonograph’s Bridgeport plant did the pressing. The Jazz Information
> reissue label created by the Editor of Jazz Information magazine drew
> on recordings issued by dead labels and probably made no effort to
> license any of the material. Since the recordings were made available
> only to Jazz Information subscribers, the press runs were probably
> pretty small. These are represented by JI 1-10. JI11-16 are all
> original recordings by Bunk Johnson.  These are relatively easy to find
> but JI 1-10 are not. These were later reissued on higher-number UHCA
> issues. Unlike the other three reissue labels, all of JI’s number 1-10
> reissues were dubs provided by collectors. This was also true for
> reissues issued in the Signature 900 series and the Session 1-8 series.
>
> No reissues used by the legitimate reissue labels came from Victor. At
> the time Commodore Music Shop began reissues on its own “house” label,
> Victor was using its new Bluebird budget label as a combination reissue
> and recording label. Victor management would have had no interest in
> licensing any of its product to outside reissuers. By using their own
> distribution system, their pressing runs would be larger, they would
> sell more records, and make more money—all compelling reasons not to
> license any third-party companies. By not using Victor, Commodore Music
> Shop, UHCA, and HRS got laminated pressings that in some cases were
> better than the original issues, especially those on ARC labels that
> were pressed at the Scranton plant, not the Columbia Phonograph plant..
> Even early Commodore pressings are laminated. You can tell by the
> pressings, and the labels are darker than later issues. CBS-Columbia
> was launched in August 1939. By October, HRS and UHCA had been informed
> that Columbia would no longer press records for them. HRS had planned
> to issue an album of recordings by Clarence Williams’ Blue Five with
> Bechet and Armstrong (HRS 27 through 31). Only HRS 31, which was drawn
> from the Gennett label, was issued; the rest of the reissues, which
> were owned by CBS-Columbia, were cancelled. Since CBS held the HRS
> reissue masters, these were destroyed. Some of this was discussed in an
>  exchange of letters between Steve Smith and John Hammond that were
> published in the HRS Society Rag. Another reason for cutting the small
> companies out of the reissue business was the major labels could do a
> far better job marketing reissues, which proved to be the case.
>
> The unlicensed bootleg reissues from 1947-1952 were done by totally
> different people and though technically illegal, provided a valuable
> service to collectors, historians, discographers, and researchers. All
> told there were 43 American bootleg 78 labels that  collectively
> released more than 1400 sides. Some of these same people then got into
> bootleg LP reissues, but that’s another story.
>
Thanxes muchly for all the additional information! I never knew much of
that, since I was going by only the stories and ads in Record Changer...!

Steven C. Barr