[78-L] Average age was

[Michael Biel]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [78-L] Average age was
From: "Steven" <stevenc at interlinks.net>
Date: Fri, November 12, 2010 7:10 pm
To: "78-L Mail List" <78-l at klickitat.78online.com>

From: Michael Biel 
>> I've just been reading some Record Changer magazines from 1949-1952,
>> seeing the growth and sudden demise of the independent re-issue labels. 

> Oddly enough, it was the sudden growth of the "independent re-issue"
> labels that led to their "sudden" demise! All of this vintage jazz material
> was "owned" by Victor and/or American Record Corporation; however,
> neither firm was aware of the amount of interest in the stuff...! When
> the "pirate" re-issue operations became rather successful (as well as
> profitable..!), Victor and particularly ARC realized the potential value
> of re-issuing the material. They quickly forced the new labels to shut
> down...and started their own re-issue projects!  Steven C. Barr

You are in the wrong decade (and Lennick and Pemberton are in yet
another wrong decade!).  If you looked, I was talking about 1949 to 1952
which was a decade after ARC.  In the mid to late 1930s the majors did
license Commodore, Hot Record Society, Hot Record Club of America to do
reissues from original masters if available.  These were NOT pirates but
were legit licensed issues with the blessings of the majors. But around
1940 they backed away from licensing and started their own reissue
series, mainly albums but some singles.  The era I was discussing was
after the war when a NEW batch of companies started doing reissues that
were totally unauthorized and were dubs instead of master pressings. 
They were well known and well advertised, but some rivalries developed
between Metronome's George Simon and The Record Collector which reviewed
the reissues and accepted their advertising.  In Dec 1950 or Jan 1951
Metronome published an expose of the unauthorized reissue companies.  In
the Jan 1951 Record Collector there was an article "Editor Bites
Editor", and letters of support followed in the March 1951 issue. 
Columbia was putting some of their earlier re-issue albums on 10-inch
LP, and in the summer of 51 issued four 12-inch Masterworks reissues of
Louis Armstrong, which were reviewed in the Sept Record Changer.  But
Jolly Roger had already issued four 10-inch LPs of some of the same
Armstrongs, and continued with several more.  Although there had been
some hints it was coming (and Clef Music Shop announced in the Feb issue
a HUGE 39 cent sale of the 78 reissues from many labels) suddenly in Feb
52 Columbia sued Jolly Roger which accepted an out-of-court settlement,
paid Louis $1000, destroyed their stock, and scared EVERY OTHER COMPANY
into destroying their stocks and going out of business (except for any
new recording work they were doing with current musicians.)  Clef bought
up remaining stocks of everything that was in all dealers' hands, and
advertised them in the March issue.  That issue also summarized what had
been happening, including the discovery that Jolly Roger had been
pressed by RCA's Custom Division.  

The discussions of DL and RP have completely overlooked the reissue
programs the majors had on 78s in the 40s, which is what I had been
discussing, and the 1930s club reissues that Barr had been discussing. 
I don't think you can claim heavy handed echo and compression when the
reissues are pressed from from the original masters. 

Mike Biel  mbiel at mbiel.com