[78-L] Average age was

[David Lennick]

I think we were all pretty clearly talking about the early fifties, despite Mr. 
Barr's reference to ARC, unless Steve merged three decades into one and I 
missed something or the cat got in front of the computer screen again. Always 
best to blame the cat. She can take it.

dl

On 11/12/2010 11:09 PM, Michael Biel wrote:
> -------- 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