[78-L] Lambert cylinder needed

[bradc944 at comcast.net]

Putting in my 2 cents' worth here...

Mike is correct... and a clarification may be needed here (IMnsHO)...

Remember that in the pre-matrix days, and esp. with cylinders, one could only make 'x' number of copies before the piece's master HAD to be re-recorded due to wear.  If I'm not mistaken, Pathe' verticals fall into that category (since those were recorded from cylinder masters at first, no?)...   It's not like 30 or so yrs later when masters and pressing pieces would last a lot longer, and the manufacturer could run off a new batch from the masters.

Anyway, re: Whitburn... I take that with a massively fatal dose of salt... it may be good as a generality, but not for any serious research.  There are MUCH better sources for historical discography data out there.

Brad

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Biel <mbiel at mbiel.com>
To: 78-L Mail List <78-l at klickitat.78online.com>
Cc: tbroo2 at YAHOO.COM
Sent: Thu, 26 May 2011 17:10:52 -0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [78-L] Lambert cylinder needed

On 5/25/2011 4:57 PM, Ray Kilcoyne wrote:
>>     It's odd Whitburn pegs the popularity of
>> Golden's Edison rendition as 1898, while UCSB lists the release of their
>> cylinder as 1904.
>>
> From: Michael Biel
> It's not odd.  It's Whitburn for pete's sake!  WHY ARE YOU PAYING ANY
> ATTENTION TO WHITBURN??????  That book (Pop Memories) has been
> thoroughly discredited for the pre-1940 material.  It is GARBAGE!  Burn
> it.  Put it in your outhouse for toilet paper.  But don't pay any
> attention to what is printed on the paper.
>
> Mike (and I am shouting) Biel  mbiel at mbiel.com

On 5/26/2011 4:57 AM, Ray Kilcoyne wrote:
> One of the things that Whitburn is good for is the dating of popularity,
> since he gets his information by poring through periodicals of the time.
> And I am much more interested in when a record was popular versus when it
> was recorded or released.

I should let Tim Brooks handle this because he had access to those same 
journals and catalogs, but "popularity" of a record is pure guesswork, 
and he even admits he takes the release date and adds a few weeks to 
it.  But that is only a part of it.  It is based on the false premise 
that the popularity of songs rose and fell back then like they did in 
the later years.

>   For those 1890's listings Whitburn used
> Phonogram's issues for the first part of the decade and then catalogues from
> Columbia, Edison, Berliner, etc. plus ASCAP.

ASCAP was not founded until 1909.  The catalogs are neutral when it 
comes to quantity produced or available.  Rainer Lotz has discovered 
that in some cases a performer might be listed as having recorded 20 or 
30 songs but not all were actually produced for sale until orders come 
in for it, thus some never "existed".  When a record disappears from a 
catalog it could mean they sold out or that it didn't sell or that the 
master was damaged.  If a master is re-recorded, especially in the case 
of Berliner and pre-matrix Victor it could be an indication of selling 
all the copies that could be made from the master, but that is not 
evident from catalogs, only the Charosh discography which has the 
re-recording info derived mainly from the records themselves..  In the 
intro he lists titles known to have been recorded ten times or more by 
Berliner.  Topping the list is 1853's My Old Kentucky Home at 25 with 
1896's A Hot Time In The Old Town at 15.  This does not indicate a 
specific time of "popularity" but that there were steady sales OVER 
YEARS.  Ascribing these to specific weeks of popularity is asinine, 
which is why the Whitburn book is highly suspect.

> Looking into this case of BYE BYE MY HONEY more closely I found that Whitburn's 1898 Edison number is 4001, while UCSB's 1904 Edison number is
> 8629 and it is called Edison Gold Moulded.  It seems to me that Golden
> recorded it more than once for Edison.  We know he recorded it many times
> because my MP3 is from Columbia and the one Erwin Kluwer is looking for is
> from Lambert.
>
> By the way the cleaner Edison copy that Mark Bardenwerper posted was listed
> as 1898 although no record number was given.
> RayK

He also recorded it at least six times for Berliner over a period of 
four years from Nov 4, 1895 thru Sept 27, 1899.  He continued to record 
it for Victor in three more recording sessions from June 9,1900 thru Mat 
2, 1902.  Sales figures are listed and were steady over these years, 
seemingly limited by the number of pressings they could make from the 
master.  He also recorded one 7-inch and two 10-inch masters for 
Columbia around that same time.

How can you possibly ascribe a period of a few weeks of popularity to 
it??????????

It sold and was re-recorded for years and years and years.

Ascribing periods of popularity is the WEAKEST aspect of Whitburn.  You 
are deluding yourself.

Mike Biel  mbiel at mbiel.com
_______________________________________________
78-L mailing list
78-L at klickitat.78online.com
http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l