Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [RedHotJazz] Re: Noone on Oliver's Camp Meeting Blues

Expand Messages
  • Howard Rye
    ... I have also seen these file cards and Brian is certainly not lying, but there is room for alternative interpretations. What follows only summarizes the
    Message 1 of 23 , Sep 30 9:28 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      on 29/09/2011 14:32, David Brown at johnhaleysims@... wrote:

      >
      >
      > However, we are left with the lack of documentary evidence for the Columbias
      > being split over two consecutive days although Rust claimed this was from
      > Columbia files. Do we also believe he was lying ?
      >
      >
      I have also seen these file cards and Brian is certainly not lying, but
      there is room for alternative interpretations.

      What follows only summarizes the conclusions set out by Laurie Wright in
      King Joe Oliver (pages 31-2), but the surviving filing from this era does
      not show recording dates. The source of the recording dates shown by earlier
      writers including the original Allen/Rust book is simply no longer known.
      However, this was published before Rust had had access to the files. Thew
      dates are claimed to be from the Columbia files and appear already in
      Delaunay, but were not known to Index to Jazz.

      All that can be said is that they can no longer be verified.

      The surviving file cards show only shipping dates. This date is 20 October
      1923 for 81300, 81301 (unissued) and 81302 takes-1-2-3 (unissued). For 81302
      takes 4-5, 81303, and 81304 the shipping date is 23 October 1923. There can
      be no doubt that, as Laurie Wright reports, the file card for 81302 has been
      reinserted in the typewriter to add the two additional takes, so this is not
      merely a techinical matter.

      Laurie of course believed that two clarinettists were involved and that one
      of them is heard only on 81300. It will be evident that anyone who wants to
      say this is a circular argument cannot be disproved with the data now
      available.

      I have not bothered to intervene before because clearly those who wish to
      discuss this have already rejected the conclusions in King Joe Oliver on the
      basis of rejecting the interpretation of the facts there given. They have no
      new facts to offer. Richard Rains hears what he wants to hear and is
      perfectly entitled to do so. He is perfectly entitled also to argue that
      Laurie Wright was doing the same. For my part I shall continue to regard
      LaurieĀ¹s interpretation as definitive in the absence of any new evidence. I
      also, if I am honest, regard this continual speculative reworking of
      familiar ground as a waste of time when there is so much real research which
      could be being done.

      But to get back to the point. No Brian was not lying. I also guess Charles
      Delaunay had seen filing at Columbia that no longer existed by the 1970s.

      Incidentally in 1961 Columbia still had masters of at least one take of
      81300/03/04, not that it does us any good, and that was fifty years worth of
      new brooms ago at that.
      >


      Howard Rye, 20 Coppermill Lane, London, England, E17 7HB
      howard@...
      Tel/FAX: +44 20 8521 1098




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • David Brown
      Many thanks to Howard for the totally authoritative discographical overview. My question as to whether Rust was lying was rhetorical and I hope I implied that
      Message 2 of 23 , Oct 4, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Many thanks to Howard for the totally authoritative discographical overview.

        My question as to whether Rust was lying was rhetorical and I hope I implied
        that I did not believe the conspiracy theory involving Rust, Buster and/or
        Klein and did not reject Laurie's opinion and research, which documentary
        evidence from files and Buster, and even Noone, supports.

        Although new documentary evidence is unlikely to appear, I do think such
        chestnuts can usefully be revisited in the light of new technology. The
        latest transcriptions offer detail that could never have been imagined in
        the days of the discographical pioneers. It is possible now to slow and
        speed and superimpose and compare extracts and even sound waves.

        But, in end, even aural evidence of this refined definition is subjective.

        Dave


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.