Hardbopjazz Posted July 21, 2004 Report Share Posted July 21, 2004 (edited) Anyone know why 1553 calatog number was not used by Blue Note? I have always wondered why this number was skipped over. 1552 was a Jimmy Smith session and 1554 was a Art Blakey session. What happened to 1553? Edited July 21, 2004 by Hardbopjazz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bright Moments Posted July 21, 2004 Report Share Posted July 21, 2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popper Lou Posted July 21, 2004 Report Share Posted July 21, 2004 They got sloppy and f'ed up. I never realized it till now. I check a word document I have will all the BN sessions, and 1553 is not used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardbopjazz Posted July 21, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2004 (edited) They got sloppy and f'ed up. I never realized it till now. I check a word document I have will all the BN sessions, and 1553 is not used. There has to be a real reason why it was passed. I don't think they were sloppy. BN ran a tight ship, down to every detail. Edited July 21, 2004 by Hardbopjazz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brownie Posted July 21, 2004 Report Share Posted July 21, 2004 (edited) I would suggest human brain failure! After all, BN at the time of the 1500s series was basically a two-man organisation in pre-computer era. Lion and Wolff must have been busy and taking care of more important things than keeping a straight file of their albums numbering system. They missed one number. That's too bad! They obviously cared more with the music and the way it was brought to the public. Edited July 21, 2004 by brownie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardbopjazz Posted July 21, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2004 (edited) I would suggest human brain failure! After all, BN at the time of the 1500s series was basically a two-man organisation in pre-computer era. Lion and Wolff must have been busy and taking care of more important things than keeping a straight file of their albums numbering system. They missed one number. That's too bad! They obviously cared more with the music and the way it was brought to the public. I can't buy that. Edited July 22, 2004 by Hardbopjazz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost of miles Posted July 21, 2004 Report Share Posted July 21, 2004 Hardbopjazz, you should never have asked... now the jazz demons have been loosed. God help us all... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
couw Posted July 21, 2004 Report Share Posted July 21, 2004 Hardbopjazz, you should never have asked... now the jazz demons have been loosed. God help us all... indeed. think about it, One Five Five Three, may look innocent enough, but wait! One... Five... Five... Three 1 + 5 equals SIX 2 Fives x 3 equals SIX 2 Fives equals Ten, 1 and 3 equals Four the difference equals SIX there you have it! pure EVIL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertrand Posted July 21, 2004 Report Share Posted July 21, 2004 1553 was a session by the Feather family (Leonard and his untalented offspring). The results were so atrocious that Alfred had the tape erased and the session removed from all discographies. Of course, renumbering was out of the question due to the prohibitive cost involved. It is rumored that someone kept a safety copy of the Master tape Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Fitzgerald Posted July 21, 2004 Report Share Posted July 21, 2004 Rumored or threatened? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
couw Posted July 21, 2004 Report Share Posted July 21, 2004 predestined Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spontooneous Posted July 21, 2004 Report Share Posted July 21, 2004 Doesn't 1422 figure in all this somehow? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardbopjazz Posted July 22, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2004 I guess Lion and Wolff took the reason to the grave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brownie Posted July 22, 2004 Report Share Posted July 22, 2004 1553 was a session by the Feather family (Leonard and his untalented offspring). The results were so atrocious that Alfred had the tape erased and the session removed from all discographies. Of course, renumbering was out of the question due to the prohibitive cost involved. It is rumored that someone kept a safety copy of the Master tape Great story, Bertrand! Leonard Feather was instrumental in bringing Jutta Hipp to BN attention around that time. Feather reminisced about almost every aspects of his career in his book 'The Jazz Years: Eyewitness To An Era' but seems to have forgotten about that session... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertrand Posted July 22, 2004 Report Share Posted July 22, 2004 (edited) Feather probably forgot about it because I made the whole thing up! Bertrand. Edited July 22, 2004 by bertrand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brownie Posted July 22, 2004 Report Share Posted July 22, 2004 Feather probably forgot about it because I made the whole thing up! Bertrand. Magnifique! Makes the story read even better Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted July 22, 2004 Report Share Posted July 22, 2004 What's a likely candidate for one of those "scheduled for release and even assigned a catalog number" items that the label had a few of over the years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nessa Posted July 22, 2004 Report Share Posted July 22, 2004 Scanning the BN discography reveals no logical suspects. A possibility is a compilation from the material (then) unreissued 10" series. The last of these compilations was Lou Donaldson's Quartet/Quintet/Sextet (1537). Artists with enough unreissued material include Julius Watkins, Elmo Hope and Gil Melle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brownian Motion Posted July 22, 2004 Report Share Posted July 22, 2004 Anyone know why 1553 calatog number was not used by Blue Note? I have always wondered why this number was skipped over. 1552 was a Jimmy Smith session and 1554 was a Art Blakey session. What happened to 1553? I can't decide which is crazier: to ask this question or to reply to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indestructible! Posted July 22, 2004 Report Share Posted July 22, 2004 Hi All, Hey, didn't we actually find an answer to this question over on the defunct *EMI Subsidized Jazz Label* BB? If memory serves, I thought 1533 was reserved for a Horace Silver date that apparently didn't go well, and Lion actually gave the tapes to Horace for him to destroy. BUT, now that I look over the BN Discography (THANK YOU, messrs. Ruppli and Cuscuna!), I don't see any mention of a Horace Silver date around that time. Maybe I'm confusing the planned 1553 with a "rejected" Live at Pep's session recorded by the Horace Silver Quintet some years later??? Hummmm? Cheers, Shane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnS Posted July 24, 2004 Report Share Posted July 24, 2004 Hey, didn't we actually find an answer to this question over on the defunct *EMI Subsidized Jazz Label* BB? If memory serves, I thought 1533 was reserved for a Horace Silver date that apparently didn't go well, and Lion actually gave the tapes to Horace for him to destroy. I can remember reading somewhere that this was reserved for a Horace Silver date. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swinging Swede Posted April 3, 2014 Report Share Posted April 3, 2014 This mystery has now been resolved: Blue Note Missing Over Fifty Years Discovered Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king ubu Posted April 3, 2014 Report Share Posted April 3, 2014 WHOAH! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeBop Posted April 3, 2014 Report Share Posted April 3, 2014 Love it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeweil Posted April 3, 2014 Report Share Posted April 3, 2014 Any suggestions for sidemen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.