Ten inch LPs; do we know the full story?

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

It seems important to realise that, throughout the whole history of the recording industry, technological developments have had a great impact on what music was recorded. What has always been presented to the public, in every field of music, has been a combination of the music that performers created, what was possible for the contemporary technology to reproduce and what seemed like it would sell; these three broad factors operating a kind of feedback loop driving ideas. Most of the technological developments, and all the big ones,  were made by hardware engineers, but a few, for example the development of the echo chamber (and no one used that so effectively and so beautifully as Gene Ammons), were made by software engineers; the people who ran the recording studios. Records and record players were the world’s first precision engineered mass consumer product. Guns were earlier, of course, but guns are supposed to be used by people trained in their use, care and maintenance, not amateurs who’d complain if they couldn’t make the thing work and change their purchases to the goods of a rival. Soldiers don’t have any say in what guns their army buys, or in whom they point them at; but consumers of these products had to be cosseted.

The engineering of these products itself formed another kind of feedback loop; an improvement at any point requiring a host of other changes to ensure that the whole thing worked together in a way that consumers could operate without skill and gain some kind of satisfaction thereby. Unfortunately, jazz historians (and probably historians of other kinds of music) pay little attention to considering the impact of engineering development on the music that is produced; what is or becomes successful as a result and attracts adherents, influences other musicians and imitators; what is or becomes unsuccessful, loses adherents and drops out of sight. It’s too easy to think of great musicians purely as great men, thinking great thoughts and causing revolutions. But that isn’t what real life is like.

These thoughts were prompted by the recent thread on the reissue of a series of ten inch Blue Note LPs. It seemed strange to me that so many of them were not really albums but compilations of (admittedly great) singles, which were intended to stand alone and not form parts of a programme. Programmes in those days were things put together by DJs, selecting music reflecting partly what they thought suitable for the time of day their broadcasts went out, and partly the needs of advertisers, the preferences of radio station bosses and the payola they received from record companies (all real life is compromise). It was not something that had ever had to be thought about by recording managers. So most of the early LPs were no more than LPs; not ALBUMS. So those LPs were and remain only worthwhile for the individual tracks they contained, not as things that have intrinsic interest in themselves. And since the individual tracks are available in plenty of other formats, I didn’t think the companies reissuing the material now have much idea of what they were doing, and particularly, what they were missing.

The concept of the ALBUM was not brought into being automatically by the development of microgroove records. The word album relates back to the first collections of music issued in books of 78s. Most of them were compilations of 78s but some were indeed ALBUMS. Classical music albums were mostly ALBUMS, as were albums of original cast performances of songs from Broadway shows. No creative thought about how you put them together was required on the part of the recording managers; that thought had been done in advance, by Tchaikovsky or Rogers and Hammerstein. So too had the few early albums of live jazz concerts, such as the JATP concerts that were reissued on Stinson twelve inch 78 albums, and the sermons of Rev C L Franklin recorded on three and four record albums by Joe Von Battle.

Long play microgroove LPs began to come out in 1948, and initially the market was mainly for the ten inch variety. By the end of 1952, Mercury was selling 10 ten inch LPs for every one twelve inch. This situation lasted – for the majors anyway – until the end of 1954. During 1955, the ten inch format almost completely lost favour relative to the twelve inch. By the end of 1956, the ten inch format was pretty much dead. Most of the jazz companies started making twelve inch LPs in 1955.

However, we have this interesting period from 1948-54 when the ten inch LP was king. Almost all the main jazz companies were issuing ten inch LPs. Like the majors, the jazz indies don’t seem to have known what to do with this revolutionary new format. The majors seem to have contented themselves with making LPs that were compilations of singles. And a great number of LPs were issued by the indies using that formula. The LPs sold well – there’s much great music in them. But some of those companies, many of which were at the cutting edge of jazz development, tried to experiment and see what could be done with this new long play microgroove thing. It seems strange – or ought to seem strange – that not all jazz companies experimented because jazz had been in a ferment for five years and it obviously hadn’t worked itself out yet. So there was definite scope in the market for new ideas.

So which were these labels documenting as they could the new developments in jazz in this period? Four were on the West Coast, exploring the music of new musicians who were soon enough dubbed ‘West Coasters’; Contemporary, Discovery, Fantasy and Pacific Jazz. Several were in New York; Roost, Bethlehem (though these two labels made fewer than 60 ten inch LPs between them), Blue Note and Prestige. Chess in Chicago didn’t make any LPs until 1955, and issued them in 1956 in the twelve inch format of their new label, Argo. Verve, Riverside, Atlantic and Savoy were issuing ten inch LPs, but in those days were hardly at the cutting edge of contemporary jazz; Charlie Parker with strings was the nearest Norman Granz came to making developmental albums. Riverside’s ten inch issues were mainly compilations of very interesting material from Paramount. Atlantic was mainly interested in reissuing old material and in lounge pianists and singers like Mabel Mercer. Savoy was mainly reissuing material, Jazz, Gospel and R&B, as well. However, it seems that Herman Lubinsky made a mistake in relying too greatly on Kenny Clarke to look after contemporary jazz albums; Clarke’s conservative, very musician-like, way of doing things was exactly what wasn’t needed in a time of experiment. The West Coast labels were new labels and issued relatively few contemporary jazz ten inch LPs, though Good Time Jazz issued a good many Dixieland albums, but it’s not clear to me what thought the label bosses put into their programming, as I don’t like that West Coast Jazz. So, in the end, I see the significant jazz labels in this period as being Blue Note and Prestige. Blue Note issued 100 ten inch LPs; Prestige 140.

Blue Note

Thirty of Blue Note’s LPs were Dixieland recordings, reissued on the 1200 series. A good many of the 3000 series were also reissues, or material licensed from other producers, mostly in Europe. It would be heart-warming to think that Alfred Lion paid great attention to the selection of tunes on his material that was probably produced bearing the new format in mind. The first of them was Miles Davis’ ‘Young man with a horn’ (BLP5013), but Mr Lion showed his true interest when he reissued this, with other material and alternative takes on two twelve inch LPs, messing up any potential feeling of the material having any coherent order.

I’ve got to say the Horace Silver’s ‘New faces, new sounds' (BLP5018) does actually sound as if someone was in control of the coherence of the album; it plays through very well indeed. But again, Mr Lion destroyed that coherence in the twelve inch reissue. One has to ask, if it mattered to him in 1953, why it didn’t matter any more a couple of years later. And there’s no real answer to that except to assume that, despite appearances, it didn’t matter in 1953. BLP5034, the follow up, suffered a similar fate. However, the reissue of the two LPs on CD has put the story the right way around, keeping the two original running orders.

And the story was repeated on the Lou Donaldson-Clifford Brown LP, ‘New faces, new sounds’ (BLP5030) which was only incompletely reissued on BLP1526. As was Clifford Brown’s own LP, ‘New star on the horizon’ (BLP5032).

It’s easy to argue that the material wouldn’t fit onto twelve inch LPs, so Mr Lion did the best he could, under the circumstances. I think the answer to that is that he did the best he could, given his fanatical attachment to the music itself, rather than any particular interest in albums as carrying specific messages in themselves.

The story changes when we get to February 1954 and the live recording of the Art Blakey Quintet at Birdland. Ideally, one would programme a live album in the same order that was played on stage. However, time constraints prevented this, so Lion had to arrange the tracks the way they’d go. Just or fun, yesterday, I ripped the 1987 CDs to my hard drive and rearranged the tracks into the take order, as per the Ruppli discography. Well, I THINK if makes quite a nice session, but four announcements of the next song have been edited into the end of the previous track, so the announcements for ‘Quicksilver’, ‘Once in a while’, ‘If I had you’ and ‘Night in Tunisia’ appear at the start of four other tunes! This is somewhat disconcerting. It doesn’t matter, of course, when you’re listening to the Blue Note track order because, although each of the 4 editions of the session has got its tracks in a somewhat different order, in every one, ‘Once in a while’ is followed by ‘Quicksilver’ and ‘Once in a while’ always follows ‘Split kick’. That didn’t apply to ‘Night in Tunisia’ or ‘If I had you’, however, which have had to have their intros reassigned! A bit of thought, or care and attention, in the editing of the CD tracks would have placed the announcements at the beginning of the relevant tracks so that, when someone wanted to listen to the music in the order played at Birdland (not TOO eccentric an ambition), the result would be seamless. That applies to Pee Wee Marquette’s intro, which should have had a separate track listing, and to the seque into ‘Lullaby of Birdland’ at the end (instead of appearing at the end of track 3). The intro, as I expect everyone has noticed, is not for the first set, as Pee Wee said they were bringing the band BACK to the stand. Was there no intro for set 1?

Anyway, whatever the running order, this was a ground-breaking recording and one has to say that Mr Lion did good work in organising this kind of live session as early in the LP era as he did. Of course, there’d been live jazz recordings before, but this was the world’s introduction to hard bop; the real thing. What was clear was that the LP, notwithstanding the constraints applied by the limited time of the ten inch format, was very suitable for this type of work. As far as studio material was concerned, he obviously knew he had to do something, or he wouldn’t have bothered juggling the tracks around at all. But the secret of making money is knowing what to do and how to do it and Lion was far too concerned with the quality of music to give much attention to the quality of albums.

Prestige

Prestige was, by comparison with Blue Note, a pretty new kid on the block. But Bob Weinstock had had experiences Alfred Lion and Francis Wolf hadn’t had, because he’d been brought up in a time and place in which jazz records (good, indifferent and pretty bad) formed the majority of the most popular records, and even jazz records that were very good indeed were best sellers. As a result, he was always looking for big selling records.

During the ten inch era, he had two big ideas for albums. The first was to create good programmes of music that listeners could play and feel comfortable with. The second was music for house parties; specifically two track albums geared to not terribly spectacular, but pretty enjoyable for the participants, dancing.

On the first idea, the prime exponent of the jolly nice programme was Gene Ammons. Miles Davis was his main man for the second, and later Ammons once more.

Prestige reissued a bunch of mostly pretty famous singles by the Ammons/Stitt band under the title of ‘Battle of the saxes’ (PR107), probably in 1951. They’d all been recorded in 1950, for release as singles. Gotta say, this doesn’t really play all that well when you assemble it from CD compilations; there’s a bit too much of one thing and comparatively little of the other; no balance, in other words.

Tenor sax favourites vol 1 (PR112) is a very different kettle of fish. This one, too, was assembled from sessions held on several dates in 1950. But boy, it’s a lovely album when you reassemble it.

So, too, is vol 2 (PR127), which came out in 1952, except that a tenor battle with Sonny – ‘New blues up and down’ – was included. The rest of vol 2 is a compilation drawn from two 1951 dates. It would have been better to have included the whole of the January date – Jug’s vocal on ‘Round abut one AM’ was replaced by the tenor battle. But it’s still pretty nice.

Vol 3 (PR149) from 1953 is the best of the trio. The complete contents of two sessions in August and November 1951, this album represents Jug at his best and doing the work for which he deservedly became the most loved jazzman in the black community. Even ‘When the saints go marching in’ comes out as a true Jug performance, complete with ‘I dream of Jeannie’ quote! Gene equalled this album fairly frequently in later years, particularly between his two prison sentences, when he consistently made the best recordings of his life, but never bettered it.

The first experiment in one track LP sides was by neither of the musicians who came to dominate the field; it was an album by Zoot Sims; ‘Swingin’ with Zoot’ PRLP 117. Recorded in August 1951, with only two tracks: ‘Zoot swings the blues’ (8:43) and ‘East of the sun’ (11:05). It probably issued in 1953. By April 1954, Weinstock had the confidence to make two Miles Davis albums with long party tracks; ‘Miles Davis quintet’ PRLP185, featuring two short and one long (‘I’ll remember April’) tracks, recorded on the third, and ‘Miles Davis’ (PRLP182) featuring ‘Walkin’’ and ‘Blue ‘n boogie’. A two album session in December 1954 followed: ‘Miles Davis All Stars’ vols 1 (PRLP196) and 2 (PRLP200) issued in 1955. In June 1955, the first of several Gene Ammons jam sessions ‘Gene Ammons All Stars’ (PRLP211) was recorded, featuring ‘Juggernaut’ and ‘Woofin’ and tweetin’. This was one of the last 10 inch LPs Prestige issued, a bit past the prime period for those LPs, but it must have sold well, as Weinstock only recorded Gene Ammons in jam session settings after that date until his first prison term. Until the ‘Juggernaut’ session, Jug had been dealt with by Prestige as a singles artist and his first three albums as a sole leader had been collections of previously issued singles (though, as noted earlier, the last two sessions before June 1955 had clearly been planned to work as an album, which they do).

The sleeve notes to Ammons’ ‘The happy blues’ by Ira Gitler, gave Weinstock’s game away. He was looking for a pure, unplanned, wild improvisation such as he got at the end of ‘Madhouse’. Miles was really the wrong person for this; a very deliberate musician, Mr Davis. Jug could do it – though actually, I don’t think it was really his thing and that those jam session albums don’t show the real Jug, as “Tenor sax favorites’ vols 2 and 3, and almost all of his recordings between his two prison terms, do.

But all of those albums, it seems to me, would be really useful to reissue in their original format. They record major components of the development of the jazz ALBUM, and eased musicians’ and companies’ thinking away from singles to albums.

In contrast, of the ten inch Blue Note LPs recently reissued

•Milt Jackson - Wizard of the Vibes

•Fats Navarro - Memorial Album

•Miles Davis - Young Man With A Horn

•Miles Davis - Vol. 2

•Miles Davis - Vol. 3

•Elmo Hope - Elmo Hope Quintet

•Thelonious Monk - Genius of Modern Music Vol. 1

•Thelonious Monk - Genius of Modern Music Vol. 2

•Hank Mobley - Hank Mobley Quartet

•Horace Silver - Horace Silver

•Jutta Hipp - New Faces, New Sounds from Germany

•JJ Johnson - Jay Jay Johnson

•Gil Melle - New Faces, New Sounds

•Clifford Brown - New Star on the Horizon

•Sal Salvador - Sal Salvador Quintet

 

Only a couple SEEM to have been planned as albums but, in the light of subsequent events, can be seen as practically random sorting into the tracking order on the discs. No doubt the music is great, or at least very interesting but, given the randomness of the selections, one’s forced to the conclusion that the real meat of the LPs resides solely in the quality of the music. But, if that’s all that there is of interest in them, there are plenty of other ways to listen satisfactorily to them.

 

End of rant.

 

MG 

[BillF]

Fine essay, MG. I don't know if you've read Marc Myers' book. If not, I think it would interest you:

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Never heard of it. Looks interesting. Thanks.

 

MG

[Teasing the Korean]

...So most of the early LPs were no more than LPs; not ALBUMS. So those LPs were and remain only worthwhile for the individual tracks they contained, not as things that have intrinsic interest in themselves...

...Argo. Verve, Riverside, Atlantic and Savoy were issuing ten inch LPs, but in those days were hardly at the cutting edge of contemporary jazz...

Very interesting essay!  I am and have always been fascinated with the early days of LPs and 10" albums in general.

Regarding your first point, I would completely disagree.  The fact that any album may be a compilation of sorts does not necessarily matter to the listener who experienced it in that particular presentation.  The folks who bought those early 10" albums may not have known that they were compilations, and may not have had all the individual tracks from 45s or 78s or whatever.  What formulates the idea of an album in someone's mind is a combination of the music, the presentation, the cover art, and how they experienced it.  Discovering artistic intent after the fact does not necessarily reverse the original experience.  

Regarding your second point, I would argue the early Verve/Clef/Norgran issues of Afro-Cuban jazz, including recordings by Bird, Diz, Machito, and Chico O'Farrill, very much at the "cutting edge of contemporary jazz at that point.

Edited October 13, 2015 by Teasing

[JSngry]

Pacific Jazz was issuing 10" LPs regularly. As was Debut, and, I think, Fantasy, especially of ther live Brubeck recordings.

Here's a very nice compilation of 10" jazz covers:http://www.gokudo.co.jp/Record/10inRec/index.htm More than one page, click the "Next" links at the bottom of each page to move on.

The first generation Prestige 10" covers are like something from a prehistoric world.

 

[sidewinder]

Not to forget that Esquire did some of those early Prestiges as 10" pressings as well.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

...So most of the early LPs were no more than LPs; not ALBUMS. So those LPs were and remain only worthwhile for the individual tracks they contained, not as things that have intrinsic interest in themselves...

...Argo. Verve, Riverside, Atlantic and Savoy were issuing ten inch LPs, but in those days were hardly at the cutting edge of contemporary jazz...

Very interesting essay!  I am and have always been fascinated with the early days of LPs and 10" albums in general.

Regarding your first point, I would completely disagree.  The fact that any album may be a compilation of sorts does not necessarily matter to the listener who experienced it in that particular presentation.  The folks who bought those early 10" albums may not have known that they were compilations, and may not have had all the individual tracks from 45s or 78s or whatever.  What formulates the idea of an album in someone's mind is a combination of the music, the presentation, the cover art, and how they experienced it.  Discovering artistic intent after the fact does not necessarily reverse the original experience.  

Regarding your second point, I would argue the early Verve/Clef/Norgran issues of Afro-Cuban jazz, including recordings by Bird, Diz, Machito, and Chico O'Farrill, very much at the "cutting edge of contemporary jazz at that point.

Yes, the very act of putting a bunch of singles together in a compilation is creating a programme and the label manager would do his/her best to get something that would sound good. The point I was trying to make was not that those compilations had no value beyond the greatness of the music itself to people back in the day but that there's no point NOW in reissuing them because there are loads of other and arguably better ways of listening to the music. But on the other hand, music that was deliberately produced and organised to carry an intrinsic coherent quality to the listener, does have value now, because it's from albums like those that the music business got the idea of what an album could be. So albums like 'Is it because I'm black?', 'Pet sounds', 'Sergeant Pepper' and 'What's going on' are in their different fields, direct descendants of Jug's 10" albums.

Norman Granz' Latin material is very good - probably better than that, actually - but he was several years behind RCA's recordings of the Dizzy Gillespie big band; and indeed less celebrated Cuban bands who recorded for RCA in the forties. Chano Pozo didn't get to New York and suddenly discover this new stuff and say to himself, 'Hey JAZZ! I must get into this and find out what it's all about and make a name for myself.' The real cutting edge of that music happened in Cuba, not America. Americans didn't find out about it until later.

MG

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Pacific Jazz was issuing 10" LPs regularly. As was Debut, and, I think, Fantasy, especially of ther live Brubeck recordings.

Here's a very nice compilation of 10" jazz covers:http://www.gokudo.co.jp/Record/10inRec/index.htm More than one page, click the "Next" links at the bottom of each page to move on.

The first generation Prestige 10" covers are like something from a prehistoric world.

 

You're right. However, the West Coast labels didn't produce 10" LPs in large numbers. Contemporary produced the largest number and most of them were on the Good Time Jazz label.

I'll readily admit to there being a hole in my taste, as I like West Coast Jazz hardly at all - Hawes, Criss and Edwards are about as far as I'm prepared to go in that direction and their music is notably unlike that of Pepper, Brubeck, Mulligan et al. So I don't listen to the main West Coast players. And none of those three first mentioned players was recording albums in the early fifties. So I guess some of the West coast labels' albums COULD have been important in the development of the album concept, but I've never heard the stuff and, even if I had, couldn't form a valid judgement about it, except in terms of how quickly it sent me off to sleep, which is probably unhelpful

I did mention this in my original post, of course.

And yeah, Prestige's 10 inch covers are really antiquated. But I do love the photo on the three Gene Ammons 'Tenor Sax Favorites' LPs and it's much better presented on vol 3 than on 'The 78 era'.

Of course, every company wanted its own 'look' and Prestige definitely had that But they were no worse than Mercer, were they? And the reverse of the sleeves was just a list of the complete catalogue, and you can see the reason for that. I don't think any label had inner sleeves in those days. At least PART of the object of selling an LP was to sell another LP.

MG

Not to forget that Esquire did some of those early Prestiges as 10" pressings as well.

Bet they had nicer sleeves, too

MG

[JSngry]

Pacific Jazz DID produce LPs in what I guess you'd call "large numbers", whatever that means. Mulligan/Baker together and then Mulligan and Baker separately were really popular. the Bud Shank/Lauriendo Almeida things were 10" at first, on and on. Pacific Jazz 10" LPs of the more popular items are not extraordinarily impossible to find, although they do tend to be pricey if they're in any kind of "carefully owned" condition. Mercury, with Granz and without him, albumed early and often. And yet also in Chicago, yeah, ChessCheckerAristocratParrot...going for the single

Same thing with Brubeck and Fantasy, those were 10" albums (mostly) and they sold well. I've seen some, but they're all trashed. I do have a copy of Oberlin, though, on 10". Green vinyl, no jacket, totally garage sale item, literally.

Art Pepper, I don't know about, but In Pacific Jazz and Fantasy you had two modern jazz labels who were definitely producing product for popular consumption. It seems like the California labels were actually ahead of their East Coast counterparts in this regard. Prestige seemed to be doing pretty well, too. Mercury/Emarcy too, that was an indie label too, remember. Don't know if Emarcy was designed to fill any gaps left by Norman Granz going solo, but they put out a lot of stuff. I have Art Blake & Joe Gordon on Emarcy 10" LPs. Not sure if the first Raoch/Brown thing was originally a 10" or a 12" though.

Let's not forget about the "speed war", the record album equivalent of VHS-vs-Betamax, Columbia LP vs RCA 45 EPs. I took a while for the marketplace to come to their senses and decide on LP, but I could see all the entrepreneurial WC Jazz lables not really giving a flip. I know there were some early Pacific Jazz 78s, as well as EPs well into the mid(?) 1950s, but West Coast Jazz on the whole seems to have been a LP-centric medium, if not from the beginning, then fairly early on, 10", then 12". Aware of plenty of WCJ albums, not very many (none, really, but that's just what I know about) 78 albums.

Speed wars...why would you plan for an "album" that might have to be released as both 33 1/3 AND 45? I have a Serge Challof Capitol EP, and it's got two songs on one side, and a longer one on the second. Even if you had a full 15-20 minute jam at the ready, that's gonna be a little bit too much breaking up for 45 (at least back then), you might as well do 12" 78s, although who the hell was still doing THAT? So as far as planning, I think you ask yourself, what's going to be the easiest to cross-platform, and that might be why so many of the earlier 10" LPs had shorter cuts, not so much that they were still thinking in terms of singles as they were flexibility of release.

Oh, GNP, they did a good number of 10" releases too. and on the East Coast, Bethlehem, although from what I know of that label's chronology, it sure seems like they were right on the cusp of the 10'-12" shift. Nocturne, that stuff that's "legendary" now, all of it 10" LPs, I think.

What happened to the product, though, that's the question. I think it's probably easier to pursue 78s than it is 10" LPs. 45 EPs, intact, difficult too, especially if they were released in a box rather than as individual items. Seems like once the 10" stuff got ported over to 12", people just threw that 10" stuff out or something (and with good reason, who wants a "part one" and a "part two" of an album when you can just have it all on one record? Hello instant obsolescence).. Maybe there was a government recall, who knows? And I don't think it's a question of production #s either. Mulligan, Baker, Chico Hamilton, those guys were selling in good numbers. There was product available. But that speed war shit, all i can see is the aftermath as far as what survived, and that shit looks to have been one of the more insane and self-retarding things the record business ever did in the 20th century.

Gotta say, though, if you want to look at the history of the jazz 10" LP and not look at the West Coast labels, you're not going to get at too much more than it seems you already know.

But please lordjesus help me understand what this look was intended as, other than a possible Halloween present?

bottom line, market drives product, right? The market for "West Coast Jazz" seems to have enjoyed the 10" LP earlier and more readily than did the market for "East Coast Jazz", and if Chicago-based Mercury is any indication, that might have been more a matter of Prestige always looking to get the hit jazz singles, Blue Note in kinda of an early 50s A&R slump (although, Gil Melle..and didn't they nearly go broke deciding to finally port over to 12", like geez, we just got done doing 10" and now THIS?), and focusing on regrouping 78s , and Savoy just being Savoy, Herman Lubinsky. what, ME work?

It still surprises me, though, how much jazz Atlantic did in the early 1950s, some of it leased, some of it not, but...still kind of a wild card, that whole period seems to be, it's like, oh, that's over, let's forget about it, and they pretty much did. But again, East Coast market a different dynamic seems to have been in force.

Consider patterns of consumption, too. Some demographic groups were probably more interested in hearing the same songs at home that they heard on the jukeboxes, while otehrs might have preferred sitting down in fromt of the record player and checking out an entire album.

[Jim R]

"Maybe there was a government recall, who knows?"

  I love it.

[Teasing the Korean]

The point I was trying to make was not that those compilations had no value beyond the greatness of the music itself to people back in the day but that there's no point NOW in reissuing them because there are loads of other and arguably better ways of listening to the music. 

Norman Granz' Latin material is very good - probably better than that, actually - but he was several years behind RCA's recordings of the Dizzy Gillespie big band; and indeed less celebrated Cuban bands who recorded for RCA in the forties. Chano Pozo didn't get to New York and suddenly discover this new stuff and say to himself, 'Hey JAZZ! I must get into this and find out what it's all about and make a name for myself.' The real cutting edge of that music happened in Cuba, not America. Americans didn't find out about it until later.

MG

There is a major point now in reissuing music the way is was packaged at the time: to more fully convey the experience. For example, I think it is wrong for Blue Note to remove the Milt Jackson tracks from the Monk "Genius" albums, because those tracks were part of those albums for decades.  

Presentation, organization, and artwork are the major reasons why I do not buy Mosaic box sets.  It should be the listener's job to place tracks in chronological order; it should not be the listener's job to re-assemble released albums that are part of the cultural and historical record.

And I disagree with you about the Latin jazz stuff.  Yes, there was Latin music earlier, but those records did not mix Latin music and bebop the way the Machito and Chico O'Farrill sides did.  Those earlier RCA recordings, for example, did not present thematic suites.  So Clef and Norgran are more important and groundbreaking than the earlier RCA sides, IMO.  

Edited October 13, 2015 by Teasing

[JSngry]

"Maybe there was a government recall, who knows?"

  I love it.

Something happened, you gotta look to find those things. We know they existed, and in many cases, sold pretty good, but let me tell you, I have seen pretty much every incarnation of this one EXCEPT this one.

Now, part of this might be that the later 12" issues were able to incorporate a full program of Konitz with Mulligan, studio and live. This is just live stuff, with the studio stuff being on one side of PJLP-2. And there was more live stuff to be added, any way you look at it, it's a badass record, Kontitz with the Mulligan 4-Tet.

But good lord, there were at least two US LP issues, and neither one is gonna be all THAT hard to find. But good luck finding a 10", I'm sure some exist, but where are they? And that's pretty much the case with all 10" LPs, regardless of idiom. It's like they all went POOF! GONE! I can still find some, but they're usually some barget budgment crap or something. Finding, say, a Sinatra Capitol 10" of Songs For Young Lovers, c'mon man, that record SOLD, so where are they now, even the trashed ones?

I still remember my first case of 10" sticker shock in a "collector's" store, there was about 5-6 West Coast Jazz things, some people who I wouldn't give you more than original list prioce for, not the name players, just some guys who were there, ya' know? And this shit was going from $75 UP. The highest was, like $125 iirc, some borderline lounge pianist that wsa considered "jazz", not a name, just somebody who had a name due to birth certificate,. and I ask the guy, dude, wtf? this music is not that good to be getting that kind of money, and he just shrugged and said "ten-inchers bring the bucks". So, that was it.

I know that the 12" was originally designed primarily for classical and Original Cast, but what was the pop catalyst that made everybody say, ok, done deal? Gonna roll the dice on Sinatra, maybe? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Wee_Small_Hours

In the Wee Small Hours was issued as two 10-inch LP discs, and also as one 12-inch record LP, making it one of the first of its kind. It was also issued as four four–song 45-rpm EP discs sold in cardboard sleeves with the same cover as the LPs, not in paper covers like 45-rpm singles.

totally speculative, but - April, 1955, people start realizing oh, you mean I just need to buy ONE record? Record companies saying, oh, you mean we can just press ONE record and sell it for HOW much? RCA says, ok, fuck it,we don't have Sinatra, Columbia says, we HAD Sinatra, we have catalog, but we invented this LP market anyway, so, really, what do we care? and there you go, the jury returns with its verdict - 45s for singles, LPs will be 12", now give us some records, we will buy them. Blue Note scrambles to not go under, Prestige realizes their shit ws just TOO damn ugly, let's repackage, EVERYBODY goes 12", Bullmoose Jackson suddenly feels inferior, world as we came to know it put into place. FIXED.

1955...Seems like that's around the time that 12" became more popular, and maybe that's what happened to all the 10", they were only the default LP option for 4-5 years, no matter whether the were reissues of singles or new programming. Event he ones that sold well, numbers made just not that many relative to subsequent LPs of the same material. I just know I look to pick them up when I find them for anything resembling reasonable, and that that is not even a little often.

[JSngry]

Looking at the 10" BN covers, I'm struck by how long the modern stuff carried with it something like "Modern Jazz Series" and/or "New Faces New Sounds", kinda like "Blue Note Hits A New Note" in the 70s, only...not. But with Gil Melle handling so much of the A&R (Ike had sorta gone under, so to speak, right?) in the early 50s, you almost wonder if Lion was really, REALLY sure that his future lied in these modern sounds, or, you know, I loved Monk, but how much more of that is there to get?. Maybe it was Herbie Nichols who made the esthetic convincement at the same time that the Messengers were making the commercial ones.

Same thing with Riverside, those guys were pretty hardcore pre-bop fans, they didn't come to the bop naturally. Wasn't it Randy Weston who finally got to them and turned them around towards Monk, who had, as they say, become available? And from there, BOOM!

Although he definitely had an eye for the hit, Weinstock seemed to be the only one of those East Coast indie jazz guys who "got" the modern thing from the get-go, at least once you get past the initial bop rush of the mid-late-ish 40s, when Dizzy was on RCA, Bird finally ended up with Granz (on Mercury!), Monk was a WHO? who else was there at the time that had a name? Getz? That guy recorded a LOT even early on, including for Weinstock. And soon enough, Granz had 'em all, except for Monk.

So, market drives product, correct? For whatever reason, the popularity of the LP as a popular item of consumption pretty much coincided with the rise in popularity of the cool/west coast/whatever type of jazz, and the labels that were dealing with that thing in that place most certainly did put out 10" LPs that were presented as albums, not as compilations of singles. That environment was not hampered by nostaligia, ok? (Although, it seems that San Francisco was pretty much open territory for Brubeck and his crews, because the Bay Area was ALL about the Trad. But LA? Oh HELL no, them Kenton dudes were there to Create the Future And Call It NOW, and a lot of other people saw that wave, got a board, and got aboard. Note that "cool" jazz was originally an East Coast thing - Tristano, and Getz, and that Kenton might well have used the term "progressive jazz" after it was already being used, not sure about that though. Anyway, the buzzwords were "modern", "progressive", and "cool", and the West Coast had a machine ready to roll on that, while the East Coast...didn't. Not really, not like that.

Factor in the still-prevalent and not necessarily incorrect perception that the modern jazz scene on the East Coast was, in general, the province of some seriously rampant heorinlife, and you know, who's gonna corral all THAT into a "brand". Remember how much was made of Clifford being clean, and how that coincided with the resurgence of East Coast Modern? Horace, a businessman. Max, a businessman who had tried his hand at the record business. Burrell, Byrd, all those guys...Hank said in his DB interview that BN always like to have at least one clean guy on every date. Even Jackie, pretty hard core fiend there for a good while, Jackie seemed like he knew the difference between Dope Life & Business Life. Not all that many guys did there for a while. So if I'm a guy who already has catalog, I'm NOT gonna be sure where the future lies, because all these motherfuckers are liable to turn up dead any minute now. Too many of the actually did, ya' know? Not an illusion.

By the time the pendulum of "general jazz opinion" shifted back, or began to, the East Coast labels had a new generation ready to jump in and make those records all day long, and THAT'S when those labels began producing "albums" in earnest.

 

[Jim R]

"Maybe there was a government recall, who knows?"

  I love it.

Something happened, you gotta look to find those things.

Believe me, I hear you.  I may have started keeping my eyes open for them later than you did (I probably started thinking in terms of collecting original pressings some time in the early 80's), but it didn't take long for me to realize how hard they were to find.  Finding one in decent condition was a thrill, and when that happened to me, it was mostly buying them from guys who knew what they had (and thus a $30-$50 price tag).  I think I only found a few clean ones priced cheaply, and probably never owned more than about a dozen that were VG or better.  Those EP's with two songs on a side were even more scarce in my experience.

So, would the government have recalled the vinyl for the sheet flooring effort?  

[Big Beat Steve]

VERY interesting thread. Thanks for your introductory post, MG, which will take time for me to digest fully and maybe get back to, though ...

Some random thoughts and addenda:

- As for 10-inchers not being "albums", I dunno ... Often it was a matter of making existing (and still saleable) recordings available in the new 33rpm format which was gaining momentum fast (hence the reissue of 78s early on on 10" LPs). I wonder, though, if what you refer to as "albums" really would be "concept albums" (à la Sgt. Pepper, Pet Sounds, etc.). I doubt that that much thought went into all of those "albums"  that were used to release music for the FIRST time. And, BTW, I do wonder, how many record buyers of more recent times realize where the term "album" (as used generically for LPs) came from in the first place.

- 10-inchers did exist in the U.S. beyond the West Coast Jazz labels and Blue Note and Prestige in the 50s. If you look at record listings such as in the Goldmine books you will see how many there were, even in jazz bordering on R&B. Not to forget all those budget labels. To me this also seems a matter of trying to grab a slice of the market of the new speed and in the case of R&B, C&W and Rn'R of the 50s this probably was only limited in numbers (as were 12" LPs) because the marketing execs figured (probably correctly) that their (younger or not so well-off) target audiences usually would only be able to afford purchases of singles or EPs at one time.

- As for their general impact, MG, do not forget that 10-inchers lasted much longer in a number of other countries, e.g. the U.K. and France - and Germany too, to some extent) where ORIGINAL 10-inch releases were still current in the late 50s.

- It is true what was said above about the "speed war" (particularly 33rpm 12in LPs vs 45rpm 3-EP sets ;)) but there also seems to have been a "size war". There have been LPs issued concurrently both in 10-inch and 12-inch format for diffferent target audiences and possibly countries (I am not talking about expanded 12" reissues of original 10" releases here). Apparently the drawback of having to omit part of the contents of the 12" LP on a 10" was offset by the advantage of having the music in the convenient (?) 10" size.

 

 

 

Edited October 14, 2015 by Big Beat Steve

[JSngry]

The generally accepted first pop music "concept" (as opposed to "songbook") album was on Columbia 78s - Frank Sinatra,'s The Voice.from 1946. That was also Columbia's first pop catalog item to be released as an LP.

Regarding jazz albums as albums vs collections of singles, Ellington was releasing suites on 10" LPs on Columbia, and Kenton was very much doing conceptual albums for LP with his post-Innovations, "New Concepts" band..

But most everybody was releasing singles too, jazz and pop alike. Ellington's Columbia singles would get orphaned for a decade or two, but Kenton's generally found their way onto a stray lp, quite apart from his "album" albums. Same thing for Sinatra, you had (and in the LP crates of today, still have) Sinatra Singles albums and Sinatra Album albums). But those are names...for the most part, it seems like albums started becoming albums fairly soon. Prestige worked the singles angle pretty hard, but the Blue Note "modern series", that was not really singles oriented, was it? How many Elmo Hope or Urbie Green singles did they release?

also worth considering - Union rules regarding sessions, The standard (iirc) was 3 hours to get 4 cuts. Clearly geared towards getting 2 singles out of the gig. Looking at the discographies from these days, even as the focus shifted away from singles into LPs & EPs (which were really just LPs for people who wanted them on 45s for god know what reason), the pattern stayed the same a lot of time - three session trying to get four tunes.

The "typical" 10" LP was 8 songs total, 4/side, sometimes less than that if the jams went longer, but never(?) more than that. The Blakey Emarcy 10" I have is all about that, but the Joe Gordon thing from just a few years later is the total opposite, really.

 

[JSngry]

I'm also wondering if we're not confusing the notion of recording music for release as album(s) with recording music for release as singles...those are not the same thing.

To use a West Coast example of a "star" in his early flush prime:http://www.jazzdisco.org/pacific-jazz-records/discography-1952-1954/

I'm going to bold the primary/first real-time release #s of these, becuae there's been so much recycling ove rhte yeas.

Chet Baker Quartet

Chet Baker (trumpet) Russ Freeman (piano) Bob Whitlock (bass) Bobby White (drums)

Los Angeles, CA, July 27, 1953

PJ-225	The Lamp Is Low (Pavane For A Dead Princess)	Pacific Jazz 605, EP4-14, PJLP-3; World Pacific WP-1249; Pacific Jazz DJ-1, (J) K18P-9259; Mosaic MR4-122
	This Time The Dream's On Me	Pacific Jazz EP4-4, PJLP-3, (J) K18P-9259; Mosaic MR4-122
PJ-227	Maid In Mexico	Pacific Jazz 605, EP4-14, PJLP-3, (J) K18P-9259; Mosaic MR4-122

* World Pacific WP-1249   Chet Baker - Pretty/Groovy
* Pacific Jazz DJ-1   Various Artists - Disc Jockey Edition
* Pacific Jazz (J) K18P-9259   Chet Baker Quartet - Cool Baker, Vol. 1
* Mosaic MR4-122, MD3-122   The Complete Pacific Jazz Studio Recordings Of The Chet Baker Quartet With Russ Freeman
* Pacific Jazz PJLP-3   Chet Baker Quartet
* Pacific Jazz EP4-14   Chet Baker Quartet
* Pacific Jazz EP4-4   Chet Baker Quartet
* Pacific Jazz 605, 45-605   Chet Baker - The Lamp Is Low / Maid In Mexico

Chet Baker Quartet

Chet Baker (trumpet) Russ Freeman (piano) Carson Smith (bass) Larry Bunker (drums)

Los Angeles, CA, July 29 & 30, 1953

PJ-258	Russ Job	Pacific Jazz 610, EP4-14, PJLP-3, (J) K18P-9259; Mosaic MR4-122
PJ-256	Imagination	Pacific Jazz 610, EP4-14, PJLP-3, PJ-1206, (J) K18P-9259; Mosaic MR4-122
	Long Ago And Far Away (10" LP take)	Pacific Jazz EP4-9, PJLP-6, (J) K18P-9259, DJ-1; Mosaic MR4-122
	Long Ago And Far Away (12" LP take)	World Pacific WP-1249; Pacific Jazz PJ-75, (J) K18P-9259; Mosaic MR4-122
	Carson City Stage	World Pacific WP-1249; Pacific Jazz (J) K18P-9260; Mosaic MR4-122
	Easy To Love	Pacific Jazz EP4-4, PJLP-3; World Pacific WP-1249; Pacific Jazz (J) K18P-9259; Mosaic MR4-122
	Batter Up	-

* Pacific Jazz (J) K18P-9259   Chet Baker Quartet - Cool Baker, Vol. 1
* Mosaic MR4-122, MD3-122   The Complete Pacific Jazz Studio Recordings Of The Chet Baker Quartet With Russ Freeman
* Pacific Jazz PJ-1206; World Pacific PJ-1206   The Trumpet Artistry Of Chet Baker
* Pacific Jazz DJ-1   Various Artists - Disc Jockey Edition
* World Pacific WP-1249   Chet Baker - Pretty/Groovy
* Pacific Jazz PJ-75   Gerry Mulligan/Chet Baker - Timeless
= Pacific Jazz ST-20146   Gerry Mulligan And Chet Baker - Timeless
* Pacific Jazz (J) K18P-9260   Chet Baker Quartet - Cool Baker, Vol. 2
* Pacific Jazz PJLP-3   Chet Baker Quartet
* Pacific Jazz PJLP-6   Chet Baker Quartet
* Pacific Jazz EP4-14   Chet Baker Quartet
* Pacific Jazz EP4-9   Chet Baker Quartet
* Pacific Jazz EP4-4   Chet Baker Quartet
* Pacific Jazz 610, 45-610   Chet Baker - Imagination / Russ Job

Chet Baker Quartet

Chet Baker (trumpet) Russ Freeman (piano) Carson Smith (bass) Larry Bunker (drums)

Radio Recorders, Hollywood, CA, October 3, 1953

	No Ties (10" LP take)	Pacific Jazz EP4-8, PJLP-6, (J) K18P-9259; Mosaic MR4-122
	No Ties (12" LP take)	Pacific Jazz PJ-1206, HFS-1; Mosaic MR4-122
	All The Things You Are	Pacific Jazz EP4-9, PJLP-6, PJ-1206, PJ-LA892-H, (J) K18P-9260; Mosaic MR4-122
	The Thrill Is Gone (10" LP take)	Pacific Jazz EP4-9, PJLP-6, JWC-503, PJ-75, (J) K18P-9260; Mosaic MR4-122
	The Thrill Is Gone (12" LP take)	World Pacific WP-1249; Pacific Jazz (J) K18P-9260; Mosaic MR4-122
	Band Aid	Pacific Jazz EP4-8, PJLP-6; World Pacific WP-1249; Playboy PB 1529/30; Pacific Jazz PJ-100, (J) K18P-9260; Mosaic MR4-122
	Bea's Flat	Pacific Jazz EP4-8, PJLP-6, PJ-1206, ST-20138, (J) K18P-9260; Mosaic MR4-122
	Moon Love (10" LP take)	Pacific Jazz EP4-9, PJLP-6, (J) K18P-9260; Mosaic MR4-122
	Moon Love (12" LP take)	Pacific Jazz PJ-1206; Mosaic MR4-122
PJ-291	Happy Little Sunbeam	Pacific Jazz 615, EP4-8, PJLP-6, PJ-1206, ST-20138, (J) K18P-9260; Mosaic MR4-122
	Happy Little Sunbeam (alt. take)	Pacific Jazz JWC-500, JWC-EP-1000, (J) K18P-9260; Mosaic MR4-122

* Pacific Jazz (J) K18P-9259   Chet Baker Quartet - Cool Baker, Vol. 1
* Mosaic MR4-122, MD3-122   The Complete Pacific Jazz Studio Recordings Of The Chet Baker Quartet With Russ Freeman
* Pacific Jazz PJ-1206; World Pacific PJ-1206   The Trumpet Artistry Of Chet Baker
* Pacific Jazz HFS-1   Various Artists - Assorted Flavors Of Pacific Jazz: A Hi-Fi Sampler $1.98
* Pacific Jazz PJ-LA892-H   Various Artists - Jazz: The 50's, Vol. I
* Pacific Jazz (J) K18P-9260   Chet Baker Quartet - Cool Baker, Vol. 2
* Pacific Jazz JWC-503; World Pacific JWC-503   Various Artists - Ballads For Backgrounds
* Pacific Jazz PJ-75   Gerry Mulligan/Chet Baker - Timeless
= Pacific Jazz ST-20146   Gerry Mulligan And Chet Baker - Timeless
* World Pacific WP-1249   Chet Baker - Pretty/Groovy
* Playboy PB 1529/30   The Playboy Jazz All Stars
* Pacific Jazz PJ-100   Various Artists - 24 Great Jazz Groups: On Mike!
* Pacific Jazz ST-20138   Chet Baker Plays And Sings
* Pacific Jazz JWC-500; World Pacific JWC-500   Various Artists - Jazz West Coast
* Pacific Jazz PJLP-6   Chet Baker Quartet
* Pacific Jazz JWC-EP-1000   Various Artists - Jazz West Coast
* Pacific Jazz EP4-8   Chet Baker Plays
* Pacific Jazz EP4-9   Chet Baker Quartet
* Pacific Jazz 615, 45-615   Chet Baker - Happy Little Sunbeam / The Thrill Is Gone

Chet Baker Quartet

Chet Baker (trumpet, vocals -1,4, trumpet -2,3) Russ Freeman (piano) Joe Mondragon (bass) Shelly Manne (drums)

Radio Recorders, Hollywood, CA, October 27, 1953

1. PJ-306	I Fall In Love Too Easily	Pacific Jazz 614; Mosaic MR4-122
2. PJ-307	Winter Wonderland (78 take)	-
3.	Winter Wonderland (LP take)	World Pacific WP-1249; Pacific Jazz (J) K18P-9260; Mosaic MR4-122; Blue Note CDP 7 94857 2
4. PJ-310	The Thrill Is Gone	Pacific Jazz 615, EP4-16, PJLP-11, PJ-1222; Mosaic MR4-122

* Mosaic MR4-122, MD3-122   The Complete Pacific Jazz Studio Recordings Of The Chet Baker Quartet With Russ Freeman
* World Pacific WP-1249   Chet Baker - Pretty/Groovy
* Pacific Jazz (J) K18P-9260   Chet Baker Quartet - Cool Baker, Vol. 2
* Pacific Jazz PJ-1222; World Pacific PJ-1222   Chet Baker Sings
* Blue Note CDP 7 94857 2   Various Artists - Yule Struttin' (A Blue Note Christmas)
* Pacific Jazz PJLP-11   Chet Baker Sings
* Pacific Jazz EP4-16   Chet Baker Sings
* Pacific Jazz 614, 45-614   Chet Baker - I Fall In Love Too Easily / Winter Wonderland
* Pacific Jazz 615, 45-615   Chet Baker - Happy Little Sunbeam / The Thrill Is Gone

Yes, 45s were released, but it seems to me that the focus of the sessions was to get an album out, be it on LP or EP. The 45s were probably aimed at jukeboxes and radio play, trying to get that "hit". But the focal point was now the album.

[JSngry]

Apparently the drawback of having to omit part of the contents of the 12" LP on a 10" was offset by the advantage of having the music in the convenient (?) 10" size

 

Yeah, I guess if you stored/carried a lot of 78s, singles or albums, a 10" LP was a lot less disruptive to your space than was a 12".

 

[johnblitweiler]

 

Ha! One of the first LPs I ever bought,CA 1958 or so. "These Foolish Things" still sounds great.

[Jim R]

As for their general impact, MG, do not forget that 10-inchers lasted much longer in a number of other countries, e.g. the U.K. and France - and Germany too, to some extent) where ORIGINAL 10-inch releases were still current in the late 50s.

I'll need to check some sources to refresh my memory, but I want to say that Columbia (for one, at least) was still issuing 10" LP's in the U.S. in the latter 50's.

Speaking of Columbia, here's one that I always thought was a bit odd.  The Buck Clayton LP "How Hi The Fi" was issued as a 12" LP in 1954, and the 10" version of the LP came out later, in 1955.  There may have been other cases of this backward scenario, but I'm not sure I know of any.

=====

Jim, based on your reactions (or lack thereof), I just want to make sure you know I wasn't being snarky.  I thought the government recall thing was a pretty good quip.

[JSngry]

Looking at Savoy 10" is interesting...

http://www.jazzdisco.org/savoy-records/catalog-9000-dee-gee-1000-series/album-index/

http://www.jazzdisco.org/savoy-records/catalog-15000-series/album-index/

As is true of their EP product:

http://www.jazzdisco.org/savoy-records/catalog-ep-8000-series/album-index/

http://www.jazzdisco.org/savoy-records/catalog-ep-8100-dee-gee-4000-series/album-index/

Seems like a LOT of resources were devoted into porting over older 78-era material to the newer speed(s), and that recording of truly contemporary music began only once that job was more or less complete. And even then, the artists involved seemed to be of the more "reliable" sort, which maybe plays back to just how smacked out was the early 1950s NYC post-bebop jazz scene, and was Bob Weinstock the only guy willing and/or able to deal with that on a sustainable basis at that time, to see an actual future there (although, his singles focus suggests that during these days he was less concerned with long term future than immediate future)?

I gotta keep coming back to this - if you want early 1950s 10" jazz records that are really thinking about albums as the focal point, you gotta look at the West Coast first, and then to East Coast things like Debut and Period (or Esoteric, or whatever it was called), the Norman Granz Norgran/Clef thing, and Chicago's Mercury, with and without Granz. The other guys seem to have been more interested in porting their back catalog over and then holding their breaths to see what was going to happen next, who was going to be left alive, literally and figuratively. Even the upstart who was going to soon become a significant player, Riverside, was none too sure about it at first.

In this environment, the California labels like Pacific Jazz, Fantasy, Discovery actually had a head start, because they didn't have all the back catalog to worry about (Albert Marx had back catalog, of course, but nothing compared to Alert Lion or Herman Lubinsky), they could set their starting point to the now and take it from there. Fantasy had a fair numnber of 78s, but only over a few years, and they hauled ass to get stuff over to LP & EP asap.

Fantasy: http://www.jazzdisco.org/fantasy-records/

Contemporary is the one WC label that had a lot of back catalog to deal with. It looks like when they began to release "modern" jazz in 1953, it was either local product or leased from Vogue (there was a lot of that going around, wasn't there?) - but definitely to 10"LP or EP: http://www.jazzdisco.org/contemporary-records/discography-1951-1954/

But geez, compare that to this: http://www.jazzdisco.org/contemporary-records/discography-1938-1950/session-index/  another instance where there was resources tied up in earlier jazz, so of course priority would be to keep those assets viable.

But once Contemporary truly flipped over to modern, they did it in the modern way - LPs & EPs. Singles were really not a significant part of their game.

 

 

Jim, based on your reactions (or lack thereof), I just want to make sure you know I wasn't being snarky.  I thought the government recall thing was a pretty good quip.

No man, not at all, just doing a lot of multitasking right now, work + solving the Joe Holiday riddle + thinking about the 10" LP thing... I thought the vinyl flooring drive thing was an EX-cellent response!

[Jim R]

Well, one Columbia that I was thinking about (a Jay & Kai 10") was apparently a 1956 release.  I could have sworn it was from '58.

[Big Beat Steve]

As for their general impact, MG, do not forget that 10-inchers lasted much longer in a number of other countries, e.g. the U.K. and France - and Germany too, to some extent) where ORIGINAL 10-inch releases were still current in the late 50s.

I'll need to check some sources to refresh my memory, but I want to say that Columbia (for one, at least) was still issuing 10" LP's in the U.S. in the latter 50's.

Speaking of Columbia, here's one that I always thought was a bit odd.  The Buck Clayton LP "How Hi The Fi" was issued as a 12" LP in 1954, and the 10" version of the LP came out later, in 1955.  There may have been other cases of this backward scenario, but I'm not sure I know of any.

Interesting ... I have both but of course automatically assumed that the 10-inch LP was the earlier pressing/release. So CL 567 predated CL6326?

Did you get these release dates from the Goldmine Price Guide? Not that I would want to distrust them but yet ...

I don't have any documents to actually pin down their release dates, but just one pointer (maybe): I have a record mail order catalog from Al Smith's House of Jazz (South Bend, IN) from around that time (the most recent Blue Note LP listed is BL 5020, if that helps ..), and in the Columbia section the CL 6000 series runs up to CL 6302 and the CL 500 series ends at CL 521. I have no idea how many LPs were released in each series within the same time span but this looks like the 10-inch series was closer to CL 6326 (24 items) than the 12-inch series was to CL 567 (46 items). No definite proof one way or another, of course ..,

 

 

[JSngry]

Quoting from Ira Gitlers notes to Prestige 7744 Conception (an early 1970 reissue of the October 5, 1951 date with Rollins, McLean,Bishop, Potter, & Blakey)"

The October session, Davis' second for Prestige, is important not only for its musical content but because of the factor which influenced the quality of the music. Up to 1951 the extra space afforded by the long playing record had never been utilized in the studio, Longer solos from jazz concerts had been transferred from several 78rpm discs to LP but nothing had been taped with LP in mind. One of the first LP performances was Astaire Blues by Oscar Peterson (backed by Stomping At The Savoy on the other side of the 10-inch LP) for Norman Granz, but it was not a studio recording. In August 1951 Zoot Sims did two extended numbers, Zoot Swings The Blues and East of the Sun, for Prestige that were expressly intended for issue as the two sides of a 10-inch LP. Later that month, Gerry Mulligan's tentet recorded a blues, Mulligan's Too, that eventually wound up as one side of a 12-inch LP.

Conception, produced at a time when most companies were still thinking in terms of three minute tracks, was in the vanguard of a practice that has sometimes  been abused since. When this recording was made the chance to "stretch out" was still a novelty and the results include many passages of impassioned, inventive improvisation. The players mentions jut out of the grooves as the solos spring to life.

And then at the end, this in 1970, mind you, with no apparent irony (emphasis added):

Although all seven tracks in this LP have been released before, this is the first time that the complete session has been issued in one album.

So...it took them damn near 20 years to figure out that not only could you record longer tracks, and not only could you make a 12" LP, but that you could also put a single session together on one LP. Genius!

[Jim R]

As for their general impact, MG, do not forget that 10-inchers lasted much longer in a number of other countries, e.g. the U.K. and France - and Germany too, to some extent) where ORIGINAL 10-inch releases were still current in the late 50s.

I'll need to check some sources to refresh my memory, but I want to say that Columbia (for one, at least) was still issuing 10" LP's in the U.S. in the latter 50's.

Speaking of Columbia, here's one that I always thought was a bit odd.  The Buck Clayton LP "How Hi The Fi" was issued as a 12" LP in 1954, and the 10" version of the LP came out later, in 1955.  There may have been other cases of this backward scenario, but I'm not sure I know of any.

Interesting ... I have both but of course automatically assumed that the 10-inch LP was the earlier pressing/release. So CL 567 predated CL6326?

Did you get these release dates from the Goldmine Price Guide? Not that I would want to distrust them but yet ...

I don't have any documents to actually pin down their release dates, but just one pointer (maybe): I have a record mail order catalog from Al Smith's House of Jazz (South Bend, IN) from around that time (the most recent Blue Note LP listed is BL 5020, if that helps ..), and in the Columbia section the CL 6000 series runs up to CL 6302 and the CL 500 series ends at CL 521. I have no idea how many LPs were released in each series within the same time span but this looks like the 10-inch series was closer to CL 6326 (24 items) than the 12-inch series was to CL 567 (46 items). No definite proof one way or another, of course ..,

 

 

Thanks for that info, Steve.  I couldn't say for certain either, but yes, I took the data from my Goldmine guide (1992 edition).  I have another record guide that I used previous to that (O'Sullivan/Woodside; 1984) which didn't even list that 10" LP.  I remember thinking that I may have had a very rare item on my hands.  I sold it anyway, as Buck wasn't really my thing.  Anyway, I always found that my Goldmine guide seemed to be pretty accurate and complete.