Op.18/5  and  Op.18/6

Are there labels in particular where you have seen that happen other than Blue Note. I agree any lack of information on a recording is maddening. However, that happened all the time in the 20th Century. Columbia was the most egregious but hardly the only one. Concord was not great. But what I never understood was including minimal to no information about recording dates and personnel but a massive explanation of what microphones were used.

👍🏼👍🏼

OK, this is a pet peeve of mine.   There is a strong trend toward providing minimal or no information about recording dates on new jazz recordings.  That stands in sharp contrast with past practices of the 20th century when exact recording dates were commonly documented.   I understand that there may be good reasons for this.   Some have to do with modern technology that now longer necessarily requires having an entire band in a recording studio at the same time to make a record, and also makes professional-quality recording cheap enough so that released music can be cherry picked from a huge number of recordings from multiple dates.    It likely also has to do with the fact that artists are now often able to control their own releases and labels, and may not feel as anal as record executives about documenting precise recording dates.  But even the large labels like Blue Note now seem to be following suit in not showing concern about providing precise discographical information for new recordings. What do people here think about this?   Personally, it bothers me quite a bit.   When I engage in assessing or understanding the career work of a jazz artist, I like very much to be able to understand the chronological order of recordings.   For example, it can be insightful to know if a particular concert performance occurred before or after a certain studio recording.     

I am unsure if he's still alive, but the alto saxophonist Byron Allen was born on this day in 1939.