Buddy Bolden recording?

[chewy-chew-chew-bean-benitez]

http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article.php?id=28883

i thought this guy had no recordings.....

[Teasing the Korean]

Amazing that no one knows what an LP is anymore. Can't tell you how many times on eBay or elsewhere in recent years I've come across people calling a 45 or a 78 an "LP." I'm assuming these are digital babies who have come of age.

Regardless of whether this particular article is a joke or not, learn what an LP is if you're going to write about music.

[Dan Gould]

Look at the publishing date of the article.

There's a hint at the bottom too:

[Dan Gould]

I don't know what's funnier/lamer: the article, or the responses its gotten:

#2 posted by Ile Ife on 2008-08-02 14:47:10

This is very disturbing news to me. First of all, how did a finding of this magnitude not make national and/or world news? Secondly how did the Smithsonian get ahold of Buddy's recording without approaching Buddy's living relatives first? He does have living relatives you know. Secondly, how was his recording found on an LP. Buddy recorded on a wax cylinder. LP's did not gain popularity until 1915. By that time Buddy was tucked away in the insane asylum. There was not even a chance that he recorded in the insane asylum because he had developed a paranoia of his horn. Also, had the Smithsonian always had a recording of Buddy's and was waiting for the last of his relatives to die off before revealing it? With the release of Wynton Marsalis new move, 'Buddy' whoever has that recording will make billions of dollars off of it. Furthermore, that LP would have to be at least one hundred years old. Buddy was institutionalized in 1906. There is no way an LP could last in an attic in Kansas without being damaged for over 100 years. The heat would detroy anything stored for that length of time. Especially the material an LP was made of then. Another disturbing thing, if this young graduate student did discover an LP Buddy made, what did he and the owner get from its discovery. Buddy Bolden has relatives tucked away in Detroit, you know. If they received money, then that money belongs to Buddy's relatives or they should receive royalties from every recording sold by the Smithsonian. Furthermore, why did the Smithsonian wait until an opportune time to release info on the so-called discovered LP? Wynton Marsalis' movie is coming out and now everyone will know who Buddy Bolden is. How convenient to tell of its discovery now. How long has the Smithsonian been holding onto that recording if they have it at all. It's probably just a farce. Furthermore, Buddy Bolden could not have recorded on an LP because the recording process used at that time were done with wax cylinders. Sounds as if somebody is lying. Had that recording been discovered the whole jazz world would be in a frenzy. Being a black woman myself, I know that racism and prejudice has stopped a lot of our culture from being exposed and we have been discredited as inventors of many things. Black Nubia is one such thing. It seems that if that recording was discovered, somebody held off telling of its existence because it would be the most crystal evidence that the first man of jazz was indeed a black man.

I am a jazz historian and preservationist. I know that the jazz world would be shaken with the discovery of such a recording. If the recording does exist (which should have been made on a wax cylinder) then Buddy's family should be notified. The poor family has had to leave New Orleans because of Katrina and have suffered insurmountable financial problems. It is unfair that that family is still suffering and not receiving royalties from the selling of their beloved 'Buddy's' creation. Jazz is a black thing, African American music and it should not be owned in any manner by the Smithsonian; afterall it was non-black organizations and non-black persons that condemned Buddy's music while he was living. They labeled it 'Ni__er music, jungle music, bushman music, devil music, sinfull music, etc. Now they want to possess it? No, Buddy's recording belongs to Buddy's living relatives.

[Big Beat Steve]

Hoooleeee sheeeet ...

"I am a jazz historian and preservationist ...."

"LP's did not gain popularity until 1915."

Like TTK said, digital babies finally coming of age. But calling themselves "jazz historians"? Now really ...

[Swinging Swede]

Amazing that no one knows what an LP is anymore. Can't tell you how many times on eBay or elsewhere in recent years I've come across people calling a 45 or a 78 an "LP." I'm assuming these are digital babies who have come of age.

Regardless of whether this particular article is a joke or not, learn what an LP is if you're going to write about music.

No kidding. Look at the longish second reply:

LP's did not gain popularity until 1915. [...] Furthermore, that LP would have to be at least one hundred years old. Buddy was institutionalized in 1906. There is no way an LP could last in an attic in Kansas without being damaged for over 100 years. The heat would detroy anything stored for that length of time. Especially the material an LP was made of then. [...] I am a jazz historian and preservationist.

One would think a jazz historian would know what an LP is.

[Ken Dryden]

One rule I have for my April Fool's releases: never use a real record label, save them the headache.

Of course, I've had some fun reactions, particularly over Fourplay: Nocturnal Mission (a reader was incensed that I included Clay Aiken as a guest vocalist), Michael Bolton Sings the Duke Ellington Songbook (which caused a promoter who should have been known better to call me in order to track down the label to get the account), plus George Winston: Dirty, Dirty, Dirty-George Plays Jelly Roll and Yanni: A Tribute to Art Tatum.

It's too bad they didn't run any pieces this year, though I had submitted a pair. Maybe next year.

Edited August 29, 2009 by Ken Dryden

[Teasing the Korean]

Yet another reason that AAJ is such a worthless website.