Discographical information about recording dates on jazz releases.

[John L]

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.  

  

Edited 18 hours ago by John L

[AndreyHenkin]

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.

[John L]

For new jazz, the labels that I buy from tend to be Blue Note, Smoke, ECM, and a lot of small often artist-controlled labels.  In every case, I would say the precise recording dates are the exception rather than the rule.   

What you say about Columbia and Concord is spot on, but it would seem that most reissues of the music include this information.  So the information was documented but maybe not included on original LP covers.   Today I wonder if a lot of this information is not being documented for posterity at all.

[Big Beat Steve]

5 hours ago, John L said:

What you say about Columbia and Concord is spot on, but it would seem that most reissues of the music include this information.  So the information was documented but maybe not included on original LP covers.   

I agree, this has very often been the case, and the rule rather than the exception. There are countless reissues that reproduced the facsimiles of the front and back covers of the originals but often have a few lines with personnel and recording dates added somewhere (wherever there remained some free space) in the original layout of the back cover. And I do not even count the number of original (or very early rpressing) LPs where I've added the recording dates in pencil (so erasable ) on the back cover somewhere near the lineups. 

As for "new jazz", I cannot really comment because there is not much brand new jazz releases I am buying. But overall, among those I did buy (most often CDs) I'd say it's about 50% with and without recording dates. But indeed the recording studio always seems to be mentioned (and the recording dates - if indicated - buried somewhere nearby), as well as the lists of thanks to a milion people out there.