Session Discographies - Session Order

[Dan Gould]

Probably a silly question but just to verify, label discographies organize sessions by recording order, right?

So if "Honky Tonk" is listed first in Ruppli, it was first song laid down.

And I guess, similarly, the log for what became The Sidewinder would show the title track as the last tune since Lee composed it at the very end to get an LP-worth of music done.

(Actually looking at the Lee Morgan Discography project page, Gary's Notebook was the last tune recorded. Is my assumption wrong or is the story of how Lee composed it not really true and actually easily controverted by the session log?)

[andybleaden]

I think sometimes that as new info comes out then occasionally the session order gets corrected however I thought that this was related to new titles/mix ups since addressed by those present etc....why...what you found that makes you doubt this?

[Dan Gould]

13 minutes ago, andybleaden said:

I think sometimes that as new info comes out then occasionally the session order gets corrected however I thought that this was related to new titles/mix ups since addressed by those present etc....why...what you found that makes you doubt this?

Hi Andy.

Not sure what you mean by "this" but ... as far as the Sidewinder session goes, the title track is listed next to last, not the last recorded released take.

To the general question, I am looking into how Bill Doggett's Honky Tonk came to be and drummer Shep Shepherd completely contradicts Doggett's story about a sort of immaculate musical conception on a gig in Lima, Ohio, he says it started during a rehearsal and that some time later the band needed to record another song and Doggett asked the band about that "honky tonk type thing you were playing before" and they recorded it and to Shepherd's surprise, it was a sudden, surprise hit a few weeks later.

Ruppli shows Honky Tonk Parts 1 and 2 as the first tunes recorded at their June 16, 1956 recording session which contradicts Shepherd's memory.

[andybleaden]

I see now what you mean. Well:

A records are never 100% readable or written down correctly

B My stories have got slightly embellished over the years and changed somewhat - dont think I am alone.

C May have been the info from the transfer tape changed to the records when mixed

[Big Beat Steve]

What about the matrix numbers? What do they definitely indicate after all?
Session discographies usually list the tunes in the matrix number order. But how did producers or session engineers (or whoever specified them for a given session) use and assign these matrix numbers and did all of them always proceed along the same lines?

[JSngry]

Lima, Ohio? Maybe Joe Henderson was around?

[mikeweil]

There is no guarantee hat the order of the matrix numbers represents recordings order. Many matrix numbers were attributed after the fact, Columbia often numbered the tracks in the order on the LP sides, even when recorded on separate days. Verve and others re-used matrix numbers when tunes were re-done on a later session. There are many opportunities where errors can occur.

The Blue Note numbering system is pretty foolproof as take numbers were assigned in recording order. 

Musicians' recollections is another matter. 

[Dan Gould]

2 hours ago, JSngry said:

Lima, Ohio? Maybe Joe Henderson was around?

If he were, a little late to ask.

12 minutes ago, mikeweil said:

There is no guarantee hat the order of the matrix numbers represents recordings order. Many matrix numbers were attributed after the fact, Columbia often numbered the tracks in the order on the LP sides, even when recorded on separate days. Verve and others re-used matrix numbers when tunes were re-done on a later session. There are many opportunities where errors can occur.

The Blue Note numbering system is pretty foolproof as take numbers were assigned in recording order. 

Musicians' recollections is another matter. 

Well this is an issue of musician recollections anyway ... Shep Shepherd said the tune was tossed off at the end of the session because they needed one more.  Doggett is equally certain that the session was for this soon-to-be million seller because he had let slip at a gig in Cleveland that this was his new single, and the local record store had 150 pre-orders, called King, asked for Honky Tonk and was told that it didn't exist. Until then, Syd Nathan was pushing back on the idea of a two-sided juke box single because it would mean two slots out of 50 instead of one - a tough sell to jukebox operators.  150 preorders convinced him that Doggett had a tune with potential and greenlighted the recording.

[Big Beat Steve]

12 hours ago, Dan Gould said:

If he were, a little late to ask.

Well this is an issue of musician recollections anyway ... Shep Shepherd said the tune was tossed off at the end of the session because they needed one more.  Doggett is equally certain that the session was for this soon-to-be million seller because he had let slip at a gig in Cleveland that this was his new single, and the local record store had 150 pre-orders, called King, asked for Honky Tonk and was told that it didn't exist. Until then, Syd Nathan was pushing back on the idea of a two-sided juke box single because it would mean two slots out of 50 instead of one - a tough sell to jukebox operators.  150 preorders convinced him that Doggett had a tune with potential and greenlighted the recording.

Now Doggett's recollections sound like some conclusive evidence, I'd say. 
But of course it's not as picturesque as a "chance recording" (the last one tossed off) becoming a million seller. 

As for Mike's statement about "no guarantee that the order of the matrix numbers represents recordings order" (no doubt that's true, though I'd guess there ARE cases where the matrix number order does represent the recording order, but how do we know?): Doesn't this upset and invalidate the much-loved practice of many collectors (often mentioned here too) to burn their own CDs with the contents of the orignal LPs reorganized in "session recording order"? Because that "session recording order" would then follow the order of numerically ascending matrix numbers (unless proof to the contrary indicating a different recording order exists). But as we have seen there is no guarantee that this order is "correct"?   

 

[Dan Gould]

57 minutes ago, Big Beat Steve said:

Now Doggett's recollections sound like some conclusive evidence, I'd say. 
But of course it's not as picturesque as a "chance recording" (the last one tossed off) becoming a million seller. 

Doggett's recollection of how it started on stage in Lima OH is a little too pat, a little too "perfect".

As for Mike's statement about "no guarantee that the order of the matrix numbers represents recordings order" (no doubt that's true, though I'd guess there ARE cases where the matrix number order does represent the recording order, but how do we know?): Doesn't this upset and invalidate the much-loved practice of many collectors (often mentioned here too) to burn their own CDs with the contents of the orignal LPs reorganized in "session recording order"? Because that "session recording order" would then follow the order of numerically ascending matrix numbers (unless proof to the contrary indicating a different recording order exists). But as we have seen there is no guarantee that this order is "correct"?   

Luckily, I never ever thought about "recording order" having any significance at all in terms of listening pleasure.

 

So would anyone be up for an in depth article about how Honky Tonk came to be?  Next year is the 70th anniversary and it was the first #1 single by an identifiably "Jazz" group (according to Schaap, the only one to match was Louis with "Hello Dolly").  There's also the fact that Percy France insisted that the song started while he was still in the band. So the history is somewhat muddled - and I have acquired a good bit of info in the last week or so (Schaap interview of Doggett and NAMM interview of Shepherd).