Buying Records for the label, recording, or both?

[Edisonfan]

I do the same thing too shane. Every record I have bought, I have listend too. I have not found any jazz tunes. Mostly Fox Trot, POP, Marches, some classical, a few opera, and some I would not no how to classify?

Paul

[Steve]

How do "music only" folk such as yourself Steve, actually pick your records?
I mean, do you choose by artist, and buy anything & everything you find by that artist, or is it narrowed down to perhaps something you have on CD, or have heard through another collector. Or do you mostly go by genre, and take a chance that a record that maybe has "for Dancing" or "Foxtrot" on the label, will be something you will like?
A mix of all?

I don't really buy individual records anymore. I've never found one half decent record in the wilds so I gave up looking and I refuse to pay record dealers prices for individual titles either, so over the past few years I've tended to buy a box here and there rather sporadically, when other collectors are dumping their unwanted stuff. I suppose I have "selected" the content of the box by genre to a point and it's usually jazz, sometimes by manufacturer in the case of Pathé. I used to buy by artist when I heard something I liked.

As for the "collecting labels" idea, has anyone considered that it's essentially the same as buying different versions of the same material on different CD issues? I'm prepared to bet that there aren't many 78 collectors who also own material on CD, who would automatically buy a duplicate CD of something just to get a different picture on the booklet or a different record company logo etc on the artwork?

In essence, that is all that a "record label" represents, surely? So to my mind, having the material is key and not necessarily for having 3 or 4 different labels of the same recording. I suppose it becomes similar to collecting stamps in that manner. LOL.

[Edisonfan]

You make a good point steve.

My entire collection came from the wild. I sitll have a dealer, who I can buy 78's from, and most are in fairly good condtion. He buys them at auction, to sell in his booth.

Paul

[gramophoneshane]

As for the "collecting labels" idea, has anyone considered that it's essentially the same as buying different versions of the same material on different CDs? I'm prepared to bet that there aren't many 78 collectors who also own material on CD, that would automatically buy a duplicate CD of something just to get a different picture on the booklet or a different record company logo etc on the artwork?

In essence, that is all that a "record label" represents, surely? So to my mind, having the material is key and not having 3 or 4 different labels for the same recording.

I've rarely found the same recording on two different labels. It does happen, but normally it will be a different take, or from a different recording session for a different label. Often these will be accompanied by a pseudonym which I find interesting too.
Then you've got artists like Caruso, where you buy an acoustic original, or a later "electrofied" version, so in reality, they're not really the same recordings.

I can't say I've bought many duplicate CD's because of a different label or cover art- with the exception of Kylie but I do buy vinyl with different labels etc. Back to Kylie again, I've found some PWL pressing sound better than her Mushroom pressings & visa-versa. Often the flip sides are different too. This also occures on 78's as well.
I think I've got examples of just about every "Oklahoma" soundtrack pressings that was done over the years, including a CD lol. I find the label changes & physical make-up or the records interesting too.

Even with cylinders that I really like, I'll buy duplicates if they're a different take, or even mould number.

I guess it is a bit like stamp collecting, but far more enjoyable

If you had a Louis Armstrong record on the Decca label, but then came across an Aussie pressing of the same song on the Festival label for $1, would you leave it behind?

[Steve]

If you had a Louis Armstrong record on the Decca label, but then came across an Aussie pressing of the same song on the Festival label for $1, would you leave it behind?

You might well ask (and very well laugh at my reply) but as the Festival label has absolutely no significance or meaning to me, I wouldn't buy it, even at $1 if I knew I definitely already had the record!

Ample proof (if it were needed) that I am not a record collector.

Did I pass the test?

[Edisonfan]

What about if the label were a "Black Patti" or a "Black Swan"?

[gramophoneshane]

If you had a Louis Armstrong record on the Decca label, but then came across an Aussie pressing of the same song on the Festival label for $1, would you leave it behind?

You might well ask (and very well laugh at my reply) but as the Festival label has absolutely no significance or meaning to me, I wouldn't buy it, even at $1 if I knew I definitely already had the record!

Ample proof (if it were needed) that I am not a record collector.

Did I pass the test?

LOL. Definitely! I certainly couldn't do it

[Steve]

What about if the label were a "Black Patti" or a "Black Swan"?

That would make no difference to me either. Can you tell me the significance of these two and why I would be mad to pass them by in your opinion? Thanks.

This reminds me of a record collector who grinned at me when I bought some records recently (in a box ) and said that I was at the start of the whole record collecting thing. He prophesised that one day I would be back to buy the "original issues" of all the re-issues I'd just taken. He pulled out several scratched, broken and damaged discs with odd labels I'd never seen before.

"You see, this is the original issue of that recording I've just sold you in the box". I was trying to disguise my obvious apathy as I headed to the door. "We all started that way but mark my words, you'll want the originals one day!" I do not honestly believe this will ever be the case with me and I would not refuse to follow this path just to spite him either.

If I bought one of those "original pressings with low matrix numbers" in tatty condition for a high price, I'd be thinking all the way home, how many new CD's I could have bought with the money AND still had the earlier purchase on 78 for the music. This, for me, defines the fundamental difference between a "record collector" and someone who purely buys the records simply to obtain the music.

I hasten to add, it's a case of "each to their own" and I'm certainly not critical of anyone who does collect records seriously anymore than I am of a stamp collector or book collector.

I collect machines and accessories and ephemera too - you can't collect everything anyway!

[Edisonfan]

Because there rare, and the patties wer only manufactured for one year. The Swans, because they were also known, as race records.

Paul

[MordEth]

Can you tell me the significance of these two and why I would be mad to pass them by in your opinion?

Steve,

I can’t tell you anything about ‘Black Patti’ without doing some research on it, but the Black Swan label is noted for some of the jazz musicians who had initial success there, such as Ethel Waters. Fletcher Henderson was the recording director for that label from 1921-1923.

Of course, I really don’t know your tastes in music (apart from Buddy Holly), so I don’t know whether you’d care about that label or not.

Hope this helps.

— MordEth