Were Indestructible cylinders ALWAYS directly recorded?

[pughphonos]

I just bought a copy of Indestructible 3495, of "Dardanella" by Orlando's Orchestra. I was excited to find it as I knew that was very late in Indestructible's production line. According to the Sutton/Nauck book on Indestructibles, their last 4 minute cylinder was number 3515 and was issued in 1921. They indicate that 3495 was issued in 1919, but I think more likely the issuance was in early 1920.

So, I've been playing it, and it has all the blast and other audio qualities that suggest that it might have been dubbed from a disc. I'm not staking a hard and fast position here; just putting it out there as a possibility, for the consideration of those of you who are experts on Indestructible.

All best --

Ralph

[WDC]

That is quite an interesting thought and I wouldn't preclude the possibility. Now, is that recording on your particular cylinder longer than 3:30 min? I was thinking of the potential source, if actually was dubbed. Unlike Edison, others would have been required to use an actual pressed 78rpm record for proper volume dubbing.

Another question: Does your cylinder have an engaging sound before the selection starts or a sudden start of recorded surface noise?

An additional hint could be found by searching for a corresponding 78rpm disc release, possibly from Columbia.

By 1919, it would have absolutely made sense to dub from a disc source and safe the recording session costs as cylinders were quite cheap by then and did not come with the promise of large quantity sales compared to discs.

On the other hand, those 4-minute indestructibles do show quite often an inferior quality compared to their Edison counterparts. It appears that they used to wear out their master moulds to a much greater extend. Also, I always had the impression, that their celluloid is not as strong as that of a Blue Amberol.

[pughphonos]

That is quite an interesting thought and I wouldn't preclude the possibility. Now, is that recording on your particular cylinder longer than 3:30 min? I was thinking of the potential source, if actually was dubbed. Unlike Edison, others would have been required to use an actual pressed 78rpm record for proper volume dubbing.

Another question: Does your cylinder have an engaging sound before the selection starts or a sudden start of recorded surface noise?

An additional hint could be found by searching for a corresponding 78rpm disc release, possibly from Columbia.

By 1919, it would have absolutely made sense to dub from a disc source and safe the recording session costs as cylinders were quite cheap by then and did not come with the promise of large quantity sales compared to discs.

On the other hand, those 4-minute indestructibles do show quite often an inferior quality compared to their Edison counterparts. It appears that they used to wear out their master moulds to a much greater extend. Also, I always had the impression, that their celluloid is not as strong as that of a Blue Amberol.

\\

Norman, thanks for weighing in! I totally agree with you: why (as late as 1919/20) bring in a band for a direct recording session for a shrunken cylinder market. But I also totally agree with your "on the other hand": the audio quality might be explainable in other ways (viz. poor master mould).

I'm currently away from the house and don't have a way of timing the cylinder at the moment to see how long it is.

But I can answer some of your other questions. I could not hear the tell tale "engaging" sounds when the dubbing process begins. But as many collectors of Blue Amberols know, when Edison's people first took to dubbing in late 1914 they were initially quite careful to avoid leaving those traces; so maybe the Indestructible people at the end were similarly careful.

I didn't do an exhaustive search of Columbia's disc output to see if Orlando's recorded for that; will get on that right now.

Ralph

[pughphonos]

I think the answer might be here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_FQJvuKw6s

Had forgotten that Albany Indestructible was doing disc masters for Silvertone in ca. 1919--and here's a disc version of Orlando's Orchestra playing Dardanella.

So once I am home I will run my cylinder against this You Tube video and see if it's the same performance. Then that leaves the question of whether the cylinder was dubbed from a disc master or if they had both recording technologies in the same room during a single recording session.

I've always wondered, BTW, why Edison and the other recording companies didn't set up disc and cylinder equipment recorders for recording sessions...so that they didn't have to do dubbing.

[OrthoSean]

I've never heard of Indestructibles being dubbed. They actually had their own NYC recording studios and by 1919, I believe Columbia had completely removed its association with Albany Indestructible. However, the Federal Record Company shared a factory and I believe, ownership, with Indestructible so dubs would have more than likely come from Federal's resources. At the time, Federal was leasing masters from the likes of Emerson and others. Most 4 minute Indestructibles I own are certainly longer than a 10 inch master, so over 3:30, which would make me believe they were still direct recordings. Their very late 2 minute issues most certainly were, and those were just a few years earlier. EDIT: I did just quickly look at Wiki, which stated Columbia dropped cylinders in 1917 and Federal began in 1919 (hey, my memory ain't so bad!). The article says they were recorded in Albany, which I know is not true. Someplace I have an address for the recording studio in NYC, it wouldn't have made any sense to send artists 150 miles up the Hudson to record and return when masters could just be shipped up here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indestruc ... rd_Company

Of course, this is mostly my deducing from various pieces I've retained from reading various resources over the years. I could certainly be missing something, I'm relying on memory here at work.

Sean

[OrthoSean]

Ralph, you and I must have been posting at the same time! See my above post and I think some of what I said may help piece some together. I do not believe the recordings are the same. Recorded at the same session? Likely!

Sean

[pughphonos]

Ralph, you and I must have been posting at the same time! See my above post and I think some of what I said may help piece some together. I do not believe the recordings are the same. Recorded at the same session? Likely!

Sean

This is fun! So you incline to Federal/Indestructible running a cylinder recorder and a disc recorder at the same session? That would be cool; path breaking--pretty late in the history of ANYONE doing cylinder recording.

Am eager to get home and test this (give you all a time length on the cylinder--and compare the performances). Sorry to say thought that I work multiple jobs and won't be home for 10 hours yet--and won't want to disturb the family--so it will take a day before I can do my assignment.

EDIT: Sean, I just realized you could also mean that the "same session" meant they recorded first directly for one medium, then the other. OK. This will make comparing the Silvertone disc on You Tube with my cylinder very crucial in helping us sort this out.

[estott]

Probably Nicholas Orlando who made recordings for a variety of labels- I knew someone who had Orlando's grand piano but I've never found a biography or even a picture of him

[pughphonos]

Well, before heading off to work this morning (where I am again; I work FT with three PT jobs!) I put Indestructible 3495 on the mandrel of my Triumph and adjusted the speed knob so that it was at the same pitch/tempo of the performance of the Silvertone disc on You Tube (see above). The basic arrangement is the same--but clearly separate takes or performances as the version on the Silvertone disc comes in at 2:53 while the performance on the cylinder comes in at 4:17. The performance on the cylinder is longer due to various repeats that are not present in the disc version.

I paid close attention for any signs of "engaging" on the cylinder that would suggest dubbing. I could not hear any. So I'm now quite sure that this near end-of-production Indestructible cylinder was directly recorded.

Sean, Norman, Estott--you all have more knowledge of the recording companies and their protocols. To me it seems highly likely that both performances were captured on the same day, in the same studio--but clearly in separate takes, using first one type of recorder (disc or cylinder) and then the other.

Ralph

[OrthoSean]

I had suspected as much. One more thing I can add to this, remember that most musicians such as this group were paid a "per session" fee. Basically they'd be booked for an hour or two in the studio where they could easily have done a few different tunes a couple of times for both formats, all for one "fee". Columbia did this with Little Wonder discs, a regular "take" or takes would be done for a 10 inch issue, then another for the 5 inch Little Wonder issue.

Glad you can rest easy now, Ralph!

Sean