I'm rushing to press, so I reckon I'll start with Charles H. Gabriel's 1900 Glory Song, which was one of the biggest-ever gospel hits--Gabriel reported that over twenty million (printed) copies were sold, which is very possible, given the every-home-had-one status of songbooks at the time. I love the simple but perfect melody. And the words--also by Gabriel--are worthy of Fanny Crosby. This 1908 recording by the Criterion Quartet is a perfect rendition, in my humble opinion, and I think I coaxed some clear fidelity from it. For a long time, this was one of those Songs That Everyone Knows.
I love the sample of Gabriel's original manuscript (above). Awesome handwriting. I scanned it from my copy of Gabriel's Gospel Songs and Their Writers (1915).
Our next selection will have to be "Church Scene" from the the once hugely popular 1886 play, The Old Homestead, by Denman Thompson. Urban cliches of rural live did not originate with Phillips Lord, Ma and Pa Kettle, or Green Acres....
The singers/performers are the Hayden Quartet (same guys as the Haydn Quartet) from 116 years ago--1904. (Had to clarify--I'm bad at head arithmetic, despite having had no problem with my college math requirements. Strange.) My copy is a single-sided 12" Victor, and the label looks 1920-ish, so this must have been in print for a good while. No point in noting that the thing is quite dated, but our favorite pop culture is going to look and sound funny a century later, too, so.... All of the gospel songs featured in Church Scene were, of course, highly familiar to audiences of the time. You'll hear a a couple painfully wrong organ chords on The Palms--maybe the Victor label figured no one would notice.
Then, our short playlist concludes with Parts 1-4 of Gospel Songs, sung by the Victor Mixed Chorus in 1916 (with Nos. 3 and 4 released in 1917). Fabulous medleys, with the Billy Sunday material the most recent (at the time)--the Sankey-era hymns were oldies by 1916. Interestingly, In the Sweet Bye and Bye (aka, By and By) predates Sankey's involvement with Dwight Moody by three years, and the Gospel Hymns songbook series by seven. If only the condition was as good as the material and performances--someone had a rogue gramophone tonearm or a loose sound box, but the bad spots are over quickly enough. Classic stuff, and I'll let the labels provide the playlists:
I have copies of all (?) six of the Ira Sankey Gospel Hymns songbooks (which began in 1875), including one shape-note edition and a possibly first edition of the first. At any rate, here's the coolest of the covers, from 1876:
Many songs from the Sankey era are now mainline-hymnal standards, having risen in stature from "Sunday School" and "revival" numbers to, simply, hymns. Which is great.
A short playlist, mainly because of the editing required, but.... Okay, a bad storm just hit, so I had to shut down the PC. It was a short storm, though, so I'm back. I won't get this done before evening, so this is now a Sunday evening shellac post. As the saying goes, if you want to give God a good laugh, tell him your plans....
Enjoy!
DOWNLOAD: Sunday Evening Shellac, 5/10/20
From the July, 1910 New Victor Record Catalog:
Lee
13 comments:
I am fascinated with how much money people had to spend to buy one of these records. The inflation calculator says that $1.25 in 1916 is worth about $31 today, meaning that the two-record set of gospel songs would have set the buyer back $60 or so. I wonder how many people could afford that outlay.
Then again, I had to limit myself to one record a week back in the early 70s because they cost about $5, which would have been over $25 today. But it was fun picking out that one record!
I think maybe the answer lies in the fact that inflation happens at different rates, according to the type of item. Tons of things were simpler and way cheaper back then, so the extra cash for a 78 was there. We are swamped with expenses in modern life. It's not simply that we have this, that, and the other electronic device, it's more like the balance of our budget. It's about where all the money is going. The stereotype that life was simpler in the past is mostly true. And it would have been considerably less expensive. Nowadays, we'll pay a small fortune at a restaurant for a small group, whereas eating out was likely far less expensive in 1916. Just guessing. But I think that inflation (or lack of inflation) in any one thing or branch doesn't give us a big enough picture.... My two cents' worth (adjusted for inflation!).
My opening sentence there was not what I meant. I meant the opposite--that the balance of expenses changes over time. I need more coffee...
I think you are right. I can't conceive of how or why people eat out all the time. It's so expensive! Not to mention bad for you. But I suppose all that is moot for the time being.
For the sensible Ohioans staying in--though I realize some folks have no such option. It looks like even the local thrift stores are open in my area. That, or they never update their websites!
That is, we still have drive-thru options, and there are folks feeding whole families on take-out, which is expensive even if it's McDonald's. My philosophy is necessary trips only.
I'm still having respiratory problems so I go nowhere.
Sorry to hear. At least you're doing the sensible things. Best wishes that you improve. My issues are limited to bad allergies at this point, so I suppose even those compromise my immune system--it's busy producing histamines, and for no reason. Stay well and get better! Meanwhile, I'm opting to stay indoors until spring arrives. No word on when it's coming to central Ohio.
Er, the sensible thing.
I think it makes sense to not look at it as a single record purchase, but a part of the entertainment budget. Our entertainment budget today is chock full of things from cable TV and internet to song purchases and streaming subscriptions. Back then, once you had saved and bought a radio, your only other entertainment expenses might be a movie or a vaudeville ticket. Was a record similar in price to those things? At least that's how I look at it.
And here in Florida, we're trying to open back up slowly, but some people don't understand how that works, so they crowd onto the beaches or into the stores as if it's the week before Christmas. I've been lucky and haven't been out of work. But I'm still staying on on the weekends, just to do my part.
I was thinking the same thing--with massive mass mediation, we're paying for umpteen amusement technologies. (Hm. That's an interesting phrase.)
I'm skeptical about the opening-up-slowly thing, which Ohio is doing, too. I mean, minus testing capability and contact tracing, it's not safe, period. I don't know what kind of non-dangerous compromise is possible. That is to say, it's obviously necessary not to stop functioning as a society, but we're kind of fooling ourselves with a false middle ground. There is no middle ground, really. If we have to reopen, then doing it carefully is obviously the best way, but what does "carefully" mean in the absence of testing and tracking down possibly infected folks? Even Fauci is in quarantine. The WH can't even stay protected....
Church Scene is quite the cheery little piece, isn't it?
To say the least! But it's fascinating to have a recording of a scene from a late 19th century play, back when the play was still popular. To the extent this recording adheres to the play text--I'm sure it's been altered for this medium.
Post a Comment