Tempos of Swing Era Recordings

[Swifty]

I found this interesting quote on a website I came across in trying to find the writing history of "Stompin' at the Savoy" for a thread on Yehoodi:

Out of the 75 Garland/Decca sides released between 1936 and 1947 (her first two Decca releases, the swing classic "Stompin' at the Savoy" and "Swing, Mr. Charlie," were cut a year before her contract went into effect), only 35 titles were recorded both at MGM and Decca. Often the differences between the two versions of the same song concerned length. Decca was confined to what would fit on a 10" 78 rpm record (only one of Garland's Deccas was ever issued as a 12" 78 rpm recording), which usually meant tempos were faster on the commercial releases than as presented in the films

I'd never heard this regarding tempos - maybe I'm just an ignorant fool that doesn't know his history. Is this an accurate statement? Are Decca recordings typically faster than other labels that had 12" records?

I find it an interesting quote, regardless.

[Mr Awesomer]

Bands had all the time in the world if they wanted to when they played live, and live recordings show they still played plenty fast. In many cases, my live versions are usually faster then my studio cuts.

[Lawrence]

I have heard and read elsewhere that they sped up recordings so as to meet the 3:00 time limit, but I doubt it was so prevalent as to be the case on all or even a majority of early recordings, or the only explanation why an early recording seems fast.

[scratchy]

I found this interesting quote on a website I came across in trying to find the writing history of "Stompin' at the Savoy" for a thread on Yehoodi:

Out of the 75 Garland/Decca sides released between 1936 and 1947 (her first two Decca releases, the swing classic "Stompin' at the Savoy" and "Swing, Mr. Charlie," were cut a year before her contract went into effect), only 35 titles were recorded both at MGM and Decca. Often the differences between the two versions of the same song concerned length. Decca was confined to what would fit on a 10" 78 rpm record (only one of Garland's Deccas was ever issued as a 12" 78 rpm recording), which usually meant tempos were faster on the commercial releases than as presented in the films

I'd never heard this regarding tempos - maybe I'm just an ignorant fool that doesn't know his history. Is this an accurate statement? Are Decca recordings typically faster than other labels that had 12" records?

I find it an interesting quote, regardless.

intereseting note. It is very possibly that Deca could have slightly bumped up a songs tempo to meet the lenght of a record, however it would not have been a common practise, and it was more the likely a way to save a recording that would of otherwise have been wasted.

The only way to find out is to know what key the band recorded in and then use a tuner. Some records have in fact been put out at worng speeds, but primarily by accident and some historians in the past have corrected these mistakes and re-released them in their correct Key and tempo.

Like Reuben said, Live recordings of the same arrangement and band almost always tend to be faster then the studio.

[Lawrence]

Like Reuben said, Live recordings of the same arrangement and band almost always tend to be faster then the studio.

I've noticed quite the opposite.

[Mr Awesomer]

Don't make me pull out the charts again. HAHAHA

[scratchy]

Like Reuben said, Live recordings of the same arrangement and band almost always tend to be faster then the studio.

I've noticed quite the opposite.

Yea, I know of a couple myself, But it's Rare, in my collection.

Just how many songs do you have a "Live" Version of as well as a "studio" version from the same band during the swing era???