My father had this record (complete with "Old Uncle Ned", which means the original 1946 release), as well as two other 10-inch 33-1/3 rpm Burl Ives records. LP records are usually said to have been first introduced in 1948 by Columbia, so I am surprised to see that this record came out in 1946. Also interesting that "Old Uncle Ned" (about a slave) was acceptable in 1946, but not in 1949.
I just found (and bought) Volume 3 of this series on eBay (also one of the three my father had). It is dated 1949, and it contains "Old Uncle Ned" (which the notes on the back cover describes as having been sung by "generations of schoolchildren"), plus eight other songs not on this album. So I guess it was not removed from the reissue of Volume II because it was seen as offensive, but rather simply because it was now on Volume 3. Or maybe Ives objected to its removal from Volume II, and insisted that it be re-included in the collection by appearing on Volume 3? [Roman vs. Arabic numerals are as used on the respective covers.]
thank you I have my grandfathers volume 3 but I always wanted to hear volume 1,2 and 4 burl Ives was his favorite
Good music!
Thank you very much . Greetings & best kind regards . Anselm Andrian
this is amazing! thanks for sharing
The greatest❤
My father had this record (complete with "Old Uncle Ned", which means the original 1946 release), as well as two other 10-inch 33-1/3 rpm Burl Ives records. LP records are usually said to have been first introduced in 1948 by Columbia, so I am surprised to see that this record came out in 1946. Also interesting that "Old Uncle Ned" (about a slave) was acceptable in 1946, but not in 1949.
I just found (and bought) Volume 3 of this series on eBay (also one of the three my father had). It is dated 1949, and it contains "Old Uncle Ned" (which the notes on the back cover describes as having been sung by "generations of schoolchildren"), plus eight other songs not on this album. So I guess it was not removed from the reissue of Volume II because it was seen as offensive, but rather simply because it was now on Volume 3.
Or maybe Ives objected to its removal from Volume II, and insisted that it be re-included in the collection by appearing on Volume 3? [Roman vs. Arabic numerals are as used on the respective covers.]