Matthew Caulfield wrote:
> Wouldn't the APP roll require equally long perforations to keep
> the dampers suspended? Or am I missing something?
Yes, they would. No, you're not!
> Is this perhaps a refinement that the company practiced in its early
> days but ceased to bother with in the ember days of the roll business?
No, because the Caliola wasn't introduced until 1928, the ember days
of the roll business, when electronically-amplified jukeboxes began to
dominate the coin piano and orchestrion market.
I, too, would like to hear from anyone who has actually compared
Caliola and APP versions of the same roll with the same roll number.
I strongly suspect the difference was only in the printing on the
Tangley Calliaphone rolls (made by the Clark Orchestra Roll Co. of
DeKalb, IL) are just Clark 'A' rolls with different labels. Some of
them have a separate little Tangley label stuck over the top part of
the regular label. The arrangements are always piano arrangements.
In a slightly different area, Ray Siou used to advertise recuts of
original A rolls with "special xylophone arrangements" which might
lead you to believe that they had 4X-type xylophone parts. They don't.
The only difference is the label. I have over 600 ten-tune A, G and 4X
rolls, and I've never seen an A roll with the 4X-style arranging.
Another myth is that all Cremona M rolls have short, choppy
perforations, causing the pipes to play too staccato. Actually,
certain A, G, and M rolls from the early 1920s (featuring arrangements
by Pete Wendling, Victor Arden, Max Kortlander, and others) all have
this quality, which, in a well-restored instrument, adds an appropriate
"raggy" quality to the music of that era.
All three roll styles from earlier and later eras have long sustained
pipe perforations where appropriate. The different arranging styles
lend a nice variety to a modern-day roll collection.