rock and rollin’ with fats domino at wikipedia

Estimated reading time is 7 minutes.

I’M WORKING ON A PIECE titled “What Was the First Rock & Roll LP Album of the ’50s?” At one point, I turned to Wikipedia for information to determine the release date of Fats Domino’s first album, Rock And Rollin’ With Fats Domino. I wasn’t prepared for what I found—although I should have been.

But first, some background: recently, I published another article on my A Touch Of Gold website. It addressed the error-ridden Wikipedia entry for ELVIS’ GOLD RECORDS, VOLUME 2, including the album’s sub-title “50,000,000 Elvis Fans Can’t Be Wrong.” My article is titled “50,000,000 Wikipedia Contributors Can’t Be Wrong,” and Frank Daniels made major contributions to the research. 1

Wikipedia got the title wrong, they got the catalog number wrong, and they got the year wrong.

Afterward, Frank and I were chatting about the state of Wikipedia as a go-to source, and he made a piquant (don’t just read on—look it up) observation:

“It’s interesting for me to observe this sort of sloppiness yet again in Wikipedia, given that their articles on quantum mechanics and graduate-level mathematics are quite accurate. That’s the difference between having a science professor as an editor and, oh, say Elvis’ 50,000,001st fan.”

“Amen!” to that.

And since that exchange, both Frank and I have found incident after incident where Wikipedia entries are factually challenged. Granted that many are entertaining, but only if the reader knows that they are errors. If not, they’re just adding more drivel and misinformation already circulating among the millions of websites of otherwise well-intentioned site owners.

And the beat goes on (lah-dee-dah-dee-dah) and now back to the Fat Man . . .


FatsDomino LP 9004 RockAndRollinWithFats fc 800

 FatsDomino LP 9004 RockAndRollinWithFats side1 800

Almost everyone refers to Imperial LP-9004 as ROCK AND ROLLIN’ WITH FATS DOMINO because of this cover, which certainly seems to indicate that is the correct title. But when the title on the jacket and the record conflict, the title on the record is usually considered the official title. Here the label for LP-9004 is simply FATS DOMINO—and that’s the correct title of the album.

Rock and rollin’ with Fats Domino

Here is the main text in the entry “Rock and Rollin’ with Fats Domino” as it appeared on Wikipedia on July 17, 2016. The text is exactly as it appeared in the opening section and the “Release history” for this entry on Wikipedia.

Except I broke the text up into smaller paragraphs, and I eliminated the excessive hyperlinks so common to Wikipedia text. More important, I also eliminated the Wikipedia footnote numbers at the end of sentences within the text.

I then added my own footnote numbers so that I could address each error in this article in a reader-friendly manner. These numbers are in blue superscript so that they are easily seen and recognized. My numbered commentary follows the Wikipedia article:

Rock and Rollin’ with Fats Domino, originally released as Carry on Rockin’ [1], is the 1955 debut album by R&B pianist and vocalist Fats Domino, compiling a number of his hits and other material, some of which would soon become hits [2].

The album, which featured a woodcut portrait of the musician, reached #17 on the Billboard “Pop Albums” chart [3]. It is believed to have been produced by engineer Bunny Robyn due to the notation on the cover “A Robyn Recording” [4].

The album was first released on Imperial Records, catalog #9009 [5], under the title Carry on Rockin’ in November 1955 [6] and reissued under the title Rock and Rollin’ With Fats Domino [7].

Various dates are given for the re-issue [8]. The Great Rock Discography indicates that Imperial 9009 was reissued under alternate title in October 1956 and March 1957, but the Domino biography Blue Monday indicates April 1956 [9].

When Domino left Imperial in 1963 to join Paramount, Imperial retained the rights to this and several other of Domino’s notable albums, reissuing it on LP as recently as 1981. It has subsequently been reissued in conjunction with another early Domino album, Million Sellers By Fats, as Rock and Rollin’ with Fats Domino/Million Sellers By Fats [10].

That is the end of the text from the Wikipedia entry that I am using for this article. There is a little more (song info, track listing, etc.), but it has nothing to do with this issue.


FatsDomino LP 9009 RockAndRollin 800

FatsDomino LP 9009 RockAndRollin side1 800

This is Fats Domino’s second album: Imperial LP-9009, which everyone refers to as just ROCK AND ROLLIN’ because of the jacket. Please notice that the title of the album on the record’s label is simply FATS DOMINO. When the titles on a jacket and a record conflict, the title on the label is usually considered the official title of the album.

Facts are only facts when they’re factual

Here are my comments on the statements above. While this may seem like anywhere from petty to overkill, it’s Wikipedia’s sole purpose is to transfer information. And erroneous information ain’t no information at all.

1.  Carry On Rockin’ was not the original title of this album. Quite the opposite: Carry On Rockin’ was the title given by London Records for the British version of the album released a few months after the US original. London handled manufacturing and distribution of Imperial product in the UK and on the Continent.

2.  Rock And Rollin’ With Fats Domino is a compilation of previously released material, being compiled of sides from hit singles released 1949-1956. Wikipedia got the “would soon become hits” part wrong because they have an incorrect release date for the album (see 6 below).

3.  In the ’50s, the Billboard LP survey was titled “Popular Albums.” Believe it or not, it had only a maximum of thirty positions! It did not expand to 150 positions until 1963, when it was known as “Top LP’s.” And Rock And Rollin’ With Fats Domino didn’t reach #17 on the Billboard survey until March 1957. 2

4.  The note “A Robyn Recording” did not appear on the initial jackets for Imperial LP-9004 (above top); it was added to later jackets (above bottom). Abraham “Bunny” Robyn owned Master Recorders studio in Los Angeles, where he often acted as engineer for the sessions held there—such as the ones with Fats. Domino’s producer was always Dave Bartholomew.

5.  The catalog number for Fats Domino’s first 12” LP album Rock And Rollin’ With Fats Domino is Imperial LP-9004. The catalog number for Fats Domino’s second 12” LP album, the similarly titled Rock And Rollin’ from later in 1956, was Imperial LP-9009. 

6.  Imperial inaugurated its line of 12″ long-playing albums in July 1956 by releasing several titles at once. This included LP-9004, Rock And Rollin’ With Fats Domino.

7.  This sentence has four errors, two of regard the album’s title, which were covered in 1 and 6 above.

8.  Since Wikipedia has the titles confused, they refer to the original title as the re-issue.

9.  Martin Strong’s The Great Rock Discography: Complete Discographies Listing Every Track Recorded by More Than 1,200 Artists appears to be the source of much of the “data” in this Wikipedia entry. Alas, it is one of the most error-ridden and confusing books ever published about any music genre.

Based on this Fats Domino entry and so many other Wikipedia articles on popular music that I have read lately, the Strong book must be required reading for Wikipedia contributors.

10.  What they meant to say is that the two LPs Rock And Rollin’ With Fats Domino (LP-9004) and Million Sellers By Fats (LP-9195) were issued together on one compact disc (Collectables ‎COL-CD-2722). 3


FatsDomino CarryOnRockin UK 800

Here is the British version of ROCK AND ROLLIN’ WITH FATS DOMINO from London Records. Great photo of Fats but the title is rather awkward—unless the phrasing has meaning in England that is lost on us here in the States.

My conclusions will cause confusions

1. The correct title of Fats Domino’s first 33long-playing album (Imperial LP-9004, July 1956) is FATS DOMINO.

2. The correct title of Fats Domino’s second 33⅓ long-playing album (Imperial LP-9009, September 1956) is FATS DOMINO.

3. But let’s continue calling these two albums by their incorrect titles: ROCK AND ROLLIN’ WITH FATS DOMINO (9004) and ROCK AND ROLLIN’ (9009). That way we can differentiate one from the other. 4

Finally, as Mark Twain so famously (but probably never) said, “It ain’t what you know that gets you in trouble—it’s what you know that just ain’t so.”


FatsDomino 1955 color 1000

FEATURED IMAGE: The photo at the top of this page was taken in the mid-1950s. Fats has his trademark flat-top haircut but only two rings.





1   There was a follow-up article titled “50 Neal Umphred Fans Can’t Be Wrong.”

2   That it would take the album eight months to peak may seem weird, but aside from Elvis, rock & roll albums really didn’t sell that many copies in the ’50s—especially those by black rhythm & blues artists.

3   Look up the word conjunction, because the Wikipedia contributor and his editor didn’t.

4   “Most of the time, with the smaller companies and the cheapo budget labels, the cover is correct and the labels contain little information. Imperial wasn’t a cheapo, but it’s clear from the design that they did not really intend to have two albums named only FATS DOMINO. They just didn’t put the title on the label.” (Frank Daniels)



13 thoughts on “rock and rollin’ with fats domino at wikipedia”

  1. By the way, folks, I do maintain that for the first 29 releases in the 9000 series, Imperial did not put the titles of ANY albums on the record label. They listed only the artist name.
    The rest is a rather surprising (or perhaps not!) look at Wikipedia. In some matters, Wikipedia is quite accurate. But when it comes to Fats Domino might as well read tea leaves if Wikipedia is your alternative.

  2. There are more than fifty ten-inch Imperials listed on Both Sides Now. Why they didn’t do one for Fats is strange. I always assume that the record companies assumed that the white folks with the 33 1/3 turntables in the early ’50s weren’t buying that kind of music. At least until rock & roll happened . . .

  3. i looked over the list of 10 inch imperial lps and i see why i only have one of them in my collection, the promo one. i always skip over stuff like this when looking thru records. the reason i kept the promo one is it has a cut that was very popular on my radio shows in col springs in the early 80s. it’s from the early 1950s and it was very difficult to find a clean sounding copy to play on the air. neither of the stations i was on in col springs had a 78 speed on the turntables. it’s on the 10 inch promo lp and sounds quite good. later on i was fortunate to find a new condition 45 of the song. i always featured all the local records i could as long as they were good. [good as in determined by me].

    • By “I always skip over stuff like this when looking thru records” do you mean you skip over 10″ albums or you skip over promos? Because both are ALWAYS worth a look-see: 10″ jazz albums can be very valuable, and you never know what the heck is in a stack of DJ records!

      PS: I listened to Mr Briggs’s record and, well, he’s not my cuppa but it’s good to know that there are still people that want to hear country music without fireworks and bling . . .

    • i don’t think they are as much in demand as they were 5 years or more ago. many lps like this we usta get good money for now sell for the price of a common used record which is about 3 bucks where i sell. most customers want thumpers, boners, and DCH.

      • JER There are more than a few dealers on the Internet getting those “old” prices: guys that have been doing this for a long time, have good reps, and have large inventories. There are people willing to pay good prices for good records in good condition, they just don’t wanna get ripped off anymore by all the yo-yos eBaying the shit they buy at yardsales and not knowing first from third pressings, pr VG- from EX..

  4. The big question then is where did they get November 1955 as the release date? Even the official Fats website touts this as correct, but where did this come from? 

    Maybe its related to the fact the “Poor Me” single which appears on the album is from November 1955, but that’s still pretty strange. 

    The “Bo Weevil” single is from 1956, so 1955 doesn’t even make any sense for a release date of the album.

    • Thank the Lord for the nighttime somebody else in interested in these historical discrepancies!

      My guess is that somebody somewhere womewhen back in the ’60s or ’70s or even ’80s – back when there were almost no reliable sources that writers or fans could refer to for solid research——just guessed (or made up) the Novermber 1955 dat and it’s been passed along by a host of writers who accept it as gospel and don’t think it requires their own research.

      But, what the hey!, I could be wrong ...


Leave a Comment