[78-L] 78s and 45s of Texarkana Baby by Eddy Arnold

[David Lennick]

I'm not sure if this is the answer, but when RCA launched the 45 there hadn't 
been any new recordings made for almost a full year (the 1948 ban) so ANYTHING 
they used to launch the label would have been reissues, except for the few new 
recordings made in the last weeks of 1948 when the ban was lifted. So using 
parallel numbers wouldn't have made sense because the original records went 
back a number of years and it took a while to get them into sync.

The situation was also compounded by the 45's playing length of up to 5 
minutes, meaning that 12-inch and 10-inch 78s could be issued in the same 
microgroove format but they'd previously had different numbering systems.

Finally, as with Columbia launching the LP, there was no "first" 45 disc since 
they'd have come out with a whole batch at one time.

dl

agp wrote:
> That's really an interesting find, but does raise a question with 
> regard to the popular notion of Texarkana Baby being the first 45. As 
> a catalog number it is first, but why would RCA not put xx-xxx1 from 
> each serie sin the pack instead of what they used. Only reason I can 
> think is that 48-0001 (Texarkana Baby) was dubbed from the 78 and 
> 48-0027 (Spade Cooley) wasn't even the first not dubbed from 78 as a 
> reissue -- that was 48-0007 from the Sons of the Pioneers
> 
> Odd that
> 
> T
> 
> At 16:13 14/06/2009, you wrote:
>> Check out this recently closed eBoy auction of a promotional package of the
>> first RCA 45s -
>> http://tinyurl.com/nurn92
>>
>> Dave W.
> 
>