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

[Royal Pemberton]

I know there's a 1942 short showing how Victor made records, and at
that time they still recorded straight onto wax at 78, but did Victor
ever begin simultaneous 33 rpm lacquer session cutting along the lines
of CBS-Columbia's practice?  I'd expect the 33 disc would be the
source for the 45 transfers where they exist.  And when did Victor go
over to lacquer cutting for 78 masters?

It's a little odd that RCA didn't just use their new prefixes for the
45 rpm series, and retain the applicable last 4 digits of the XX-XXXX
numbers the same as used on the 78s, retroactively.  It does appear
that soon enough, they were brought into correspondence on new numbers
when it was determined the 45 wasn't flopping in the marketplace.

It looks like they wanted to re-classify some records--'Texarkana
baby'/'Bouquet....' was on the regular pop series, and (by the looks
of it) was released before RCA had started the 21-XXXX country series
on 78s, where it likely would have been released had that series been
in existence at the time.



On 6/14/09, soundthink at aol.com <soundthink at aol.com> wrote:
> The 78 is 20-2806. Reverse on both the 45 & 78 are "Bouquet of Roses."
>
> Cary Ginell
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Lennick <dlennick at sympatico.ca>
> To: 78-L Mail List <78-l at klickitat.78online.com>
> Sent: Sun, Jun 14, 2009 9:41 am
> Subject: Re: [78-L] 78s and 45s of Texarkana Baby by Eddy Arnold
>
>
>
> 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.
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 78-L mailing list
> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> 78-L mailing list
> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l
>