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

[David Lennick]

Victor was direct to disc (flowed wax, I think) through 1942..when the ban 
ended, they were recording onto lacquers and dubbing them onto other lacquers. 
In fact one source has suggested that they were recording onto 16-inch discs, 
as were Decca and Columbia and Capitol, and dubbing from those, then tossing 
the originals. Classical recordings in the late 40s are known to have been 
recorded simultaneously on 16-inch safeties, but I don't know what the policy 
was regarding popular music..other than that it sounded like GARBAGE for a 
couple of years. And then they'd send the 3rd generation master up to Canada to 
be redubbed for unsuspecting Canucks, who got to pay ten cents more for these 
off center disasters with clipped first and last notes.

dl

Royal Pemberton wrote:
> 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.
>>>