[78-L] 10" vs. 12" LPs

[David Lennick]

Ten inch LPs didn't die nearly as quickly in Europe as they did here, and they 
died here mainly because they were easy to steal (see, those guys in the 
raincoats weren't just going to girlie shows). I have a few classical stereo 
ten-inchers on HMV and Philips. The format also continued to be handy for radio 
syndication well into the 70s..all those UN Radio and Light Music From The 
Netherlands 15-minute programs, for example.

Don't forget Columbia's push of the 7-inch LP for all formats (One Speed/ Is 
All You Need)..jazz, pop and classical turned up till they finally gave up the 
ghost and adopted the 45 in 1950.

The CL500 series was originally GL and included jazz at the start.

dl

Matthew Duncan wrote:
> In the UK 10" and 12" LPs came out pretty simultaneously in 1950 on the Decca label - classical and opera on 12" discs and a selection of marching band and popular fare on the 10" records...jazz/big band style appeared the following year, mainly on 10" LPs.
>  
> Columbia entered into the LP market in the same manner but in 1952 and HMV and Parlophone (and Parlophone-Odeon the opera side of the label) in 1953 the only difference being that HMV had a larger jazz catalogue than the Decca and Columbia labels but again using this on 10" discs only as a rule until about 1955 as did Columbia when the company issued some Art Tatum and Oscar Peterson material on 12" LPs.
>  
> Smaller labels like Good Time Jazz and Vogue started with LPs in 1952-54 and mainly 10" items to start off with and Tempo followed in maybe 1956 with mainly 12" LPs - all jazz or blues.
>  
> 10" LPs remained around in Britain until 1960 for new releases with Billy Fury on Decca (Sound of Fury) and some comedy was released on major labels in the early 60s on 10" LPs too....some prior comedy releases like Peter Sellers' Best Of Sellers 10" LP from 1958 were still in print long into the 60s.
>  
> But as for US LPs...not too sure!! I have several Columbia House Party LPs with 3 tracks a side by the likes of Benny Goodman which appear to be mid 50s and I guess these remained in the catalogue at least to the late 50s but maybe no more new issues were being made by then....
>  
> Matthew.
> 
> --- On Sat, 12/9/09, Michael Biel <mbiel at mbiel.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: Michael Biel <mbiel at mbiel.com>
> Subject: Re: [78-L] 10" vs. 12" LPs
> To: 78-l at klickitat.78online.com
> Date: Saturday, 12 September, 2009, 7:17 PM
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [78-L] 10" vs. 12" LPs
> From: Cary Ginell <soundthink at live.com>
> Date: Sat, September 12, 2009 12:52 pm
> To: <78-l at klickitat.78online.com>
> 
> 
> Can anyone briefly explain the history of the first decade of the
> long-playing record? These are questions I need to have answered.
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Which came first: 10" or 12" LPs? 
> 
> In all three formats, the Edison LP, the Program Transcription, and the
> Microgroove Lp, both 10 and 12 were issued simultaneously in the first
> release of each.  Looking at the early catalogs for the microgroove Lp,
> every company which issued them issued both sizes right at the start. 
> Many followed the Columbia example by using both 10 and 12 for classical
> but only 10 for pop and kids.  But even here there were exceptions. 
> There were some kids oriented things in the initial Columbia list like
> Treasure Island/Peter and the Wolf on 12. 
> 
> 2) In jazz, why were 10" LPs initially preferred over 12" LPs?
> Look at the early catalogs.  Jazz was not a separate category from pop.
> When Columbia did their earliest 12-inch jazz it was in the ML series
> -- Masterworks.  They had to create the CL500 series for 12-inch pop.  
> One other reason for companies keeping to 10 inch for pop/jazz at first
> is that not all changers could intermix sizes!  Everybody forgets to
> factor in hardware in questions like this.  When playing classical on a
> changer, it was mainly done for sets, which would be uniform in size, of
> course.  Classical single disc albums almost universally needed a
> turnover.  Short classical works up to 30 minutes were on 10-inch and
> were split in half.  If a work was more than 30 minutes it would be
> split on 2 sides of a 12.  At first they mainly resisted putting two 25
> minute works on opposite sides of an LP.  But they soon realized that if
> a work between 15 and 25 minutes could be put on one side, people WOULD
> buy a disc with two different classical works.  That was a new concept
> -- and nobody now remembers that!  
> 
> 
> 3) What was the first label to issue a jazz LP and what was the album?
> (I'm not including previous experimental or failed attempts, such as the
> early '30s RCA Victor "Program Transcriptions). 
> 
> Define jazz???  I think there might be some in the first Columbia
> release, or at least the first Decca or Capitol releases.  Unfortunately
> I do not have my copy of the first Schwann at hand.  That would tell you
> -- but you would have to look thru the pop listings!
> 
> 4) It is my understanding that production of 10" LPs lasted until 1955
> or 1956, if you don't count labels like Folkways, which continued them
> into the '60s. I'm speaking more of the prevailing release schedule of
> popular and classical LPs. 
> 
> The Columbia House Party series was their last gasp at a regular
> release of 10-inch LPs.  Looking thru the monthly new release listings
> in Schwann and The Long Player/Jazz and Pops catalogs in the mid-50s
> would answer your question more precisly, and once again I am not near
> my sets.  
> 
> 5) Why did the 45 rpm format fail with regard to jazz in the 1950s?
> 
> Most of the pop and jazz LPs were also given a 45 version.  But 45
> catalogs are rare.  I recently got a copy of the Harrison 45 catalog Vol
> 1 No 1 and do not know if there were any further issues.  (Harrison is
> mostly noted for the pre-recorded tape catalog and I have about ten
> issues of it.)
> 
> 6) Finally - was the introduction of long-playing records a boon for
> bebop, live concerts, and other longer forms of jazz? And did it
> similarly spell the death knell for other forms of jazz that did not
> need the longer format (swing, Dixieland).   Cary Ginell
> 
> Fantasy, Atlantic, and Blue Note were doing these 20-25 minute jazz
> sides but I think few others were.  I had a camp counseler in 1957 who
> had an album with 25 minute single piece sides he played over and over
> and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
> and over and over and over and over etc that would put him in a trance
> and turned me off avant garde jazz forever.   I don't remember what it
> was, but years later I did see a copy of it.  It had a color photo cover
> and came out of my sub-conscious when I saw it out of the corner of my
> eye.  It brought back many BBBBAAAAAADDDDDDD memories of that summer at
> camp.  It was the worst summer of my life, and it had a wailing soprano
> sax in it.
> 
> Those long-form pieces on LP didn't kill other forms of jazz with
> shorter pieces.  Mitch Miller, Hugo Winterhalter, and Elvis Presley did.
> Music moved on.  And the long form jazz pieces didn't get much MAJOR
> label interest except maybe Monk and Miles -- who along with Coltrane
> completely mystify me.  
> 
> Mike Biel  mbiel at mbiel.com  
> 
> _______________________________