[78-L] Not only vinyl..now at 45RPM

[David Lennick]

Michael Biel wrote:
> From: "Martin Fisher" <wmfisher at mtsu.edu>
>> Naaaah! This isn't for DJs. This stuff is aimed at the
>> high end audiophile geeks.
> 
> From: <fnarf at comcast.net>
>>> This is for DJs, who mostly spin 12" 45s, and don't want to have to
>>> change speeds (and worse, remember to change them back) when they're
>>> cutting something in.
> 
> Naaaaa.  Martin is right, this isn't for DJs, and you actually have it
> completely backwards.  In the U.S. the DJs HATED 12-inch 45s and FORCED
> the companies to STOP MAKING 12-inch 45s.  They did not like the
> confusion between 12-inch LPs and the 12-inch 45s because the record
> companies were too stupid to make different label formats for the
> different speeds like most of them had done at the introduction of the
> LP and then stereo.  ALL American 12-inch disco singles are at 33
> (except for some of the earliest.) 

And I have 7-inch discs with small holes with no speed marked on the label, and 
of course there's that famous bonus disc Columbia included in a Lazar Berman 
album which has a large hole, no speed marked, and which turned out to be 33RPM 
(but sounded better at 45).
> 
> 
> The European DJs, being smarter than American DJs, did like the better
> sound and punch of the 12-inch 45s, but they already had overcome the
> additional problem of European 7-inch discs which could be either 45 or
> 33 with the small hole.  In the U.S. almost all companies followed the
> industry standard for 7-inchers of having the 45s with large holes and
> the 33s with small holes, so American DJs were pissed off when the
> companies made look-alike 12-inch records at both speeds.  
> 
In the early 60s there was a classical label called Quarante-Cinq which didn't 
last long, mostly because they reissued old sounding (but stereo) masters from 
labels like Concert Hall.

dl