[78-L] First LP

[Michael Biel]

From: samhopper at mail.com
> During my research for my Columbia Masterworks discography,
> I found the following information:

What you have found during your research on this matter needs to be
taken with a grain of salt.  Columbia was not the only company mastering
on lacquer safeties.  Decca also was, and their masters were Western
Electric Wide Range Vertical recordings which would blow away ANYTHING
Columbia was recording.  This is why some of the early Decca LPs sound a
whole lot better than the early Columbias.

> "What is more surprising however, is the little known fact that
> Columbia had the foresight and marketing nonce to see the huge
> potential of the LP record as far back as the late 1930s -
> a decade before it was technically possible to produce a salable
> version of the product. In 1939, through it progressive and
> risk-taking management, Columbia capitalized on the future
> potential of the LP by introducing a policy of recording on
> ‘sixteen inch acetate discs recorded at the speed of 33 and 1/3
> for safeties on everything recorded by Columbia, Okeh, Vocalion
> and Harmony.’ [2] ‘This was so that it could be more immediately
> transferred to microgroove when the time was right.’ [3]

BALONEY.  There was no assurance there would be an LP.  If they were
doing it for the LP, they would have made the recordings LP length, not
78 length.  This is written in hindsight.

> This, ahead-of-its-time policy clearly illustrated that the management
> of Columbia Records was innovative and progressive to new ideas,
> marketing strategies and technical innovation.

Then what would you make of Decca's use of HIGHER QUALITY safeties
mastering than Columbia?  Also remember, Decca had started its series of
albums in late 1937 and had about 125 of them issued with illustrated or
colorful covers before Columbia resumed their popular album series in
March/April 1940.  

> As a result of this important in-house development, their on-going
> development of its LP format led to the ground breaking use of vinyl
> for record production - often called ‘vinylite’ for some 78 rpm and
> all early LP releases.[4]

RCA Victor started using Ruby Red Vinylite in their Red Seal De Luxe 78s
in 1946.  During the war the V-Discs RCA pressed were exclusively vinyl,
while the Columbia V-Disc pressings were heavy, breakable laminated
shellac.  They cost twice as much to ship overseas, and the paper in the
laminated pressings did not fare well in the damp tropics and ocean
voyages.  What are the "some 78 rpm" releases Columbia was doing?  Only
their kids records, right?  ANY others?????  Cosmo was the pioneer of
using vinyl in kids records, and Victor was using it also early on by
1947. So was Decca.  Their whole CU series was vinyl, and they were also
pressing some of their pop albums and singles in vinyl. I see no
Columbia 78s in that era in vinyl.  Victor was the heads-on leader in
vinyl pressing in 78s, and Columbia was a copycat of the use of vinyl in
LPs from the Program Transcription -- Wallerstein admits it in the piece
I referenced in my prior posting. 

> This development helped Columbia become the number one distributor of LP’s by as early as 1949.

Because they were the ONLY distributor of LPs then.  The other companies
only started in early 1949.  You have GOT to stop reading this corporate
propaganda.

> As Holmes writes in The Routledge Guide to Music Technology, ‘by this time,
> Columbia and several other LP labels had taken over the classical music area.
> Columbia stood for the first time as the dominant rival in the half-century
> struggle with Victor.’ [5] 

Which only proves that they had spend a half century BEHIND Victor!  But
give me sales figures.  I need proof. What is "by this time"??  I still
see more RCA Victor LPs from the 50s than Columbia.  "Dominant rival"
does not mean that they were outselling Victor, it only means that of
the rivals, those "several other LP labels", Columbia was dominant of
them.  Together those labels might be outselling Victor, but probably
not Columbia alone.  

> Improved attempts at making quieter (as well as lighter) recordings
> with vinyl instead of shellac made the LP a more economically,
> light-weight and aurally better product."

Sounds like a good advertisement for VICTOR, not Columbia, if you know
the real facts.

> See: http://www.scribd.com/doc/30624296/Columbia-Masterworks-78rpm-Discography-v1-9

I have and I like what you are doing, but gosh, must we have this
corporate propaganda?

Mike Biel  mbiel at mbiel.com