[78-L] For 78's, What Does Transcription Mean? [ Recovered Message ]

[DKing]

From dlh at donnahalper.com.invalid  Wed Apr  1 08:38:11 2020
From: dlh at donnahalper.com.invalid (Donna Halper)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2020 11:38:11 -0400
Subject: [78-L] For 78's, What Does Transcription Mean?
In-Reply-To: <52964523-4551-45F6-8D87-590B7D083BA3 at gmail.com>
References: <33103D0E-B281-40D9-8F4C-8455DE880476.ref at att.net>
	<33103D0E-B281-40D9-8F4C-8455DE880476 at att.net>
	<1846020597.2276117.1585706693847.JavaMail.open-xchange at mtlgui07>
	<1191946429.93534.1585706752815 at mail.yahoo.com>
	<CF605631-83DA-45B9-952B-ED9A5A1D6940 at att.net>
	<9137b6cc-2cbd-2239-9365-688b9fbcc941 at telia.com>
	<9BE2B294-408B-4115-9EC4-9161EABC9D96 at att.net>
	<52964523-4551-45F6-8D87-590B7D083BA3 at gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9319b1b3-d440-f6cf-4fad-540df0145ad2 at donnahalper.com>

On 4/1/2020 9:14 AM, Rodger J. Holtin wrote:
> ?Transcription? was used rather euphemistically by the broadcasters for years. The networks viewed anything that was recorded as second-class sound, especially early on. The Hindenburg disaster helped to crack their general outright ban of recordings.  Small stations, of course, relied heavily on them and on commercial phonograph records. Some artists attempted to thwart that and some labels of the 78 days even said ?broadcast prohibited,? to little or no avail. ?Electrical Transcriptions? were made just for that purpose and they generally sounded much better than commercial 78s - then and now.
>
> Somebody else can probably fill in more details here. There was also a time when anything recorded that was played over the air had to be identified as such so listeners would know that it was not live. I have heard taped programs that were identified as ?Transcribed in Chicago..? into the 1960s.

Rodger is correct. In fact, until 1932, the Federal Radio Commission 
(FRC) demanded that any time a station played a phonograph record, they 
had to announce that it was recorded and not live-- there was a belief 
that "canned music" was bad, and live music was superior, and this view 
was promoted by various organizations that lobbied for musicians (as 
might be expected). But it was also promoted by the FRC, some of whose 
members sincerely seemed to believe that everyone should? hear only live 
music on the air, rather than being subjected to (gasp) recorded music.? 
Some of this may also have been influenced by the fact that 1920s carbon 
microphones distorted recorded sound, and some records really did sound 
bad when played on radio (Edison himself was not happy about this, and 
he said so).

When the So-A-Tone broadcasts came along in 1929, these short 
recordings? (the first ones were about 5-6 minutes, along with a 
commercial) were some of the first transcriptions on the air.? And there 
was great controversy around whether stations should use them. Radio 
owners were very upset at having to constantly announce that a song had 
been recorded, and as I said, in 1932, the FRC modified its view about 
announcing the playing of a phonograph record. But identifying a 
recorded program as "recorded and transcribed" became the norm. I 
remember hearing this well into the 1950s. It only ended once audiotape 
came into general use at radio stations.

-- 
Donna L. Halper, PhD
Associate Professor of Communication & Media Studies
Lesley University, Cambridge MA

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ this message is based on 78-L email I accidentally deleted ]

Hello Donna, thanks for your detailed explanation of why radio stations
and others felt that “live” was always superior to recorded sound.

It’s remarkable how the technology evolved and pushed forward, but
when it came to broadcast sound the people and their expectations
were stuck in an earlier time.

- Dave King