Interesting history lesson: the 45 rpm record

[Eric Iverson]

I came across "the 45 rpm record" by Fran Blanche on Youtube- a BLAST FROM THE PAST for sexagenarians and may be interesting as a curiosity to the whippersnappers in the audience.

Fran is very knowledgeable about sound production and has other interesting items.

[whitefang]

Why no link?

 

Anyway, I'll try to take a look. If it helps explain the reason behind that big hole in the center, then it's worth the effort.

 

The guy who invented that weird shaped plastic adapter that snapped in it must've made a FORTUNE! I know I spent a TON of money buying those things. Finally got wise and bought an adapter that fit over the phonograph's "spindle" and did away with them.

Whitefang

[desertbluesman]

I remember we had a 45 RPM only record player when I was a kid and lived in the parents house. They had that fat tower to stack the records as a non removable part. That was when 33 RPM LP's had not yet come out, and 78's were passe and no longer popular. When LP's came out then you needed that adapter that Fang talked about above to make your new 3 speed record player play 45's. (You had to buy a new record player because your 45 RPM only player would not play LP's)

 

[desertbluesman]

http://historysdumpster.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-history-of-45-rpm-record.html

 

Scroll down a little to see the 45 RPM only record player

[Larryz]

I was around with the 45 only players and with the 45 juke boxes (which out lasted them)...They were not very high quality players back then, but they could play all the A sides and you could stack them that way. I remember the adapters too...pretty cool!

[whitefang]

DBM, as 33 1/3 rpm records were in the development stages before WWII and work on them suspended for the duration of the war, the "long playing" (LP) discs weren't introduced to the consumer market until 1948, in both 10" and 12" sizes(remember Bullmoose Jackson's old tune?)

 

The 45 followed a year later in '49. So your timeline confuses me a bit.

Whitefang

[desertbluesman]

DBM, as 33 1/3 rpm records were in the development stages before WWII and work on them suspended for the duration of the war, the "long playing" (LP) discs weren't introduced to the consumer market until 1948, in both 10" and 12" sizes(remember Bullmoose Jackson's old tune?)

 

The 45 followed a year later in '49. So your timeline confuses me a bit.

Whitefang

 

Well, it was uncommon for me to play albums in my high school years. We had a 45 RPM only record player because everyone in the 50's in my neighborhood played only 45's. I do not really know when albums became popular enough for folks to buy them but I assume it was in the early 60's before I ever bought an whole album on a single disk, before that all I ever bought was 45's because the record player we had played only 45's. Later on when full long play albums became popular then the 3 speed record player came into vogue (in my neighborhood in Philly).

 

Never heard of Bullmoose Jackson. I began listening to music regularly in the Mid 50 with Elvis. I began buying albums in the mid 60's. That is when I bought my first 3 speed record player. Listening to the Temptations, Smokey and the Miracles, Gladys Night and the Pips, Motown more than anything, and lots of A-Capella stuff until the psychedelic years in the late 60's.

 

I was talking about popular records in my neighborhood which were 45's in the 50's and later on in the 60's 33-1/3rd.

 

My point was; there were 45 RPM only record players as well as 3 speed players back then, and the 45 only players had a fat spindle with no way to play 78's or 33-1/3. That is why I posted the above. Did you look at the picture down on the page link I posted above? That was the whole point of why the 45's had the big hole.

[Eric Iverson]

It was an important change in pop music culture when the mentality changed from rock singles to rock ALBUMS.

 

Reminding me that I once read that rock'n'roll musicians would have laughed if told them they were "artists" in the early '60s, but a few years later would be offended if you told them they WEREN'T, LOL.

[whitefang]

Well, our old phonograph, like most made in the '40's( my Mom said she and my "biodad" bought it in '47) had the skinny "spindle" which also helps explain (a bit) of why some early R&B and R'n'R singles were released in both 78 AND 45 rpm versions. I did a few times over the years here tell about my having an old copy of Little Richard's "Tutti Frutti" on a 78rpm disc. At the same time, a buddy's older sister had it on a 45. And it had the same label, which also at the time confused me a bit. I mean, WHY would a record company put out a record on both 78 and 45?

 

And that old phonograph of ours ('47) had THREE speeds( 78, 45 and 16 rpm) and I don't recall EVER seeing a 16rpm disc. ANYWHERE! Plus, the only 45rpm only record player I ever saw was stored somewhere in back of my Jr. high's A/V storeroom. and brought out only for school dances whenever they couldn't afford to hire some local band. And around the house we had 33rpm LPs (a couple anyway) when I was a kid in the mid to late '50's. Most notably, a Christmas LP by Fred Waring, "Now Is The Caroling Season"('57) which is still my favorite Christmas album, and I now have it on a CD reissue. So it seems everybody's history with buying recorded music differs notably from one another's. Like, one day my Grandmother agreed to buy an LP for both me and my brother one day. He picked some Roy Rogers LP, and my choice was Ricky Nelson's "Ricky Sings Again" ('59). Both had just come out at the time.

 

BTW: Benjamin "Bullmoose" Jackson was a '40's and '50's bluesman that had a big "hit" with a song called, "Big Ten Inch Record" in '52.

 

Now, PLEASE don't tell me you thought it was an Aerosmith "original"!

Whitefang

[Larryz]

I mean, WHY would a record company put out a record on both 78 and 45?

 

Whitefang

 

I remember reading something about this with regard to Elvis and others and Sun Records. At first Elvis and others sold more on 78's than on 45's so they continued doing both and not just at Sun Records. The reason given was that people throughout the middle of the country could not afford to convert to those new 45 rpm record players. It was like when 4 track, then 8 track and then cassette players came out and now CD's and DVD's. Everyone has to switch records and players. The 45's were the new kid on the block and were cheap to buy and trade singles with and a big hit with the teens. The 45 players were also billed as the fastest song changers on the planet. Songs that would fit on a 78 were to long for 45's. So 45's could be used to record the whole song on two 45's and the changer would change so fast you hardly missed the space in between waiting for the second half of the song to play. So, as more people could afford to convert their players to play 45's, the record companies started dumping the old 78's...

[desertbluesman]

BTW: Benjamin "Bullmoose" Jackson was a '40's and '50's bluesman that had a big "hit" with a song called, "Big Ten Inch Record" in '52.

 

Ok Fang, I do remember it an Aerosmith song. Never heard of Benjamin "Bullmoose" Jackson, or I do not remember hearing it as his version anyways.

[whitefang]

OK then. Treat yourself to a listen:

 

 

I remember hearing the tune on that Chicago station back when I snuck listens to my brother's crystal radio when I was a kid.

 

Of course, at the time, I didn't get the "double entendre".

Whitefang

[Fred_C]

Aerosmith covered Big Ten Inch back in the seventies. It was a fun take on the tune.

 

 

Not surprisingly, I prefer the original.

 

Apologies. I had not noticed that the Aerosmith version had previously been discussed in this thread.

[Larryz]

I don't know Brother Fred, I really like that Aerosmith version over the original LOL! It's a fun tune, a little risqué, but fun! I hope for the gals sake he's talking record size!

[whitefang]

Well, yeah. He was. That sly usage WAS the "fun" in the record, In both Bullmoose's and Aerosmith's.

 

And I think Aerosmith's version is alright, but too, prefer the original.

Whitefang

[Mark Schmieder]

My parents have a number of jazz "albums" (classical as well) from the early to mid 50's, that are "boxed sets" of 45's, with two songs per side.

 

The 10" 33-1/3 rpm EP was an interim step, and got resurrected now and again for in-between released (though in the UK such EP releases were usually done as double-45's with two songs per side).

 

During the disco and new wave eras, 12" 45 rpm's were popular for higher fidelity and astounding dynamic range.

[whitefang]

Y'all know my penchant for scouring thrift shops for old LPs, eh?

 

And over the years I've run across several of those "two songs a side" 45s. I even bought a few, though long enough ago that I don't now recall who the artists were, or the songs on them(and they're buried somewhere in the basement at the moment.)

 

I've even seen a few of those old 10" LPs, and bought one of Vladimir Horowitz playing some Chopin pieces.

 

It appears to be vinyl, but a much thicker and heavier slab than the LPs I'm more used to. It doesn't seem to have the same amount of "flex" the newer LPs do. Some of my much older early '60's LPs are like that too.

 

When my Grandmother's step-daughter died she left behind not only one of those old record cases that held 45s, but also a "box" set of 45s called "Harry Belefonte's greatest hits". I am in possession of it too. If and when I get time later, I'll hunt all of those down and get back with more info on them.

Whitefang

[Mark Schmieder]

Not to get too OT, but there's a used music store in Salem or Gloucester (i forget which) that may have gone under or gone on-line by now, that has every format that ever existed.

 

Some were ones that I thought had just been twisted figments of my dream world, but when I saw them again, I realized that I had encountered them earlier in my life and that they had thus popped up in dreams now and then.

 

These were mostly short-lived formats in the early days, either between acetate, spindles, and 78's, or maybe after those formats or even coincident. I have once again forgotten what they were -- very different!

 

Of course, in the 60's -- forgetting 8-tracks, which had "interesting" cross-talk between channels -- 7" reel-to-reel was what classical purists went for if they really wanted hi-fi. It was a major commercial release format back in the day. Many have forgotten.

 

 

[Scott Fraser]

Not to get too OT, but there's a used music store in Salem or Gloucester (i forget which) that may have gone under or gone on-line by now, that has every format that ever existed.

Some were ones that I thought had just been twisted figments of my dream world, but when I saw them again, I realized that I had encountered them earlier in my life and that they had thus popped up in dreams now and then.

These were mostly short-lived formats in the early days, either between acetate, spindles, and 78's, or maybe after those formats or even coincident. I have once again forgotten what they were -- very different!

Of course, in the 60's -- forgetting 8-tracks, which had "interesting" cross-talk between channels -- 7" reel-to-reel was what classical purists went for if they really wanted hi-fi. It was a major commercial release format back in the day. Many have forgotten.

 

My vote for the most obscure consumer music format ever goes to the Elcaset. Anybody remember?

[whitefang]

BARELY!

 

Extra large audio cassette that the VHS vieo cassette reminded me of whent THEY came out. I had a buddy, a self-proclaimed "audiophile" who went in for all that stuff.

 

Sunk tons of money into quadraphonic when hardly anybody was making them or even bohering to record 4-channel sound. And even then, it required a few "extra" boxes to hook up to quad recievers in order to get "true" quadraphonic sound.

 

He too, shelled out big bucks for Elcassette players and tapes. That format only lasted till the near end of the '70's. I think the idea was to get "reel-to-reel" sound in both prerecorded music and the consumer's recordings, but with the conveinience the smaller cassette tapes offered. Y'know, eliminate the need for threading the tape each time you changed what you wanted to hear. I must admit that based on what I heard from my buddy's stuff, it sounded MUCH better than the much smaller cassettes.

 

BTW: I found that Belefonte box set easy enough. It's actually called "The Best Of Belefonte" and contains 10 45rpm discs with two songs each side. Total of 40 tunes. I'm not sure whether or not Mark was referrencing the Elcaset or not. But how many recall in the mid to late '80's,there was an attempt at something called DAT(digital audio tape)? A few DJ's I worked with when doing wedding photography used them, but I didn't notice any outstanding sound quality in any of the tapes they used. But they were able to program which tracks they wanted played much like you could program which tracks you wanted played on a CD.

Whitefang

[Scott Fraser]

But how many recall in the mid to late '80's,there was an attempt at something called DAT(digital audio tape)? A few DJ's I worked with when doing wedding photography used them, but I didn't notice any outstanding sound quality in any of the tapes they used. But they were able to program which tracks they wanted played much like you could program which tracks you wanted played on a CD.

Whitefang

 

DAT was a real format, intended to be a replacement for cassettes in the consumer market, where it failed utterly. However, it was adopted & widely used in all studio work throughout the 80s & 90s. Every studio had DAT machines, it became the de facto standard 2 track format until computers became powerful enough to record to hard disk. I still have a couple DAT decks here. DAT sound quality is exactly the same as CD format, 16bit @ 44.1k or 48k.

[whitefang]

Yeah. And after CDs hit the market, some were still playing around with how to record for them and mixing. At first everyone recording digitally, then mixing digitally and placing it all on a digital format. THEN we started getting variables like DDD, ADD, and AAD.

 

Remember. When CDs first came out there were those "purists" who insisted that vinyl LPs had a "richer" sound and CDs sounded too "sterilized".

 

Personally, to MY ears, AAD discs provide the "closest to vinyl" sound.

Whitefang

[Larryz]

I remember those businesses that opened up many a store to convert those 45's and 33's to custom 4 tracks and then 8 tracks so we could play them in our cars. They went the way of video rental stores LOL! But, there were a lot more people back in the day making their own custom reel to reels from their favorite records. 45 singles were easy to deal with but they were mono. 33's were stereo which in a car allowed front to back and side to side if you had a stereo player deck. Most of them were also mono though back in the day. In the early 70's I had a Sony turntable that had an 8 track recorder and could make my own custom car tape. Later the cassette tapes made the scene and you could fit a lot more tapes in the glove compartment LOL! I liked taking the best cuts off of my 33's and the recordings came out much better for me than using 45's in those days.

 

I still like mono playback through a guitar amp using vinyl when I want to get loud when the wife is out shopping! Vinyl records get more of the sound of a live band than CD's (especially on the drums) IMHO. I'm now using and collecting DVD's on Blue Ray to get good sound on live band performances with video! I'll take the standard DVD's if I can't find the artists on Blue Ray. This method too will pass away some day commercially.

[d halfnote]

Why no link?

Posted by the cat who can't post a link !!!!

[whitefang]

I have no problem posting links. Just some have trouble accessing them.

 

Anyway, it all has nothing to do with why the OP didn't post a link.

 

@LARRY: Back in the "day" if one recollects, LPs were released in both Mono and stereo versions. Some also, if you recall, suggested using a different needle if you were going to play a stereo record on a mono player, or vice-versa. And I also remember some LPs I had, in the back liner notes, making suggestions on how to make adjustments for the "RIAA curve" Must've been aimed at those early "audiophiles" that had some pretty high-end sound equipment I guess.

 

A lot of people, as you did, made bunches of compilation cassette tapes for their car players. And some carried it over when the switch was made to CDs and then their having home PCs with a burner. And the small cottage businesses that would convert all your vinyl LPs to CD that I knew of have also long gone out of business. Even their including transferring VHS to DVD didn't keep them alive.

Whitefang

[Mark Schmieder]

The RIAA curve has nothing to do with being audiophile or not. It's similar to FM broadcasting needing an encoder at one end and a decoder at the other end. You have to invert the encoding at some point!

 

The reason for the RIAA curve is that it improved the dynamic range of vinyl and diminished the likelihood of the cutting lathe skipping during manufacturing, resulting in economic losses.

 

In some ways, the dolby encoding of cassettes followed from this tradition.

[Larryz]

@ Fang, perhaps you're right as I'm getting too old to remember anything without looking it up LOL! but, I did have a two needle cartridge that flipped over in an old HiFi back in the day, like the ones they used to make in their own cabinets (much like the old TV's). I'm pretty sure it was for the 33/78 selection that was being flipped. After the 78's went south along with the 2 needle cartridges, I only saw single needles out there on turntables. My single needle player played both stereo and mono...

[whitefang]

Yeah, that old phonograph I refer to had one of those "flip over" cartridges too. And in a tone arm that measured their tracking weight by OUNCES instead of GRAMS!

 

Back in the "day"(again) before I could afford to buy a much better turntable, my "audiophile" friend converted my cheap BSR turntable from ceramic to magnetic cartridge use and even had a little scale for measuring tracking weight. The tone arm of the BSR had a little round piece of plastic extending off the back of it and he used a couple of FAUCET WASHERS as counterweights to get it to track at 1.5 grams.

Whitefang

[Eric Iverson]

It IS interesting to see how technology changes over time, and people come up with things that don't stand the test of time, for whatever reason.... but the human impulse to make and listen to music remains constant.

Exactly WHY we feel this need isn't clear, since it isn't essential to our biological survival, but it seems to meet an important EMOTIONAL need.

[whitefang]

Indeed Eric. And an intereting point. Think about it...

 

As babies, Mothers would sing us lullabys. We'd go on to learn "Eensy-Weeny spider" and "London Bridge" and such. We'd watch movies and TV shows that always had music of some kind playing in the background. Film makers even learned how to USE music to evoke a desired emotional response in certain scenes.

 

We did our homework, housework and even worked on our cars with a radio playing. And now(and for some time) we even mow our lawns or just take walks with some portable device pumping music in our ears. And restaraunts and department stores have music piped in over a system in their places. Even WITHOUT some device to play music for us some would WHISTLE when they worked. I often heard the lady next door to me sing while she was doing the dishes! Had a nice voice...

Whitefang