----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]>
> Can you think of a large number of these examples? I can't. Almost any
jazz tune put out on 78 after
> the advent of the LP was put out on LP, and was probably recorded and/or
mastered on tape. So the 78
> is the worst-case example in that case. BUT BUT BUT, I notice a couple of
obscure versions of Verve
> cuts, versions made to 78 length, ended up on Mosaic anthologies
transferred from the 78 because the
> tape master was either tossed or lost. So perhaps I should say, better
check and make sure there's
> something better quality than the 78 before you consider it worthless. So,
your point taken at least
> part way.
> Kiddie records and novelty things are another matter, but I question the
historical value of most of
> that stuff. I know they were still cutting kiddie records at 78 as late as
1960. A guy named Steve
> Robb was the 78RPM ace at Fine Sound and Fine Recording. He also became
expert at cutting super-loud
> 45RPM singles, which is what radio and jukebox operators wanted. He used
an old Presto mono lathe,
> and was still using it in 1967, but probably not cutting any more 78's. I
think by then, a lot of
> what was coming out of his room were radio-cut LPs (for instance, 10
public service ads per side
> with stop-bands between cuts) and mono 45's.
> -- Tom Fine
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Richter" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 7:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] National Recording Preservation Board (NRPB) Study
> > Tom Fine wrote:
> >> Well, one question immediately comes to mind. Who CARES about 78's
issued after the advent of
> >> tape (1947-48), unless the tape master has been lost? Even if only a
good-condition LP exists
> >> (post-1948), it is almost guaranteed to sound better and have a wider
> >> than the 78. So I ask again, who cares about what's gotta be the vast
majority of late-era 78's?
> >> I mean, they might make a nice novelty, but they have little or no
historical value since they're
> >> a worst-case/obsolete-technology version of something.
> > I could not understand this post until I realized that it assumes that
all 78s issued after 1947
> > or so were also published on LP. Not so in my experience. In addition,
while a transfer to LP may
> > "sound better" in some sense, if the original issue was on 78 and the
content is of value at all,
> > the 78 is the primary (available) source.
> > One may argue which source should be seen as primary when issues were
concurrent in different
> > formats (LP/45, LP/open-reel, ...).
> > Finally, in cases where original tapes, metal parts or other earlier
sources are available, they
> > may or may not be primary and may or may not be appropriate to archive
in some fashion.
> > Mike
> > --
Out of my half-vast archive of some 40 kiloshellacs, I would guess
that, at the most extreme end of estimation, perhaps 2% may have
seen reissue in some form...and at most 1/10 of that saw "legal"
reissue. Keep in mind that my holdings DON'T include any rarities
that I am aware of...and at best could be used to provide an
example of "What everyday North Americans were listening to back
in <select year less than 1956>.
In fact, I suspect that my most promising reissues would come
from my "sub-archive" of about 800 blues records (no rarities
or Robert Johnson alternates). Also, the "record industry"
(about three global firms who hold legal rights to 90-95% of
extant 78's) have so far showed a marked disdain for the
reissue of sides from the acoustically-recorded era!
For one example. there are (AFAIK) NO reissues of "Since Willy
Got a Whippet," a Grey Gull B side of 1929! I'll sing it for
anyone who so desires...