Why not go on record...?
A few years ago, I read somewhere as to why some 45 rpm record singles had different centres. (No, I don't mean like chocolates with different flavoured centres - records are for playing, not eating.) Some had large holes in the middle and were made that way and others had 3 or 4 pronged centres that could be pushed out to give them larger holes. If I remember correctly, the large holed ones (featuring American artistes) were made in the States (and one or two other countries) so that the could be played on jukeboxes, and also because US domestic record-players had larger (as in wider, circumference-wise) spindles.
The ones made in the UK had the 3 or 4 pronged push-out centres, so that they could be exported to other countries whose record players had the US-type spindles. These centres also had a small hole in the middle so that they could be played in the UK, so, effectively, they were 'dual purpose' centres. So I know why the differences exist, but here's something where my memory is failing me on. With a few records, I have two copies of the same disc, one with just the small hole in the centre, the other with the push out (if required) middle part. In some cases, the reason may simply be that one is a later pressing, but would I be right in thinking that, sometimes, both versions (of the same record) would be available at the same time?
Why does it matter? Well, when I have record which says 'Recording first published in 1968' (for example), I'd like to think that my pressing was made in 1968 and not 1976 or whenever. On the Suzie Quatro example shown here, you can see that one says 'Made in the Republic of Ireland' though both say that they were 'Made in Gt. Britain', so in this instance, one was made on the mainland (I assume), and the other was made in Ireland, but both count as being British made. Is it simply that a different pressing plant was responsible for one style of record than the other? Or is it more complex (or even more simple) than that? What I'm asking, just to be clear, is could both versions of each single have been pressed in the same respective years?
Any record collectors out there who know for sure? Please refresh my memory.
18 comments:
Not 100% why they pressed the same single in UK and Ireland but I know that a lot of early punk and new wave singles were published in Ireland as they could press limited numbers (1,000 copies) which was not a lot back in the day, so they could be limited re runs, a second pressing or additional copies to the first pressing due to good sales etc. Irish pressers used the pop-out centres in many cases on punk records sometimes with no centre. First pressings on records are noted in the run off part of the single (the smooth bit at the end of the record sometimes scratched on) And a first pressing can be pressed in a different plant with different artwork, labels etc as long as it's pressed from the first original master of the recording , so these could both be first pressings despite one being made in UK and one in Rep of Ireland.
That's interesting, McS. Any thoughts about the two different versions of Those Were The Days? I'm told that when a '60s song is a later pressing, the record can be slightly thinner and the audio level not as high, but I haven't compared the volume between the two versions of this one yet. Both could be '60s pressings, but it's just odd that the centres are different.
All I know is that second pressings can have poorer audio quality based on as you note, the thickness of the vinyl used,the quality of the actual vinyl and the quality of the mother stamper used from any master copy to transfer the music to the record. Its an accepted part of all vinyl that later pressings (as opposed to remasters) generally have poorer audio vibrancy . Great single that but I have no specific knowledge of it's history I'm afraid. I'm sure there are some record geeks here that can help as it's a complex area for collectors.
I didn't know about poorer audio quality for later pressings, McS, my understanding was that the audio level (as in volume) is lower, but not necessarily poorer per se. I'm going to play both versions shortly and see if there's any difference between them. Cheers.
I never bought vinyl singles so I don't know anything about them but why is there a picture of a boat on the Suzi Quatro single? Was the boat exclusive to that particular single?
Quite simply, CJ, that was the record company's standard label for all their singles at that time. Probably even for their LPs too.
I'm not entirely sure but I think the modern singles chart is now compiled by the amount of streaming a song gets rather than actually buying the song and owning it. It seems to be increasingly difficult to buy a song anyway - you could buy a song from Google's Music Play app but that app is being discontinued and replaced by the new YouTube Music app which only does streaming apparently with no opportunity to buy any songs. I've just bought a new mobile phone which has the YouTube Music app pre-installed but the old Google Music app is not on the phone. It seems that Google prefers its' customers to pay a monthly subscription to stream songs rather than actually buying any songs to own. And even my local Tesco has reduced its' CD section to merely a few shelves - is the age of buying music at an end??
I hope it isn't at an end, CJ, because I prefer to have an actual cd in my possession - then it's MINE. The way you've just described is like renting music tracks rather than buying them. I'm told that songs don't have to 'sell' anywhere near as many as they used to in order to make the charts these days.
Today's singles and LP charts (if you can really still call them that) are based on sales of free and paid streams on audio and video as well as physical sales. In the US 100,000 paid for download streams equal 1,000 sales and 600,000 free downloads equal 1,000 sales . Added to that are physical sales of any vinyl releases or digital copies (ones you can keep) I think.its the same in the UK and other countries. The average top 40 Billboard single had only 8,000 sales and a number 1 was 100,000 sales. For LPs an average top 40 album had 60,000 sales, but the charts were always dodgy to being downright corrupt. I have to admit that streaming is good I have Spotify and have hundreds of thousands of songs available (maybe even a million) all on a small phone and have bought lots of music etc for my digital Walkman and it's great no clutter.... But vinyl , CD are for me still the best but I can't be bothered with 100s of albums around the house so only buy classics. Cassettes have also made a comeback . Its not the same as it was but has its positives
No clutter indeed, McS, but I love having the sleeves or inserts with piccies and information on them to look at and read to my heart's content. It's a bit like comics, in that I'd rather have the physical item, as opposed to just seeing it on a computer screen. Nostalgia seems to be the primary reason for the revival of cassettes, as they were forever getting tangled or snapped, and it took forever to Fast forward or rewind to a particular track. They were really quite a primitive piece of technology when compared to how things are today, eh?
I got a cassette Walkman that had Bluetooth so can play it anywhere and the quality is pretty good. More a gadget toy but fun as can play some of my old cassettes for the first time in over 40 years.
I've still got loads of old cassettes, McS - don't think I'll ever throw them away. I've transferred some onto cd, and will do more in the future when I have the time and energy. (So much to do, so little time.)
I still own a pack of TDK blank cassettes which I keep for old times sake. I always chose TDK when buying cassettes.
I've got several blank cassettes as well, CJ, still in their cellophane. Opened one only a month or two back to test one of my cassette players.
Sometimes there were many variants of each single, Kidda and serious collectors try and get them all!
Here is just one example!
http://www.45cat.com/record/2058339
Guess I'm not a serious collector then, JP - I wouldn't have room for as many variants as the ones at that link. I'm just hoping that, where's there's two variants (3 or 4 pronged centre, or full plastic with small spindle) they were both available in the same year. Seems like sometimes they were, other times one's a later pressing years down the line.
As soon as one batch of pressings sold out, it was pot luck what the next batch would be like.
Whereas some singles only came out with one label!
Yeah, it's confusing for a non-expert, JP. I tend to associate the pronged centres with the '60s, but I don't think every '60s record was like that.
Post a Comment