Re: [ARSCLIST] Speaking of 16" transcriptions

[David Lennick <dlennick@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tom Fine wrote:
> Here's a somewhat related question.
>
> Back in the direct-to-disk (first era) days, if a band came in with a 
> long chart, one that everyone knew would be released as "Part I" and 
> "Part II", was the wax cut larger than 10" and then later dubbed/divided 
> onto 10" masters? I would think that you could fit, for instance, "Sing 
> Sing Sing (Christopher Columbus)" complete on a 16" metal part, but all 
> the CD reissues seem to be digital splicing of two 10" masters.
>
> -- Tom Fine
Recording onto a 16" master for re-dubbing wasn't even a reality till 1939, and 
even then the tracks were always the length they would ultimately be on 78 RPM. 
But "Sing Sing Sing" WAS dubbed down to a 10-inch master from the two 
twelve-inch sides (a few other discs suffered this ignominy)..lots of music 
lost, but now they could fit in the juke box.

dl