Re: [ARSCLIST] RCA Victor 20-2765

To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] RCA Victor 20-2765
From: Dick Spottswood <dick@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:05:20 -0500
Comments: To: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <ARSCLIST@loc.gov>
In-reply-to: <00ed01c840a9$df86c020$210110ac@DISCOGRAPHY>
List-archive: <http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=ARSCLIST>
List-help: <http://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?LIST=ARSCLIST>, <mailto:LISTSERV@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV?body=INFO ARSCLIST>
List-owner: <mailto:ARSCLIST-request@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
List-subscribe: <mailto:ARSCLIST-subscribe-request@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ARSCLIST-unsubscribe-request@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV>
Message-id: <OFA8B95664.B87EADD8-ON852573B4.0047CFA5-852573B4.00482763@american.edu>
Reply-to: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx>

Early 45s didn't necessarily duplicate 78 rpm couplings.
ds





Tyrone Settlemier <talk78s.settlemier@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Sent by: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx>
12/17/2007 07:39 AM
Please respond to
Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx>


To
ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx
cc

Subject
Re: [ARSCLIST] RCA Victor 20-2765






By the way, thanks all!  Not only did I discover which title is correct, I 

found the source of my error  Just out of curiosity, when RCA issued 
pre-1949 recordings on 45rpm, why didn't they just use the original 78rpm 
catalog numbers, but with the 47-prefix?  Any particular reason?  They did 

so going forward.

Tyrone

References:
- Re: [ARSCLIST] RCA Victor 20-2765
  - From: Tyrone Settlemier

Prev by Date: Re: [ARSCLIST] RCA Victor 20-2765
Next by Date: Re: [ARSCLIST] Folkways Reissues
Previous by thread: Re: [ARSCLIST] RCA Victor 20-2765
Next by thread: Re: [ARSCLIST] RCA Victor 20-2765
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Table of Contents]

Re: [ARSCLIST] RCA Victor 20-2765

[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents]