1949-early 1950's, merging singles into 45 RPM box sets / "Albums"

Hey all, This HAS been touched upon before here: https://discogs.librosgratis.biz/forum/thread/371077#3442168
However the thread is closed, and cannot be discussed further. Now, I have, and have had a LOT of these 45 RPM albums in the box, and sometimes I have just had the individual, single disc, without any box. Why? Because. They were also sold that way. I offer the following text from a relevant history book called "45 RPM: The History, Heroes, and Villains of a Pop Music Revolution".

Let's look closely at page 29: "RCA also first issued its first albums, catag them under a separate system with lettered prefixes: Red Seal classical albums were WDM, as in WDM-1220 for Ravel's 'Bolero'; light classical were prefixed WK, children's records were WY and the rest were WP. Typically these packages contained three or four singles, but rather than combine them in the traditional 78 album book form, RCA presented them in a flat 7 3/8 X 7 3/8 box. Again, these these were reissues of earlier albums, such as the Delta Rhythm Boys' 1947 'Dry Bones' (WP-193), but the discs inside, besides bearing their WP numbers, were sequentially numbered as RCA singles, so that they could also be sold individually, independent of the box"

If we look closely, 2 lessons are actually learned here:

Not all boxed 45 discs are a "box set", but were actually declared an album.

Even though anywhere from 2 to 8, 45 discs might have come in a box, or an 'album', they could all be purchased individually, without any box.

We also need to , RCA Victor was the inventor of the 45 record, and the first Company to issue them. Under agreement, RCA Victor also pressed up 45's for Capitol records at it's Camden pressing plant in the early months because Capitol had no 45 presses in their Southern California pressing plant.

I think It would be safe to say RCA's practices regarding the 45 record would have been the standard in those early times from March 1949 to early 1950. This would not include Columbia however, as they were sticking to their 10" & 12" 33 1/3 RPM LP records, and calling THEM albums. There is also evidence that RCA & possibly other companies continued to offer "albums" in both 33 RPM, and 45 RPM formats after the January 1950 'truce' between RCA & Columbia when they embraced and began production of both of the new speed formats.

So the fact remains, every 45 single that MIGHT have come in a box, may not have ever been a part of a box set / or boxed album as RCA would refer to them as.

So why is it some insist upon stuffing those single 45 discs into a box set??

Since they were also sold as singles, why can't they exist in the database that way also??

I think they should.

I can tell you, I have come across MANY 'loose' 45's that again, may or may not have been in a box set. It is not easy to try to sell what some would believe is one record that was from a set of 6, missing 5 records and the box.

This is an prime example:
https://discogs.librosgratis.biz/release/5308210-Rumba-De-Cuba/history?utm_campaign=release-merge&utm_medium=pm&utm_source=relationship#latest

Comments and thoughts are welcome. Thanks for reading all of this!

I realise it might take some research but is there any contemperaneous advertising from the time to your position?

If so that would be good additional evidence in my opinion.

Does the book provide any sources?

Edit: Typo

Unfortunately, the book provides 4 pages of sources - in no specific order though. I'd imagine that since many references are from "The Billboard" magazine, we should be able to find some references there in the 194-1950 era of their publications.

Ross of scarcesounds has a huge library of label discographies. This is where it will be confirmed of they are part of a set only, separately only or release both separately and part of the set. I have a few myself and the books do specify this. Sometimes having the box / album separate to the discs too.

This Album concept and terminology pre-dates the 45rpm vinyl by a long way. I have some 78s in this form from the 1930s and I'm sure some exist from earlier still when long classical works were spread over several 3 minute or so sides. An early 1930s release of Handel's Messiah has over 30 discs in the set.

I'd suggest for those releases documented from original label catalogues and discographies that they were released both separately and together, they should be in the database as part of the set and each disc having a 2nd entry as the separate disc with release notes to say why they have their own entry

ynpguy
I'd imagine that since many references are from "The Billboard" magazine, we should be able to find some references there in the 194-1950 era of their publications.

Yes, … also valuable help for me were Jazz artist discographies in the web as most Red Seals I edited were from well-known jazz musicians.

Yes some box sets were actually collections of individual records [ie. the records in the album or box were NOT specially released in that form]. An example I have in front of me is the 1952 Decca box set 9-316 titled "No Name Jive" by Glen Gray and the Casa Loma Orchestra. The records in the box are the following 45 rpm singles: 9-25057, 9-25139, 9-25323 & 9-25324. The box set is also described on the insert inside the box as "Decca Album 9-316".

So the above box set or album actually consists of various records which were issued separately. And interestingly although 3 of the 4 individual records state they are part of "Album No. 9-316" one record (9-25057) does not show these details and makes no mention is is part of the album at all.

While there is absolutely no uniformity as some album sets or box sets were definitely issued only in that form, there are certainly cases where the records in an album or box set were also available as individual releases separately.

Exactly!! No wonder it is recommended to bring a problem here in a forum. I have forgotten about that. I too, have seen some box sets that have records in them that are not sequential in their numbering, and some might mention an album number, while others do not. I bet some of my old catalogs for RCA, Capitol and such have these 'singles' listed as available ala carte.

djcarbines - 30 shellac 10" discs!! Good lord, you need a cart just to move that 'album' to another room!!
I would imagine it would have to be housed in at least 3 album books...

pinging teninchfan to discussion.

To revive this thread, I have found proof in the "RCA Victor Records, 1951 - The Music America Loves Best" catalog. Here is a prime example on this merge request:
https://discogs.librosgratis.biz/release/5725796-Thats-What-I-Like-About-The-South/history?utm_campaign=release-merge&utm_medium=pm&utm_source=relationship#latest

Is there an area on Discogs that I can scan and this image, as visual proof of this?

47-2486 was the Catalog number for in individual single.
If it features the 'WP 199' number then it was originally part of the album.
Almost sure those were never marketed separately.

...............................

However, this RCA catalog shows 47-2486, and MANY, MANY other examples prove that it COULD be purchased as part of an album (In which case they never mention a specific record number). These are also listed as single discs that can be purchased outside of the box set/album, and priced accordingly. Now I am quoting the very clear statement in the book "45 RPM: The History, Heroes, and Villains of a Pop Music Revolution" and the 1951 RCA Victor catalog backs it up.

What purpose would be served by listing a specific record number in a catalog, but it isn't for sale?

I do not agree with the theory that is it could have been a part of an album/box set, then it HAS to be part of the album/box set.

Let's b ring a few more folks in on this discussion who have touched on it in the past.

Diognes_The_Fox

imO, two conditions should be met before submitting such individual records as unique:

1: No cat# of the single record on the packaging of the box set AND no box set cat# on the single record
2: Further evidence that these were marketed seperately has to be given in the Submission notes

Only if these conditions are met, i could imagine voting for these as unique submissions. Otherwise, we would be risking opening the box set of Pandora here...

Our goal should not be to make it easier for sellers to get rid of single records from a box set...

scarcesounds
one record (9-25057) does not show these details and makes no mention is is part of the album at all

Presumably because it was the first, and the either the other records, or the box (or both) weren't issued or planned to be at the time it came out?

Loanesloan
1: No cat# of the single record on the packaging of the box set AND no box set cat# on the single record
2: Further evidence that these were marketed seperately has to be given in the Submission notes
+1 on this
Only if these conditions are met, i could imagine voting for these as unique submissions. Otherwise, we would be risking opening the box set of Pandora here...

I think that that in light of the RCA Victor catalog clarity, the onus should be on the submitter, or the party attempting to merge singles into box set albums.

Why else would each disc show a unique record number if not for the ability to be sold a la carte?

Why not just print the album number?

And, why shouldn't it be easier for a seller to list his record. Is this not a marketplace as well?

Here is an example of 11 of this 'album' for sale, 6 of them are for a single record only:
https://discogs.librosgratis.biz/sell/release/7116512?ev=rb

ynpguy
What purpose would be served by listing a specific record number in a catalog, but it isn't for sale?

I do not agree with the theory that is it could have been a part of an album/box set, then it HAS to be part of the album/box set

IMO, the database should reflect exactly as they were released new*. The best source of evidence for this appears to be the original (rare) label catalogues. which would fulfil

Loanesloan
2: Further evidence that these were marketed seperately has to be given in the Submission notes

The notes are imperitive to prevent the separate items incorrectly being merged into the album, if that's how they were released originally. Also, notes on the album and probably links to the individual records showing that the records were also released separately from the album. I'd suggest notes in ALL cases (full album, each individual, whether or not they were released as part of a set and/or separately), as you can just imagine the amount of incorrect merging and re-submitting if they aren't there!

* If the component parts of a box set were available separately, both versions (full album and separate discs) should be added to the db. Including the empty box when released that way. If only ever released either as a whole set, or as separate releases, then only that entry should be part of the database.

Loanesloan
Our goal should not be to make it easier for sellers to get rid of single records from a box set...

Agree. But as above, should be allowed if it was released that way.

ynpguy
30 shellac 10" discs

It may be 30 sides. It's an hour and a half piece or so, so released on sides of 2-3 minutes each, it's clearly a very large set!

I have several of these old record company catalogs. I would LOVE to be pointed to an area here on Discogs where we can images NOT associated with music releases/submissions. Glancing at several pages of the "RCA Victor Records - 1951" catalog which I refer to, I see at least 3 or 4 examples per page, where a song is offered as a 10" 78 RPM, a 7" 45RPM, and in an 'album' or packaged set of 45 RPM discs.

Further, in the "RCA Victor - The Music America Loves Best!" catalog book from September of 1950, COMPLETE sets were also offered. (Packages of multiple albums, in a set). For example: "WDMC-118 contained 2 albums, WDM-1145 & WDM-1146. Yet, we do not FORCE these 2 separate albums into this 'set'. Because......They were offered individually as well. This tactic was also widely used for 78 RPM discs as well, using prefix "DM".

Mind you, I have only provided information from the "45 RPM; A History..." and the RCA catalog mentioned above. Now I will dive into Capitol Records, Decca, and some other old catalogs that I have to see if they too, offered a song in both single record, and album/box set form.

And that mention was made here, during a merge vote:
"OK, I have finally found it. In the "RCA Victor Records 1951 - Music America loves best" page #226. This record is listed as a 78 RPM disc #20-2486, a single 45 disc #47-2486, And as album, #WP-199. This is crystal clear proof that these RCA 45's that bear an album # were also sold independent of any album or box. Is there a place a scan of this can be ed to as visual proof? I doubt many people would possess this old catalog."

The response from one was: "If it features the 'WP 199' number on the label then it was originally part of the album. "

ynpguy
Is there an area on Discogs that I can scan and this image, as visual proof of this?

Ordinarily I would say yes, create a RCA Victor 1951 Catalog page in nik?).

ynpguy
why shouldn't it be easier for a seller to list his record

Forget about the marketplace for a minute. Just think about the database and its purpose: discographies.

Almost all multi-record sets after the 78 era were only released as the set. But in the 78 and early 45 era, as you know, it's a mixed bag: some were only sets, some were sets first and separate reissues later, some were always available both ways. A proper discography would not misrepresent any of this information.

As djcarbines said, if there are official catalogs listing specific discs as being available outside of a bundle/box of some kind, then naturally they do get to be listed separately, and it should be mentioned on both release pages that a certain catalog proves this availability.

Ideally, we would know the availability history for any given record, but that is impossible; we have to make some kind of assumption by default. As it stands, the least harm to the discographies is achieved by the current policy: assume sets-only, unless proven otherwise. It works especially well for the post-1950s era, and it prevents the problems of database clutter and misrepresentation of what was actually released (unreleased-that-way loose items essentially being "fake releases"). I think these are worthy goals, and it pains me to think that sellers are so blinded by greed that they think a discography need not be truthful.

Certain kinds of sellers would split every bundle/box/multi-disc album if they could. Any proposal which lets this happen is a non-starter. It is also never really a solution to swap one incorrect assumption and associated set of problems for another. We're just shifting the burden around.

Obviously something needs to be done; the current policy requires constant enforcement, and is not very compatible with the real-world need for loose items to be in collections, wantlists, and the marketplace, no matter how those items were originally released.

There is just no easy data-entry policy change that would resolve the conflicts between having a good discography and a good marketplace under the current system. So we need technological solutions: new fields and updated interfaces. Incomplete multi-record sets need to be better ed by collections, wantlists, and the marketplace. A simple, albeit incomplete, start would be for releases to have a checkbox we could tick to indicate incomplete/missing media. Sales statistics for those flagged items could then be segregated. It would also facilitate the listing of sleeves without records. A more complex solution would be to allow separate subs for the loose items, but each with a field to link them to the release representing the full set, and a field to indicate whether it was also officially available separately. Artist and MR pages would need to do something to display this info and make the special nature of these items obvious.

ynpguy
I have several of these old record company catalogs. I would LOVE to be pointed to an area here on Discogs where we can images NOT associated with music releases/submissions.

Well I dont know about that, but I for one would love to get a copy of any such catalog, if it's not too much hassle? :)

If you have a smartphone or tablet with a built-in camera, there are "scanning" apps out there which makes it easy to make a multi-page PDF. You could do the whole catalog and put it on your favorite cloud drive or file hosting site (Google Drive, Mega, etc.)

On my iOS devices I use and recommend Scanner Pro ($4), but there are some free options out there too.

(I say "scanning" in scare quotes because it's not quite like a flatbed scanner; it's just a photo-taker/editor oriented toward creating PDF documents.)

Ideally, we would know the availability history for any given record, but that is impossible; we have to make some kind of assumption by default. As it stands, the least harm to the discographies is achieved by the current policy: assume sets-only, unless proven otherwise. It works especially well for the post-1950s era, and it prevents the problems of database clutter and misrepresentation of what was actually released (unreleased-that-way loose items essentially being "fake releases"). I think these are worthy goals, and it pains me to think that sellers are so blinded by greed that they think a discography need not be truthful.

Certain kinds of sellers would split every bundle/box/multi-disc album if they could. Any proposal which lets this happen is a non-starter. It is also never really a solution to swap one incorrect assumption and associated set of problems for another. We're just shifting the burden around.

Obviously something needs to be done; the current policy requires constant enforcement, and is not very compatible with the real-world need for loose items to be in collections, wantlists, and the marketplace, no matter how those items were originally released.

OK, I guess I never really thought about the fact some would intentionally break a set apart and list each disc separately, or be dishonest about it.

GroovingPict - I will attempt to scan this catalog. It is 280 pages, but I have a super quick scanner and 2 pages may be able to be done at a time. I also have a .pdf making program (Adobe Acrobat Pro). When I have finished, you will need to help me to this catalog somewhere. The Capitol catalog I have is for the UK unfortunately. The Columbia catalog is real simple. Shows song, and record number, and SOMETIMES an album number. It is from 1949, before they got into the 45 business tho.

I wholeheartedly agree with mjb. Discogs is a discography database first and a marketplace secondly, so all releases should be entered as they were intended to be, not as a seller/owner of an incomplete set sees fit.

I've seen it multiple times with some of the major releases in the popular domain from the 1940s or early 1950s that sellers created drafts from 78 or 45 rpm albums to create single entries, just in order to sell the loose records they have. The same thing has happened with CD box sets as well, although s are usually more aware of these loose discs belonging to a boxed set because there's more information on them.

In general I would say: if there's a clear indication on the label or sleeve that a 78 or 45 (or CD) belongs to a box or album set, it was likely intended to be released as a set. So, unless there is good evidence it was released on its own, like the cat. no. appearing in a sales list like Billboard's, I would not submit it as a separate release. Even if these discs were sold separately by (some) stores, it doesn't mean they were intended to be released that way. I can very well imagine some record stores selling discs individually to clean out inventory or rather offering the discs individually to their customers. After all, the album format was new at the time and more expensive, so it may have taken some time to take off and become profitable for retailers.

Any technological updates to Discogs would definitely prevent some of these incorrect entries, although I'm fully aware a fair portion of the submitters may not even know a particular disc was part of a set. Due to the nature of this site, incorrect entries can never be truly ruled out.

pierreoitmann
In general I would say: if there's a clear indication on the label or sleeve that a 78 or 45 (or CD) belongs to a box or album set, it was likely intended to be released as a set. So, unless there is good evidence it was released on its own, like the cat. no. appearing in a sales list like Billboard's, I would not submit it as a separate release.

Well I believe better than that, the RCA Victor 1951 catalog itself lists hundreds of single 45RPM discs available a la carte, and in 'albums' (Box sets, we call them now). You cannot get any more official than the catalog of the Company who produced these albums & single discs.

Quoted here on a merge attempt: https://discogs.librosgratis.biz/release/3346357-Pappys-Little-Jug/history?utm_campaign=release-merge&utm_medium=pm&utm_source=relationship#latest

And there are SOME instances the single disc was NOT made available - Usually seen in the classical or theater field where say, a 4 disc set has sides 1 & 8 on the same disc.

pierreoitmann
After all, the album format was new at the time

Albums were available in the 1930's and before likely with multi leaf 78 books. The 'album' concept was old hat by the introduction of the 45 RPM in 1949.

RCA initially chose to offer their 45 albums in a box, rather than a book.

Columbia offered their new 'albums' as a single 10 or 12" "LP" disc in a card jacket. Not an actual album at all per se.

What needs to be kept in mind, is from March, 1949 into the early 50's is that the 45 was a brand new format, and RCA Victor was doing everything to accommodate the public in order to help the 45 take off. Even offering a player attachment at cost, since the 45 was microgroove, and could not be played on existing record players. in '49, almost 9 months of 45's being available at record shops, it comprised only 4% of RCA's total business for that year!!

ynpguy
Well I believe better than that, the RCA Victor 1951 catalog itself lists hundreds of single 45RPM discs available a la carte, and in 'albums' (Box sets, we call them now). You cannot get any more official than the catalog of the Company who produced these albums & single discs.

Like I said: unless there is good evidence it was released on its own, I would not submit it as a separate release. If that RCA Victor catalog lists all these records as single releases, that's good contemporary evidence to list them as such on Discogs and we should. So, we totally agree on this one, just pointing out single discs should not be entered without official listings like these. ;-)

ynpguy
And there are SOME instances the single disc was NOT made available - Usually seen in the classical or theater field where say, a 4 disc set has sides 1 & 8 on the same disc.

Makes sense and again: I don't think I stated anything to suggest the opposite of what you claim. :-)

ynpguy
Albums were available in the 1930's and before likely with multi leaf 78 books. The 'album' concept was old hat by the introduction of the 45 RPM in 1949.

I was talking about 78s specifically here, since that was when albums were a new thing, perhaps I should've been more clear on this one. But even by the late 1940s the album format was relatively new for a mass audience. , the CD also took ten years to leave behind vinyl and cassettes in sales, meaning that to a lot of people a Compact Disc was still a new thing by the early 90s, and it didn't reach its peak in sales until a decade and a half after its introduction. I can imagine in a time where technology progressed a lot slower than it does now and with fewer information sources it took an even longer time to embrace new things like these. But I digress.

All things considered, I think the questions you originally proposed are quite easy to answer, and some contributors already did so extensively. In fact, I'm pretty sure you're very knowledgeable on the subject yourself. It's unfortunate some sellers/submitters don't enter things correctly just to make a few bucks selling incomplete sets, but that's the downside of databases that rely heavily on input.

Albums were pretty well known in the '30s, yes. One thing I have not found clarity on is whether album was the favored word for those bound volumes of 78s. Strangely you don't see that term mentioned on very many such books-of-78s themselves, unless they're the blank books you fill up yourself.

Somewhere, maybe just in a comment in another thread here, I read that the Great Depression was an excuse to sell individual 78s from album sets, so buyers would complete their sets little by little, as they could afford. Whether this was just dealers being pragmatic, or whether record companies were actually issuing the records separately (but still marked with album info), I don't know.

Regarding On The Record (the one up for merge), I am reminded of one other confounding factor here. We know that this 45 exists with the album catalog number on it (WP 199) in addition to the 45's catalog number (47-2848); that's what's pictured. But do we know for sure that all "47-2848" discs also have those "WP 199" labels? In other words, does the individually issued copy mentioned in the 1951 catalog have these exact labels, or is does it only say 47-2848 on it?

My guess is they did not bother printing up separate labels, and we should proceed under the assumption that if the catalog says 47-2848 was available separately, it probably is indistinguishable from the copies that were in the album. Therefore, vote No on the merge. But if it turns out there was a 47-284 record without WP 199 on it, do we change our minds?

mjb
One thing I have not found clarity on is whether album was the favored word for those bound volumes of 78s. Strangely you don't see that term mentioned on very many such books-of-78s themselves

Actually, you do. "Miff" Mole* - Nick's Presents His Dixieland Jazz Band: "Album A-10"
Here is a list of bestselling popular record albums in Billboard, 1946 (before LPs). The selling point for LPs was that you could get an entire album on a single record.

mjb
My guess is they did not bother printing up separate labels, and we should proceed under the assumption that if the catalog says 47-2848 was available separately, it probably is indistinguishable from the copies that were in the album.

That's a big assumption. In my copy of Connie Boswell - Connie Boswell Souvenir Album, the records had the album number and sequential side numbering. Those were special album labels. I know because two of the records in my copy were replaced (probably after being broken) with non-album copies lacking the album catalog number and the sequential numbering. Yes, this was a 78 album, but I doubt the labels would have changed practices.

Thanks for those examples. I keep having bad luck when I look, myself. Speaking of which, this thread is making me have an itch to go to the thrift stores and see what 78s have turned up... [an hour later] ... and the answer is nada. :)

mjb
Thanks for those examples.

Glad you enjoyed them. "Miff" Mole* - Nick's Presents His Dixieland Jazz Band is fun to have, despite the primitive cover art. It was only sold by Nick's nightclub. It didn't travel well by mail (breakage), so I think it is relatively rare.

Incidentally, I've actually had people remove Album from 78 RPM albums because I had not properly demonstrated that they were albums. Not only did they actually say album on the cover, they were released in an album binder.

ynpguy
Albums were available in the 1930's and before likely with multi leaf 78 books. The 'album' concept was old hat by the introduction of the 45 RPM in 1949

I recently added this:
Chopin* - Marguerite Long With Orchestre De La Société Du Conservatoire, Paris* Conducted By Philippe Gaubert (2) - Concerto No. 2, F Minor For Piano And Orchestra (Op. 21)
Hopefully you can see the hefty album that contains the discs. I'm not sure of an exact date.

As far as the catalogues and changing technology is concerned, my 1949 and 1956 HMV catalogues make interesting reading. Including the fixed price of each series (pre-decimal shillings and pence!). UK was a bit slower to the 45 market, so the 1949 edition is pretty much only Shellac. 1956 in contrast, has one of the widest varieties of analogue formats ever released. That short period when 7", 10", 12", 33rpm, 45rpm and 78rpm were all available at the same time. Vinyl being a new format (especially the LP, and very expensive as seen in the aforementioned pricelist), Shellac available in both 10" (Pop market) and 12" (Classical market) soon to be phased out in favour of all-vinyl for the next 20 years, when cassette started. 8-tracked happened in the UK but a far less successful format than in the US. I think all shellac sales were over by 1961. 10" and 12" vinyl LPs on 33rpm available at the same time as shellac 78 in the same sizes. 7" 45rpm being only a small part of the catalogue until 1959. when it first overtook shellac sales.

Actually labels often applied the term album to 45 RPM EPs, describing them as "Extended Play Albums." A two-record 78 RPM album (not uncommon) could easily be put on a 45 RPM EP, making application of the term album to such records fairly reasonable.

mjb
Regarding Pappy's Little Jug (the one up for merge), I am reminded of one other confounding factor here. We know that this 45 exists with the album catalog number on it (WP 199) in addition to the 45's catalog number (47-2848); that's what's pictured. But do we know for sure that all "47-2848" discs also have those "WP 199" labels? In other words, does the individually issued copy mentioned in the 1951 catalog have these exact labels, or is does it only say 47-2848 on it?

My guess is they did not bother printing up separate labels, and we should proceed under the assumption that if the catalog says 47-2848 was available separately, it probably is indistinguishable from the copies that were in the album. Therefore, vote No on the merge. But if it turns out there was a 47-284 record without WP 199 on it, do we change our minds?

You are correct. RCA Victor wanted to appeal to the widest audience possible, and offered a great many of their new 45's any way they would sell - not to mention the jukebox operators. All of the labels generally showed 3 numbers, according to our 45 historian at the top of this forum whom I quoted, and add a few more sentences to right out of the book:

......"rather than combine them in the traditional 78 album book form, RCA presented them in a flat 7 3/8 X 7 3/8 box. Again, these these were reissues of earlier albums, such as the Delta Rhythm Boys' 1947 'Dry Bones' (WP-193), but the discs inside, besides bearing their WP numbers, were sequentially numbered as RCA singles, so that they could also be sold individually, independent of the box. The singles (Usually four of them) in the classical and theatrical albums also bore a third number to show the listener how to stack them in proper order on the spindle to keep the music in sequence: Side 1 and Side 8 would be on opposite sides of the same record, Side 2 and Side 7 on the next one, and so on. RCA's mastering engineers tried to match the disconcerting gap caused by the periodic three-second record changes with musical pauses or breaks between movements. RCA Victor spent lavishly to launch its new product, running ads in many of the most popular magazines...."

I also found my 1953 RCA Victor record catalog last night. We will not even talk about scanning and ing it yet - Because of the newest format discovered by the RCA engineers in late 1951, the Extended Play 45 or "EP", the catalog has those 'mini-albums' listed as well. The catalog runs almost 500 pages!! By this time RCA had reconciled with Columbia, and RCA Victor was pressing its own LP albums. The 45 boxed albums did not last too much longer after that.

Funny thing about the EP 2 disc album sets; they initially were NOT offered as independent discs. Later, they WERE, ie: part 1, part 2, etc.

Also, on the topic of albums - keep in mind many artists did not record enough material to justify an album of any sort. for the 10" LP days, you needed 8 songs, then by the mid 50's when the 12" LP became the standard, you need 12 songs.

If we agree that this historian knows what he's talking about, then that quote, in the context of 45 RPM 7" records being "its new product", is good enough for me to say that an exception should be made for all RCA Victor 45s. That is, the proposal should be that any RCA Victor 45s which are labeled as being part a multi-record set can also be submitted as separate releases from the set.

I agree with you mjb.

+1

And let's face facts; these 45 RPM albums/box sets were a short lived thing. We are talking about less than 8 years of production by any of the "Big 6" (RCA Victor, Columbia, Decca, Capitol, M-G-M & Mercury). Those 45 albums-in-the-box were really an act of rebellion by RCA's Sarnoff towards Columbia's 33 1/3 RPM "LP" record.

Moreover, I cannot at the moment, how other record Companies handled their 45 albums, vs. were the discs available one at a time. What I have seen with Decca 45 albums, suggests they may have simply snatched up a handful of 45's that had a common theme, and packaged them in a box. But no absolute proof of that, yet.

About the historians, actually the book was written by Jim Dawson & Steve Propes. The back of the jacket states: Jim Dawson has written extensively about early rock 'n' roll and rhythm & blues. Steve Propes, a record collector with an extensive library of vinyl, hosts a radio program where he plays nothing but 45's. Together they wrote "What was the first rock 'n' roll record?".

There are also quotes from some folks they interviewed, one was a Phono-Operator in the industry for some 50 years. Another worked for a very large record distributor for years. And the back of the book lists 3 pages of material that was sourced/used in the writing of the book. Based on that, I would say they would be considered an authority on 45 records and their history.

Just an update - I have scanned all 280 pages of the "RCA Victor - The Music America Loves Best, 1951" record catalog. mjb is working on creating a searchable .pdf file and public location to use this as a reference. I do have other old catalogs also, Capitol (European catalog) and a 1953 RCA Victor catalog that runs almost 500 pages. I think partly due to the invention and listing of EP discs, "mini-Albums" they were sometimes called.
Anyhow, I am hoping this will be helpful to folks here.

ynpguy
I think partly due to the invention and listing of EP discs, "mini-Albums" they were sometimes called.

I have not heard "mini-album" applied to EPs in the 1950s. I have frequently seen the term "extended play album."
Example, from Georgie Auld Quintet* - Volume 1, lower right rear corner:
https://img.discogs.librosgratis.biz/zBQ1ggVKoSuPaKgKJDlxi7wbtYk=/fit-in/600x600/filters:strip_icc():format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-4712582-1412292781-2641.jpeg.jpg
"45 RPM Extended Play Albums"

I'd have thought there should be some sort of (inter)national archive for this sort of thing already?!
Although most of what I've seen are not by state museums but amatuer cataloguers and enthusiasts like us, one example has made a company from decades of personal research and collecting: http://www.hymanarchive.com/
and is in the process of digitisation, presumably to sell licenses to access the digital archive. Licenses are already available to the likes of Universities, TV and film researchers to the physical archive of 50,000+ unique copies of magazines.
According to the source, over half of his archive is not in the British Library!

Here is the link to the RCA Victor catalog from 1951:
https://archive.org/details/RCAVictorCatalog1951

ThomasP64
ynpguyI think partly due to the invention and listing of EP discs, "mini-Albums" they were sometimes called.I have not heard "mini-album" applied to EPs in the 1950s. I have frequently seen the term "extended play album."
Example, from Georgie Auld Quintet* - Volume 1, lower right rear corner:
https://img.discogs.librosgratis.biz/zBQ1ggVKoSuPaKgKJDlxi7wbtYk=/fit-in/600x600/filters:strip_icc():format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-4712582-1412292781-2641.jpeg.jpg
"45 RPM Extended Play Albums"

And that may just be an unofficial mention of it in the book I read about the EP development and the subsequent marketing strategies used.

And here we go again. A second attempt to merge a single disc in an album after an initial failure:
https://discogs.librosgratis.biz/release/5522270-Cowboy-Classics/history?utm_campaign=release-merge&utm_medium=pm&utm_source=relationship#latest

I voted No on that merge. As per the discussion above, we're making an exception now for RCA Victor ... so the loose discs on that label should no longer be merged into their album sets.

Exactly. Now there are SOME exceptions, as in the Classical field where discs were not offered individually and are only listed in album form. But that was the exception rather than the rule for RCA Victor.

Here another one in the merge queue: https://discogs.librosgratis.biz/release/6849601-Bewitched-When-Your-Lover-Has-Gone/history#latest
Slowed it down for now with a No and this link here, what's your take here, mjb?

Also pinging CykoMF, OP of the old thread …

typoman2
Slowed it down for now with a No and this link here, what's your take here, ThomasP64, ynpguy, mjb?

I would tend to suspect that if it has the album catalog number and individually numbered sides on each label, it was intended to be part of a set. Merge.

These boxes were sold so that people who bought RCA Victor's phallic monstrosities of record players could buy the complete contents of the 10" LP album, not so they could be released as four singles.

All I can really tell you about RCA Victor 45s is that we made an exception for them after discussing the evidence here.

I have no knowledge about Columbia 45s, but if there is a similar kind of proof, we can make another exception.

Nice research ynpguy. Is there an easy way to tell the difference for those items which were released individually?

I tend to side with

ThomasP64
- if it has the album catalog number and individually numbered sides on each label, it was intended to be part of a set

.

Any exceptions would need to be qualified by some means. Not having the box or the rest of the set is not a qualified means. The list ynpguy mentioned seems suitable.

I also would like to ask scarcesounds to have a look here.

And guys – disneyfacts – please look at the evidence presented in the sub history as well.

https://www.dorisday.net/discography/chapter-4/ lists explicitely both – singles + the album formats – and the full page ad of Columbia from 1953: https://books.google.de/books?id=EQ0EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA145&lpg=PA145&dq=doris+day+Columbia+%E2%80%8E#v=onepage&q=doris%20day%20Columbia%20%E2%80%8E&f=false

Columbia pays a whole page ad advertising their bestsellers (see No 26) but they can't be ordered as singles with the d cat #'s but only as complete set?
And this having in mind a normal person earned around $50-$70 a week? I don't believe it.
I think Columbia should be taken into as well.

I quite agree. I have scanned an entire RCA Victor catalog and with mjb help, it is online. MOST of their records are available individually. There are records listed as part of an album 'set', and listed for a price ala carte.

However, At the moment I do not have evidence of Columbia doing the same. , Columbia & RCA Victor were rivals. Columbia pissed of RCA by unveiling the LP 33-1/3 RPM in 1948. The result was RCA's invention of the 45 single, released in March 1949. In the early days RCA would not produce any LP's, and Columbia would not produce 45's. This lasted until I believe Dec of 1949. Both the presidents (Paley & Sarnoff) of Columbia & RCA reconciled, and agreed to cross-format, if you will.

And again, it is all in the history, development, rise, and fall of the 45 record.
"45 RPM: The History, Heroes, and Villains of a Pop Music Revolution"

One example, no's 38 and 39 are both available in this album
Al Goodman And His Orchestra - Invitation To The Dance ... Strauss Waltzes
I would expect they are available separately. All the numbers are for both 78 and 45 speeds, so unlikely someone would want both formats of the same music.
Those 2 specific releases are both available in a set and separately. I think the indicator for the difference is the "C13" prefix. Some examples may well be the exact same disc for both types of release with no distinguishing indicators.

typoman2
Columbia pays a whole page ad advertising their bestsellers (see No 26) but they can't be ordered as singles with the d cat #'s but only as complete set?

Yes, but you would think the individually ordered ones wouldn't have the album catalog number on it.

If they did, there still would really be no way to tell if a particular copy was sold separately or just got separated from the album set. Kind of like a repress/reissue that's indistinguishable from the original is not considered a unique release.

disneyfacts
If they did, there still would really be no way to tell if a particular copy was sold separately or just got separated from the album set.

That's correct. But we also have the case when let's say a series were sold as complete boxes (i.e 1-10, 11-20) as well as individual releases. AFAIR in this case we don't merge the singular releases generally but let them stay, right? Same situation.

typoman2
Columbia pays a whole page ad advertising their bestsellers (see No 26) but they can't be ordered as singles with the d cat #'s but only as complete set?

I did not say they were not available as singles. I said versions that include the catalog number of the box and the sides listed by number are unlikely to be sold individually. I have an album with sides numbered sequentially 1-8. The records were also available with sides not numbered sequentially.

Well, this is really a can of worms!

The history of the record industry is one of litigation to stop competitors, and attempts to develop new formats in order to gain a commercial advantage. In this environment the record companies were constantly changing the way their products were marketed. So the singles/album issue needs to be viewed in this context.

The fact is that different companies were selling their products in any way they thought would maximise their profits. And this involved using different systems at various times. The result is endless complexity and inconsistency, so trying in retrospect to impose some order and logic on such a "system" is extremely difficult, if not impossible.

Generally, record companies (especial the majors and with the exception of some minor players) were focused on profit and saw records as "products"... They were marketed accordingly. At times a particular format was heavily promoted as "superior" in some way, while at other times the emphasis seems to have been on offering a variety of formats according to what best suited the individual needs of record buyers. There was no consistent approach, except for short periods (and this could change to something different a few years later).

Okay, thank you for your statement, scarcesounds.

Regarding the merge, well, do what ya'll think is appropriate – I really don't know enough about this line of production and time to make anything else than assumptions.
I just ed this RCA exception thread and thought "better safe than sorry" – a discussion can't hurt. Sorry disneyfacts, that I slowed all down, I didn't intent to be "difficult" but genuinely thought some people knowing more than me can shed some light on this and maybe opt for another exception. But as it happens we lack some 90-years-old collectors of this stuff who could tell more and have stashed some printed evidence.

typoman2
Sorry disneyfacts, that I slowed all down, I didn't intent to be "difficult"

No worries!

scarcesounds
There was no consistent approach, except for short periods (and this could change to something different a few years later).

For example, most major labels' 45 rpm sets have sequentially numbered discs, even if they had previously been issued as another number. However, Decca didn't seem to ever reassign new catalog numbers to discs that belonged to the sets - they just used the old catalog number with the album catalog number on the left side of the label, leading to lots of sets with really random disc catalog numbers.

typoman2
Regarding the merge, well, do what ya'll think is appropriate

My thought is, since the record has the album catalog number on it, there's no way to really tell if that particular version was sold separately or just missing out of the original set. So it would get merged into the set submission since there's nothing actually differentiating between the two.

disneyfacts
No worries!

Thanks for understanding and BTW, I just love your list https://discogs.librosgratis.biz/lists/Multiple-Record-Sets-45-RPM/294280 – that was some excellent cover design and tunes in these years. Would just love to flip through all those and listen and look and read …

typoman2
BTW, I just love your list https://discogs.librosgratis.biz/lists/Multiple-Record-Sets-45-RPM/294280

Awesome! If there's anything not on there (on any list), feel free to message me to add it. Check out some of the other lists too - I've scanned some old catalogs and ed them to archive.org so we can all use them as a reference.

disneyfacts
Awesome! If there's anything not on there (on any list), feel free to message me to add it.

I don't think I saw these on your list:
Ink Spots* - Ink Spots

ThomasP64
I don't think I saw these on your list:
Eartha Kitt With Henri René And His Orchestra And Chorus - Down To Eartha
Ink Spots* - Ink Spots

Added, thanks!

disneyfacts
Added, thanks!

Is this only for older multidisc 45s, or are more recent ones included?

ThomasP64
disneyfactsAdded, thanks!
Is this only for older multidisc 45s, or are more recent ones included?

Any album set that could end up being submitted separately due to incomplete sets. Not so much an actual box set of reissue singles.

disneyfacts
Any album set that could end up being submitted separately due to incomplete sets.

exactly... AND I personally have been collecting RCA box sets for over 4 decades and never seen any retail WP versions loose from the sets unless they got lost from the sets themselves over a period of time, but Id really hesitate to say RCA sold WP #'s separately in the records rack back in the day. Considering RCA had the most anal re-tentative numbering system's for single, set etc this just doesn't add up, best

2ndl >>> IF there was a unique 45 (NON WP) single it would look like this Cowboy Classics

As added into the archive.org site the 1951 catalog https://archive.org/details/RCAVictorCatalog1951/mode/2up

Does anybody here, other than myself, own a copy of the book "45 RPM: The History, Heroes & Villains of a Pop Music Revolution" By Jim Dawson & Steve Propes??

hello, again they never released WP singles from the sets or individually from the box set, any discs with WP info on the labels belong to a WP set ... who ever stated that they sell them as a WP single from the set is wrong / RCA multiple sets which have WP and releases with WP etc on the labels were only released in the boxes. I have never ever seen or heard of anything to the contrary, thanks

as seen here this site clearly reference the WP singles in various pressings all belonging to the WP 168 set >>> http://www.45cat.com/record/480004

and this site which also clearly states the set # and release # for the discs >>> http://www.globaldogproductions.info/r/rca-48-series.html

regardless of what you think IF it has a BOX set # on it, then it belongs to the box set, you can not re-write the rules of discogs based on some folklore ideas.

Yes RCA printed separate labels for sets and unique singles not included in the set >>> A unique 45 (NON WP) 48-0006 single would look like this >>> Cowboy Classics

OK, so let's look at the experts, who wrote a book on the subject. Please re-read post #1 on top of this thread. Start with ..."I offer the following text from a relevant history book called "45 RPM: The History, Heroes, and Villains of a Pop Music Revolution".

Let's look closely at page 29"........

This is the book I mentioned yesterday written by Jim Dawson & Steve Propes.

Secondly, if anyone can show more than 1 or 2 examples of early RCA Victor 45's that were sold as part of an album, but do NOT have the WP number printed on the labels. And I am speaking to the early examples, not when they progressed into the WDM albums and such. The catalog I mention clearly shows most of them were available to be sold as individual singles.

My point is I don't believe that they would have created 2 different labels, one with an album number, and one without an album number to ensure their destiny to end up in a box, or to be sold by itself.

And the reason I ask for images of labels without this album number?? I don't think they exist. Other than maybe a random re-press later on, I think they ALL had album numbers printed on the labels they could be a part of.

ynpguy
OK, so let's look at the experts, who wrote a book on the subject.

JUST cause someone wrote a book doesn't make them an EXPERT, Even Goldmine has been wrong on several occasions on 20-30 some years of printings. Being the owner a record shop and also having worked in retail new and use record shops since the early 1980's I have never ever heard of anything to the contrary that WP belong in sets ... aside from that, No one knows everything and since you didn't work at RCA in 1949-1951 and likely any authors of any book (currently) didn't work there either then IT IS near impossible to say or tell anyone anything other than WP releases with WP info pertains to a box.

2nd Why dont you google and find me a non WP record with just the (Catalog Number): 48-0004 (re: Cool Water) which as a solo single & label has with nothing regarding the WP info, then you would have a valid point and would be able to follow up with the Cool Water being released as a solo single JUST like this one >>>> (RCA Victor – 48-0006) https://discogs.librosgratis.biz/The-Sons-Of-The-Pioneers-The-Timber-Trail-Trees/release/6515177

That is the one and only example I have seen - and with the image so small and unreadable (I mean the label rim text), I suspect it might be a Canadian pressing since it appears to have blue tinted labels. Canada used blue on their "hillbilly" records of the time. US used "quad green" labels. Maybe Canada was doing something different, like not printing any album numbers on any labels? I can't answer to that. Perhaps it is a repressing? One instance does not make a complete case.

All I do know is that it is not outside the realm of possibility that even though album numbers were probably printed on 99% of all 45 label *IF* they could be included in some kind of album, that these 45's were also sold separately. The catalog I scanned and posted online is testament to the fact that often, many of those record WERE offered in a box under and album number, and individually. The argument here used to be these records were never SOLD outside of the album box if they had an album number on them. Now that has changed.

The catalog will tell you also. If you look up a specific song for instance (usually something in Opera, or classical) if that single is not available outside of the box for individual consumption, it tells you "See album "XXX" and lists the speed formats, and album numbers that song was available on.

All I am saying is literally THINK outside of the box.

ynpguy
All I am saying is literally THINK outside of the box.

Trust me I have been trying to think like that "outside of the box" but IF you saying they sold ONE 45 "WP disc" re: the Cool water outside the WP box then they DID this for all WP singles? OR at least all of the title from the WP168 set ... And I find that even more impossible to believe.

IF they did one solo then surely would have done every set like that, or quite a few more and that just doesn't add up. I also tried to help out by spending about 3 days worth looking all over the net ie: google, etc and did not find a single NON WP Cool Water 45 green vinyl disc or other from the set except this one The Timber Trail / Trees

I think until one is found the merge need to happen and we move on until one "said non-WP single" exists ?

https://discogs.librosgratis.biz/The-Sons-Of-The-Pioneers-Cool-Water/release/8241688

Exactly my point. You cannot FIND any non WP marked labels in any quantity because they did not make them. And I am talking about most of the RCA Victor early singles that could have been included in an album. I find it impossible to believe that every american bought these record solely in a box, and paid the additional what, 40 cents for the box? And NEVER bought them one at a time, or even just one of the records for one song they liked. even though they are listed for individual sale in the catalog - we can agree that RCA did sell these as singles with those prices that are listed in the back of the catalog, Right??

Unfortunately we simply have to agree to disagree on this point.

And technically that single shouldn't be a part of the master release for the albums.

Maybe, ask the 71 other people who own a single copy of this record, if they ever had anything more than the record, perhaps one or two bought it brand new and could answer this question about WP numbers on labels and boxes.

BarnyardOrbit
Trust me I have been trying to think like that "outside of the box" but IF you saying they sold ONE 45 "WP disc" re: the Cool water outside the WP box then they DID this for all WP singles? OR at least all of the title from the WP168 set ... And I find that even more impossible to believe.

Well let's look at the catalog again, and view pages #208 & #209. Under the artist (group). All of those individual records are listed as being available individually. This section lists both singles record numbers, and albums as well.

There are also notations at the bottom of each page: "(double +) Not included in 45 rpm album". So I guess if a record listed there has that symbol, it was not included in any 45 album at that time. I take that to also mean any record without that mark might, or might not be included in an album/box.

The problem I am having is take "Cool Water" for instance. I am certain many copies of that single sold. It was a popular song in it's time. That being said, if that record was manufactured without the album number, or "WP" number for single-only sale, where are they? Why can't we find example of these non WP bearing labels? And that goes for all WP albums, excluding the classical and song opera stuff - as I've said before. Those with side 1 on one side, and side 8 on the back side, they are the exception to this.

Here is a perfect example. These 45's were sent out to dealers upon the introduction of 45's. I had some of the "first anniversary" packages that were very similar. There is a listing of the record numbers and pictures of what came in that box here: https://www.popsike.com/Rare-RCA-Victor-1949-45-RPM-Record-Introductory-Album-14-Original-Records-MIB/382358246628.html

SO I have thought "outside of the box"
... Perhaps
#1 they RCA accidentally pressed a bunch of extra copies re: RCA Victor – 48-0004 / RCA Victor – WP 168 that became overstock ?
#2 they RCA had issues from the other discs or recalled some sets of lost some in shipping or while manufacturing or in the sorting assembly line etc and thus had lots of the RCA Victor – 48-0004 / RCA Victor – WP 168 leftover by itself ?
#3 of they on purpose created AND used overstock for a free give ways ? or was made for some promotional tool ideas?
#4 they didn't have a good system of keeping track of how many Vinyl's they made of EACH discs for the WP168 set, thus having a large batch of RCA Victor – 48-0004 / RCA Victor – WP 168 overstock

SINCE you have the catalog ... why dont you snip or screen shot the other titles from the WP168 in the same RCA book to prove a different point. Just like to did by adding page #56 of catalog that shows record number RCA Victor – 48-0004

Tumbling Tumbleweeds
The Everlasting Hills Of Oklahoma
The Timber Trail
Trees

Look up these and tell me what the catafo IS for these titles ? IF all of these 4 are also listed without WP then that means (possibly) they released all of the titles from the set SOLO, and Id like to see that info

ID like to see some ment or some magazine print for the cool water single by ITSELF ... otherwise I am not convinced it was issued as a solo disc but ... IF we were to entertain these ideas there has to be some clear notations on either the box sets or the single entry that is UP for a merge, either way it doesn't fit the narrative for WP set and thus seems very unusual and the oddest example in vinyl history, best

>>> YES it should

ynpguy
be a part of the master release for the albums.

uhmm IHMO yes IT should be as it has WP168, that info alone gives it some BOX relevance, otherwise we will see new entries added as a dupe after dupe of it being discog added again, it seems just fine to have it in the MR IMHO.

ynpguy
Here is a perfect example

OF something regarding their (RCA) manufacturing process / I added a curious image / the box which contains actual manufacturing of thee EPA 1023 showing that it was still in print as of Feb 14th 1956. Even the though the record itself was originally issued in 1954 Relax With Victor Herbert

OK, the catalog is shared online for anyone who wants to it, or look at it here: https://archive.org/details/RCAVictorCatalog1951
The copy I have on my computer is searchable. So this is what I come up with results from "Tumbling Tumbleweeds":

1st result:
COWBOY CLASSICS
COOL WATER; CHANT OF THE WANDERER
(from the Columbia film "Texas Stampede");
TUMBLING TUMBLEWEEDS; THE EVERLASTING
HILLS OF OKLAHOMA (from the Republic film
"Home in Oklahoma"); ++COWBOY CAMP
MEETIN'; ++BLUE PRAIRIE; THE TIMBER TRAIL;
TREES
Sons of the Pioneers, Voc. 78 rpm P-168
45 rpm WP-168

Notice the double ++? Those were not correctly copied from the text. They are stacked + symbols.
At the bottom of the page, these mean "Not included in 45 rpm album".
So it looks like that specific record is not available in the album.

Second result:
EVERLASTING HILLS OF OKLAHOMA, THE Sons
of the Pioneers, Voc. TUMBLING TUMBLE-
WEEDS 45 rpm 48-0005

Third result - (This is the area that lists all the record by this artist, page 209):
THAT PALOMINO PAL O' MINE 78 rpm 21-0077
45 rpm 48-0074
TIMBER TRAIL, THE 45 rpm 48-0006
TREES 45 rpm 48-0006
TUMBLING TUMBLEWEEDS 45 rpm 48-0005
YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT LONESOME IS
78 rpm 20-2276
45 rpm 48-0220

Fourth result:
TUMBLING TUMBLEWEEDS Sons of the Pioneers,
Voc. THE EVERLASTING HILLS OF OKLA-
HOMA 45 rpm 48-0005

Fifth result:
TUMBLING TUMBLEWEEDS Sons of the Pioneers
See album "Cowboy Classics" 78 rpm P-168
45 rpm WP-168

That was every instance of that term in the 1951 catalog.

BarnyardOrbit
ynpguyHere is a perfect example

OF something regarding their (RCA) manufacturing process / I added a curious image / the box which contains actual manufacturing of thee EPA 1023 showing that it was still in print as of Feb 14th 1956. Even the though the record itself was originally issued in 1954 Relax With Victor Herbert

They started doing some crazy things with the EP album's, during that phase. ending with splitting the 3 discs that made an album into 3 separate parts (at least, sometimes 4)

ynpguy
They started doing some crazy things

This is a good example of what you mention, 1st as a 3 disc boxset WP Babalu’ And Other Favorites

They also reused alot of previous songs making new EP's etc, Treasure Chest Of Country & Western Music SO it would seem they had endless amounts of time and endless amounts of company $$ to make and create news packaging and/or ideas for many various releases.

Have you ever seen this one ? Country & Western Jukebox Promotion Kit