Anyone old enough to have, or even to have seen, 78rpm records thinks of them as hopelessly impractical: heavy, far too breakable - they're made of shellac - and offering poor sound quality. Here's a man who thinks differently:
“Actually, the material that was used to make 78’s is much harder, more inert and holds up better than materials used to make subsequent media.”
This claim comes from the dialogue in the comments under this video created on YouTube by “merrihew" - and it is so interesting, despite the narrator's somewhat inexpressive delivery - and perhaps especially to anyone concerned with the question of how to hear old blues or hillbilly records via the best possible medium:
I forgot to tie this in with a mention of The 78 Project, which involves taking a 1930s acetate recording machine on location to get contemporary singers/musicians to make a 1-off 78rpm recording. Info is online at http://the78project.com/?page_id=8
ReplyDeleteYou can take a pile of beat up 78's, leave them in a barn for 80 years through winter ice, summer heat, mouse and rodent nesting, rubbing against each other; then take them out and play them and they still sound brighter and more life-like than the very best available CD reissue. Unless you try to smash them, they are the best. LPs and CDs cannot take that punishment. Give a teenager a CD and 3 months later it is unplayable.
ReplyDeleteIt is truly amazing how clear and 'up front' the sound is on many of these old 78s; two examples in mind are the Columbia 78s of Bill Monroe from the late 1940s; and the MGM Hank Williams 78s from the early 1950s. Of course I am referring to records in good condition as opposed to those from old jukeboxes. I use an Elac-Miracord turntable with a Grado cartridge and the proper Grado 78 stylus. The sound is quite spectacular. In the final analysis, regardless of format, it is the overall care in handling the disc receives that determines its longevity.
ReplyDelete