Sinatra on Columbia (Official/Authorized Releases)*

[No one put 78s on while they were cleaning house or reading a book or falling asleep on the couch, as they did in the LP era.]

Just as Bob mentioned, I always imagined that people stacked the four records of an album on the record changer. That way you had a continous listening experience.

Yes, the track order is an issue, but since the arrangements are all in a similar mood, there's not much harm done if played in different playing order. I'd be happy if they released it as on the 10 inch record. But I think Bob is right when he claims that they likely played the A sides first and then the B sides in reverse.

Any way it would be a lovely and much welcomed release.

 

I understand that. My point was about listening (not purchasing). Though a few people played 78s on "stackers", most people listened to 78s one at a time, even when they came in an album of four records. Stackers were notorious for malfunctions. And we all know, the records in those albums most often became separated in piles of individual records at homes. Many were also rearranged in generic albums of 10-12 records

 

The "stacker" playback would suggest that the LPs should be sequenced by first all of the A-sides from first record to last, followed by all of the B-sides from last record to first.

I vote for the 10 inch LP reissue to have the original 78RPM album cover. It is a shame that the Columbia art department did not do that for LP 6001

 

All of the original Columbia 10-inch LP releases in 1948–49 (from CL- 6001 to at least CL-6049) had similar-looking generic paper sleeves. They did not discriminate against Sinatra, whose record was issued simultaneously with many others and was the “first” only in the sense that it had the first (lowest) catalog number. The use of special artwork for single records had probably not yet been envisioned.

 

Again his choice of songs for the album was priceless. All the songs deal with the same theme, yearning for someone that he doesn't have. The whole album sounds like daydreaming about that someone. And the yearning and longing in his voice and performances mirrors that perfectly. It really is one of his most moving albums. There's no way to express "being in love" any better musically than this excellent assembling of songs, interpretation and arrangements.
Pure genius!

 

That is why I like the Columbia period!

 

If you have the LOST AND FOUND Smithsonian disc we worked on, the last track has Frank with Axel talking about playing this album on a changer, and the changer then malfunctioning, which made them use Little Nancy's record player. A hoot.

 

How many records could you stack on a record changer? I mean 4 discs were very heavy. Could the turntable still play them? Was the turntable still able to play the fourth record at the right speed?

 

As I was growing up in the 60s, my parents (Mom especially) would play Sinatra records all the time. Usually the 10 inch LPs stacked about 3 or 4 high on the changer. I don't recall any issue with speed changes. But it was hardly an audiophile system to begin with. 78s were played less frequently (in my house) just because the playing time was so short. But whether the first disc played at 78RPM was highly unlikely, much less a stack of 4 or more. It wasn't until I got a little older and started buying my own equipment that anything close to audiophile was heard in my house. Same case for most of my friends. Everyone I knew did their listening on pretty primitive equipment.

 

You set a stack for one speed only, of course. There were no "smart tables" that sensed the proper speed.

From an audiophiles perspective, changers (stackers) were horrendous, not just because there could be vinyl damage, but because the tracking angles changed with each additional record on the table. Slippage between two records and uneven pitch only happened for the first second or so, usually it settled before the tonearm dropped. The practical limit was set by the fact that the tonearm needed to move over (6 LPs was really too thick). Though the mechanical operation (depending on the table) might handle 4 or even 6 LPs (players designed exclusively for 45s could take more), most players functioned best at 3 LPs. After all, that was one hour of music.

A major problem is the stacking spindles all functioned imperfectly. Sometimes they would not drop an LP, and you would get the first LP played over. Sometimes they dropped 2 LPs at once. Worst of all, sometimes the drop hung up and then happened suddenly on top of the tonearm while playing a record. Wonder how those gouged records happened? Most of the hi-fi's brought into service centers were brought there because of a malfunctioning changer spindle.

I learned this partly from my childhood exposure to many hi-fi's and in the dorm stereos of many classmates, when changers were still common.

Thank god for the death of the changer turntable!

But I have a small collection of RCA 45 players with their exclusive design for a spindle. I never use them, but they are cool.

 

My general experience, seeing record collections and stereos inside over a thousand homes (serious estate sale buyer) is that the people who loved stacking changers tended to never keep the records inside record jackets, and often loved those coat-hanger wire record holders where they put the naked LPs in the wire slots. The whole mess is why more than 60% (my guess) of all the records ever made are totally trashed. Not just scratched with a skip here and there, or one with many pops, but totally wiped and about as useful as old used cat box litter.

It is so special when you find an estate collection where the records are relatively clean, and relatively unscratched. That is why I have a hard time resisting buying every shiny near mint Sinatra record that I come across. Just out of respect for the care it received.

 

Thanks for the insight Tribute!
Sorry for the confusion, with "right speed" I meant "right pitch" of course. My thinking was that because of the heavy records the turntable might get too slow because of thge weight lying on it.

 

I doubt weight of three LPs would be a factor in slowing the table down. Most tables back then had some pitch adjustment (like Duals), but many people probably played their tables off pitch all of the time. Hey, we also know that many records were pressed "off pitch". Sometimes (or often) intentionally so.

 

There were a handful of models that I've read could adjust speed with a mixed stack of records, where the changer "assumes" a 12" or 10" record is 33 1/3, and 7" is 45.

 

It seems like an odd person that would shuffle a stack of LPs and 45s. But then, everyone who is obsessed with music is considered odd

 

Last comments on the stacking changer record players:

If you tried putting five LPs on the stack, the extra weight of the pile could often be the reason the stacker spindle would screw up in unpredictable ways.

When I was a kid and used records to fall asleep to, I used a stack of three records. The plan was to be asleep before the third one played through (shutoff was automatic of course). Though I would change records most every day, I had a strategy. The first record would be one I almost could not resist listening to directly, so of course I was unlikely to fall asleep. The second record would be one that either I was just getting into (new to me) or which was an old standby that wouldn't necessarily keep me awake. The third had to be something I never heard before or something that was just plain meditative (solo guitar, etc). If I was successful at falling asleep before the 3rd, I could use that 3rd record over and over again.

I gave up the whole "records-to-sleep-by" routine at age 18 when my girlfriend moved in with me.

 

Has a release date or ballpark release date been set for the revised Columbia box?

 

As Norm Crosby might say, "You look very extinguished!"

 

Matt every Sinatra fan knows that Frank invented Superior microphone technique I am curious if you can surmise by the distance that Frank is from the mike,
what type of note he is giving out with. For example I assume he is not belting, growling, roaring. He might be murmuring, crooning, weird thinking ... right.

 

It has been said by Frank many times that he did not like to record in a isolation booth away from the band. This is one of the only photo's where he seems to be in just such a booth.

 

I always wonder how did he hear the band and did the band hear him?

 

Frank is surrounded by baffles. Portable walls with acoustic covering that can be wheeled around a musician or vocalist to provide some degree of seperation from the other instruments in situations where complete isolation is not needed. Baffles. No roof, floor or windows just sides, in this case to keep other sounds from intruding into his mic. Baffles are made full-size, half-size, big and small size, and also come on hinges for turning into an L-shape.