Minty Buddy Holly 78

Dan ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ

Peanut Head
I needed this like another hole in the head....but recently had a chance to get a mint Buddy Holly 78 of "Peggy Sue" b/w "Everyday". I haven't played it yet...and may not do so. But it's just a cool thing to have!

index.php
 

Attachments

  • 100_0205.JPG
    100_0205.JPG
    51.5 KB · Views: 240
Celt, a few things this experienced collector has noted. This 78 looks to be vinyl, (Rhino did a Jukebox set of 78 RPM microgroove Rock classics) and also looks to have microgrooves. (Mercury in the 1950's did on originals) and I suspect you have one of those Rhino 78 RPM set discs. They sound very excellent, are sourced from good master tapes, and pressed and mastered well. And are collectible in their own right. You did great
 
I had to go look to see what Buddy Holly 78 I have. It's "That'll Be the Day" but the artist name is "The Crickets" , not Buddy Holly and the Crickets.

No Buddy Holly expert but I just checked the discography and saw some songs released as by Buddy Holly and other released as by The Crickets.

Kind of strange that is.
 
"That'll Be The Day" was released as by The Crickets for legal purposes. Holly was under contract to Decca Records at the time. But he didn't get along with Decca producer Owen Bradley and disliked the way his records there sounded. So Holly, Jerry, Allison, Joe Mauldin and Niki Sullivan went to Norman Petty's Clovis, N.M. studio to record a demo of "That'll Be The Day."
Petty became the band's manager and sent the demo to Brunswick Records in New York. Brunswick released it under the backing group's name, which Allison came up with.
Brunswick Records and also Coral Records were subsidiaries of Decca, and crediting records separately became a legal loophole.
That's why only Buddy Holly's name appears on Coral releases; The Cricketts only on Brunswick releases; and the full name of Buddy Holly and the Cricketts on Decca releases.
 
"That'll Be The Day" was released as by The Crickets for legal purposes. Holly was under contract to Decca Records at the time. But he didn't get along with Decca producer Owen Bradley and disliked the way his records there sounded. So Holly, Jerry, Allison, Joe Mauldin and Niki Sullivan went to Norman Petty's Clovis, N.M. studio to record a demo of "That'll Be The Day."
Petty became the band's manager and sent the demo to Brunswick Records in New York. Brunswick released it under the backing group's name, which Allison came up with.
Brunswick Records and also Coral Records were subsidiaries of Decca, and crediting records separately became a legal loophole.
That's why only Buddy Holly's name appears on Coral releases; The Cricketts only on Brunswick releases; and the full name of Buddy Holly and the Cricketts on Decca releases.
It wasn’t a legal loophole, it was a device to get two records by the same artist added to DJ’s playlists. Alternating single releases were either credited to the Crickets or Buddy Holly.
 
I hate to sound daft, but does that mean they should be played with a modern-type stylus?

This 78 should be, the other Rhino reissue 78 discs should be, all else depends on the groove size. That era of 78 RPM (and even some small label 45 RPM singles, can have different stylus needs in some instances). Pre 1956 Sun 45 RPM singles, some Duke pre 1956 singles, are major known to need 2.7 mil styli for correct playback.
 
Now that I'm viewing this on a computer instead of a phone, I can confirm that the OP's record is definitely a reissue.

This is the original:

371485657041.jpg


Still... I wouldn't pass up a reissue 78 of a Buddy Holly record... I bet it sounds great!
 
It wasn’t a legal loophole
Still sounds like a loophole, even if not a legal one :)

Very cool record either way. I'd love to find some rock records on 78, but they're pretty scarce and usually go for more money than I'm willing to spend. I was happy to score my handful of Spike Jones records.
 
If it were me I'd definitely play it. I have a couple of Technics turntables that I've modified to be able to spin at 78RPM. I have a stylus for 78s and when in nice condition like the one you have they sound amazing. Do you have a turntable that runs at 78RPM that tracks at 2-5 grams? If so I'd listen to the record and report back how it sounds.
 
Still sounds like a loophole, even if not a legal one :)

Very cool record either way. I'd love to find some rock records on 78, but they're pretty scarce and usually go for more money than I'm willing to spend. I was happy to score my handful of Spike Jones records.

Not a loophole, Coral and Brunswick then were owned by American Decca, and were sister labels. Which meant Buddy Holly solo was signed to Coral, and Buddy Holly & The Crickets were signed to Brunswick.
 
Buddy Holly & The Crickets were signed to Brunswick.

No just The Crickets....Here is my excellent first pressing of their first LP.

IMG_2804.JPG IMG_2807.JPG IMG_2806.JPG IMG_2805.JPG

Holly had already recorded for another label under his own name, so to avoid legal problems he needed a new name for his group. As the Crickets recalled in John Goldrosen's book Buddy Holly - His Life and Music, they were inspired by other groups named after birds. They were then considering insect-centered names, apparently unaware of the Bronx R&B vocal group the Crickets, who recorded for Jay-Dee. They almost chose the name Beetles: years later, the Beatles chose their name partly in homage to the Crickets.

In 1957 Norman Petty arranged for the Crickets' recordings to be marketed under two separate names. The solo vocals were released as being by Buddy Holly, and the songs with dubbed backing vocals were issued as being by the Crickets. Petty reasoned correctly that disc jockeys might be reluctant to program a single artist too heavily but would play records by two seemingly different groups. Some disc jockeys referred to the band as "Buddy Holly and the Crickets", but record labels never used this wording until after Holly's death.
 
Back
Top Bottom