I never really "got" into buying 12 inch singles... in my time I think I couldn't had bought more than 10 in all and even then, more likely around 5. I was never interested in dance or remixes so all those extended remixes unique to the format had zero appeal to me. The only real appeal they had was the odd bonus track and the covers - CD and cassettes massacred album art so it was handy to get nice large covers, but the thickness was a deterrent since they could easily get folded or bent around the edges so seemed more prone to damage.
I knew quite a few who lived and died on them though, but when I'd explore second hand stores, I never once felt compelled to rifle through the 12inch rack or piles.
Anyway... my own thoughts and feelings there, so, over to you -
What was the appeal (or maybe not) of 12 inch singles for you?
Do they evoke nostalgia in the same way us 7 inch freaks get misty eyed about 7 inch vinyl? Why?
Classic Hard Rock Collector Member since Sep 2012 608 Points
Being mostly into hard rock back then, I have some 12" singles as most rock artists didn't use the format (except for my heavy Queen 12" single collection). It was definitely cool to find one by a rock artist as it usually had a non-album or a live track.
Caddacack oh da ca-caddacack, shy shy skagellack Member since Jun 2010 4168 Points
I have a couple of US promos - Talking Heads and Human League - which are medleys (for radio station use, I believe) but they run at 33.3 RPM. Definitely not LPs but still...
HI Zabadak All American Import 12" singles ran at 33.3 rpm. Some having more than One track. Or 4 Tracks of re mix's from the same Artists. Also the first 12" singles In the UK where 33.3 rpm. Before Quickly changing to 45 rpm. H.
The beatles issued love me do on a 12" single. It had both the lp and the 7" version of the a side and the normal b side. And hey Jude and another single which I can't think of atm were on 12" picture discs.
Caddacack oh da ca-caddacack, shy shy skagellack Member since Jun 2010 4168 Points
henry29 wrote:
HI Zabadak All American Import 12" singles ran at 33.3 rpm. Some having more than One track. Or 4 Tracks of re mix's from the same Artists. Also the first 12" singles In the UK where 33.3 rpm. Before Quickly changing to 45 rpm. H.
Yes - I got these at a record fair mumble mumble years ago but I suspect their legality...
Raised on a diet of broken biscuits Member since Apr 2012 1046 Points
Like biffbampow, I am not really a fan of the 12" format - especially if it didn't house any extra tracks, it just seemed like a waste of vinyl. However, I do have some fairly recent 10" records where in many cases have never been released on 7" - Kasabian, Kings of Leon etc. I still gripe a bit as they do not fit on the same shelves as my singles and have to reside with my LPs and the odd 12" bought for the completist side of me.
I have listed them here but am still struggling with the image stitching.
When in doubt.......accelerate........ Member since Dec 2010 734 Points
henry29 wrote:
All American Import 12" singles ran at 33.3 rpm.
....I'm afraid not, A good many US pressed 12" singles that were imported into UK ran at 45 r.p.m. From knowledge, only Columbia, and associated labels ran at 33 ⅓ RPM, although there were others I cannot recall at the moment.
I've just entered one, Kool & The Gang, plays 45 RPM, bought by me in 1976,
Got given a small pile of 12" singles recently , slowly adding. Originals bought from new ( all 4 of them ) to follow when they come out of the LP section in the record heap, as said above the ones from new seemed to have additional tracks , or running times , from the 7"s , where issued. 'Dance' music generally not my scene.
Self praise is no recommendation. Member since Oct 2011 45326 Points Moderator
I've never liked 12" singles, and have always thought of them as the poor relative of the mighty 7". When they first came along, I'd only buy them if I couldn't find a 7" version. Saying that, I probably have 500-1,000 of them tucked away somewhere!
I got the feeling that the format was mainly in play for record companies to make money. It seemed like groups would have an extended version of their single done, not for artistic reasons, but just so they could put out a 12"single. Really, what's the point of re-editing two or three more minutes of instrumental break into the middle of a song? There are exceptions of course, but I think the format was devalued by this.
Motown had a good policy - when they re-issued oldies like "Heard It Through The Grapevine", the 12-inch edition would have rare old tracks added on.
Although the editing in the 80's and early 90's was misguided and sometimes defeated the purpose, the main reason for the extended instrumental beaks on 12" singles was for DJ's and beatmatching. You would mix the instrumental intro form the next record into the instrumental breakdown on the record currently being played.
And in theory, becasue of the larger playing surface, wouldn't the quality of the sound on a 12" be better than a 7 inch due to being able to produce wider grooves? Am I way off here? I mean, I am surer there were many badly produced 12" single that sounded like garbage no matter what. However, in theory wouldn't this be the case?
When in doubt.......accelerate........ Member since Dec 2010 734 Points
no, no, no, you're getting it all wrong, so now I'm gonna get medievally mathmatical on you're asses.......
A 7" single playing at 45 r.p.m. has a given speed at the point where the stylus touches the vinyl, lets say it equates to fifteen inches per second (15 i.p.s.) as the disc revolves. (If you want you can work it out with Pi R squared, and all that, you're on your own....)
Similarly, an LP album playing at 33 ⅓ RPM will have an equivalent speed of fifteen inches per second (15 i.p.s.) where the stylus touches the vinyl, due to the fact that a larger diameter disc playing at the slower speed of 33 ⅓ RPM, will equate with the 7" single. The quality at those two standard speeds should be equivalent to a reel to reel tape recorder running at fifteen inches per second (15 i.p.s.), which is Hi-Fi.
Moving on, if you have a 12" Single playing at 33 ⅓ RPM, with a single track per side (US Columbia 12" all played at 33 ⅓ RPM, as far as I'm aware, (check the Columbia US Discography, starting in 1977 on this site), and providing the track lasts no more than 10 minutes maximum, then the mastering engineer can EQ / cut the disc, and impart into the grooves plenty of low frequency bass which was ideal for discos.
It stands to reason that a 12" Single, cut to play at 45 r.p.m. at the same diameter as a 33 ⅓ RPM 12" Single, then the speed where the stylus touches the vinyl will be greater, at roughly twenty five inches per second (25 i.p.s.), which will improve the dynamics of the sound range over that of the 33 ⅓ RPM 12" Single, and the bass can rattle your back teeth.....
The length in time of the 45 r.p.m. 12" would have to be shorter, about seven minutes long I would guesstimate, and once cranked up in a disco, would sound great, or is is grate, depending on how sensitive your ears are.
To flip this, if you have a 7" single which plays at 33 ⅓ RPM, and there were plenty, to allow much longer duration single tracks, you were bound to lose lose a lot of the frequency range, and subsequently, they sound 'quiet', as EQ quality cannot be maintained the longer the time of the track, and due to the constraints that the cutting engineer was under squeezing too much time onto a single.
Ideally, the 12" single came about in 1975 as DJs wanted longer tracks to play for their patrons, and of course, some used two copies to intermix breaks, and keep the punters on the dance floor, until they dropped with exhaustion.
Froggy, who I knew (RIP Steve Howlett), was excellent at mixing tracks, and had a 3000kw system......ouch.
I know this is an old topic but I've just been having a think, but it seems that many 12" discs just seemed a way to get people of a collective nature to spend more money.
For instance Marillion's big hit kayliegh had a 7", a 7" picture disc, a 12" and a 12" picture disc. The pic discs were no different to the standard black vinyl equivalent. And the 12" not only had an alternate mix if the A side but also an alternate mix of the B side!
I wasn't alive when this was out so I can't say about prices but I assume that 7" was cheapest and 12" was more expensive as more material was needed and pic disc even more? (Correct me if I'm wrong!) so why would you buy all of them at great expense when originally issued just because they looked different !?
Yes. I think it was just a way of exploiting the market. Same thing happens today with CDs. You get the standard one, the one with two extra tracks, another one with an embedded DVD and so on. It's just a method of raining down product onto fans.
I do remember the 12-inch single in the 80s. It seemed like every single by a given artist came out in a 12-inch version as well. There was usually no artistic justification for lengthening every track by repetition and juggling the parts about. You could argue it if it were just done on the odd single - say, "Thriller" - but it was almost mandatory. As said above, the fidelity on a 12-inch press should be better than the 7-inch one, but again, I don't think that was the reason for it. The format was just a way of milking the public.