Was the Oil Crisis to blame for poor LP Sales in the '70s?

Not a myth--I noticed the quality of the pressings and the vinyl drop signficantly and I bought a huge boatload of vinyl at the time. You may not have experienced but I sure did.

 

Recycling

"Not a myth--I noticed the quality of the pressings and the vinyl drop signficantly and I bought a huge boatload of vinyl at the time. You may not have experienced but I sure did."

++++++++++++++++++++++

When did recycling vinyl LPs start? I am talking about unsold LPs being taken back and ground up.

Scott

 

I don't believe what I read in the papers, they're just out to capture my dime

I Sold a lot of vinyl back then.

It's not simply that the quality of the product went downhill in the Seventies—just compare RCA's product in 1958 to RCA's product in 1978—it's that the niche marketing of "High-End" vinyl reissues raised it's expensive head in the Seventies as well. I was working at Ray Avery's Rare Records when the Direct-To-Disc fad fired up. The store carried anything vinyl or shellac that might be collectible, like Mobile Fidelity reissues and Japanese pressings. When there was a perception that the quality of vinyl was declining, the niche of High-End LPs emerged. And that was in the Seventies, fueled by the paranoia of the "Oil Crisis."

 

i remember the oil crisis being blamed for what were to be double-album releases being trimmed to a single disc. The Mahavishu Orchestra's Between Nothingness and Eternity had originally been planned as a 2-LP set (according to reporting at the time). I think I remember that possibly Roxy Music's Viva was to be a 2-LP set also, but trimmed to one disc due to the oil crisis, although Viva was released in 1976. At the time I thought "why don't they just cut back on the number of titles". I was working in record stores at the time (Zounds in Philly, WeeThree in the MacDade Mall), and would check in tons of new titles every week, many of which never sold a single copy.

 

I definitely had bad experiences with the quality of vinyl in the late '70s/early '80s. One example: I lost count of the number of times I had to return Steve Hackett's "Defector" album because of all the annoying snaps/crackles/pops/thunks. I finally just gave up.

 

On the other hand,however,MFSL was also born in this decade,I believe,wasn't it? It brought back the beilief that nothing beat out a GREAT 180gm Vinyl Lp.

 

The Who's Quadrophenia was delayed in late '73 beacause of the oil crisis, or a specific oil embargo that took place at that time, I think. At least that's what I've read. I think they had to begin their UK tour in support of the album without the album on the shelves.

 

Many reasons audiophile LPs became popular in the late 70's. Pop music sales increased several fold by the sixties, studio recording technology made big leaps, and home stereo systems also 'improved' over those years. LP production expansion & sales was parallel with the same expansions in professional recording & home system improvements & sales in the US.

The prime demographic for pop music sales & these new improved home systems were reaching their 20's & 30's (greater means to buy these new/better home systems). I needn't bring up the difference in intro grade turntables between, say, 1967 and 1977 - there's no comparison.

The audiophile LP market also catered heavier to the jazz and non-rock music demo. It eventually expanded its way into AOR rock. Look at the catalogs of the companies. (I remember Steely Dan's Katy Lied for example being a fairly early rock title).

In short - an audiophile vinyl market was 'ripe' towards of the 70's in part because of the huge growth of pop music and the means to play it at home.

The issue of audiophile vinyl wasn't driven solely by a need for quiet vinyl - although that was a factor. After all the resolution and signal to noise ratio of modern systems improved greatly in the 70's, so audiophiles were wanting as high of quality pressings as possible. Part of the clamor for quieter vinyl in the audiophile market was also due to their awareness about audible differences between US, European and Japanese vinyl. The audiophile LP market was also as driven by their claims of improved lacquer cutting processes and care applied through the entire production process. And they often tweaked and applied EQ as well.

I am not saying there was NO 'quality of pressing' issues with vinyl in the mid-'70's, just that I never experienced any significant issues... to an appreciable degree. I do remember flecks embedded in some pressings of the late 70's, so I know there was recycled vinyl being used. Still, defective or 'noisy' pressings seemed to be an anomaly rather than the norm. Then again, in the 1970's (after 1976 for me) I cleaned my vinyl and cared for it, and played it on a properly set up Pioneer belt drive with a Shure cartridge.

I ascribe the common perception of 1970's vinyl (as being lesser quality than 1960's vinyl) more likely the result of the US tendency for mass market production. The growth of the vinyl market was phenomenal by the 70's. Even kids had vinyl collections. Home stereos were far more common. US production capacity met the demand. The average record consumer wasn't that obsessed with a dead quiet run in groove. Its was us nerds that were.

Plenty of 1960's vinyl was not of the highest caliber. Mercury for example was a large enough label of the day but tends to be noisier than most other labels. Plenty of small labels like International Artists and Takoma are notorious for their poor quality vinyl. And I still associate late-60's 'deep groove' RCA label pressings for their signature 'sandy' or 'grainy' floor noise (although great sonics that over ride that!).

I recall Dynaflex in 1971 / '72 being one of the industries first attempts to offer a higher quality record at an affordable cost - the use high grade or virgin vinyl (which is more expensive) while keeping the price down by lowering the amount used. While Dynaflex became known as one of the first industry gaffs (primarily due its thinness, which could be eye-raising I admit) to this day I am amazed at how quiet, clean, and good sounding those old maligned Dynaflex sound.

I also recall how many LPs I was buying by the mid-70's, and how some labels (like Vertigo/Mercury or Warner Bros.) were consistently high quality.

So....who has tracked down the facts & sources to support the story that labels were using recycled vinyl in the mid 70's? Was it just some labels - or all of them? Were vinyl 'returns' and 'rejections' of such numbers that they actually affected the production and sales of raw vinyl in the US? If massive vinyl returns were being made through store outlets, then how did this mass work its way back into the vinyl sales or supply market? There's too many questions that don't add up - and too many general assertions without facts which, which in light of my own experiences & reading, make me skeptical.

Until the issue is better researched and relies less on anecdotal stories of 'the aggrieved', I continue to be skeptical of this general 'vinyl quality was poor in the latter 1970's'. I didn't see this problem then -- and I'm not seeing it now as I look through and play vinyl of the period.

 

There was a lot of controversy about Fleetwood Mac's "Tusk" and Earth, Wind & Fire's "Faces" albums being double albums. EWF's album suffered for it, but The Isley Brothers' "Winner Takes All" didn't.

For the R&B market, many veteran artists started churning out short single albums.

 

Vinyl quality

Jumping ahead to the 80s most people cite their reason for gladly embracing CDs was to finally free themselves from the problems associated with vinyl.

While us "users" of vinyl LPs can talk about this and that problem with noisy LPs that we couldn't seem to find (such as the mentioned Steve Hackett album) it would be interesting to hear from record store workers.

Are there forum members who worked in music retail stores during this period? Did you notice more records being returned as defective during the mid and late 70s compared to before, say, 1973?

Scott

 

. . . which eventually rolls around to you stating that vinyl quality was at some sort of apogee in the Seventies.

I worked at Wherehouse records 1974/1977, I worked at Rare Records [Glendale, CA] 1977/1978, Odyssey Records [Berkeley, 1979], Tower Records [Berkeley, 1984/1987]. I witnessed the returns, I boxed stuff up, resealed marginal returns and returned the resealed LPs to the sales floor. I owned a variety of turntables—AR, mostly but also Dual and Empire and others. I used Shure cartridges, moved on to Grados and Grace cartridges. I carefully cleaned records. I heard all sorts of differences in levels in surface noise in LPs in all those years, lived in walking distance of the Capitol record pressing near Glendale for a while, became quite conscious of audiophile concerns—like the "sound" of different tonearms—in the process.

What I'm saying isn't anecdotal, it's just the facts. The level of resolution of playback gear did go up, but given the mis-match of gear usually found in most folks playback gear, surface noise often was a major issue, particularly for fans of classical music. Just read the Hi-Fi magazines of the ear, note how many critics complained of LPs that sounded like a bowl of Rive Krispies.

I'm glad you've had better luck than most, but the reality is that you're an outlier.

 

From 1972 [had a brief gig at a music store in Visalia, CA back then] through about 1990 [a job at the wonderful Musical Offering in Berkeley, 1988/1996], the level of returns of LPs continuously increased until CDs completely took over. Our last LPs were a magnificent stash of Import Baroque LPs from Audiosource, including some Astree, Accent and Harmonia Mundi vinyl.

 

I actually agree with everything you posted here. That the general public is picky is a given. In fact, the main thing touted to this day about CDs - mainly by the general public or average listener again - is how 'quiet' they are. 'Quietness' has always been the most common or pervasive issue for the average listener on issues of music playback. And the 'average' vinyl listener then, probably as today, has little clue how the synergy of a system works in playback as well as vinyl selection.

I didn't include my friends at the time when I relayed my experiences. I know all of us had the occasional return - personally mine were for having a hole in the vinyl (!) and maybe a few were warped or something. But it just wasn't that common.

I collect a lot of UK vinyl from the 60's & 70's. A lot of it is, in reality not any more quiet (or noisy) than comparative US vinyl. Some labels are noted for the their quiet quality, like Decca. Others, like island, are often akin to US pressings.

Back in the day, and today, many US labels made vinyl on a par with the overseas vinyl. I can barely find a good 360 Columbia or Warner Brothers/Reprise that, if clean, doesn't play gorgeously quiet.

My summation is this: I think the issue with US vinyl is more the result of larger or mass production processes, including the weighing of quality control & marketing. I have to remember that a lot of my UK vinyl was never mass produced, nor produced in the same way. The audio market over there was a bit more select and particular than what occurred in America. No different than with most other kinds of consumer matters.

 

Right now I'm playing a $1 copy of Roy Buchanan's Second Album, Polydor U.S. pressing. The record's dated 1973, there's no noise issues, no mistracking issues, the guitar sound on After Hours cuts like a knife. I wish most modern record production could sound this good.

As regards system synergy, I'm back to using a Shure cartridge, this time the 97xe. It's mounted on the end of a SMEIII arm hardwired to some Canare StarQuad. That's a synergistic combo, the SME arm was designed for the Shure V-15 series and in many ways the 97 is physically similar and is nearly as compliant as the last V-15 series. Bypassing the RCA phono out and hardwiring Canare StarQuad reduces audible hum and is far lighter and more flexible than any "audiophile" tonarm cable. This also usefully reduces cable capacitance. While I know there's better stuff out there, my current set-up is much better than any turntable I had back in the day.

The most noticeable difference is reduced apparent surface noise on all records.

 

I remember Bootleg 8-Tracks all too well, I saw them being sold at gas stations, truck stops and a few record stores in Texas and Oklahoma..sometimes at the same price as the legit ones.

There's a great story on one of Mercury Records early 70's inner sleeves about Jerry Lee Lewis finding a rack of bootleg tapes at a gas station, taking the rack outside and then smashing them with a baseball bat.

 

I don't know that companies always used recycled vinyl or to what degree but from personal experience the quality of vinyl dropped from the time I purchased them in the 60's and after the oil crisis in 1973. The quality of the vinyl was the big issue at the time. Just comparing the quality of the stuff I purchased in the 70's to the stuff I purchased in the 60's--there was a huge drop in the overall quality and content of the vinyl produced in the mid to late 70's by comparison.

You may be skeptical but having lived through the time and purchased the stuff there was a sharp decline in the quality. Perhaps it had to do with what you were buying at the time or (and I don't know how old you are) having nothing to compare but it was an issue. I had real issues with finding quiet vinyl at the time as well although it wasn't as big an issue and the higher proportion of warped records had much to do with the reduced vinyl content.

I doubt that there are any resources online beyond some general articles but it wasn't an urban myth.

 

Do you have any specific examples? Seriously.

I have had, or have, thousands of LPs from the 60's & 70's. Depending on the labels, some are, shall we say... indifferently pressed vinyl and some are quiet & gorgeous. This seem to have little relation to the era they were pressed. i.e. I have cobby looking 60's records and audiophile quality major label LPs from the mid to late 70's.

Take RCA for example. Most of the deep groove pressings from 1967 thru 1969 are noisier than subsequent Dynaflex or tan label pressings of the 1971-77 era. In some ways they are still better sounding IMO due to thickness, weight, stampers used and so on.... but as far as quality? The average joe hearing them would pick the 70's pressings I guarantee.

It'd be interesting to see just what people are talking about.

I could literally fill columns about quiet, beautiful sounding mid to later 1970's pressings and so-so quality earlier pressings i.e. late 50's thru the 60's.

 

"The Beatles Live at the Hollywood Bowl" (I purchased this twice and both times the vinyl sounded like crap).
"Paris" -Supertramp
"Viva"-Roxy Music
"How Dare You"-10cc
A couple of Steely Dan titles (on ABC) (although curiously the 1979 2 album best of sounded quite nice)
"These Foolish Things"-Bryan Ferry
"Caribou"-Elton John


...there are others that I can't recall at the moment and many that I no longer have.

Mind you, I'm not saying that ALL vinyl was crappy at the time but I began to have a lot more problems than i had ever had before.

I don't recall ever having a problem with any Columbia Records titles. To dismiss the problem with vinyl in the 70's as an urban myth seems a bit much to me--yes there were more LPs being produced and yes quality control dropped.

All I can relate was MY experience with vinyl at the time which was that it left a lot to be desired and I had problems with many titles much more than I had previously.

Certainly there were other elements that resulted in quieter vinyl but I also had plenty of problems as well during the time frame.

That's not to claim i didn't have problems with releases in the 60's but I had LESS problems.

 

I've read through this thread, and am going to come back to this original question. In 1979, sales did drop dramatically, and it was in the midst of a recession that was fueled in large part by rising energy cost. I remember trading my 1972 Gran Torino that got about 13 miles a gallon for a 1976 Datsun B-210 that got upward of 25 MPG because it was costing me too much to fill up the Gran Torino. (I didn't do the math to see how many miles I'd have to drive at double the mileage to actually pay for the different car...) The rising costs of oil affected most areas of the economy, and discretionary spending was hurt most.

Add to that the disco bubble burst around that same time, and it was a perfect storm for the record industry. Yes, some acts continued to sell well, but the overall bottomline was hurt. Do a Google Search with the terms: Record, industry, 1979, sales--and you will find articles outlining the problem.

JcS

 

That's when I remember hearing about it, at Tower Records in Seattle when Tusk came out. It and The Long Run were supposed to save the record industry.

 

Might have worked if not for 1) the fact that the entire album was played all over rardio 2) it wasn't so expensive 3) it was a radical depature from the album before.

Don't get me wrong, it's my favorite album by that line up of FM BUT it is quite polarizing for fans of the that version of the band.

"The Long Run" did well but it couldn't match "Hotel California" sales and, frankly, it's not as consistent an album even though I personally like the best songs there better than "HC".

 

Bump.

 

If it makes you feel better, the avg. MPG (highway + city) for that Datsun B-210 was actually 33. Of course, you had to add a nickel per gallon for switching to unleaded. So the question is, did you recoup your $ before the car rusted out around you?

 

I did. I drove that car through law school and the first couple of years of working. I paid $1700 for it, because it had been in a wreck, and when I traded it in on a new Tercel, I got $400 in trade. It didn't have any rust problems that I recall.

My wife, on the other hand, had a '74 Datsun of some sort, and it had been in some Kansas City winters--it had rust problems.

JcS

 

The title of the album didn't indicate that you'd have a problem?