This is what they looked like on an LP (33-1/3 rpm vinyl record):
http://tinyurl.com/lykevh6
I thought Su.Ki was 100% right, but the earliest LP I own calls them "bands," not "tracks."
By the time I was acting as an engineer at the MIT student radio station in the 1960s, we called them "tracks."
I think the word "tracks" was influenced by magnetic tape technology. Tapes were recorded longitudinally. In the early days, recording head used the full 1/4" width of the tape. Over time, recording heads were modified and tapes would have two or four narrow "tracks" running side by side. And perhaps some will remember "8-tracks," popular for automobiles, which played prerecorded tapes with (of course) eight tracks on them.
A record sleeve touted the virtues of records (in the days when they were competing with cassettes and 8-tracks) and says that records "give you selectivity of songs and tracks."
https://cutcopyandpaste.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/it-always-happens-first-on-records.png
While we are on the topic... in the 1950s, a record "album" really was an album. It might hold six or eight 78 rpm disks, 10" or 12" in diameter. Each disk was kept in an envelope made of very tough, stiff, brown paper, and the envelopes were bound or hinged so that you could turn them like the pages of the book. It really was an "album." My folks had a few albums, one of Mozart's 40th Symphony and one of Tschaikovsky's Nutcracker Suite. A single 78 rpm record cost $3 or $4 so these albums most have cost $25 or so... equivalent to about $200 today. And those shellac records were fragile. If you accidentally dropped one, there was about a 50% chance that it would break, typically leaving you with several irregular pie-slice pieces precariously held together at the center by the glued label.