The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

reverendpen wrote:So who owns the copyright for paramount recording (or any music from companies no longer around)?

Apparently being debated at the moment.

http://pitchfork.com/news/53822-third-m ... s-box-set/

Clay

It seems to me that if the foundation does indeed own the rights that they could easily produce the proof.

Jim

phonojim wrote:It seems to me that if the foundation does indeed own the rights that they could easily produce the proof.

Jim

One would think so.

Clay

Check this :[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-W61uS24ck[/youtube]

What a nice recording, tons of bass. But all the surface wear spoils it. Oh, well, next bookstore visit, find a clean copy.

That one has been played too many times with a dull rusty nail...

If I remember correctly, Paramount had record manufacturing quality issues and they do not wear well. Somewhere I have a book about their history that describes it, but don't recall exactly now. There is some reference to it in this Wikipedia piece: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramount_Records

In any event, I expect the "Jack of Diamonds" record might have value even with a bit of surface noise. Everything is relative.

Clay

At the antique center I found an electric black label Paramount in the 3000 series by the IXL quartet.Also at a flea market a Paramount in the 12000 series by the Paramount Jubilee singers.Both in beautiful condition!!edisonplayer

edisonplayer wrote:At the antique center I found an electric black label Paramount in the 3000 series by the IXL quartet.Also at a flea market a Paramount in the 12000 series by the Paramount Jubilee singers.Both in beautiful condition!!edisonplayer

I certainly hope you won't be playing them on vintage equipment.

Sean

Curt A wrote:That one has been played too many times with a dull rusty nail...

Yes. Like was pointed out above, it does seem that many Paramount 78's didn't hold up very well to mechanical reproducers and steel needles / rusty nails. I've heard that they used sand as a cheap filler ingredient in their shellac mixture, but I don't know if that's absolutely true or not.

IIRC, Alex van der Tuuk's "PARAMOUNT’S RISE AND FALL: The Roots and History of Paramount Records" discusses the composition New York Recording Laboratories used in making their records (which appeared on labels other than Paramount, of course). I recall that the company was not particularly diligent in screening the powdered clay they used, and so foreign matter could get included in the pressing. The notion that they put sand in the mix as a filler sounds like something a collector disappointed with Paramount's signal to noise ratio would say, but I am eager to be corrected.

The main problem with Paramount and other inexpensive makes (e.g., Grey Gull) was that they skimped on the ingredient that is crucial for a smooth surface, shellac, because that was the most expensive ingredient. Moreover, because today's most sought after Paramount titles were originally marketed towards the most economically distressed population in the United States, rural African-Americans, the original owners might have concluded that changing a needle after every play was a luxury they could not afford.

Best wishes, Mark

PS, in my original post in this thread, I meant to say that sought-after country titles on Paramount appear in a 3000 catalog series, NOT a 5000 catalog series. My apologies.