[78-L] Columbia artists and copyright (Was: Who is the artist on these early Columbia's)

[Michael Biel]

> Early Columbia records like these can have the same serial numbers
> and different artists, depending on which take you get. . . .
> I guess back then Columbia and other companies considered the
> artists interchangable, and the songs themselves to sell the records. 

Remember that the song writing business was based on sheet music even
during these early years of the phonograph.  The SONG was what was
important.  They did show performers on some of the sheet music's cover,
but like Columbia records, these performers were interchangeable and you
will often find different copies with different performers shown --
sometimes those who never performed the song.  

> you need check the take numbers, and then refer to Tim Brooks'
> Columbia discography. OR--play them because they might be announced.

Early Columbia labels usually don't even show the artist's name, but
show the composer in LARGE letters.  It might be the same idea that the
movie companies did by trying to keep their performers anonymous so that
they wouldn't ask for more money when they became stars.  But soon they
discovered that star performers are what sold the movie, and that people
would go to any and all movies with their favorite performers, so their
extra salary could be worth it.  But one of the other reasons might be a
holdover from the cylinder production when they had to very frequently
re-record a song with whoever was available.  I think this is also the
case with the first year or two of discs because looking at Tim's
discography there are an astonishing number of takes listed for so many
of the records.  Not all of theme have been confirmed by actually
sighting them in collections, so some might have been rejected or
skipped over when pressing a newly improved recording is issued when
they have older unused masters still available.  And then sometimes one
of these older masters show up on the coupled 2-sided A-xxx series. 
 

Remember the confusion that comes with the Columbia recording of William
McKinley's Speech at the Pan American Exposition.  Even the Archive of
Folksong at the Library of Congress thought they had a recording of
William McKinley when it really was one of the Spencer bros. They were
even about to brag about it on a TV show!!!!  It was a history channel
program about the AFS and they had done a whole section showing them
restoring a CRACKED copy of the disc before someone told them about the
goof.  They still played the section but changed the narration saying
that some people think it is not McKinley.  Of course they didn't
address the stupidity of not checking across the street at the LC
Recorded Sound division to see if they had a better copy!!!  Nor the
stupidity of hedging their bets by saying that SOME think it is not
McKinley.  Everybody KNOWS it is not McKinley.  

>> Columbia issued so many takes of some titles in these early days
>> that the collector of this kind of stuff will never get bored.
>> Billy Golden recorded "Turkey in the Straw" over and over and over,
>> and they're all good. Recently I found take 6, which has the most
>> intense ragtime piano accompaniment. The others have piano acc also,
>> but none compare with this take--of those I have heard... 

Speaking of the Library of Congress, they are embarking on a project of
digitizing and streaming TEN THOUSAND pre-electric masters controlled by
Sony (which includes Victor).  They are doing it quick-and-dirty with
only a minimal amount of restoration -- and I mean MINIMAL.  This is the
sort of thing that they should be told about because they probably will
not do alternate takes and only use the best looking copy or the latest
take.  

San Brylawski and I disagree a little about what Sony's motives are for
this magnificent project.  I think that it is a move to disarm the move
to have Congress reduce the copyright term of pre-72 recordings.  The
first step had been the study a few years ago which showed practically
no early recordings available from the rights holders, and if they
assert that the rights holder (Sony) is responsible for making these
available, this will tremendously skew the figures in their favor.  Tim
Brooks was standing right behind me when we heard this project announced
while we were at ARSC visiting Culpepper, and when I asked him about
this theory he just sorta smiled and nodded.  Sam thinks this is Sony
just doing the right thing.  Of course it is not Sony doing the work,
and we should INSIST that they not be given the credit as being the
supplier of the recordings.  We can't let them trick Congress.

Mike Biel  mbiel at mbiel.com