Thanks very much, John. Yes, I should have been more precise and not said “copyright”—thanks for this important clarification. I’ve found some evidence in my research that professors and archivists who wanted to record and distribute poetry found it difficult to navigate the recording and distribution processes, including claims that parts manufacturers would try to limit whom they sold recording materials to.
These early archive producers claimed commercial labels (like Victor) would refuse to record and distribute poetry, so they were the ones that needed to do it. The two main archives I’m looking at started in 1931 at Harvard and Columbia and were recorded on aluminum transcription discs (including poet like T.S. Eliot and Ezra Pound).
There is a lot packed into that claim, and I am working to pick it apart. Thanks again.
--Chris
On 2/2/18, 11:49 AM, "Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List on behalf of John Haley" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hi, Chris,
In the US, sound recordings could not be copyrighted under federal law
until February, 1972. While various court cases have tried to change that,
that remains the law. There is what we call "state law copyright" in a few
states, notably NY and CA, that provides some kinds of protection for
pre-1972 recordings, inconsistently and without a lot of clarity.
Your topic is interesting, but I have never thought of the record industry
in past decades as being a monopoly. Nothing ever prevented start-ups in
the record business, or small independent labels and products, and the
marketplace was actually quite competitive, as it remains today, although
the number of major labels is now much smaller thanks to massive
consolidation. Where the major labels did have some control over the
marketplace was in the area of distribution. You could "make your own
record," you just didn't have an avenue available to get it into wide
distribution. But there have always been exceptions. Read the Wiki on Tom
Lehrer, who made his own records, which became huge hits, undeterred by the
"powers that be" in the record business at the time.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding your topic.
Best,
John Haley
On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 9:29 AM, Richard L. Hess <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Interesting assertion. One might also make the assertion that going to
> 16-inch discs was also driven by length of recording time that could be
> captured on one disc. I heard that half-hour programs were at least
> sometimes recorded on two discs and that the first disc would run
> outside-in and the second inside-out. The reason for that, I was told, was
> that the opening and closing of the show would have the highest fidelity
> (since the linear velocity is highest at the outside of a disc).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2018-02-02 9:16 AM, Mustazza, Chris wrote:
>
>> Hi, everyone –
>>
>> I’m currently working on my dissertation, which is titled The Birth of
>> the Poetry Audio Archive, and focuses on how early sound recording shaped
>> the art of poetry. One my chapters is on American record labels’
>> relationship to poetry recordings, especially as it relates to the material
>> process of cutting a record and pressing it to shellac. I’m interested in
>> record companies’ monopolies on sound recording at the time, and how their
>> view of what poetry to record—and not record—informs later periods of
>> poetry recording.
>>
>> I came across the text below on Wikipedia—about record labels using
>> changes in format to dissuade copyright infringements, and I was curious if
>> anyone here could recommend any good books or articles on this topic.
>> Thanks so much for any advice!
>>
>> --Chris
>>
>> From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereophonic_sound#Early_later
>> al,_vertical_and_double-sided_stereo:
>>
>> “The development of acetate, bakelite, and vinyl, and the production of
>> radio broadcast transcriptions helped to solve this. Once these
>> considerably more quiet compounds were developed, it was discovered that
>> the rubber-idler-wheel driven turntables of the period had a great deal of
>> low-frequency rumble - but only in the lateral plane. So, even though with
>> all other factors being equal, the lateral plane of recording on disc had
>> the higher fidelity, it was decided to record vertically to produce
>> higher-fidelity recordings on these new 'silent-surface' materials, for two
>> reasons, the increase in fidelity and the incompatibility with home
>> phonographs which, with their lateral-only playback systems would only
>> produce silence from a vertically modulated disc.
>> After 33-1/3 RPM recording had been perfected for the movies in 1927, the
>> speed of radio program transcriptions was reduced to match, once again to
>> inhibit playback of the discs on normal home consumer equipment. Even
>> though the stylus size remained the same as consumer records at either 3
>> mils or 2.7 mils, the disc size was increased from 12-inches to the same
>> 16-inches as those used in early talking pictures in order to prevent the
>> practice even further. Now, not only could the records not be played on
>> home equipment due to incompatible recording format and speed, they
>> wouldn't even fit on the player either, which suited the copyright holders.”
>>
>> --
> Richard L. Hess email: [log in to unmask]
> Aurora, Ontario, Canada 647 479 2800
> http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
> Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.
>
|