Talk:American Record Corporation

Supertone
The labels list includes Supertone, which links to a disambiguation page. The "Supertone" listed there was distributed by Sears; is it the same one meant by the listing here? The entry in the ARC list sounds as if it's describing a different label under the same name. Drhoehl (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * another ARC label was Conqueror, also Sears Tillywilly17 (talk) 04:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Was ARC really not Amer. Record Company?
My question is simple: what do the best reliable sources have to say about the correct name(s) of the ARC Records described in this article? I know little about this field, but I've observed the following:
 * The printed sources are all over the place. A Google Books search for Leadbelly "American Record Company" produces twice as many hits as one for Leadbelly "American Record Corporation".  Then again, many of these sources are so careless that they use both names interchangeably.  The carelessness even extends to books that would seem to have excellent scholarly credentials, such as, for example, Andre Millard, America on Record: A History of Recorded Sound, 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, 2005.  Yet Millard, on page 167, uses both names on the same page to refer to ARC Records!
 * While, oddly, I can find no record of this page's having undergone a move or title change, had "American Record Company," and this seems to have remained unmolested for almost five years, until.
 * A Google Books search for printed sources that use both names, through which I hoped to find sources that are aware of the confusion and discuss it with some real authority, in fact produces
 * sources that use the two names carelessly and interchangeably: for example, Millard's book, Billboard (1956), All music guide to the blues: the definitive guide to the blues, Cusic's Gene Autry: His Life and Times p. 13;
 * a couple of sources that use the common-noun expression "American record company";
 * one source that clearly endorses the current Wikipedia titles: Literature of American music III, 1983-1992, Scarecrow Press, 1996, p. 111; and another that implicitly does so by using the abbreviations (p. xv) AR for Amer. Record Company and ARC for American Record Corporation: Brian Rust, Jazz and Ragtime Records (1897-1942): A-K, Mainspring Press, 2002 (in which further searching can confirm a case of 1936=ARC, but no instances of AR as opposed to Ar=Arista);
 * another source that addresses the confusion in a less summary way: Storyville (1986), apparently an article by R. M. W. Dixon and John Godrich. From what I can piece together from snippet view, it appears that this source has exercised more care over the issue than others and comes to the conclusion that ARC Records = American Record Company.  I say this because it contains the text: "ARC LABELS: Bruce Baston (Bruce Bastin?) points out that our Recording The Blues (OCR error "Bluet": reference is to this book) (p.67) refers to ARC as the American Record Corporation. This is wrong and B&GR3 (i.e. the 3rd edn. of this book) is correct: it was the American Record Company. " (I viewed the underlined text in snippet view of the page image: the rest is as reported via OCR-scanning in the search results.)
 * very few early sources, but do note United States Investor, Volume 43, Issue 1 (1932), reporting recent events: "In October, 1930, Consolidated took over a manufacturer of popular priced records, the American Record Company." (Our article says October 1929, by the way.)  However, the same page uses "American Record Corporation," in what looks to be a reference to the same firm.

This is a nice example where Wikipedia would be better served by true expert knowledge and multiple primary source documents. So far #4 appears to be our most reliable source, and it says this article is mistitled. None of the other sources compels us to doubt this. I wouldn't want to exclude the possibility that (perhaps especially after it was widely known as ARC Records), the firm itself carelessly referred to itself under both names!

Wait a minute though, can we find primary sources? For example, what about images of ARC Records releases. This image shows that, in 1981, anyway, the ARC brand within Columbia presented itself as "American Recording Company" (same year, same style, here). [Strikeout: Whoops, that's the "reactivated" label described at American Record Company. However, given ARC Records' business relationship with Columbia, I would appreciate knowledgeable confirmation that the 1979 relaunch is correctly said to be affiliated with the 1904-1908 concern and not with ARC Records or with neither.] The problem with easily finding older ARC Records images is that most of those releases were in fact on many of the other named labels that ARC owned. I hope someone can do better and find an image of the company's 1930's stationery, etc., but so far I have nothing in this category that trumps the most careful and committed secondary source above.

Conclusion: I believe the evidence above is enough to warrant moving this article to ARC Records and replacing "Corporation" with "Company" in the text, with a note that it is sometimes said (but apparently wrongly) in secondary sources to be distinguished as "Corporation." Wareh (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Some further research. NY Times headlines and article text from the 30's show both usages:
 * 11/13/31. WARNER MAY SELL UNIT.; American Record Company Considers Purchase of Brunswick.
 * 12/21/38. New officers for the American Record Corporation have been appointed on a temporary basis by the Columbia Broadcasting System, which, with Consolidated Film Industries, Inc., has just acquired the concern.
 * I am increasingly thinking that "Corp/Corporation" and "Co/Company" were used interchangeably and were not an essential part of the name/branding (as in "Microsoft, Inc." we don't think of Inc. as part of the name). It was, after all, a small-c "company" and "corporation."  Certainly, this is enough of a possibility that it would take quite an accumulation of ARC-issued primary sources for me to feel sure one way or the other.  I stick by my suggestion that the article should use "Company" while mentioning the uncertainty & variant usage in many sources, though.  Wareh (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 11/13/31. WARNER MAY SELL UNIT.; American Record Company Considers Purchase of Brunswick. << it ended up leasing it from Warner Bros
 * 12/21/38. New officers for the American Record Corporation have been appointed on a temporary basis by the Columbia Broadcasting System, which, with Consolidated Film Industries, Inc., has just acquired the concern.<<< sale 12-17-38 from CFI
 * it is corporation Tillywilly17 (talk) 04:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

There is never an ARC record label sold to the general public so I object to the renaming of this article to ARC Records. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * How about, then, a move to some disambiguated version of American Record Company? Now that I have decoded the author & publication references in #4 above and seen that it is R. M. W. Dixon and John Godrich retracting, in print, as "wrong," a reference they had made in print to ARC as "American Record Corporation" rather than "American Record Company," it seems to me hard to accept that the present title will do.  I still like ARC Records, because it seems to have some claim to be the most familiar name for the subject of the article (which I believe is the most important consideration under Wikipedia policy).  In any case, having the article named under the more contested "corporation" can't be justified simply to avoid the need to disambiguate.  Do you agree, and what do you suggest?  Wareh (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)  P.S. If you have evidence that eclipses everything I've put together above and really shows clearly that Dixon and Godrich are wrong, and that "American Record Corporation" has a unique claim to being the "label sold to the general public," please show it, and I will readily and gratefully accept the more reliable and authoritative evidence.  Wareh (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The name was popularly known simply as "ARC" and not "ARC Records" as it was already mentioned that there was never an ARC label sold to the general public. ARC marketed records under several labels led by Brunswick and Vocalion. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, and I think I understand you a little better. So would perhaps ARC (recording company) or something similar satisfy what I was going for with ARC Records (that is, an unproblematically correct and familiar name for the company)?  Wareh (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)  P.S. Your comments also make me wonder if Category:American record labels is somehow inappropriate for this page, if ARC was never a label, properly speaking.  Or is "family of record labels" close enough?  Wareh (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I was looking at old Billboard magazine articles through Google and Billboard over the years used both "company" and "corporation" in referring to ARC. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I know I have written at tedious length above (for which I sincerely apologize), but do have a look through it: I have already cited that issue of Billboard and examined several other sources in their context. Wareh (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I have the final word that the company was American Record Corporation--a record label saying so at. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move
American Record Corporation → ARC (record company) — The sources canvassed above provide weaker support for "Corporation" than for "Company," but they are, in the end, ambiguous. ARC has the advantages (1) definitely correct form of reference used by the entity, (2) as widely recognized and current a form as any other for the entity. Wareh (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No objections, so done.--Kotniski (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * American Record Corporation is correct. see citations I will post when I am done revising this page. Tillywilly17 (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Ted Wallerstein referred to ARC as the American Record Corporation
I found an interview with Ted Wallerstein at to conviced Bill Paley at CBS to buy ARC and he referred to it as a corporation. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * true he was correct Tillywilly17 (talk) 04:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Is not a sentence
This woefully tedious line:

"Although Plaza's assets were included in the merger, the Plaza company itself was not, (it formed Crown Records in 1930 as an independent label)[6] and the Scranton Button Company, the parent company of Emerson Records (and the company that pressed records for most of these labels)."

--- is still waiting for a verb at the end to take it somewhere. I could rewrite it if I had any idea what it's supposed to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.160.130.28 (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same ARC?
Are you sure that American Record Corporation and Maurice White's ARC vanity label are one and the same? I mean White's ARC stands for American Recording Company. The only thing similar between the two is that they share an acronym and a distributor, and that's about it, right? They shouldn't belong on the same page–. Therefore, I declare that the ARC vanity label either get a page of its own, or a subsection on the Earth Wind and Fire page. --TFSyndicate (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, it's kinda sorta the same. Columbia owned the name, and so they revived it.  Just like they revived the Harmony name in 1949, and Decca revived the Vocalion name for budget LPs.  The later version is more than a vanity label, it wouldn't make sense to merge it to Earth Wind and Fire.  Given that there's tenuous relation between the 1930s operation and the 1970s operation, I do think it makes sense if the articles were split.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 23:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with your facts and your opinion. No way we split article. The labels and trademarks owned are all part of the same story. Tillywilly17 (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Will be filling in missing events and correcting content
I already added exact date Dec 17 1938 of purchase

COMPLETE


 * Founded in January 1929, the American Record Corporation (ARC) was established by merging three companies; Cameo Record Corporation (which owned Cameo, Lincoln and Romeo Records), the Pathé Phonograph and Radio Corporation (which owned Actuelle, Pathé, and Perfect), and the Plaza Music Company (which owned Conqueror, Banner, Domino, Jewel, Oriole, and Regal).
 * Although Plaza’s assets were included in the merger, the Plaza company itself was not, (it formed Crown Records in 1930 as an independent label) and the Scranton Button Company, the parent company of Emerson Records (and the company that pressed records for most of these labels). Louis G. Sylvester, the former head of the Scranton Button Company, became the president of the new company, located at 1776 Broadway in Manhattan, New York City.
 * Perfect Records was purchased by ARC in July 1929
 * In April 1930, Brunswick-Balke-Collender sold Brunswick Records and subsidiary Vocalion) to Warner Brothers Pictures for $10 million, and the company’s headquarters moved to New York. Melotone was launched as Brunswick's budget label (25¢/record) in December 1930. Warner Bros. hoped to make their own soundtrack recordings for their sound-on-disc Vitaphone system. When Vitaphone was abandoned in favor of sound-on-film systems—and record industry sales plummeted due to the Great Depression, Warner Bros. leased Brunswick Records to Consolidated Film Industries, the parent company of the American Record Corporation in December 1931.
 * In December, 1931 the Columbia Phonograph Company, Inc.(U.S.), was sold to Grigsby-Grunow, manufacturers of Majestic radios and refrigerators. When Grigsby-Grunow was declared bankrupt in November 1933, Columbia was placed in receivership, and in early 1934 the company was sold to Sacro Enterprises Inc. (Sacro) for $70,000. Sacro was incorporated a few days before the sale in New York. Public documents do not contain any names.
 * Okeh Records, a subsidiary of Columbia since 1925, was included in the transaction. It was discontinued a short time later.
 * ARC used Brunswick as their flagship 75 cent label and Vocalion became one of their 35 cent labels
 * Consolidated Film Industries, Inc. (CFI) bought ARC in 1930, and leased Brunswick and Vocalion Records from Warner Bros in December 1931. ARC issued full-priced (premium) discs on Brunswick, and later on Columbia, which it obtained through a Bankruptcy proceeding in 1934. Discounted (35 cents) records were released on Oriole (sold at McCrory), Romeo (sold at Kress), Melotone, Vocalion, Banner, and Perfect.
 * ARC's primary recording studio was located at 1776 Broadway, New York
 * From January 1932 to December 1938, ARC operated Brunswick's former Chicago studio at the 21st floor of the American Furniture Mart, 666 N Lake Shore Drive, recording Jazz and Hillbilly artists like Gene Autry, Louise Massey
 * Los Angeles recordings throughout the 1930s were held at Radio Recorders, 932 North Western Ave., Hollywood, CA
 * Bing Crosby, Gene Autry, Fred Astaire

On December 17, 1938, American Record Corporation was purchased for $700,000 by the Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. (CBS). Edward Walerstein was named president on January 3, 1939. On April 4, 1939 CBS either filed a new incorporation in New York for Columbia Phonograph Company, Inc., or revived an existing entity. It is known that American Record Corporation was a Delaware corporation, so reports of a name change are incorrect. Variety magazine printed:

Columbia Recording; Corporation, a subsidiary of Columbia Broadcasting Systern, Inc., is now actively in the electrical transcription business. -Variety July 31, 1940 p121
Columbia Recording; Corporation, a subsidiary of Columbia Broadcasting Systern, Inc., is now actively in the electrical transcription business. July 31, 1940 p121 Tillywilly17 (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * update
 * though that was direct quote, plans apparently changed soon thereafter
 * Dave Tillywilly17 (talk) 00:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)