![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
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)
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:
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)
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)
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 think I have the final word that the company was American Record Corporation--a record label saying so at [1]. Steelbeard1 ( talk) 18:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
I found an interview with Ted Wallerstein at [2] 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)
The citations for this article must be linkable in order to be verifiable. Citations which are not easily verifiable are not sufficient to avoid deletion of edits in question. Steelbeard1 ( talk) 02:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
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 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)
I already added exact date Dec 17 1938 of purchase
COMPLETE
On December 17, 1938, American Record Corporation was purchased for $700,000 by the Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. ( CBS) [1]. 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:
References
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)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
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)
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:
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)
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)
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 think I have the final word that the company was American Record Corporation--a record label saying so at [1]. Steelbeard1 ( talk) 18:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
I found an interview with Ted Wallerstein at [2] 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)
The citations for this article must be linkable in order to be verifiable. Citations which are not easily verifiable are not sufficient to avoid deletion of edits in question. Steelbeard1 ( talk) 02:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
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 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)
I already added exact date Dec 17 1938 of purchase
COMPLETE
On December 17, 1938, American Record Corporation was purchased for $700,000 by the Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. ( CBS) [1]. 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:
References
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)