|
slholzer 23rd Apr 2016
| | The Wikipedia article cited by xiphophilos is incisive and sheds a lot of light on the convoluted history of the Puritan label. It would seem that the use of the same number for different recordings was an artifact of the simultaneous operations of the different "arms" of the company and that we should expect to encounter more such occurrences. I infer from the language used that this was unintentional and that we will not find two distinct 11000 series.
The label biog at Discogs gets an A for effort, but I'm not inclined to trust it very far. At one point, toward the end, it makes two completely contradictory statements. It probably needs to be proofread to make sure it says what the author intended it to say. |
|
|
|
xiphophilos 23rd Apr 2016
| | We'd not be complaining. ;-) |
|
|
|
vocalion red 22nd Apr 2016
| | My goodness, I better send you guys another Puritan |
|
|
|
slholzer 22nd Apr 2016
| | I'm not sure how you would divide the Puritan output if you do try it. Rust's American Record Label Book agrees that all of the Puritan labels were the product of a single business entity, in spite of naming various and sometimes simultaneous manufacturers on the labels and working at times through other companies, most notably Paramount. Factually, they are no more separate labels than Victor Red Seals were from their pop records. Whether you gain anything as a database from separating them may depend on whether any logical and consistent basis for dividing them presents itself. The two known uses of the number 11198 appear on different versions of the Puritan label, but I don't know how many other such items. if any, there are, or whether they consistently appear on the same labels. I would suggest, for the moment, that you can probably adequately document the two items each with their own entry and with appropriate cross-references, without having to artificially create a new label name to house one of them. I would be leery of problems that might arise from fragmenting labels based on differences that, in the final analysis, are cosmetic. |
|
|
|
xiphophilos 21st Apr 2016
| | Based on the Wikipedia article on the Puritan label (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritan_Records), there seems to have been a business relationship between the Wisconsin Chair-owned Puritan label and the New York Recording Lab.
Another label biography states, "The earliest Puritan releases were credited to the United Phonographs Corporation of Sheboygan, WI. This company was a subsidiary of The Wisconsin Chair Company, so United Phonographs Corporation was technically a sister company to The New York Recording Laboratories" (source).
Based on this, I have the impression that it may not be necessary to create two different Puritan labels, at least for database purposes. What do others think? |
|
|
|
slholzer 21st Apr 2016
| | Collectors seeking Puritan recordings need to be aware that there were two different Puritan labels that issued records in an 11000 series. One was the Bridgeport label, pictured here. The other was a blue and gold label issued by the New York Recording Labs. The corresponding issue by the New York Recording Labs featured the Newport Society Orchestra on both sides. The A side was "I Gave You Up (Just Before You Threw Me Down)" (Kalmar, Ruby, Albert). The B side was "Ivy" (Jones, Johnson). |
|
|