Topic: Story of Paramount Records - Thirdman / Revenant Records

[Stuart]

Jack White and Dean Blackwood were on Charlie Rose this evening (Thursday) talking about the set and Paramount. If it's not available as a re-broadcast in your area, it should be available on the CR site in a couple of days.

They came off as a couple of sincere  guys who want to tell Paramount's story and get the music out there. JW said something to the effect that Charley Patton was the source or basis of almost all modern music. That might be overstating the case a bit, but if it gets a few more people to listen to Charley, so much the better.

[Tom Rushen]

Sincere they may be, but they still need to answer for their failure to secure the licenses needed from George Buck/his estate. I'll bet Charlie Rose didn't bother to do his homework and ask them about that matter. 60 minutes of softball questions to sell a luxury, big ticket item. Sad and pathetic.

[Stuart]

The operative words in my post are "came off as." Most of us here can do critical evaluation with the best of them, but unless we're in a position really put the hammer down, all we can do is post and discuss. I just watch this stuff for informational purposes and maybe a few leads. A grain of salt and all that goes with it. I'm not buying the set.

I doubt that hard nosed investigative reporting is ever going to see the light of day in the mainstream media when it comes to royalties, etc., from obscure old music. Around here we know what goes on--and what did go on--is/was unfair and unjust, but actually being able to do something about it by finding the effective and tangible next step that yields real world results is another matter. I'm not in a position to do a complete and thorough audit of Third Man and/or Revenant and their principals--and hold their feet to the fire if I uncover something wrong. 

Believe me when I say that I had a few thoughts when watching the CR segment. I just put up the original post with my  impressions as an FYI so others could watch the segment if they so choose.

[Tom Rushen]

Stuart, my post was not critical of you, merely an observation from me about the Rose interview. I agree with your thoughts in reply to me....sorry if you thought I was critical of you...

It's one thing for any of us to look back on the blatant theft of music and exploitation of musicians from 80 years ago....but watching deep pockets market a luxury item that they didn't license, right in front of our eyes, and engage in a slick PR campaign designed to win themselves a Grammy? That's a tough thing to swallow.

[bnemerov]

Hi gang,
Just home from a week away to find that this discussion has taken another surprising turn.
The Rose interview can be viewed on the BloombergBusinessweek site.
http://www.businessweek.com/videos/2013-12-27/paramount-records-charlie-rose-12-27

Mr. Rushen has it right, for my money.
Dean Blackwood is a friend and has been generous in the past, so I give him a pass---he's circumspect in his claims.

But Jack White is pig-ignorant about the history of the musicians and race recording in general. Ma Rainey was hardly an unknown when she recorded for Pm and Mayo Williams' nickname wasn't given for his ability to get contracts signed.....I mean, really; what BS!

These are only two examples and only in the 1st six minutes.
Narcissism unleashed.

best,
bruce

[Rivers]

Remind me Bruce, I'm having a senior moment, Mayo Williams' nickname was?

[bnemerov]

It was "Ink," Rivers---

and to clarify: My endorsement of Tom Rushen's last post was of his ethical distress with this project.
I share an ethical distress, but mine is not about the legal/financial aspects.

Paramount is what's considered an "orphan" company and phono-copyrights (the one that protects an artist and his label) don't apply. The only copyrights that need licensure are song copyrights (the one that protects the composer; under current copyright law, only songs written and filed with the copyright office after 1923 are covered).
[Copyright law was written by Franz Kafka....even copyright lawyers don't understand it]

Legally securing songs is what Ralph Peer was so savvy about.

"Ink" Williams? Maybe not.

In any case, I think Dean Blackwood would have seen to the necessary legalities with respect to the songs. The artists, (because Paramount was abandoned in the 1930s), are out in the cold unfortunately. The John Steiner purchase of Paramount (and subsequent Buck "ownership") didn't include any copyrights.

best,
bruce

[Bunker Hill]

As an aside back in 1972 Jim O'Neal interviewed J. Mayo Williams extensively. I seem to recall Jim supplied me with some Blind Blake info from that interview in a discussion. I thought I'd posted Bob Koester's lengthy 1980 Come For To Sing obituary but searching has failed to reveal it.

[jostber]

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/posts/la-et-ms-paramount-records-history-20131208,0,161947.story?page=2#axzz2pYfWvyo1

[bnemerov]

here's an article in a audiophile magazine---an interview with Dean Blackwood. He addresses the copyright, recorded sources and MP3 issues. much more informative than Jack White's romantic notions.
http://www.stereophile.com/content/paramount-records-cabinet-wonders

best,
bruce

[Rivers]

Woo!

[allenlowe]

just a word about the sonics - though variable they are the clearest I have ever heard for Paramounts; a good restorer accepts the limits of what he can do with damaged material, and it's clear they have done the best possible job with these (I've listened to about 15 volumes out of 32 CDs which I transferred from MP3s). No matter what the legalities, no one else would ever have done this with this much important material. So I am grateful.

[Gilgamesh]

No replies since February? I guess few people here are shelling out the bucks for this, and that doesn't bode well for depleting the 5,000 copies OR for Volume 2. Probably a good idea to wait a while longer to see if sluggish sales drive down the price to something more reasonable.

[Gilgamesh]

Alex's [van der Tuuk] 2003 book of the same name (from which most all graphics and photos in this set come) is selling for $500.00+ on the used market.

That is quite shocking. I remember complaining having to pay 39.99 or whatever it was when it was new. Why in the world is it selling for $500 now? Does anything with the name "Paramount Records" on it start turning to gold after 10 years?

[Stuart]

Alex's [van der Tuuk] 2003 book of the same name (from which most all graphics and photos in this set come) is selling for $500.00+ on the used market.

That is quite shocking. I remember complaining having to pay 39.99 or whatever it was when it was new. Why in the world is it selling for $500 now? Does anything with the name "Paramount Records" on it start turning to gold after 10 years?

Selling doesn't necessarily mean anyone is buying.

You probably missed my earlier post to this thread.

http://www.mainspringpress.com/book_paramount.html

http://www.mainspringpress.com/home.html