MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W903817244

Paramount's Rise and Fall: The Roots and History of Paramount Records

2013· article· en· W903817244 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ed Komara

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal - Association for Recorded Sound Collections · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMusic History and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBluesHistoryManagementLawSociologyArt historyPolitical scienceEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Paramount's Rise and Fall: The Roots and History of Paramount Records, 2nd edition. By Alex van der Tuuk. Denver, CO: Mainspring Press, 2012. ISBN 0-98520-042-8 (paperback). $39 While reviewing the hardcover first edition of Alex van der Tuuk's Paramount's Rise and Fall: A History of the Wisconsin Chair Company and its Recording Activities for the ARSC Journal eight years ago (2005;36(1):100-102), I thought it was remarkable because it told the story of Paramount Records from the perspective of its parent company the New York Recorded Laboratories, and its grandparent company the Wisconsin Chair Company. Previous writers, who I will mention later, had focused on the recording producers, scouts, and artists. For his revised, expanded, and newly subtitled edition, van der Tuuk has reinforced his distinctive perspective on this firm by adding new information about Wisconsin Chair. Paramount collectors will want to buy this new version, while the fans of pre-1942 blues who had missed out on the first edition should take their opportunities to buy this one. (For its 2004 Awards, ARSC recognized the first edition as a nominee in the category of Best Research in Record Labels or Manufacturers.) Throughout its 15-year activity Paramount Records was a crass operation. In the eyes of grandparent company Wisconsin Chair, 78-rpm records ranked no higher than its other subsidiary companies in real estate, mining, oil, and natural gas. In the overall business scheme, the records were loss-leaders, serving as incentives for customers to buy the phonographs housed in cabinets built by Wisconsin Chair. Yet at the height of Paramount's sales during the 1920s, more money was made from the records than from the cabinets. What distinguished Paramount from the other record labels of the 1920s were its rosters of blues and black sacred musicians. Through the mid-1920s, the African American scout and producer Mayo Williams shepherded to Paramount the cream of musicians playing in Chicago, whether on the T.O.B.A. circuit, or in local venues like the Monogram Theater. Among the very best of this period were Ethel Waters, Alberta Hunter, Ma Rainey, Joe Oliver with Louis Armstrong, and Lovie Austin and her Blues Serenaders. Wisconsin Chair also maintained offices for its New York Recording Laboratories in New York, Port Washington WI, and Washington DC, and it made frequent use of the Gennett recording facility in Richmond, Indiana. By and in 1929, Paramount's circumstances were changing drastically: Williams left, his work taken over by Arthur Laibley; male rural singers like Blind Lemon Jefferson were outselling the female urban singers; and Wisconsin Chair opened its own recording studio on its Grafton, WI premises. While legendary now among record collectors and blues fans, the last 3 years of recording (1930-1932) were at the time the most desperate for Paramount, who was trying to see if the names of southern artists like Geechie Wiley and King Solomon Hill sounded exotic enough to the public to generate one more hit. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.009
Science and technology studies0.0100.011
Scholarly communication0.0200.015
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.009

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal - Association for Recorded Sound CollectionsSame topicMusic History and CultureFrench-language works237,207