This article is within the scope of WikiProject Record Labels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of record labels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jazz, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of jazz on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
While correct *for the company itself*, the claim that Okeh was inventing something new when they started doing location recording with portable equipment in 1922 is ridiculous. Especially in the earliest days of commercial disc recording, it had always been easier and more economic to have the engineers travel to the artists than the other way round. The Gramophone Co.'s senior recording expert, Fred Gaisberg, had travelled all over Europe making recordings since 1899, and had reached as far as China and Japan by 1903. The real oddity is not that Okeh covered many recording locations throughout the USA, but that Victor, Edison and Columbia had failed to do so (leading to the curious fact that we have practically only East Coast, especially New York artists on record for the 1900 - 1920 era). 22.214.171.124 (talk) 10:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
EMI's rights to Okeh catalog in the UK expired in 1968
If you look at Amazon UK's listing for Okeh artist Major Lance, they are on the Sony Music owned Epic label. The Sony Music Entertainment article shows with citation that EMI's rights to the Okeh catalog in the UK expired in 1968. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No move.Cúchullaint/c 14:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think so. It'd be a lot of work to alter every reference from 'Okeh' to 'OKeh'. And there's also a version of the label styled as 'OkeH'. Quite unnecessary, I'd say. Rothorpe (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The label was referred to as OkeH only in its very early years from 1916 to 1919. The label was rendered as OKeh afterwards. Most browsers have a search and replace feature which allow for easy replacement of text. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, since you seem to be volunteering... Rothorpe (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
If it were up to me though, I'd change them all to Okeh, as that's the historic, most recognised name. Rothorpe (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Okeh is how the name is rendered now in this article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Weak oppose. See MOS:TM#General rules: Trademarks in CamelCase are a judgment call. CamelCase may be used where it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable. OxyContin or Oxycontin—editor's choice. Note that it's general usage rather than the official name that is relevant here. There seems to be no suggestion above that either the general usage or readability criteria favour a camelcase name, most of the discussion ignores both criteria but where they are mentioned it seems to be a win for the current styling of Okeh. Andrewa (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.