Talk:RCA Records

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Record Labels (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

How is the newly created RCA Records article? Of course, feel free to add to it. Steelbeard1 16:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Current Roster[edit]

The RCA website has been somewhat updated. However it still does not include the Jive records artists they took in. As soon as things are fully updated then we should have no problem verifying information in regard to who is signed with who. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


There has been more controversy around RCA in regard to Kelly Clarkson and also Christina Aguilera. Shouldn't this be included?

More has happened since the Clive Davis inncodent. She released a single of her last album that has the same melody as Halo by Beyonce. Both songs were writtian by ryan Tedder. She didn't want this single due to its similarities, but RCA insisted on releasing it. She also once stated that she wanted to make soul music but she was not allowed to by RCA.

There have been reports circulating recently that there is fallout between Christina aguilera and RCA. The reports say that the label is panicing over its low sales and says that they are upset over her refusal to take their advice. The label and her manager denied this though. If I uderstand this correctly I recall her discussing problems with the label in years past. --Alextwa (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Where did RCA Camden fit in?[edit]

I belive it was a side lable for low cost stuff, the only example I have seen was a "roger Miller" album. (Presumably named for the NJ city?)

Yes it was. It was active from the 1950s through the 1970s. Yes, it was named after Victor's original home base of Camden, NJ. Steelbeard1 17:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The RCA Camden Label was revived in the mid 1980s, when the Special Music company reissued a series of RCA Camden Albums on Cassette and CD. The Series was called "RCA Camden Classics" and lasted into the late 1990s.Garr1984 20:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)§

What is material re RCA consumer market technology doing here?[edit]

Does this not belong in the RCA article??? This article should only concern records. Dogru144 22:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

  • That's a Good Question... And now this old RCA-Camden Engineer will answer it for you!

Back In The Day, RCA used it's "software" to sell "hardware," such as forming NBC to sell radios and RCA Victor records to sell their hi-fi (and later car audio) gear.

[As a side note, I worked in Buildings 10 and 13 in Camden, at the time of the SelectaVision video disc.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Discpad (talkcontribs) 05:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is devoted exclusively to software. All hardware-related material belongs in the RCA article. The RCA Records article is only for the operations of the record company. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Camden was a budget label for RCA. The B' line.However used first class musicians from major orchestras in off season.Therefore some performances rival with the best by the front line editions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Japan Victor Company[edit]

  • How about the division that RCA established in Japan before World War II - the Japan Victor Company, which remained seperate after the war, and currently trades under the JVC label. They originally distributed RCA products in the Asian market, and was taken over by the Japanese government at the start of the war. -- SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 23:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
That would be Victor Entertainment. Steelbeard1 02:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
No, that would be JVC 05:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Remember that this article is about the record company, NOT the electronics company. It IS Victor Entertainment as far as THIS article is concerned. Its parent JVC was split from RCA, the electronics company which at the time both had record company subsidiaries. But RCA and RCA Records were split in 1986 when new RCA owner General Electric sold its interest in the record company. Steelbeard1 12:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Misleading Statment:

RCA Records was founded in 1901 as the Victor Talking Machine Company This is misleading as The Victor Talking Machine Company and RCA were competitors throughout the twenties. RCA bought the Victor Talking Machine Company in 1929 and formed Victor RCA. The earlier statement would be the equivalent of saying Sony was founded in 1835 as Bertelsmann because the two merged in 2004. The RCA parent company didn't from untill 1919, so to say RCA records formed in 1901 is not entirely true, I think 1929 would be a more appropriate date since that is when RCA moved into record production.

This article is about the record company, NOT the electronics company founded in 1919. RCA did not make phonograph records until it bought the Victor Talking Machine Company. Steelbeard1 20:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Gaps in article[edit]

This article's information about the 1930's and 1940's is seriously incomplete and needs to be updated with more information about RCA Victor's overwhelming contributions to recording technology and American music. The above statement was moved here from the actual article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

RCA Recording Technology[edit]

RCA Victor, during the 1930's and 1940's, pioneered recoding technology that was far ahead of all their major rivals. Decca and Columbia (CBS) recoded products from this period are significantly inferior to RCA records. I am referring to the standard shellac, electrically recorded 78 RPM record.

Even during the acoustic recording period (ca. 1915-1925). RCA's sides were usually superior to their rivals. However, it was the advent of electrical recording when RCA began to create innovations that were far ahead of their rivals. It is instructive to note that RCA designed and manufactured all of their own recording gear and carefully guarded their processes from their rivals. RCA was the first to use the high-fidelity lacquer for recording the studio source material. They also were also the first to raise the level of dubbing technology so that the record sounded as good or better than the direct pressing-transfer process of Decca, Columbia, Vocalion, Brunswick, etc. RCA invented many lathing/cutting head technologies and improvements on the high-powered, high-fidelity push-pull amplifiers required to lathe a quality record. By ca. 1933 RCA had CLEAN 150-200 watt push-pull amplifiers for lathes. RCA wound their own transformers. To this day low signal transformers from radio station boards of the 1940s are still used because they yield high-fidelity specs!

Remember that RCA also built almost ALL of the high-powered radio transmitters of the era. Radio City in new York had an installation that was a block long with marble used as chassis face plates! They created a single tube capable of 100,000 watts. Radio required this in those days. The linear amplifier had net yet been perfected and full power had to come from a single stage! Transformer technology was also improved at this time and to this day, better audio transformers cannot be built! The radio technology helped the audio technology, as the radio technology was far more expensive, complex and difficult to manufacture. RCA's only rival in technology was the German Rundfunk broadcasting facilities. however, the Germans did not have the technology to manufacture a shellac 78 RPM record for 35 cents that came close to equaling RCA. Let's remember that in ca. 1937, 35 cents was about 7-9 dollars in modern money. Would you pay that much for two songs? Hence those two songs had to be good! More over, during WWII, the shellac shortage was severe and a person had to exchange a record for recycling to buy a new record!

Collecting records in 1944 was not easy! I have been collecting for over 40 years. About 10-12 years ago, I obtained a collection of shellac sides from a French collector name Girard Pochinet who had recently passed. Mr. Pochinet had impeccable taste and cared for his records well. I believe he lived and collected in Paris during the nazi occupation, so I suspect keeping the collection was a great danger for him. Most of the sides were assessed as "degenerate Jewish, Negro jazz" by the nazis. Many of the sides have the Star of David stamped in the run-out groove! Do you love Jazz enough to die for it? We all owe much thanks to Girard Pochinet! Most of the sides have no known master part and a few may be the cleanest copy in existence. I view curating his records as a serious moral responsibility. While I legally own the records (I purchased them from a collector who purchased them from Mrs. Pochinet), I believe that I am simply the caretaker for my generation and the records will pass into new hands when I am gone. (I plan donating them to a university). His total collection contained well over a thousand records (they weigh 6-8 ounces/10" record). I obtained only about 20-30% of the records. I will try to live up to his example and hopefully, we have helped preserve important music.

I re-do transfers and re-master pre-tape era 78 RPM parts and RCA Victor sides of the 1930's and 1940's are consistently superior to any other side from the same period. E.g. The Fats Waller European organ sides made before the war (ca. 1936-38)are some of the finest sides i have ever heard -both from a technical and artistic standpoint. The low notes of the organ pedals from church organs at Reims and other European Cathedral organs go as low as 28 cycles and can be easily heard on these Fats Waller sides if the system is bi-amped and the turntable/cartridge is of excellent quality. —For new gear, I recommend the Technics 1200 and Shure or Grado cartridges. For knowledgeable DYIers, I recommend the Thorens 124 or 125 with SME tonearm. Rebuilding a Thorens 124 is a major undertaking, however, it is far easier than when I first began (30 years ago) because there are vendors now selling replacements parts and instructions.

I use high quality gear, however, little of my technology was not available to RCA engineers in 1940! I use all McIntosh C20 and C8 tube pre-amps, designed for phonograph compensation playback, Thorens TD 124, SME tone arm, General Electric Variable Reluctance cartridges, bi-amping (also tube amps). The fidelity of most RCA sides from the 1930s and 1940s is overwhelming. I hear organ notes at 32 cycles and clean dynamic range around 35-40 db. Of course, as a rule, RCA brick-wall filtered all frequencies above 10kHz on shellac sides, however, the lacquers had no such constraints, and within the new York, Chicago and LA RCA studios, high-fidelity was being reproduced in the 1930s.

The Centennial Ellington re-masters from 1999 are the finest transfers available, however, they over-used the CEDAR technology and my own re-masters and transfers still out-perform these recordings. It is nice to hear cymbal sounds above 10kHz, however, the Centennial collection was transferred from shellac 78s and many of the low and high frequencies heard are from aural excitement that the CEDAR technology employs. It's good technology, however, it was simply overused and the recordings are shy on the rich midrange that the reeds and brass occupy. If you have original shellac sides, a good system and digital mastering software, you can still achieve better results.

Along with a quieter S/N ratio. less distortion and better dynamic range, RCA Victor records promoted and preserved what is becoming known as the classic period of American Jazz. Lets not forget the array of styles and artists that RCA recorded! RCA was as adventurous as any small label, yet had the technology to preserve the music for the ages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bixlives! (talkcontribs) 19:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

A good chunk of the above would be more appropriate for the RCA article. Remember that this article is about the record company, not the electronics company which the record company became separated from in 1986. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Status of Jive[edit]

Now that Peter Edge and Tom Corson have been put in charge of RCA, there are reports that Jive is being folded under RCA instead of Epic. Does anyone else have a clearer picture of that? We may have to slightly redo the Current sections. Ducold (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The latest I saw at [1] shows that Jive artist Britney Spears will be moving over to RCA Records. Jive is now part of the Epic Label Group. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Correction as Jive is now defunct. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

What is the significance of Canada[edit]

Any specific reason why Canada must be accorded a whole paragraph in the lede? The lede is supposed to capture the gist of the more salient points. There is nothing further about Canada in the rest of the article, which means it is hardly significant and therefore should be moved elsewhere. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 09:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Uncited, unreferenced, dated, undue weight[edit]

I agree with user Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia. Other changes are necessary! This article is largely unreferenced, and there's undue weight in some areas. (Neil Sedaka? Kenny Rogers? Triumph!) I'm going to work on the article in the next couple of weeks. Julie JSFarman (talk) 13:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I just removed the inaccurate information about the label integration and irrelevant info regarding specific artists in the section. (Working on a more thorough paragraph about RCA in the 2010s.) JSFarman (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Finally...referenced, copy edited, and I think greatly improved. But if anyone has any ideas where else the section about Broadway can go...?JSFarman (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)