Talk:Nipper/Archives/2012

Not "meaningless"

"Technically, this modification rendered the painting meaningless, since gramophones were not capable of recording, but the public seemed not to have noticed this error,"

It certainly doesn't render the painting meaningless, it just changes the context. I always assumed the "master" in His Master's Voice was meant to be a successful recording artist, rather than just an average Joe making his own recordings at home.

If, say, Enrico Caruso was Nipper's master, and Nipper was sitting in front of a disc gramophone playing one of Caruso's recordings, then the dog would (obviously) be listening to his master's voice. 217.155.20.163 01:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Modification of painting

The story as I have read in many histories of the phonograph that have been published usually give this story,

"It had been several years after the painting had been completed that Barraud wished to update the painting in order to sell it. So, he went to the sales offices of the Gramaphone company and asked to borrow a horn for the purpose. Afterwards, he showed the "updated" painting to an interested company offical who told Barraud if he would paint out the rest of the Edison-Bell machine with one of the Berliner style-ones he would buy the painting. Barraud did, and went on to make three copies of the changed painting for the Gramaphone comapany. The ghost of the original Edison-bell machine can still be seen in the first painting."

Would not have been an Ediphone model

The original phonograph was an Edison-Bell (probably a "Standard" model)machine. All home-entertainment cylinder phonographs were capable of making recordings, not just "dictating" models, such as the Ediphone.

It was Nipper's death in 1895 not a death of a visitor bitten in the leg. Francis was not the former owner at the time of Nipper's death. Mark was the "former owner". I modified the wording to make this more clear. Greensburger 06:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

March 2008 RCA or HMV

"Nipper" was the trademark for RCA, according to this reference: http://home.rca.com/en-US/PressReleaseDetail.html?Cat=RCAHistory&MN=11. Not sure why the reference was changed to "HMV". This trademark seems to have been long-standing--since 1901 for Victor, which became RCA.

I am aware of the discussion on the talk page of the article on RCA about this very issue, here which seems to indicate that HMV held the Nipper rights in "...most of Europe and the Commonwealth..." Although that statement seems to be unreferenced, this could be metioned here. In other words, include BOTH, but do not simply delete RCA. Thanks. JeanColumbia (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No, this logo started out having nothing whatsoever to do with RCA, indeed predating the existance of RCA. In its early years RCA also did not use (and had no rights to use) this already internationaly famous logo. There was no connection until RCA bought Victor Talking Machine Co; the web site correctly notes that this was in 1929. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's another version on the origion of Nipper, as the RCA etc. mascot

Here's the version I grew up with. And I'm referencing pages 94-95 of the 1959 book, "They laughed when I sat down (at the piano, but when I started to play!)" The dust cover also says "An informal history of advertising in words and pictures by Frank Rowsome, Jr."

To paraphrase, painter Francis Barraud took on Nipper after his brother died. Francis spotted Nipper looking with cock-head curiosity into the morning-glory trumpet of an early phonograph, while it was playing.

This inspired Francis to paint a picture entitled "His Master's Voice" of Nipper, in the foreground peering into the gramaphone trumpet, with his "master" laid out in his coffin in the background.

On seeing the completed work, the Gramaphone Company was so pleased that it bought the painting and tactfully persuaded Barraud to paint out the mortuary details in the background.

In 1901, rights to the United States use of Nipper were acquired by the Victor Talking Machine Company, and the picture made a much-discussed debut in the center-spread ad in the Saturday Evening Post for April 25, 1903.

I've also seen the Edison-Bell version and am sure it's true as well. I've read that Edison-Bell wasn't interested in acquiring the rights to the painting, which led Barraud to touch bases with the competition.

Regards, George Sickler —Preceding unsigned comment added by George Sickler (talk • contribs) 19:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

HMV Group and RCA

Some extracts from the article:

"Nipper (1884-1895) was a dog that served as the model for a painting entitled His Master's Voice that later became identified with a number of audio recording brands, especially RCA Victor."

"Nipper continues to be the mascot of HMV Group plc stores in countries where the entertainment retailer has the rights to him. Both RCA Records and EMI have deemphasized Nipper in the global music market due to the fragmented ownership of the trademark."

"Victor Company of Japan (JVC) also uses a version of the Nipper logo within Japan, which includes the "His Master's Voice" slogan. HMV is not allowed to use Nipper in Japan."

Okay. So correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that RCA Victor uses the mascot primarily in the United States and Japan, whereas the HMV Group use it in every country in which they operate: the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, Canada, Hong Kong and India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hmv). So my point is this: Where exactly does the "especially RCA Victor" come from? It doesn't seem to be "especially" associated with RCA Victor in any country other than the US and Japan? I'm sure that in other countries, people would identify it "especially" with the HMV Group. Zestos (talk) 15:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point. In fact I've managed to link to 6 different pages right there. Rothorpe (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be better. I didn't want to just go ahead and edit it myself for fear of starting a whole 'US v rest of world' thing. You seem to have made the best choice though, so now everyone is satisfied :) Zestos (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Buried in Kingston upon Thames

Kingston upon Thames is in Greater London and not Surrey. I have modified this to maintain the article’s integrity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.200.130.2 (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I live in Kingston and, although you are right about it being in Greater London, it was part of Surrey until the 1960s and remained a part of the Surrey postal-county even after being absorbed into Greater London. I.e. My address is still 'Kingston-upon-Thames, Surrey'. So I would say that either 'London' or 'Surrey' would be correct, as it WAS in Surrey at the time of the dog's death. Confusing, I know. Zestos (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a painting, not a photo

The image on this page claims to be a photograph of Nipper the dog. In fact, it is the original "Edison" version of the painting. I have not yet seen any evidence that the painting was based on any photograph, though the article text makes this claim. Sojambi Pinola (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

This addition was made on [11 November 2009], by Rothorpe. I find no evidence that it is based on fact, and, in fact, I think it is not. There is some ongoing confusion in the preceding days about the image being a "photo" of a "painting," which seems a little beside the point. Obviously any "painting" shown on the internet is merely a photographic image of the painting. The image we are looking at was created with paint, then photographed, not the other way around. I'm zapping it. Sojambi Pinola (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

In fact, the article became much less accurate and much less informative in many ways after [17 October 2009]. The image comparisons between the two paintings were removed (less images in the current version). The important fact that the Edison company had rejected the painting, leading to the reworking into a Gramophone (disc player) painting for Edison's competition, are removed gradually over the next month. I'm sure some other things were improved over time, however, so it might be a bit of a job to restore the old good stuff without losing the new good stuff. Sojambi Pinola (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)