Lots of useful comment, thanks - especially access to Billboard on the
internet (overwhelming). I still prefer browsing paper volumes, but I would
have to cross the Atlantic to do that. Thanks!

One detail: what was London records in the USA in the 1950s (see below) ? I
am not clear on this. A US subsidiary of UK Decca?? The label also existed
in the UK. How extensive was their business?
Did they produce original US material?

Pekka


2012/1/7 Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

> She was talking about the overall LP market in the 50's. Mercury
> definitely sold more records in the US than London in that period, as did
> Capitol. Classical was a part of the business, a bigger part than today but
> still a part. A couple of pop hits could eclipse the whole classical
> catalog sales in any given year, remember this was the time of jukeboxes
> and payola-play radio. Classical didn't participate too much in that, but
> that business model could generate tremendous sales behind a genuine hit
> that caught on due to the paid-for exposure.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Kulp" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 11:02 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] US record business in the 1950s
>
>
> I definitely see more London,Mercury,and Capitol,in about that order,when
> it comes to 50s classical Lps after RCA and Columbia.
>
> Roger
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________**__
> From: Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Friday, January 6, 2012 4:23 AM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] US record business in the 1950s
>
> After RCA and Columbia and their subsidiaries, the shares would fall to
> smaller numbers. USA Decca would probably be fourth in there, but I'm not
> positive about that. But my impression (not based on actual sales figures)
> is that there was a second tier of "major independents" by the late 50's.
> This included Capitol (which soon sold to EMI), Mercury (which soon sold to
> Philips), and there may have been enough early-rock hits to Chess and Sun
> into this tier if we're talking sales dollars or actual sales volume.
>
> I'm sure you know this, but many if not most Billboard issues are
> searchable and readable via Google Books. You could also contact NARAS,
> since this cannot be considered "sensitive industry data" by the wildest
> imagination, given that we're talking 50+ years ago.
>
> You could also check European business press from the time of EMI
> acquiring Capitol and Philips acquiring Mercury and see if any details
> about the US market were provided either in corporate filings or in news
> articles of the time.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pekka Gronow" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 5:26 AM
> Subject: [ARSCLIST] US record business in the 1950s
>
>
> I have been looking for data on record company market shares in the USA in
>> the 1950s, but I am still puzzled. There is RIAA data on total sales, and
>> a
>> lot of (mostly anecdotal) detail on specific companies. Sanjek's books on
>> the music business are helpful, but do not follow the development
>> systematically. If I had access to all issues of Billboard from this
>> period, that might be the solution, but I do not have them
>>
>> It seems likely that the three biggest companies in the USA during this
>> decade were CBS, RCA Victor and Decca. There were hundreds of other
>> companies, of various sizes. But which were the ten, or twenty, biggest
>> ones? I am not speaking of shares of hits in the charts (this has been
>> studied), but market shares - real or at least estimated?
>>
>> All suggestions would be useful.
>>
>> Pekka Gronow
>> Helsinki
>>
>>