We have lots of discographic informatiion but very little access to where
the real story lies- in the legal department files.

The starting place is to figure out, company by company, how many records
they issued each year and add them up.  It's not a final concludion but it
should give some idea of the scope.

Next step would be to approximate sales, item by item, from the Billboard
charts and other sources.   Those below a certain level will average so many
sales, those above will vary widely.  

There are further refinements- licenses to films, etc.

As a fanmous man once said, "Somebody else- not me!"

Steve Smolian


-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 9:29 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] US record business in the 1950s

Hi Pekka:

What is your research through the Billboards uncovering? Have you found any
sort of concrete data on relative sales? I would assume that RCA and
Columbia were far bigger than everyone else, but what's interesting is how
big or small everyone else was. I forgot to mention in my previous e-mail
that the other broadcast network, ABC, had a foot in the record business
with ABC-Paramount. And movie studio MGM had a record business, but it got
bigger in the 60s. As someone else mentioned, movie studio Warner Brothers
got into the record business in the late 50's. So there were some big
players dipping their hands into the business.

Wow, it's depressing to think about how vibrant and competitive the business
was 50+ years ago. 
Today it's two megaglomerates, two struggling lesser-glomerates (one about
to be acquired), a small collection of mid-sized companies and a bottom tier
of tiny, tiny players. My educated guess is that half of the US's
commercially-recorded history is owned by one megaglomerate (Sony) and a
good bit more than another quarter is owned by the other megaglomerate
(Universal), leaving maybe 15-20% spread among everyone else.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pekka Gronow" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 4:47 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] US record business in the 1950s


> 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
>>>
>>>
>