The birth of Naxos CDs was probably the most innovative development in
classical music starting in the mid-late '80's. They were priced low, they
were good quality, their performers were, for the most part, unknowns here
in America. The rest of the industry let years pass before they tried to
compete, by then Naxos had developed a strong following. They were, and
still are, the very best in low priced classical CDs. Today, Naxos is the
largest and most successful classical music distributor carrying many labels
besides their own.
Naxos sales and marketing team is the industry's best by far. While the rest
of the industry have become order takers, Naxos's approach to marketing,
promotion, and sales has raised the bar many times.
Your search for sound & video ends here!
Jay Sonin, General Manager
Music Hunter Distributing Company
4880 North Citation Drive, Suite # 101
Delray Beach, Florida 33445-6552
[log in to unmask]
561-450-7152
-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Roger Kulp
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 12:00 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] US record business in the 1950s
Enlighten the rest of us about all the important,and innovative developments
in classical music in the last thirty years.
Roger
________________________________
From: "Morman, Ed" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 7:26 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] US record business in the 1950s
Didn't a critic named Henry Pleasants make the same point about the European
classical music tradition in the 1950s? And Hermann Hesse's novel _Das
Glasperlenspiel_ (1943) suggests that western culture had used up all its
creativity.
Cordially,
Ed Morman
Edward T. Morman, MSLS, PhD
Director, Jacobus tenBroek Library
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND JERNIGAN INSTITUTE
200 East Wells Street
at Jernigan Place
Baltimore MD 21230
410.659.9314 x2225
410.685.2340 (fax)
Have you yet checked out THE BLIND CAT, the fully accessible online public
access catalog of the Jacobus tenBroek Library? No? Well, it's time you
did: www.nfb.org/theblindcat
-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 6:21 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] US record business in the 1950s
There are very strong signs that Western popular music has run its course,
that all to be said has
been said and everything "new" is just derivative of something done earlier.
Interesting article on that topic recently in NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/arts/music/rock-in-2011-hot-chelle-rae-fos
ter-the-people-chevelle.html
also:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/arts/music/metal-christian-rock-dubstep-wh
ats-the-next-grunge.html
There is nothing on the horizon that is very interesting. Yes, some (few)
albums in recent years by
some (few) bands have been exciting and gain some traction because they are
punchy and perhaps
fresh-sounding and/or well-executed and well-produced compared to everything
else, but they are not
original in the sense of something very new and different.
Jazz got into this dead end decades ago, and blues was there by the third
generation. Also, both
genres got picked up as IMPORTANT by academics and would-be taste dictators,
so the life got
analized out of them. They were folk musics, but the folks' tastes changed,
so they died on the
vines.
One could also argue that classical got less interesting with each
generation of conductors farther
removed from the composers of works that anyone wanted to pay to hear. Yes,
there is composing going
on, but nothing is gaining much traction (yes, there are a few exceptions),
so I stand by that
statement. One of the reasons people like "golden era" recordings of
Stravinsky, Copland and even
late-1800's French composers is that there were men conducting the works who
knew the composers, had
discussed how to execute the works and understood the times and contexts of
the works. It's a
stretch to think that a 40-something conductor of musician today is going to
understand the dynamics
of early 1900's Paris or Shostakovich's Soviet Union, or even 1920's
America.
I would suggest that all of this ties into the general ripeness of Western
culture and intellectual
discussion/exploration these days. There's been a mass taking the eye off
the ball, and things may
either be in permanent decline (glass half empty) or poised for an exciting
refreshment (glass half
full).
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Kulp" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] US record business in the 1950s
The music industry has been dying a slow death for at least the last twenty
five years.Starting
around the time Sony acquired Columbia..Now it 's pretty much dead.
I don't see any vibrant independent companies trying to breathe new life
into the old beast
either.That pretty much died with the 1990s.Most things,like Record Store
Day,are no more than
worship of the past.
Roger
________________________________
From: Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 8:29 PM
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
>>>
>>>
>
|