[78-L] This Will Make Radio Even MORE Dead

[Michael Shoshani]

On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 05:51 -0700, Alan Bunting wrote:

> It is my understanding that playing records is "free" on American radio stations is because it was originally seen by the record companies as a good source of advertising so they allowed it to happen.

Actually, it wasn't. Record companies went to great lengths to prevent
their music from being played "for free" on radio during the 1920s and
1930s, with most labels putting a notice that read "Not Licensed For
Radio Broadcast" on the record label itself.  Radio was deadly
competition back then, because who would want to spend 35c to $1 on a
record when one could hear the same songs free of charge on the radio?

Remember, the day of the artist-specific song was yet to be. Popular Tin
Pan Alley songs were all represented by numerous artists back then.
Today you'd go out and buy the latest Gawky McPimpleface record because
he's the only one who sings it, while back then you could get the same
song by half a dozen bands on record easily, and hear two dozen more
bands playing stock arrangements on the radio. It was more the song than
the performer, so the record companies had reason to worry.

This situation probably did not change until the two major US radio
networks wound up owning the two major US record labels. RCA owned both
Victor and NBC, while CBS owned Columbia Records.  Certainly by the
1950s the situation had reversed itself, with record companies actually
bribing disc jockeys for airplay.

MS