[78-L] The Relative Price of a Record

[David Lennick]

I think Steve is making more money than I am these days. And yes, music is a 
bargain today compared to a hundred years ago, and that was at a time when 
ASCAP hadn't been formed to collect royalties for the poor zhlubs who wrote the 
songs. Prices were all over the place, and often upwardly mobile. I've just 
been looking at some Canadian Starr Gennetts which had the prices printed on 
the labels..substantial increases within a few catalogue numbers. 4563 sold for 
90 cents, then 4679 cost a dollar. By 4705 they'd given up listing the prices. 
And twelve-inchers 3005 and 3012 sold for $1.50 and $1.65 respectively.

But Victor sold Red Seals for high prices because they COULD, and because folks 
bought the records. Decca began the price cutting with its red label 75-cent 
classical pressings from old Odeon masters, even when the same recordings were 
still in print on beautiful laminated Columbia pressings at double the 
price..you sacrificed an album and no surface noise for budget music. Then 
along came the well recorded and well-pressed "World's Greatest" sets in 1939, 
with top flight artists performing anonymously, and a year later Columbia and 
Victor dropped the price of classical records to a buck, drop automatic 
changers became common, the quality of pressing went to hell and so did the 
taste of the American public. To hell with Artur Schnabel, gimme that bum Jose 
Iturbi mangling Chopin.

Also spracht Lenny.

On 9/20/2010 12:15 AM, Steven C. Barr wrote:
> From: "agp"<agp2176 at verizon.net>
>> Picked up some goodies at Whistlin' Willie's today and in looking at
>> them, it made me wonder about the relative price of a record to the
>> other items of the day like a meal, a loaf of bread, a gallon of gas, etc.
>> For example, I got a copy of Victor 17213 which is The Funny Little
>> Melody by Walter J Van Brunt and Maurice Burkhardt b/w You May be
>> Irish Murphy, But I Think That You're in Dutch by Bily Murray. The
>> label say 75 cents in USA.
>> It occured to me that 75 cents in 1910 was a lot of money compared to
>> other things. It also seems that through most of teh era of the
>> 'single' (including 45s) that the price of a record stayed the same
>> and didn't change with inflation.
>> Any thoughts
>>
> Actually, I have posted on this subject before.
>
> When phonograph records were first introduced, single-sided records
> sold for $1 or so each. In 1903-04, the smaller labels (all would be
> forced out of business on "patent infringement" grounds by the end
> of 1909!) started a "price war" concerning (78 rpm) records, and the
> price fell to 60 cents.
>
> Columbia and then Victor introduced two-sided records in 1908; in
> most cases these sold for around $1 each. Note that at that point in
> time, $1 a DAY was considered good pay for a working man! Thus,
> a record would cost this hapless worker a day's pay! There were of
> course cheaper records...both Sears&  Roebuck and Montgomery
> Ward sold records for 30 cents each or less! In 1916, the Emerson
> (radio/record) Company introduced the Regal label, which sold for
> 50 cents each (half-a-day's pay!). By 1922, Emerson was effectively
> defunct; Regal wound up under the auspices of Plaza (who maintained
> the low price). Meanwhile, Columbia had pressed the Lakeside label
> for Wards, and the Silvertone (and Oxford and others) for Sears; these
> records were sold very inexpensively (25 cents each or less!). Thus,
> an ordinary working man could afford records for his machine
> (record companies were selling players VERY cheaply, in hopes of
> selling quantities of higher-profit records...?!).
>
> Both Victor and Columbia maintained unrealistically high prices
> for their classical records (which were heavily advertised!) until
> the mid-depression years. However, expiration of vital patents
> allowed MANY companies to sell lateral-cut records; stores like
> Sears and Wards were selling their "house labels" for as low as
> 5/$1! However, 25% of the public was out of work; as well, radio
> could provide music essentially cost-free! Record sales fell
> drastically...in 1932 a TOTAL of just over 2 million records
> were sold...!
>
> In the thirties and forties, 78rpm records became obsolete;
> however, their then-standard price of $1 each became usual
> for "single records" (usually 45rpm by 1960!) Meanwhile, wages
> had risen...working people (no longer all men...?!) made well
> over "a buck a day!"
>
> The next big change came in the nineties...analog "albums" were
> replaced by "CD's!" Since the new technology was (supposedly"
> superior, the "albums" sold for $20 each or more. Of course, $20
> was 2 or 3 hours of minimum-wage labour (back in 1955, an LP
> cost $4 or $5...I* haven't looked up the relevant minimum wage...
> but I would guess that was a couple of hours worth?!)
>
> Currently, CD "albums" sell for $10 or less (MUCH less at stores
> like Dollarama!)...I'm not sure, but I would guess vinyl LP's
> (coming back into fashion!) probably sell for similar prices...?!
> That represents an hour's worth of minimum-wage labour!
>
> IOW, in 1905 a labourer had to work much of a day to buy a
> one-sided, one-song popular music record (and up to two
> weeks' worth of labour should he want a Caruso SF disc...?!).
> Currently, his descendant has to work about an hour to buy
> a CD or LP containing 10-12-up tunes...?!
>
> And I just bought, at to-day's CAPS meeting, around 50 78's
> (100 songs) for $26...well more than what they were rationally
> "worth?!" These kinds of large boxes of VERY miscellaneous
> 78's usually cost me less than $5 each (remember that my
> goal is "EF78REM (except classical!)" or data thereon...?!
>
> I'm currently receiving around $30,000.00/year from my
> various pensions (or just over $82/day?!). Thus, a $10 12-
> tune CD "album" "costs" me around an hour's pay...or
> about 5 minutes of existence per song...?!
>
> Steven C. Barr
>
>