[78-L] Sinatra and other singers and the 1942-1944 AFM ban

[Mark Bardenwerper]

On 1/1/2014 1:08 PM, Julian Vein wrote:
> On 01/01/14 18:20, Jeff Lichtman wrote:
>>> Were the artists under some legal
>>> obligation to the record companies to fulfill a contract before the
>>> deadline? If not, then it seems it wasn't in the artists' interests to
>>> do this. It would have defeated the purpose of the ban. Wouldn't they
>>> have wanted the action to be have been felt immediately? If say,
>>> coalminers vote to go on strike, they are unlikely to build up stocks
>>> before doing so.
>>>
>>>        Julian Vein
>> This is true at a group level - the ban would have been more immediately effective if the record companies hadn't had a stockpile of new material. However, it was in the short-term selfish interest of each individual performer to get as much money in the bank before the ban went into effect. A strike requires a bunch of people to endure short-term individual hardship for the long-term good of everyone in the group. There is always the temptation to "cheat" - to let others in the group carry the burden. Unions have ways to prevent this when a strike is actually happening (bad things happen to scabs). But there is no enforcement mechanism before a strike is declared, so union members are freer to put their individual interests ahead of the group.
>>
>>
>>                          -        Jeff Lichtman
>>                                 
> ==========================
> Jeff,
> I guess that was the answer I was expecting, although there is another,
> possible, explanation. It could be that many of the musicians, or at
> least the bandleaders, were opposed to the ban.
>
>        Julian Vein
>

Were there some small labels that defied the ban? What about Elite 
(Hit)? Were there others?

Hit was sort of hit and run, no?

-- 
Mark L. Bardenwerper, Sr.

Technology...thoughtfully, responsibly.

Visit me at http://citroen.cappyfabrics.com