Television digest with electronics reports (Jan-Dec 1958)

Beethoven and Bock V Roll The Anatomy of Song-Selling— a Professional Appraisal Neither ASCAP Nor BNI Nor Disc Jockeys Nor Ballyhoo Can Guarantee a Song's Success By GEORGE R. MAREK Vice President & General Manager, RCA Victor Record Division Text of Statement Before Subcommittee of U. S. Senate Committee on Interstate & Foreign Commerce, May 21, 1958 Opposing S. 2834 to Prohibit Broadcast Interests from Engaging in Music Publishing and Record Manufacturing Lest you believe that I appear before the Committee solely as a businessman, pennit me to be autobiographical to the extent of mentioning that I have long j espoused the cause of music — all music! For many years 1 was Music Editor of Good Hoiisekeeping Magazine, and I I have written such books as The Good Housekeeping Guide 'j to Musical Enjoyment, Puccini and The World Treasury j| of Grand Opera. Let me say, then, that I welcome this opportunity to I testify — not only on behalf of the record business, from which I make my living, but on behalf of music itself to which my love and my enthusiasm belong. I am quite in agreement that the time facts regarding the operation of I the music industry should be developed. The essence of the charges made by the proponents of the legislation [S. 2834 by Sen. Smathers (D-Fla.) proposing to prohibit broadcast interests from engaging in the music publishing and record manufacturing businesses] is that there is some kind of an improper flirtation going on between Broadcast Music Inc., the radio & television broadcasters and the phonograph record companies. The result of this is supposed to be that (a) the public is being forced to listen to music it doesn’t like; and (b) that it can’t hear the music it does like. We are asked to believe the argument that the public sits in front of their radios or phonographs or TV sets, hungering for music which we, the all-powerful record companies, deliberately suppress — and that all the public gets from us is an inferior type of music which we foist upon them for one reason only: that we get some kind of I an economic advantage from this inferior type of music. What Is Meant by Superior Music? 1 can indulge with you in a long and reasonably learned I discussion as to what are supposed to be “inferior” or “superior” types of music, but when we get all through ' it will be one man’s opinion. More of that later. For the ' moment let’s accept that what is meant by superior music is the music by the older popular composers — the Victor Herberts, the George Gershwins, the Richard Rodgerses — the sweet, sentimental songs of yore, and the poor public just is not allowed to hear this music. If these charges were substantially or even slightly true, I would be the first to be concerned. However, in my view the charges are nothing short of fantastic in their inaccuracy. I For we have no incentive whatsoever to do anything of ■ the kind. Even if we had, it would have to be supposed T that we are powerful enough to ram down the throats of ' the public music that they don’t want, and to do this through association with a network. Now, only two major record companies are related to networks — RCA Victor and Columbia. Three major companies — Capitol, Mercury and Decca — do not have any radio or TV network association. Can’t Swing Public Taste I cannot speak for Columbia, but I can say on behalf of RCA that even if we wanted to we could not swing public taste. Our ego might be flattered by this supposition of power were it not that we know that no such condition can exist. Our share of the record business, important and, I hope, beneficial as it is to music, is only one share of the total business, a share variously estimated as between 18% and 25%. In 1939 there were no independent companies of any significance from an industry standpoint while today there exist over 1300 different labels, aside from the major ones, and their total sales represent a substantial percentage of the total music done in the industry', particularly of the so-called “pop” music. This is a good thing. We enjoy having competition, for reasons of developing the record business, of turning music into mass entertainment — and for pure business reasons. We manufacture a portion of the records for several of these independent companies. Because of the development of high fidelity-tape recordings, anybody with an enterprising spirit and relatively few dollars can today get into the record business. It is not necessary, as it once was, to make a large capital investment in recording facilities, pressing equipment and distribution organizations. The result is that many small companies are prospering, and some of these are scoring notable successes with their ability to produce fast-selling hits on single records. Who Made Last Year’s Pop Hits Chart A shows who made the pop hits of this country in the last year. It is prepared from a Billboard article (January 13, 1958) captioned: “Indies Hit ’57 Tape with 70% of Pop Single Hits.” What do we find? 207 disks made the list an.d 48 different labels are represented. Billboard arrived at its 70% figure by considering 44 of the labels, which accounted for 146 of the hits, as independents, with the other 4 labels — Columbia, RCA Victor, Capitol and Decca — accounting for 61 of the hits. The two major companies associated with networks — Columbia and RCA Victor with their subsidiaiy labels— accounted for 48 of the hits, or about 23% of all the hits listed. Not an overly large percentage, is it? The figures indicate that we must compete for our hits, without wori-ying where those hits come from, or who 1 Extra Copies of this Supplement are available at $1 each; 10 copies, $7.50; 25 copies, $12.50.