Think of it in relation to the minimum wage.
In 1959, a 45 was a buck. That is what the minimum wage was, too.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
K-Earth at 6.5, August 2020
- Thread starter oldies76
- Start date
Think of it in relation to the minimum wage.
In 1959, a 45 was a buck. That is what the minimum wage was, too.
Which partly explains why so few people bought records at that time, and why they instead listened to radio for their music.
That started to change in the 70s, as albums became a better buy (when bought on sale) and home taping became available.
In 1970, I took some saved-up allowance money (I was 14) and some Christmas money and spent $40 at a record store. It was Crane's in Inglewood, which sold LPs for $2.49 and singles for 53 cents (Crane was a rackjobber who serviced the record departments inside department stores like Sears, The Broadway and May Company, and figured out that he could rent small storefronts, stack cases of LPs on top of each other, cut open the tops and sell them to the public with very little overhead for the same price the department stores were paying him----and keep the department store business, too. It lasted about four or five years).
Anyway, I bought every single, including the three Hitbounds, on that week's KHJ Boss 30 plus eight albums. With tax, I got change back from my $40. I knew it was extravagant at the time---but running it through the inflation calculator, I see 40 bucks then is $267.96 in today's money.
Damn.
Of course, a year later I was getting promo copies...
Anyway, I bought every single, including the three Hitbounds, on that week's KHJ Boss 30 plus eight albums. With tax, I got change back from my $40. I knew it was extravagant at the time---but running it through the inflation calculator, I see 40 bucks then is $267.96 in today's money.
Damn.
Of course, a year later I was getting promo copies...
The resale of promo copies became an issue in the 70s. Record labels started making the promo copy stamp larger with warnings for resale. They even cracked down on some retailers and used record stores for trafficking in stolen goods.
Home taping led to the record industry lobbying Congress to impose a blank tape tax. When it came time for the digital royalty, the record industry imposed rules in the DMCA that prevented satellite or internet broadcasters from promoting the airplay of songs or artists, with the hope of preventing listeners from recording songs. So announcers are not allowed to say "Coming up the new song by Justin Bieber" or "We'll play Beyonce's new album in its entirety." They can only play two songs by specific artists, not entire albums. They must get advance permission if they want to do a tribute show to an artist.
I should have been more clear. I didn’t buy promo copies. I was a music director in radio at age 15 and for the next decade, got promo copies from the labels.
I also never sold them.
I understand. Just laying out the regulatory situation at the time for those unfamiliar with the term. Promo copies were labeled "Property of RCA Records" or whatever label issued them, so the labels could say used record stores were dealing in stolen merchandise. As recently as the 90s, artists were involved in campaigns against the selling of promo copies. Currently the labels are engaged in an active campaign to require radio stations to pay labels a royalty for airplay. Quite the opposite situation from the way it once was.
SiriusXM has an annoying habit of promoting the song two songs later across many, if not all of their music channels. Something like Earl Bailey saying:
"Didja know that Steve Nick's "Edge of Seventeen's lyrics" were largely inspired by a dinner conversation she had with Tom Petty and his wife? His wife had a thick southern accent and said that she met Tom at the age of seventeen, whereas Stevie thought she said the "Edge of seventeen". It worked out for Stevie all right with a huge classic hit for her off of her Bella Donna album. And we will listen to it, right after we get a taste of some "Locomotive Breath" from Jethro Tull, and go "Rockin' Down the Highway" with the Doobie Brothers."
Did I mention that is highly annoying?
Here are the Sirius song announce rules:
"There can be no “prior announcement of titles of the specific sound recordings.” This means that there can be no advance run down of titles and artists for music coming up. You can do one or the other. Never both."
It sounds to me like they're breaking the rules. But it may be part of the game they play.
"The White Album" was $11.98 and I paid that amount! So that would be what, $100 or so, in today's money?
Seems a bit archaic to me. Do they really think someone is at their keyboard just ready to push "record" when the jock pre-announces the record? And even if there were, would that really impact subscription fees or artist royalties due to lost sales?
They push the edge frequently. Sometimes their legal eagles get the job done and the matter disappears; other time SXM has to pay. Doesn't matter a bit to them; they just jack up the subscription rates and sell off more bandwidth to labels, artists, outside programming entities, etc.
Incidentally, every announcer on Symphony Hall will run down the composers and compositions coming up in the next hour from time to time. But they never mention the performers! That may be the key to SXM's lawyers' argument if anyone ever calls them on it.
As the rule says, you can do one or the other, but never both. Sirius was on a very short leash when they objected to the Music Modernization Act. Everyone wanted to shoot them. They had to stick very tight to the rules during that period.
$89.48, Semoochie.
Thank you, my original thought was about $90 but I thought I'd go wide. I didn't know the equation.
Semoochie: You think I could do the math? I'm flattered.
No, there are a few online calculators, fed by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. This one's good if you're just doing broad year-to-year comparisons:
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
But if you want to get it down to exact months, this is the one:
https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
OK Michael, you're not as smart as I thought you were. Are you happy now?
On the other hand, my original guess was off by 52 cents! OK Michael, you're not as smart as I thought you were. Are you happy now?
I have tried to tell people for years that I don't know stuff. I know how to look stuff up. BIG difference.
- Status