Jump to content

Talk:1942–1944 musicians' strike

Missing Content Regarding What the Union Accomplished

I came to this page to learn about the musician's strike and what goals the union achieved. There is hardly any information about that here. What was accomplished, and how did musicians benefit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bskaat (talk • contribs) 17:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Back Catalogue Reissues during the Strike

I happen to know that many of the major labels (especially Columbia and Victor) reissued records from their back catalogues (as far back as the mid-1920s) during this strike, so I added that information to the article.

Garr1984 15:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)§[reply]

title of article

Since the strike or ban lasted from 1942 to 1944, the title date of 1943 is incorrect. It should be changed.

Also, someone should figure out links to searches under recording ban and musician's strike. This article is hard to find.

And I'd like to see any examples from the 1920s that were reissued during this period. My example is only 1939. Wis2fan (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Folk?

I have assumed that this also increased the popularity of Folk music, which has no copyright. However, I cannot find any online documentation. (Meaning I'm too lazy to Google.) Am I correct? Pittsburgh Poet (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Josh White found his peak of fame during the recording ban, and "One Meatball" became a bit of a cultural touchstone. I've got a V-disc transcription of the Andrews Sisters performing "One Meatball" for the troops from around 1943, with only piano accompaniment, and in a very amateurish arrangement. AFAICT, though, Burl Ives, etc. were post-war.71.67.104.152 (talk) 07:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've haven't heard the folk music angle before, but I remember big band musicians lamenting that this strike was a catalyst for the death of big bands and the birth of Rock in Roll. One view is that post strike the recording industry embraced emerging technology, that required fewer and less skilled musicians. These lesser skilled musicians were in more of an abundance, and less likely to be in the union. This holds some truth, as the AF of M today is a mere shadow of itself membership wise. With locals only present in the largest cities with live Broadway or Las Vegas type shows that require full orchestras on a full time basis. It would be interesting to know how many of the back up players for the big name rock and country acts, are in the union today.Eelb53 (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-union musicians

Surely there must have been musicians around (other than vocalists) who did not belong to this union? And the article should explain why (under what legal rule or precedent) this brand of extortion was permitted. 121a0012 (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I've figured it out now. Apparently the AFM had (now illegal) closed shop agreements with all of the radio networks, film studios, recording companies, and local radio network affiliates. The article should state this. 121a0012 (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From present day perspective, this hold true, but in those days the musicians union had the power that trade unions hold today. They would blackball venues that used non-union musicians. Also the general talent and skill level of musicians was gauged by the union, if a musician wanted to work, they had to be approved by, and join the union. Working musicians today in the most popular genres, are the equivalent of comparing a handyman to a master carpenter, when we speak of musicians of old. Today the requisite skill level is in abundance, and these folks often play for little or no pay (a hobby), no union needed. The musicians of old were full time professionals, whose pay and rights required the protection of a union. There simply wasn't enough of a supply of "scabs" to fill the seats left by the strikers. The music of the day was sophisticated and difficult to play. 3 chords and a amplifier wouldn't cut it like it does today.Eelb53 (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I see from later sources that the electrical transcription companies (radio networks which distributed their shows on special records rather than over phone lines) brought the issue before the War Labor Board in 1943; at the first hearing, the AFM's lawyer claimed that the WLB had no jurisdiction because the musicians working for the transcribers were not on strike but had instead simply quit. (The union would still be able to enforce its boycott against the transcription companies because the musicians were freelancers and needed to be able to work in hotels ballrooms, theaters, dance halls, and radio stations, which were all subject to closed-shop agreements; Petrillo needed only to threaten the expulsion of a member of the union to bring them into line, lest the union cut off their livelihood.) 121a0012 (talk) 07:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Broadcasting has extensive coverage of the strike, its effect on radio, the Senate hearings, the WLB hearings, and the relationship between Petrillo and broadcasters generally (which, in the magazine's editorial opinion, was one of entitlement on the part of Petrillo and resentment on the part of everyone else). There are extensive quotations from newspaper editorials of the day (uniformly against Petrillo, as would be expected given Broadcasting's own editorial position) and coverage of the negotiations between Petrillo and the transcription companies. Notably, in the first Senate hearings, Petrillo refused to even state what the union's demands were. When the union board later met, they proposed that transcription and recording companies should pay a tax, directly to the union treasury, for "relief of unemployment" (this despite the existence of widespread labor shortages even for musicians). Broadcasting also covers Petrillo's antics immediately preceding the strike, including a threat to strike against NBC if it aired the "amateur musicians" of the National Youth Orchestra in Interlochen, and against other networks should they air performances of military bands. I don't really have time to go back through all the issues I've just been reading through for an unrelated research project, but there's a lot more material out there than is currently recorded here if someone is willing to do the work. 121a0012 (talk) 07:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Burns and Collier's assertions questionable.

Burns and Collier attribute the lack of early bebop recordings to the strike, which is understandable but IMO questionable. In 1942-43, bebop had no recognized commercial potential. It was strictly an "in" thing among dedicated musicians and a very small, adventuresome audience. It was not something major label executives were going to touch. It was in fact the small labels that grew into a niche provided by the strike and recorded right through the ban that distributed the first bebop, or ur-bebop recordings (e.g. Coleman Hawkins and Dizzy Gillespie, Woody'n You, Apollo 751, February 1944).75.111.54.141 (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wik.ipedia.Prons,

I have just modified one external link on 1942–44 musicians' strike. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wik.ipedia.Prons,

I have just modified one external link on 1942–44 musicians' strike. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Boston Symphony

According to the record producer Charles O'Connell's The Other Side of the Record, the Boston Symphony was unionized before the strike: "the unionization of the Boston Symphony ... presently was accomplished... Mr. Petrillo's ultimatum of 1942 put Victor in the ridiculous situation of having first refused to record Boston because it was non-union and then for two years refusing to record because it had become union" (p. 261). This seems like a much more reliable source than the link given, which seems pretty vague on whether or not Boston was involved in the strike.

113.22.77.91 (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Why are there no visuals for this article? Wyattjenkerson (talk) 01:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overall impression

The article itself had good information, but I found certain parts of it to be lengthy and not as easy to read. This was mainly due to the length of the sentences. There was the occasional run on, and there were many longer sentences that were written back to back. Angeltaduran (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.Wik.ipedia.Pro.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1942–1944_musicians%27_strike&oldid=1195978734"

See what we do next...

OR

By submitting your email or phone number, you're giving mschf permission to send you email and/or recurring marketing texts. Data rates may apply. Text stop to cancel, help for help.

Success: You're subscribed now !