Edison Recording Stars & Profits

[Victrolacollector]

As we know the number of Edison pressings dwindled during the late 1920's. How did stars such as Frank Braidwood and Ermine Calloway make enough money from record sales? How did they survive? Stars such as Billy Murray and Ada Jones did very well as they made many recordings and Edison sold more records in the beginning.

[OrthoSean]

Most artists that recorded were paid a "per recording" fee, very few were paid royalties. Careers on stage, in concerts, shows and in radio would have also made them money. Very few, if any, artists then would have survived merely on their recording careers.

Sean

[Victrolacollector]

I did a inflation calculation online and entered in the amount from 1915. I was surprised that if a record sold for $1.00 in 1915, it would be the equivalent of $ 23.83 today. So really the Edison records were not cheap. Basically a Edison B-19 Chalet would cost 1,321.47 based on 1919 prices...and a Victor Victrola IV was roughly $ 364.00 based on a 1913 selling price of $ 15.00. It puzzles me why someone would pay $100.00 for a off brand machine in lets say 1920, and they could have the name brand for the same price.

[epigramophone]

In 1920 many customers gave cabinetry and styling a higher priority than tracking alignment and frequency response. Eldridge Johnson's insistence that a phonograph should look like a phonograph brought his competitors a good deal of business.

[phonogfp]

I gotta say that I'm highly suspicious of the accuracy of many/most/all of the online "inflation calculators." The relative value in today's dollars is most always absurdly high. Common sense would suggest that the existence of so many machines and records (and the fact that people a century ago generally did not have as much disposable income as today) precludes the idea that people were, for instance, paying over $1300 in today's dollars for a B-19. I suspect that these calculators are designed more to elicit a "Gee Whiz!" effect and generate repeat web site hits than to provide accuracy. Just my opinion, of course.

George P.

[52089]

I gotta say that I'm highly suspicious of the accuracy of many/most/all of the online "inflation calculators." The relative value in today's dollars is most always absurdly high. Common sense would suggest that the existence of so many machines and records (and the fact that people a century ago generally did not have as much disposable income as today) precludes the idea that people were, for instance, paying over $1300 in today's dollars for a B-19. I suspect that these calculators are designed more to elicit a "Gee Whiz!" effect and generate repeat web site hits than to provide accuracy. Just my opinion, of course.

George P.

I think they are useful for getting a general handle on the idea of effective value. It's very hard for us to understand just how little money people made before WWII. My Mom's first job was in 1941 as a secretary to a large company in Manhattan. She was paid $15 per week, and got a $1 per week raise after a year. Out of that, she kept 25 cents per day to cover lunch and round-trip subway fare, plus $2.50 per week for incidentals and entertainment - the rest went to her mother to help with family expenses. Eventually, Mom left for another job that paid $75 a month.

When you can make a decent living on $15 per week, just imagine how truly expensive a $50 phonograph becomes!