No Petrillo Recording Bans

Dinah Washignton--"Record Ban Blues" (recorded December 30, 1947)

Talked to a lyric writer
He was trying to put a song across
He asked when I'd record again
I said, Petrillo's the boss

I've got the record ban blues
Yes, I've got those record ban blues
I've got those record ban blues
And I'm paying some awful dues

Thirty-first of December
Was my last recording date
Started out real early
Didn't get through till real late

I've got the record ban blues
Yes, I've got those record ban blues
I've got those record ban blues
Boy, and I'm paying some real heavy dues

I wanted to make another side
And boy, the tune was grand
The union man said,
Go ahead,
But you'll have to do it without the band

I've got the record ban blues
Yes, I've got those record ban blues
Ooh wee, got the record ban blues
And I'm paying some awful dues

Now you heard my story
And that's the way it goes
So don't ask me when I'll record again
Because only Petrillo knows

I've got the record ban blues
Yes, I've got the record ban blues
I've got the record ban blues
And I'm paying some awful dues


James Caesar Petrillo (1892-1984) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Petrillo was undoubtedly the most famous and controversial president of the American Federation of Musicians--indeed one of the most controversial of any American union leaders. (He served as president of the AFM from 1940 to 1958.) In his heyday, he was probably demonized in the press (which liked to note his middle name...) more than any other union leader except of course John L. Lewis. He is one of the few non-congressmen with a law popularly named after him--though in a negative way: the Lea Act of 1946 (directed against "featherbedding" in the broadcasting industry) was popularly known as the "Anti-Petrillo Act." The constitutionality of the Act (repealed in 1980) was upheld in a case entitled, not surprisingly, *United States v. Petrillo*, 332 US 1 (1947) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/332/1/case.html

In this post, I want to discuss one of Petrillo's most controversial measures: the recording bans of 1942-4 and 1948, espeically the former, which was the longer-lasting and more important. (Though it was the anticpation of the 1948 ban which led to Dinah Washington's lament of December 1947.) Petrillo was worried about the danger of musicians being put out of work by radio broadcasts of records (which Judge Learned Hand had ruled in 1940 did not constitute copyright infringement) as well as by jukeboxes. He commissioned Ben Selvin, a bandleader with experience in both the recording industry and radio to look into the problem. Selvin reported to the 1941 AFM convention that the recording industry was lucrative to the big bands, and opposed a recording ban. Selvin's position was probably more attractive to bandleaders (who usually had royalty deals with the record companies) than to the sidemen who only got union scale. Still, he got a standing ovation at the convention.

Nevertheless, Petrillo insisted that unless the record companies set up a fund to compensate musicians for unemployment caused by broadcasting and jukeboxes, there would be a strike. The companies refused, and as a result, on August 1, 1942, AFM members were instructed to refuse to play on record dates. As one writer explained, this order applied to everyone "from the pianist at the local bar to the piccolo player in the Philadelphia Symphony." There were some exceptions, such as V-Discs for the war effort.

The large record companies tried to get around this in several ways: (1) They worked feverishly to build up a backlog of material in the weeks before the ban. (2) When this material was exhausted, they tried to keep recording going by using popular singers with choral backgrounds--singers were not members of the AFM. (The "singers aren't really musicians" prejudice has historically been widespread among instrumentalists, whether classical or popular.) Also, Petrillo did not consider the harmonica a "musical instrument," and therefore groups such as the Harmonicats were able to make records and accompany singers.

In the end, though, the record companies found that the public demanded new material. *Oklahoma* was a smash hit on Broadway, and the public couldn't understand why it couldn't buy any recordings of it, and demanded that something be done. Decca was the first major company to sign up with the union in September 1943 (it rushed the artists into the studio to record *Oklahoma* almost on the same day it signed). Columbia and RCA Victor held out until November 1944.

Suppose Petrillo had taken Selvin's advice and not called the strike. Or suppose the record companies had been less confident they could outlast the union, and had agreed to Petrillo's demands in July 1942. Here are some of the real and alleged results of the strike which might have been avoided:

(1) The most tragic result of the ban was of course all the great recordings that were never made. Just to mention the 1942-43 Earl Hines band with Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillespie (and the band's new "girl singer", Sarah Vaughan) should be sufficient to make that point.

(2) The real winners were the small independent labels which settled with the union before the majors did. In fact, Capitol Records, a relative newcomer, achieved major status in this way.

(3) It is sometimes argued that the strike resulted in the downfall of the big bands and the rise of singers (who, as noted, were not subject to the ban). IMO this simply accelerated a trend that would have taken place anyway. Already before the ban it was notable that singers like Sinatra were becoming more popular than the bands (e.g., Tommy Dorsey's) with which they sang. Not only were big bands becoming too expensive, but there was a growing market for other forms of popular music--rhythm and blues (among urban blacks) and country music (among southern whites). (The development of country and r & b was enouraged by BMI's breaking ASCAP's near-monopoly on music publishing--I'll get to that in another post someday...) Furthermore, the younger jazz musicians found the big bands too restrictive a framework for improvisation, and developed the bebop style which was essentially (despite Dizzy Gillespie's big band) a small combo music.

(4) Gunther Schuller, in *The Swing Era: The Development of Jazz 1930-1945*, p. 847, arguing against those who suggest that "the recording ban broke the momentum of jazz's progress" has claimed that in some ways the ban actually helped jazz. In part, this is because he thinks the big bands were largely becoming stagnant, so their displacement by singers in pop music, and by small combos (which were free to pursue more adventurous music) in jazz was not ultimately a bad thing. Furthermore, he argues that:

(a) The new bebop style may have been fortunate in not having to contend in its formative years with a booming record industry, "which surely would have rejected it or tried to muzzle it creatively. It was not until new small record companies sprang up in the mid-1940s, companies either willing to take some risks or actually supportive of the new jazz, that bop found a friendly haven in the recording field. And by then bop was strong and ready for its unrestrained diffusion."

(b) Record companies began to reissue their older recordings, "which was not only a boon to jazz record collectors but created an awareness among many music lovers that jazz *did* have a venerable history to be taken seriously and appreciated, at the same time reminding listeners of the deeper values in the pre-Swing Era jazz, values which had been in many cases dissipated and abandoned." Indeed, there was a revival of interest in traditional jazz around this time, and the ban may have played a role in encouraging it.

Any thoughts? (I am emphasizing the 1942-44 ban because the 1948 one wasn't as long and wasn't nearly as tightly enforced--still, it did help give the *coup de grace* to the big bands. By then, though, the end was in sight for them, anyway.)
 
Top