The House That Nat Built

Jan Dean

unread,

Nov 11, 2012, 10:08:19 AM11/11/12

to

The circular office building of Capitol Records is sometimes called The
House That Nat Built.

So Nat King Cole made more money for fledgling Capitol Records than Sinatra?

Michael Pendragon

unread,

Nov 11, 2012, 12:17:58 PM11/11/12

to

Definitely. Frank Sinatra was still making money for Columbia when
Capitol started up.

Roger Ford

unread,

Nov 11, 2012, 12:47:29 PM11/11/12

to

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 10:08:19 -0500, Jan Dean <jan...@surfcity.com>
wrote:

>The circular office building of Capitol Records is sometimes called The
>House That Nat Built.
>
>So Nat King Cole made more money for fledgling Capitol Records than Sinatra?

As the question is framed the answer is "yes of course"

Capitol Records began operations in 1942 and were very successful from
the word go with only their second ever single release ("Cow-Cow
Boogie" by Freddie Slack & His Orchestra) crashing the national US Top
10 best sellers.

Cole first signed with Capitol in 1943 (as part of the King Cole Trio)
and again was successful from the off becoming a top act on the label
by 1946---the year that Capitol broke all sales records and joined
RCA,Columbia and Decca as one of the record label "majors".

OTOH Frank Sinatra didn't sign for Capitol until 1953 by which time
the label was long solidly established as one of the "Big Six" and
thus contributed nothing to the early "fledgling" label.

The famous Capitol Tower in Hollywood was built in 1955 and financed
by the giant EMI conglomerate based here in Britain who had purchased
the American Capitol company outright earlier that year

ROGER FORD
-----------------------

"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
an extra "b" in my e-mail address (mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk).
Please delete same before responding.Thank you!

Roger Ford

unread,

Nov 11, 2012, 12:54:09 PM11/11/12

to

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:17:58 -0800 (PST), Michael Pendragon
<michaelmalef...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Nov 11, 10:08=A0am, Jan Dean <jand...@surfcity.com> wrote:
>> The circular office building of Capitol Records is sometimes called The
>> House That Nat Built.
>>

>> So Nat King Cole made more money for fledgling Capitol Records than Sinat=

>ra?
>
>Definitely. Frank Sinatra was still making money for Columbia when
>Capitol started up.

Sorry no

The Capitol label made its entrance in 1942.

Sinatra didn't sign with Columbia until 1943

Michael Pendragon

unread,

Nov 11, 2012, 9:49:02 PM11/11/12

to

On Nov 11, 12:53 pm, maria...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger Ford) wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:17:58 -0800 (PST), Michael Pendragon
>

> <michaelmaleficapendra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 11, 10:08=A0am, Jan Dean <jand...@surfcity.com> wrote:
> >> The circular office building of Capitol Records is sometimes called The
> >> House That Nat Built.
>
> >> So Nat King Cole made more money for fledgling Capitol Records than Sinat=
> >ra?
>
> >Definitely. Frank Sinatra was still making money for Columbia when
> >Capitol started up.
>
> Sorry no
>
> The Capitol label made its entrance in 1942.
>
> Sinatra didn't sign with Columbia until 1943

A definite nit.

Bob Roman

unread,

Nov 11, 2012, 11:20:53 PM11/11/12

to

On Nov 11, 9:49 pm, Michael Pendragon

<michaelmaleficapendra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 12:53 pm, maria...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger Ford) wrote:
> > On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:17:58 -0800 (PST), Michael Pendragon

> > >Definitely. Frank Sinatra was still making money for Columbia when
> > >Capitol started up.
>
> > Sorry no
> > The Capitol label made its entrance in 1942.
> > Sinatra didn't sign with Columbia until 1943
>
> A definite nit.

Exactly. You got everything correct except the facts.

--
BR

Michael Pendragon

unread,

Nov 12, 2012, 9:43:52 AM11/12/12

to

It depends on how precise a "date" you want to apply to the phrase
"when Capitol started up." Contextually, it's directly referring to
Jan Dean's "for fledgling Capitol Records." "Fledgling" (again, as
used in this context) refers to the early phases of the corporation's
(Capitol's) development. So, if you read "when Capitol started up" to
mean the day it began operation, then Roger would be correct. Or, if
you read it in its proper context to mean Capitol's early years, then
my usage is correct.

But let's face it, semantic nit-picking is par for the course in these
parts.

Roger Ford

unread,

Nov 12, 2012, 1:52:11 PM11/12/12

to

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 06:43:52 -0800 (PST), Michael Pendragon
<michaelmalef...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Nov 11, 11:20=A0pm, Bob Roman <robertjro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 11, 9:49=A0pm, Michael Pendragon
>>
>> <michaelmaleficapendra...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> > On Nov 11, 12:53=A0pm, maria...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger Ford) wrote:
>> > > On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:17:58 -0800 (PST), Michael Pendragon

>> > > >Definitely. =A0Frank Sinatra was still making money for Columbia whe=

>n
>> > > >Capitol started up.
>>
>> > > Sorry no

>> > > The Capitol label =A0made its entrance in 1942.

>> > > Sinatra didn't sign with Columbia until 1943
>>
>> > A definite nit.
>>

>> Exactly. =A0You got everything correct except the facts.

>
>It depends on how precise a "date" you want to apply to the phrase
>"when Capitol started up." Contextually, it's directly referring to
>Jan Dean's "for fledgling Capitol Records." "Fledgling" (again, as
>used in this context) refers to the early phases of the corporation's
>(Capitol's) development. So, if you read "when Capitol started up" to
>mean the day it began operation, then Roger would be correct. Or, if
>you read it in its proper context to mean Capitol's early years, then
>my usage is correct.
>
>But let's face it, semantic nit-picking is par for the course in these
>parts.

A definite nit wit

Michael Pendragon

unread,

Nov 12, 2012, 4:09:56 PM11/12/12

to

On Nov 12, 1:51 pm, maria...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger Ford) wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 06:43:52 -0800 (PST), Michael Pendragon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

No need for self-abasement, Roger. We'll let my original assessment
of you as "a definite nit (picker)" stand. :-)

Roger Ford

unread,

Nov 12, 2012, 4:24:01 PM11/12/12

to

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 13:09:56 -0800 (PST), Michael Pendragon
<michaelmalef...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Nov 12, 1:51=A0pm, maria...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger Ford) wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 06:43:52 -0800 (PST), Michael Pendragon
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <michaelmaleficapendra...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >On Nov 11, 11:20=3DA0pm, Bob Roman <robertjro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Nov 11, 9:49=3DA0pm, Michael Pendragon
>>
>> >> <michaelmaleficapendra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Nov 11, 12:53=3DA0pm, maria...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger Ford) wro=

>te:
>> >> > > On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:17:58 -0800 (PST), Michael Pendragon

>> >> > > >Definitely. =3DA0Frank Sinatra was still making money for Columbi=
>a whe=3D

>> >n
>> >> > > >Capitol started up.
>>
>> >> > > Sorry no

>> >> > > The Capitol label =3DA0made its entrance in 1942.

>> >> > > Sinatra didn't sign with Columbia until 1943
>>
>> >> > A definite nit.
>>

>> >> Exactly. =3DA0You got everything correct except the facts.

>>
>> >It depends on how precise a "date" you want to apply to the phrase

>> >"when Capitol started up." =A0Contextually, it's directly referring to
>> >Jan Dean's "for fledgling Capitol Records." =A0"Fledgling" (again, as

>> >used in this context) refers to the early phases of the corporation's

>> >(Capitol's) development. =A0So, if you read "when Capitol started up" to
>> >mean the day it began operation, then Roger would be correct. =A0Or, if

>> >you read it in its proper context to mean Capitol's early years, then
>> >my usage is correct.
>>
>> >But let's face it, semantic nit-picking is par for the course in these
>> >parts.
>>
>> A definite nit wit
>
>No need for self-abasement, Roger. We'll let my original assessment
>of you as "a definite nit (picker)" stand. :-)

What we'll let stand is that you fucked up. But what else is new?