Talk:Musical Merchandise Review

Publication history and connection to Musical Merchandise Review

I’m Mike Lawson, publisher of Musical Merchandise Review and owner of ArtistPro LLC. I’m disclosing that relationship and asking for an uninvolved editor’s help with documenting the publication’s history.

HathiTrust’s catalog records identify Music Trade Review as the predecessor of Piano and Organ Review, which began under that title in March 1956. They also document the January 1958 merger of Piano and Organ Review with Musical Merchandise Magazine to form Musical Merchandise Review, continuing the former publication’s volume numbering.

The records are here:

https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/103046055.marc

https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/103045970.marc

In the Piano and Organ Review record, field 362 gives the March 1956 starting issue, field 780 identifies Music Trade Review as its predecessor, and field 580 describes the merger that produced Musical Merchandise Review.

In the Musical Merchandise Review record, field 362 gives the January 1958 starting issue, and field 580 identifies the two merged publications and confirms continuation of Piano and Organ Review’s volume numbering.

• NAMM’s 2021 archive announcement — documents MMR’s historical collection, including issues dating to 1927, and its transfer to the NAMM Resource Center.
• Front of House’s 2021 acquisition announcement — documents the transfer from Timeless Communications to ArtistPro, effective with the August 2021 issues. Front of House was associated with the seller, Timeless Communications.
• MMR’s current issue archive — lists issues through September 2026, demonstrating that the publication remains active. This is our publication’s own archive, provided to document its current publication status.

Would an editor review these sources and help determine how to incorporate this succession into the article? I would also appreciate advice on whether fuller coverage of modern MMR belongs here or in a separate article. My aim is to document the historical relationship accurately. Thanks. - ml TheLMMG (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• TheLMMG, without diving in too deeply, there's two things. One, you don't actually have any "third-party sources" here--really, you don't have independent secondary sources. The FoH thing could be one (since as far as I know it's a decent publication), but the "article" reads like a press release. Two, that's not a huge deal here. Given the absence of secondary sourcing (the one in the article is lousy) it makes no sense to write standalone articles unless those sources are produced; adding the full history of the magazine including its current name, and maybe moving the article to that name, makes more sense. Binksternet, do you have any thoughts? Drmies (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks. Expanding the existing article through the documented publication succession, with a possible move to the current title, makes sense to me.

  I would like to better understand your concern about the Front of House source. FOH was the publication owned by the seller, Timeless Communications, and its article announced the divestment of these publications to my company. I understand your point that their piece is written in the style of a press announcement, but for the narrow factual question of whether the sale occurred, who the parties were, and when the ownership change became effective, I would appreciate guidance on why that would not be considered a usable source.

  NAMM subsequently conducted oral-history interviews identifying the ownership transition and our stewardship of the publications. If those sources are insufficient for documenting that narrow part of the modern history, I would genuinely like to understand what kind of source an uninvolved editor would consider appropriate so I can look for it rather than simply argue the point.

  My primary concern remains correcting the historical break and accurately reflecting the title changes, predecessor/successor relationship, and 1958 merger documented in the HathiTrust bibliographic records.

  Those records are the independent bibliographic evidence: they identify the predecessor title, the change to ''Piano and Organ Review'', the January 1958 merger with ''Musical Merchandise'', the resulting ''Musical Merchandise Review'' title, and the continuation of the former publication’s volume numbering.

  I understand your distinction between bibliographic evidence that can verify publication history and independent secondary sourcing that would be needed to support a separate standalone article. I’m happy to leave the article structure and any move decision to uninvolved editors.

  If additional independent secondary sources would be useful for the modern history, I can identify them for review, but I do not want to complicate the immediate correction of the publication record. A

  s it stands, the current article appears to stop the history prematurely and to disconnect publications that the HathiTrust bibliographic records identify as part of a documented succession.

  I have tried carefully to follow Wikipedia’s process, disclose my conflict of interest, or making the substantive edit myself, and provided sources that allow an uninvolved editor to evaluate the history. My goal is simply to get the publication record accurately reflected. As of today, it is not. Thank you for your reply. TheLMMG (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

What I think should be changed (include citations):

The publication history should be corrected and expanded to reflect the documented succession from Music Trade Review to Piano and Organ Review, followed by the January 1958 merger of Piano and Organ Review with Musical Merchandise to form Musical Merchandise Review.

The current article states that the publication "appears to have suspended publication after the January 1933 issue, then resumed publication under different management between 1937 and 1940." The bibliographic records below document a continuing publication history beyond the point where the article currently stops.

HathiTrust's catalog record for Piano and Organ Review identifies Music Trade Review as its predecessor, gives March 1956 as the beginning of publication under the Piano and Organ Review title, and records the later merger that created Musical Merchandise Review:

The HathiTrust catalog record for Musical Merchandise Review gives January 1958 as the beginning of publication under that title and identifies the merger of Piano and Organ Review with Musical Merchandise. The record also indicates continuation of the former publication's volume numbering:

NAMM's Resource Center also documents the historical MMR archive and its preservation, including issues dating to 1927:

For the modern publication history, Front of House documented the 2021 acquisition of Musical Merchandise Review and its sister publications by ArtistPro, LLC, effective with the August 2021 issues:

The current MMR issue archive shows that Musical Merchandise Review remains in active publication through 2026. This is a primary source and is offered only to document current publication status:

I am requesting that an uninvolved editor review these sources and revise the publication history accordingly. I would also appreciate an editor's determination as to whether the modern Musical Merchandise Review publication should be treated as the continuation of this article or covered in a separate article with the historical succession explained between them.

Why it should be changed:

The current article appears to stop the publication history prematurely and may conflate separate or similarly named publications.

The HathiTrust bibliographic records provide specific predecessor/successor and merger information that appears directly relevant to the article's publication history. They indicate a documented succession from Music Trade Review to Piano and Organ Review, followed by the 1958 formation of Musical Merchandise Review through merger with Musical Merchandise.

Correcting this would improve the historical accuracy of the article and resolve an apparent gap in the existing chronology.

I am Mike Lawson, publisher of Musical Merchandise Review and owner of ArtistPro, LLC. I am disclosing that relationship because I have a conflict of interest and am therefore requesting review and implementation by an uninvolved editor rather than making the substantive article change myself.

TheLMMG (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

References

• TheLMMG, my point is that such a press release-y article won't help in terms of notability. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't see the notability of this topic. Of course the magazine exists, but there are no independent third-party sources I found talking about its publishing history and mission in any depth. The current status of the page does not satisfy the basic notability guideline at WP:GNG. A further guideline for specific to periodicals can be seen at Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals), which gives a slim window for keeping the topic: The magazine has been cited by others for many years.

None of the suggested sources is from an independent third party. The FOH magazine item is a public relations announcement, not a journalist writing about the topic after researching it. See WP:SECONDARY. The backbone of any topic on Wikipedia must be secondary sources. Primary sources can fill in the details, and can be used sparingly. But in this case we have nothing written by an objective author. Not good.

That said, the requested addition in text is not a problem. We can certainly tell the reader about changes in ownership. Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet, thank you for your thoughts. Given your line of work, and my time in the SFBA which I launched MixBooks and other pro audio imprints and publications with MIX Magazine and EM beginning in the mid 90s, and my past involvement with NARAS in SF, I would not be surprised if our paths did not cross before. Pardon the digression, I was just happy to see somebody in the industry actually replying.

Please help me understand the lack of notability. MMR has been in continuous print documenting the music products trade under its own name since 1958. I established its previous publication lineage documented in the Hathi Trust bibliography. Its story as one of if not the longest continuously published trade journal is not notable?

The FOH is an announcement of the sale of their own owners' property to another. That is not credible?

NAMM announcing the donation of the founder of Musical Merchandise Reviews back issues being donated to the NAMM Museum, which has used them in their own history stories, and who also announced the importance of the donation, this is not notable?

Please understand I am not being argumentative. I have read the rules and policies here, and contributed prior to the site, keeping that account separate from this one as to never be accused of an impropriety in editing. MMR has been cited by others for years because it is notable. It and its bloodline have been published since before NAMM even existed. So I am confused. To make the edits to the article The Music Trade Review, I simply asked that the article be corrected, using the established standard of facts by the University of MI public service that exists to establish the facts.

Is this a source I should not have presented as credible? https://www.namm.org/news/press-releases/musical-merchandise-review-donates-archive-namm-resource-center

Or this: https://ww1.namm.org/category/term/mmr

To keep this as simple and non-promotional as possible, let's completely set aside the 2021 acquisition and modern ownership for now. My only goal is to bridge the historical gap so the record isn't broken.

Since the HathiTrust bibliographic data is independent institutional tracking, could an uninvolved editor simply add a 'Succession' paragraph to the history section using that data? Something neutral like this:

'In March 1956, the publication changed its title to Piano and Organ Review. In January 1958, Piano and Organ Review merged with Musical Merchandise Magazine to form Musical Merchandise Review, which continues the original publication's volume numbering and remains active today.'

If that looks fair, I would be grateful if an editor could apply it and consider moving the page to the current title, Musical Merchandise Review, as you suggested." TheLMMG (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

The suggested text looks fair to me. I haven't made the change myself because I think the request can stand for a little while longer to attract more eyeballs.

Moving the page is a different request. See WP:RM. The target page Musical Merchandise Review has a greater problem with notability because it has fewer publications citing it. But I'm not the last word; we should hear from others.

Regarding your suggested sources: None of them have independent authors. The sources are credible but they are primary, not WP:SECONDARY. Secondary sources are the foundation of Wikipedia. Every paragraph on Wikipedia should ideally be based on a secondary source, with primary sources used for details. Binksternet (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Final thought on the notability: Wikipedia lists:

• have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history
• are considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area

Please help me understand that conclusion, since the publication is verifiably through those bibliography files from the trust run out of University of Michigan, the oldest music products industry trade publication, in print continuously for 147 years now. That isn't marketing lingo, its established by myriad sources including NAMM, who routinely relies on MMR to publish stories of importance to this global industry. I am genuinely confused about this. I really want to understand this. Thanks. TheLMMG (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

I apologize for misunderstanding your point about notability.

The Front of House item was published by the company that owned the publications being sold, so I understood it as news reporting the company’s divestment rather than a press release submitted by an outside party. I understand now that your point was specifically that it does not provide the kind of independent secondary coverage needed to establish notability for a separate article.

My primary concern here is narrower: the current article is factually incomplete.

The HathiTrust bibliographic records document the publication succession directly. They identify Music Trade Review as the predecessor of Piano and Organ Review, give the March 1956 beginning of that title, and document the January 1958 merger with Musical Merchandise to form Musical Merchandise Review, including continuation of the volume numbering.

That is the specific history I am asking an uninvolved editor to review and correct.

NAMM also has material chronicling MMR and its history here:

https://ww1.namm.org/category/term/mmr

I am not asking that my own account make the substantive edit, nor am I insisting on a separate modern MMR article. If the better structure is to expand the existing article through the documented publication succession and perhaps move it to the current title, I am entirely comfortable with that.

My goal is simply that the existing article no longer leave readers with the impression that the publication ended when the bibliographic record shows that it continued under subsequent titles since that date. These are simple, credible third party facts.

Thank you to any uninvolved editor willing to review the sources and update the article accordingly. TheLMMG (talk) 16:25, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

TheLMMG, I pinged Binksternet precisely because of his knowledge and experience in this field. For me, what is important here is to establish--or to confirm what Binksternet said--about secondary sources. Notability for our purposes comes from secondary sources; it's really that basic. HathiTrust, an invaluable resource, is not a secondary source for our purposes, but some of its data is...well I could accept it, because I know that they're pretty good at what they do (though I don't like their interface, haha). You wrote a lot on this page; I'll have a quick look to see what I can distill out of it. Drmies (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

OK. Go see what I did. I didn't use your citation templates--I have a strong feeling much of this material here was ChatGPT-generated, and at any rate that .marc extension is useless for our purposes. I also created a bunch of redirects for the "older" titles. The bill is in the mail. Drmies (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

I see the entry is corrected, thank you. TheLMMG (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

A nice side effect is that now if Musical Merchandise Review is searched, it surfaces a lot o other Wiki stories from over many years that directly cite the publication, stories on notable people, products, and more. Again, I am not here to do promotion, I only wanted the incorrect facts corrected, which they are now, so thank you. Our history is all I hoped to have corrected. When I do ny future edits to Wikipedia, I will NOT edit this entry, and use the account I have had to contribute as before. Thanks again. TheLMMG (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

A citation was requested for the ownership period of Edward Lyman Bill (1862–1916). I don't want to edit my own publication's page, and would request an editor look at the masthead of this May 14, 1898 issue (and earlier issues like October 19, 1895), Edward Lyman Bill is explicitly listed at the top as the "Editor and Proprietor". If you want an even earlier citation establishing when he took over or co-owned it with Welles in the late 1880s, an 1886 issue lists the firm as "Welles & Bill, Editors and Proprietors" (https://elibrary.arcade-museum.com/Music-Trade-Review/1886-9-15). Thank you. TheLMMG (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

The New York Times records and the International Arcade Museum eLibrary show that Jeff. Davis Bill co-owned the magazine alongside Edward Lyman Bill. The 1889 issues explicitly list the masthead as "BILL & BILL, Editors and Proprietors" (composed of Jeff. Davis Bill and Edward Lyman Bill). TheLMMG (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2026 (UTC)