Jan Templiner (and Dave) wrote:

>>What I would like to see to feel more comfortable is new releases on
>>hybrid SACDs only for about the same price as CDs.
>
>In a word: BIS.  Either new CDs are recorded in discrete multichannel
>DSD or not.  If they are, they're released as hybrid SACDs otherwise
>as ordinary CDs.  The price is the same.  Very reasonable, I think.
>
>[All hail BIS.  Great company.  -Dave]

I definitely agree with these sentiments, but am curious.  Along with
the pricing strategy cited above, I've read in postings to this List in
previous years that BIS also maintains the availability of all of their
recordings in their catalog--no deletions or out-of-prints, in stark
contrast to the "here today, gone tomorrow" philosophy of the bankrupt
"major" labels.

Why is it that BIS seems to be a company that is doing well in today's
classical market, given that it seems to be operating under a different
market system compared to the conglomerated labels?  I'm almost tempted
to call their way of operating "socialist", but in a very Scandinavian
sort of way, emphasizing sustainability over planned obsolescence.  Their
prices are certainly not at the lower end like a Naxos, but they can
survive just the same even while commanding a higher price vs.  the
big-name labels.

Obviously, the quality of the "product" itself has a big role, but the
majors can have decent product; they just can't sustain themselves to
make money off it to save their lives.  BIS isn't alone either--certainly
there's other ones like Harmonia Mundi and any number of other smaller
labels which continue to put out new issues of music old and new, with
no seeming letup and little if any descent into Crossoverdom.

Perhaps we need to re-define what constitutes a "major" classical label,
and dump Time-Warner, Sony et al.  into the bin of Fly-by-Nights?

Bill H.