"John G. Deacon" wrote:

>I am afraid that I cannot allow a few of Kevin Sutton's <[log in to unmask]>
>comments to Jim Willford to pass without challenge or comment:
>
>>Naxos have the broadest repertoire of any major label in the market
>>today.
>
>This is manifestly not true (yet) and possibly may never be so.  Naxos are,
>of course, completely eclipsed by EMI in a truly vast range of all types
>of serious musics made over more than 100 years - opera of all kinds,
>French/German operetta & Indian classical to cite some worthy parts of the
>repertoire.  If they hadn't lost their factory in Shanghai one could add
>Chinese classical music for another.

I stand corrected with John's even more first hand knowledge of the
recording industry.  John is older and more experienced there and so I will
gladly defer to his expertise.  The only thing that I would challenge him
on is that, while EMI (being just about the oldest kid on the block) would
reasonably have a huge cataloge, much of it is unavailable, especially in
the US.  What we are able to buy here with any ease is, albeit fine,
somewhat limited.  At least with Naxos, the entire catalogue is readily
available and continually growing.

>Prior to this, and until about 10-15 years ago, the main EMI subsidiaries
>(notably those in France, Germany, the USA, Italy, Spain, Denmark & Sweden)
>were allowed to have their own specific national recording budgets.  Other
>majors did not allow this freedom to their branches to anything like the
>same extent, if at all.

This is interesting information.  What a shame that the situation you
describe above seems to be defunct.

>As a one time employee of EMI (I began their import dept.  at Hayes in
>1960) and later became their UK agent for their "imported" repertoires
>(1977 and one of Conifer Records' initial raisons d'etre), I know very well
>the vast catalogues of music that are to be found in their archives all
>over the world.  Happily for posterity specialist staff at EMI Koln have
>been working these last 10 years on cataloguing it all into a central
>database.  Naxos, much as one admires their achievement, simply doesn't
>begin to compare.

Agreed.  However, Naxos is ten years old and EMI is 101.  I dare say that
if Heymann's enterprise lasts as long as EMI's he will catch up.  And long
may he live.

>But Kevin goes on to make some other strange assertions which, I venture
>to suggest, are not correct and he does so whilst castigating others for
>misunderstanding how the record industry works!  A few small examples, if
>I may.
>
>A composer *does* receive a royalty on his composition(s) issued on sound
>carriers - it is called a copyright royalty and is paid on some 95-97"%
>of sales from Day 1.

I indicated that this is called a licencing fee (at least in the US)
and I am familiar with them as I have paid them to record works with my
professional choir.

>The publisher of a modern work may ask for an advance on royalties
>in addition to score hire (if any of you read the damning criticism in
>Gramophone about 3+ years ago from Ted Perry, Robert von Bahr et al you may
>know how obtuse some UK publishers can be in helping to prevent recordings
>of modern works being made at all, Naxos or not!).

I remember this article well.  But you say that the publisher may ask for
it, but do they always get it?  Just how much music is left unrecorded
because of high advance fees? I would be interested to see how the
situation has declined or improved since that article appeared in
Gramophone.

>Copyright dues (the protection of intellectual property) are governed by
>national laws in all civilized countries and a record company may not
>record a copyright work without first recognising their royalty obligations
>in this regard (this obligation in Europe is now extended to 70 years from
>the death of the creator).

It is close to the same in the US, with the extension of copyright allowed
to the estate of the creator for a further 70 years (I think it's 70, but
I do know that there is a considerable extension allowed.)

>>An artist does not begin to see royalty money until the recording recoups
>>its production costs.
>
>This, too, is substantially untrue (although it does apply in the pop
>field; because of massive abuse of studio time pop groups found themselves
>landed with this obligation many years ago).  Very important classical
>stars receive an advance on royalties before even entering the studio.
>Others receive royalties depending on the negotiating skills of their
>lawyers/agents *but* never have to wait until the recording costs have
>been recovered!

Again, I stand corrected.  But I wonder just how many "very important
classical stars" can command that sort of thing today.  It still brings us
back to the problem of costs and effects of costs.  The artist might get
paid up front, but, how long, if ever, does it take the record to profit?
Someone has to accept the losses if the disc flops, and many do!  In the
long term these losses prevent further recordings by stars or anyone else,
and everyone loses.

>>...royalties to members of an orchestra, are quite small, and are years in
>>coming, if they ever get them at all.
>
>Orchestral players are nearly always payed a flat fee, per hour, based both
>on union rates and the number of minutes per hour of master tape allowed
>(usually 20 mins).  Royalties paid in the US, via the AF-of-M system, may
>be late in reaching musicians but that's got absolutely nothing to do with
>the record companies who have to pay this levy on sales,as far as I am
>aware, from Day 1!

This is surely correct.  However, I have spoken with members of the Dallas
Symphony Orchestra who have made several recordings of late and they say
that the royalties are nothing to bet the farm on!

Kevin Sutton