Jim Willford wrote:

>The only things that are unthinkable at hnh are:

I have read this list three times now trying to figure out what you are
talking about.  I must assume that you are trashing hns (Naxos to those
who may not be aware) and I must leap, yea, hurl myself to their defense
against this little diatribe that is uninformed, cheap and reeking of
ignorance.

>1. Those things that cost money.

By this I can only guess that you mean those things that other labels
do to waste money.  Zum Beispiel: The tendency to duplicate repertoire
ad nauseum, the practice of hauling expensive house engineers with heavy,
expensive to ship equipment all over the planet at great cost, and signing
huge advance royalty contracts with star musicians the cost of which will
take years for the labels to recoup.  If this is what costs the other
labels money, then they are fools to spend it.

>2.  Those things that haven't been done before (recently) and therefore
>have not already shown a commercial potential.

Naxos have the broadest repertoire of any major label in the market today.
Yes, they have duplicated a couple of projects done by others, such as the
Liszt cycle, but isn't it funny that at the Tower records store where I
work, the majority of the Hyperion Liszt edition has been returned unsold
and the Naxos edition is regularly reordered to sell again.  Naxos have
also embarked of complete sets of the music of Penderecki and Lutoslawski.
I don't know of any other labels that have done that.  There is a finite
amount of music.  It is Heymann's stated goal to provide a broad range of
music at a reasonable price.  This they have done at no harm to any artist.
(More on that subject later)

>3. Those things that haven't already been lovingly produced and sold at
>three times the price (with six times the documentation!) that hnh
>charges.

There is nothing flippant or careless about Naxos' production, or their
documentation.  If you are implying that DGG, Decca or Phillips give you
"loving production and ample documentation," you're blind.  Whereas
Hyperion and bis certainly excel at production, it is wrong to imply that
hnh does not.  Their notes are scholarly, accurate, and thank heaven,
concise.

>4.  Any thing that is beautiful in and of itself.  (If beauty is in the
>eye of the beholder, there are no beholders at hnh or none of the beholders
>have eyes.)

What utter nonsense.  This remark is so ridiculous that it doesn't even
deserve a response.

>I assume that both bis and hyperion pay royalties to their composers and
>artists and hire writers with a post-secondary education to write the liner
>notes.  That presumably explains why their products cost three or four
>times as much money.  If this isn't the case, then they've actually managed
>to outdo hnh which is a very singular achievement from any perspective.

Sure they pay royalties.  But first you are confusing terms.  Composers
do not receive royalties for the recording of their music.  They receive
licensing fees that are paid to them through ASCAP, BMI or SESAC in most
cases.  A royalty is paid to a composer upon the sale of a copy of his
printed score.  As for paying artist royalties, this little snipe of yours
is bunk and you clearly do not understand the way that royalties work.  An
artist does not begin to see royalty money until the recording recoups its
production costs.  In most cases, this takes years for a classical disc to
accomplish.  Sure the first page of the contract looks real good in terms
of dollars, but the pages that follow take all of that money back.  In many
cases, the royalty checks, especially to members of an orchestra, are quite
small, and years in coming, if they ever get them at all.

Mr. Heymann, instead, pays his artists a flat fee, up front, in the
form of a check that they can take to the bank and cash, when the recording
is finished.  I know that most performers prefer this as they get the
needed money immediately.  (I have a couple of friends who have made cds
for Naxos so I speak from first-hand knowledge of the situation.) Further,
since a Naxos cd sells on the average, 10,000 copies per year world-wide,
many performers who have recorded for Naxos are now enjoying recital
and orchestral engagements that were not possible before such wide
international exposure.  Given that 15,000 copies world-wide is considered
a big hit in classical, none of your precious high dollar labels can touch
such a figure.

The reason that Hyperion and Bis cost so much money is that they don't
stand a snowball's chance in hell of recouping their costs any other way.
Naxos discs are profitable very quickly and thus, Mr. Heymann can continue
to record 18-20 new releases per month and expose hundreds of younger
generation artists to the public.  This, if anything else, is his greatest
contribution to music.

>In every industry and among every coterie of camp followers you will find
>boosters for those commercial interests involved.  These are the people who
>spin the sad stories found on the back web pages of those lonely little
>independents struggling to get by on their widow's mite.

Hyperion and bis have been soundly in business for more than a quarter
century.  Their catalogs boast over 1000 releases each.  They are obviously
doing very well and there is no need to feel sorry for them, sarcastically
or otherwise.

>Every good and perfect thing is made by an individual or a group of
>individuals.  Neither the majors nor the minors have ever made a single
>thing of lasting value in all of their corporate lives except money.  And
>even that fluctuates from day to day.

Without both the majors and the minors, the works of lasting value by
individuals, noble beasts that they are, would be languishing in church
basements and cardboard boxes.  They deserve some credit, even if only for
dissemenation.

As a long-time member of both the music profession and the record industry,
I would really be grateful if those of you who continue to ignorantly
pontificate about both entities would be so kind as to stop, do some
research about the way things operate, and then form your opinions.
More often than not, when folk on this list and several others to which
I belong, who are otherwise well informed and erudite, start mouthing off
about the business side of making music, they spread error, falsity and
nonsense like butter spread on toast.  I hate to rant, but it is tiresome
to have to read, time and again, blanket generalisations and uninformed
opinions about a very complex topic.

I apologise in advance to all who are probably offended by my comments, but
really, it is unfair to those of us who try to make a living making music
for incorrect assumptions about our profession to be spead, literally, all
over the world, as fact.  It is difficult enough to succeed as a merchant
of music or a musician in the first place.  People believe what they see in
print, even if it is in the form of an email.  I would respectfully request
that before you write, you know of what you speak.

Kevin Sutton