Deryk Barker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Wes Crone ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
>
>>...  It may take an extra nudge from the record executives to get the
>>word of Paul McCartney's music out on the street, where Bach doesn't
>>need that kind of advertising.
>
>Maybe that's because bach is a far better composer.  But that wasn't my
>point, which was that this is a totally inequitable way of doing business
>for EMI's classical division.

I think this is a bit of a flawed analogy.  I don't think that EMI's
intention was to jump start the career of a newbie composer.  Rather EMI
probably felt that the potential audience for McCartney warranted making
the vast pop-world take notice of this recording.  Like it or not, people
like us don't really need advertising to tell us of a new Bach recording.
In other words EMI probably thought that the potential profits from this
recording warranted the expenditure which from a business viewpoint makes
sense.  This then becomes a variation on the "Evil Bean Counter" thread
that we see so often in this group and is not a view that I am taking issue
with FWIW.

Bach lovers will know about new Bach recordings.  Beatles fans probably
won't know about McCartney's CM attempts that lurk in the CM section and
there are more of them then there are of us.

Steve