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.

The reason for EMI's pre-eminence, above *all* other companies (and yes, I
mean to include the former PolyGram), is not generally known or understood.
It is because of marketing and distribution factors deriving, in the case
of most of the majors, from the role of accountants who in their turn
succumb to corporate greed brought about by short-term pressures from the
stockmarket and shareholders.

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 meant that EMI's subsidiaries were allowed to budget for, and
make, recordings of their own national repertoires with the only proviso
that they reported their plans to the London centre.  This was obviously
necessary in order to prevent a sister company making a recording of a work
where the "centre" might have been planning simultaneously a world class
recording of the same piece (thus a "Forza" with Bergonzi & Arroyo would be
made in Watford Town Hall and EMI Italy, therefore, would not be making a
local one in Rome at the same time).

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.

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.  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!).
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).

>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!

>...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!

>Mr. Heymann, instead, pays his artists a flat fee, up front, in
>the form of a cheque.

Correct - what is interesting here is that the amount paid, calculated
against the sales of 10-15k, often constitutes a really quite generous
"royalty" when calculated from that standpoint!  And, yes, it has helped
many careers as well as alleviating starvation!

Jim Willford wrote:

>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.

This is totally unworthy of comment and I agree with Kevin's response.  I
would add that the composers of the last 500 years or so would, in unison,
be the first to worship at the shrine of Berliner & Edison.  Our lives are
hugely richer for the last 100 years of recorded sound - that was, surely,
a rather trite and silly thing to say!

But none of this is helped, surely by the fact that the uniform of a CEO in
a major record company today involves the wearing of earrings, a clip-on
pony-tail, black jeans and a mobile phone.  Their knowledge of classics is,
as they say, the square root of zero (or FA in the colloquial)!  You don't
believe me? I've met many of them - so please believe me.  We are so lucky
to get what we get in the light of these obstacles.

John G. Deacon
Home page: www.ctv.es/USERS/j.deacon