Bert Bailey wrote:
>Bernard wrote:
>
>>>It seems the me that that the record industry has now yet learned the
>>>economic basis of commerce. Price it fairly and they will buy! Nineteen
>>>bucks for stuff that costs $3 to produce is not only unfair to consumers
>>>it is stupid on the part of the get rich quick artists.
>
>And Karl suggested:
>
>>There seems to be many factors to consider, Naxos is probably the major
>>one. They own their own world wide distribution which virtually assures
>>them of some return in sales. If they pay an artist, it is up front.
>
>So Naxos's very presence runs counter to the business viability of CM?
No, I believe they realistically represent the market, one which, makes it
difficult for musicians to make a living from their music.
As with popular music, there is a great financial divide between those at
the top and everyone else.
>slower in reaching us. Plus, of course, making the more familiar fare
>available without having to sell yr heirlooms.
For me your statement rings true, but, in part, is at the heart of the
problem. I am reminded of people complaining about the "high cost of
gasoline." Rated against inflation, gas is cheaper today than it has
ever been. Back in the 1940s, a set of 78s of a Beethoven Symphony would
cost about $4. Some years ago I did a cost comparison...adjusting for
inflation and the amount of time offered on a CD, if we were selling
recorded music for the same price as it sold back in the 1920s, a single
CD should retail for at least $125. I am not suggesting that we should
pay $125 a CD, since I would like to see classical music available for
free. However, I find an historical perspective on pricing to be
fascinating.
>Speaking of which: check out a new Helios CD of chamber works by Lennox
>Berkeley. And, speaking of whom: pity that Lyrita was so laughably
>over-priced: they had at least one very nice recording of LB's fine
>symphonic works, but single-handedly stifled any chance of Berkeley
>fandom through outrageous pricing -- which takes it back to the original
>point.
The real question for me, as a producer, is, would a CD of Berkeley's
music actually sell twice as many copies at half the price. I don't know
the answer to that question, however, now that we have covered our initial
startup expenses, I will be asking all of our artists and the rest of
my board if we should lower our selling price. We work with our musicians
on a cooperative basis and for us...well we can't afford to do otherwise.
The more I learn about the business side of Classical Music, the less I
think I understand it. It really only makes sense to me when it is about
music and not about $.
I guess it is the old business model where value is what someone else
is willing to pay and not necessarily what it costs to produce. Labels
like Vox, Naxos and other earlier budget labels like Remington, Varsity,
Plymouth, Laserlight, etc. showed it can be done, yet it appears that
Naxos has shown how to succeed as a business and be true to the art.
While I don't know the innner workings of it all, I would suspect that
having their own distribution is key to the business side.
For me, another part of the equation is the snob factor. Classical music
is and has been marketed to some extent, as something for the rich. How
much more does one pay for a Rolls Royce when a Bentley is just as good.
I wonder if Hilary Hahn doing Bach on Naxos would sell as well as Hilary
Hahn doing Bach on DG. No doubt in my mind that Hahn doing Bach on DG
would sell better than Hahn doing the Creston Violin Concertos on Naxos.
As to where this leaves us...as for me, I do most of my record shopping
at Berkshire...it still amazes me how quickly a relatively recent release
becomes a cut out!
Karl
|
