David Runnion eferred (in part) to Ron Chaplin's astonishing remark that:

>I wouldn't mind so much the big conglomerates loosing money, but I
>would hate to see performers, even the big names, get ripped off.

David then goes on to make an equally extraordinary remark about the
Philadelphia Orchestra and asking why they should:

>finance the luxurious offices of their record-company bosses when the
>orchestra can sell as many discs over the internet and put nice leather
>sofas in the living rooms of every tutti cellist and third clarinettist?

I wonder if David has any idea of the cost of recording American
orchestras? They maintain the highest fees in the world and if a symphonic
recording goes past one single session the record is a loss-maker not quite
forever but at least it will not pass break-even point for something like
9 years.  In addition a royalty is payable to AFM on all record sales by
American orchestras - a unique arrangement in my experience and a further
disincentive to making records in North America.  This is, indeed, one of
the main reasons why comparatively few recordings are made in the US.

He goes on to say that the Philadelphia Orchestra could sell as many copies
themselves (via the Net).  That is just possible.  The world-wide average
sale for a new classical release is between 3000 - 5000 copies which they
might well attain on their own.  However out of the revenue thus generated
the orchestra itself would still not have been able to fulfill its fee
commitment to the members of the orchestra for the sessions and cover the
recording costs!

The record industry begins to recover some of its losses when the disc
re-appears at mid-price when sales of a classical title can reach 20-25000
copies.  How, may I ask, will the artist selling his "product" direct via
the Net arrange his marketing and decide how, when and in what format to
re-launch a 3-4 year old recording at mid-price to stimulate further
interest and sales? In any case, surely, in order to obtain some revenue
from the Net, a "legal" seller of recordings via MP3 must be found to
handle - or shall we say - distribute the recording.  They, too, want a
fee for their work.

We may assume that the members of America's leading orchestras already have
comfortable furniture at home or most of them would have found something
else to do!

There are two separate issues involved here.  Firstly that the back
catalogues of all record companies remain their property and are thus due
the protection afforded to them by the laws on intellectual property rights
which exist in civilized countries (however rich they are!).  The second
question is what do the record companies do next? That is of interest to us
all and is, most certainly, a subject that is now testing the brains of all
record executives.

On another matter I think David is missing a point about why artists like
to make records for record companies.  They are the most excellent visiting
cards, they indicate confidence in the artists by the record company and,
as any artist will tell you, they play a much greater part in helping them
develop their careers than buying leather furniture.  After all no artist
is forced to make a record, the agreement is mutual and commercially based
(or should be).  We all, at the beginning of our working lives, exchange a
low salary for work experience.

Finally I ask myself - possessor like most on the list of a substantial
library of legally recorded/published music - just how many white label
CDs, with neither inlay nor booklet notes, does one want to have in one's
collection? When MP3 sites enable one to pay to download at least the front
inlay (colour artwork) along with the sound then I might be interested but
even then, not very much.

I think MP3 is a tool for kids and ideal for music whose passing interest
does not exceed a few weeks.  In classical terms I think it will be a very
modest activity with slow growth.  Who wants a mass of books in the house
without covers!

David refers to record companies who use ....  "young groups like mine
to sell records, paying no royalties, just dangling "prestige" in front
of them ..."   But who are these world famous profitable groups being so
cynically exploited by these greedy major record companies? I can't think
of any.

And let us please get this into perspective.  How does one think that
Hyperion reached the highly respected position it enjoys today? By
exploiting artists? Not at all.  Both artists and company together took
chances and commercial risks.  Records were made AND some marvellous
careers were assisted and built along the way.

I do not think these attitudes have any value at all when set alongside
the absolutely phenomenal choice of repertoire offered to the consumer
and which the record companies have given us, sometimes profitably but
most frequently at a loss.  It is only their back catalogues that enable
them to produce a bottom line that is acceptable to the shareholders.

There is no vast fortune to be made in CM except for the very lucky few.  I
chose the record industry, over a conventional job, and had a lot more fun
as a result.  I managed to put my kids through UK private schools.  At the
end of it all there was no fortune but I wouldn't have been an accountant
for any money!

A couple of years ago EMI launched its Debut label specifically to record
young unknown artists doing (sometimes) little known works.  Among them was
the then totally unknown Thomas Ades.

And, like Ades, I feel sure that if David's group finds that "magic thing",
as did the Kronos 4tet, then he'll be delighted to have a record company
knocking at his door.

John G. Deacon
Home page: http://www.ctv.es/USERS/j.deacon
Campobello: http://www.holiday-rentals.co.uk/campobello