Donald Satz wrote:

>I don't think Naxos will ever get out of the "for the price" category
>because of the dramatic price differential between its offerings and the
>premium priced labels.

I agree.  And do you know what, I don't see anything wrong with that.  A
while back I was in a discussion over this and whether the idea of saying
in a review that Naxos was great at the price etc.  is a bad thing.  I
understood the point of view taken here back then, but the more I think
of it, the more I think that this is a *compliment* to Naxos.  We *should*
be reminded of their price becauase it is such an advantage.  Naxos, not
always--who can say always about any label--but so often produces an
excellent performance at a low price.  And there is nothing wrong reminding
people of this as long as the tone taken isn't condescending, i.e., "well,
it's not great, but it's cheap so why not." But I see this kind of writing
about Naxos releases less and less.

A friend recently wrote me and said that London is cutting back their CM
releases drastically.  You can be sure that Naxos et al.  has played a big
part of that.

However, there is a disturbing aspect to all this.  Naxos succeeds for
two reasons (among others).  1) There are a *lot* of excellent musicians
out there and many of them are in orchestras we would never have considered
of high quality fifteen years ago when the majors ruled.  2) These
orchestras are cheap to record.  Obviously, when you can produce a fine
recording at a fraction of the price of one put out by the London Symphony,
or more so, moneywise, Berlin or a major American orchestra, you'll do it.
The downside is the effect on the so called majors who are relegated to
making very few recordings nowadays.  In a sense, you are pitting musicians
of all these orchestras against each other.  Now the Moscow Philharmonic or
the Bournemouth or the NOrthern English (or whatever the name is) is taking
business from the Chicago Symphony.  The overall effect probably is to
bring down the cost of recording all around, a good thing for most of us.
But it will have its effects on orchestras.  Most orchestral musicians are
not that well paid--obviously some are--and many have to live in expensive
large cities making their salaries seem not so large.  One can complain
about musicians unions driving costs up, but again, most orchestral
musicians do not live like maharajahs.  Much is made about the low cost of
recording London orchestras.  But not anywhere nearly as much is made about
the way those great musicians have to scrap for a living.  From everything
I've heard, it's not easy.  Not easy at all.  If anyone knows better, I'm
all ears.

This of course opens up a huge can of worms and I'm not taking the time
here to argue the case of whether this is good or bad overall.  It's
probably both, and lord knows, I'm like any other consumer.  Presented with
good recordings on Naxos I'm going to buy them.  And I buy a lot of used,
too.  So don't think I'm putting myself above the fray.

I guess what I see is that this benefits musicians in small orchestras
and hurts those in the large ones, thus creating a leveling between both.
Ordinarily I'd say this is a good thing, given my leftwing politics.  Hell,
it probably is a good thing.  But the one disturbing aspect is that
musicians don't start from a great position financially.  They are not
able to demand obscene payment from a braindead society as athletes are.
(That perversion in this culture is something that makes me turn livid with
rage--and I'm an ex-jock.) So I worry for their future.  Yes, the price of
classical recordings must come down.  But musicians must be able to make a
living making music.  The two goals are not always in harmony.

It's a complicated question and I'm not sure what the answer is, if there
is one.  Much of this is the same kind of argument that exists with free
trade policies, pitting workers of low paying countries against those from
higher paying ones.  It's not one I find it easy to think clearly about, in
case you haven't noticed.

But now I'm starting to ramble. It's that kind of issue.

Roger Hecht