Deryk wrote:

>Not exactly.  Some of these recordings (e.g.  the EMI GROC) have been
>issued on CD then reissued and then "remastered and reissued" - or
>some similar sequence.
>
>The companies evidently expect us to fork out several times over for
>the same recording, while others languish in their vaults.

I'm not targeting Deryk; his was just one passage out of many and it
happened to be the one I quote here.  There's a certain air of paranoia
about us connoiseurs being manipulated by record companies.  But I don't
think their actions are really driven by our buying habits, since we're
a small segment of the market.  Aren't we?

Anyway, I'm not going to complain about improvements made to a previous
recording.  I'm free not to buy a remaster.  If I do, that suggests that
the company is using new innovations to meet my desire for better sound
even if I already own a previous release of the same recording.  (Even
if that wasn't specifically their intention.  More likely, I think that
they are just trying to keep their recorded sound up to modern standards
for the average buyer, who may not appreciate the value of historic
performances enough to ignore the hiss.)

Other recordings may languish in their vaults.  While I may personally
object to the short term impact this has on my collection, they do need
to exercise judgment in terms of what is profitable for them.  I'd rather
hear 20% of what they have then read another post on MCML about another
classical division going belly-up.

Michael Cooper