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