Uh, no no and no.
First of all, the RCA's are selling very well for SACD's, as I
understand it. In other words -- niche product but doing very well in
the niche. The family that controls BMG is in love with the RCA catalog
and classical music, so there's corporate support beyond dollars and
cents analysis there.
The CD layer of the Mercury's is the digital master made by my mother
from a 3-2 mixdown right to the A-D converter. The 2-ch version on the
SACD version is made in Germany. The whole point of the discs was to
keep the original 3-2 mix beloved by critics and fans (and sold
literally millions of units in the 1990s and continuing where in print
to this day) and add the SACD element.
I personally think the SACD is much better suited to new original
recordings. Listen to some of the 5.1 SACD stuff being made in Europe.
On the best, it's truly like you're there in the room with the
orchestra or ensemble. Using SACD to do reissues runs into these
problems:
-- bright spotlight on the original medium, where all the flaws and
distortions are front and center
-- spreading the signal too thin just to get sound out of 5 speakers.
For instance the Columbia 3-ch reissues of Miles Davis and Dave
Brubeck, in my opinion, thin the sound out so it's much less pleasing
than the original 2ch stereo or even the mono mixes.
-- remixing multi-track sources in a way probably not intended by the
artists or original producers. Hokey effects like flying solos around
the circle or overhead come to mind. On the other hand, the remix of
"Layla" spreads the muddy sound out so you can more clearly pick out
all the individual parts. Still very poorly recorded, but a little bit
clear in 5 channels. No earlier-era multi-track remix I've heard holds
together as cohesively as the stereo mix, but like I said sometimes a
bad/crowded/muddy recording can benefit, although it then suffers from
the first problem listed.
On the other hand, making SACD's from scratch -- with the intention of
surround mixing from the start, and using the DSD digital system from
the start -- yields a very fine product. The big downside is cost and
there is little justification to run up much cost doing this since the
business is moving inextricably to iPod type devices.
Here's my bottom line on all of this. I would like as much good
material (good being a matter of opinion) that never saw a CD release
to see a CD release before that medium submerges. I believe the
iPod/MP3/AAC format is a very big step backward sound-wise and that a
well-mastered CD can finely reproduce the good work of past engineers.
So I don't want the record companies to bloat limited budgets with
fringe formats for niche markets. That includes LPs and SACD's. I'd
much rather they concentrate on the mainstream product and keep it
healthy until the download model starts allowing for full-quality
digi-files (Apple Lossless Format comes to mind, and a copy-protection
wrapper layer should be doable for it just like it was doable for
MP4/AAC). Indeed, I believe that a niche market may emerge for
Higher-Quality downloads, even 96/24 files (assuming the original
transfer was made that way, which is not true of most material that was
released on CD). A person would pay, say, the same $20 they pay for a
premium CD or 180g LP and download the audio, which they might play
thru their hifi soundcard or burn to a DVD-A disc. But, again, that
takes the focus off getting as much back-catalog released on CD as
possible.
I wonder if there's enough market for the old classical stuff -- the
great old recordings and performances, not a whole lot of forgettable
old stuff just because it's old -- for someone to form a classical
version of Mosaic. Do box sets with beautiful packaging, careful
remastering and informative books lush with photos. You'd have to go
back and see what parts of an artist or orchestra's work is the real
gem. You'd have to mercilessly pair it down and you'd have to fight
with notoriously snipey critics and chat-room-regulars about your
choices. Hmmm, maybe not a good business plan after all.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Cox" <doncox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 6:30 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Vanguard Classics reappears in 2 cd sets
Hello Scott
On 10/06/06, Scott D. Smith wrote:
Tom,
I got the same information a few years back about the films being in
Germany, although it wasn't really definative. This was prior to the
SACD project that Universal started.
I never really got a straight answer on the Everest material, although
one person I spoke with was of the opinion that the films were in bad
shape (as in, the oxide was falling off the base). I was never able to
confirm this, but given the history of how many record companies have
dealt with their masters, I wouldn't be surprised.
As you point out, SACD sales have been less than staller, so I don't
look for any interest on the parts of the record labels any time soon.
Sony-BMG seem to be quite pleased with the sales of the Living Stereo
SACDs, enough to have issued several batches. Last I heard, they are
planning some opera reissues later this year.
One difference is that BMG derived the CD layer from the SACD, and it
sounds better than previous CD issues, while Universal used the previous
CD transfer. So there was no incentive for anyone who doesn't yet have
an SACD player to rebuy the Mercuries.
I think that could have halved sales.
In regards to the Command material, I would once again be interested
specifically in the 3 track film masters for the L/C/R spread, as
opposed to the 2 channel mixdowns, even though they may at this point
be in better condition than the film originals.
In any event, it's truly a shame that nothing is being done to
preserve what is left of the material (if any). (I am making an
assumption that whoever owns the rights haven't done anything).
Although a market for the material may not exist at the moment, who
knows what might happen 50 years from now.
Indeed.
Consider the renewed interest in DG and Decca recordings from the 1950s
- their "Original Masters" box sets have been very successful.
Regards
--
Don Cox
doncox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx