Re: [ARSCLIST] CD versus Download was "All hail the analogue revolution..."

[steven c <stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

see end...
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Fine" <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Mike:
>
> Universal owns what used to be Polygram. That's DG, Decca, London,
Mercury, Command, etc.
>
> Sony/BMG owns what was RCA, Columbia and perhaps a couple of small
players.
>
> EMI owns EMI, Angel and Capitol's few fully-classical releases.
>
> Warner Music owns Nonesuch and perhaps a few other classical or crossover
labels.
>
> Regarding your comment about classical labels, I think it's definitely a
game today for smaller
> companies like Naxos.
>
> I know a fair amount about the economics of classical recording due to my
parents' work. A classical
> recording used to be intended to act like an annuity. You work out a
reasonable rate -- in some
> cases, the orchestra's donors or board would put up some of the session
money in exchange for a
> royalty. You work efficiently. You record something the musicians are
well-versed in (usually what's
> on the program that season). Then you come home with what you hope is a
fine product. You package it
> well. You market it well. If you're super-lucky, it'll be a hit like the
Mercury "1812 Overture" or
> "Pictures" with Kubelik. That's a bonanza, not expected and much
appreciated, back in the day. If
> it's a success under normal circumstances, it will steadily sell a
reasonable amount of copies every
> year for as long as you keep it in print. Build up a library of these
annuities and you have a very
> nice income stream over time. Keep freshening it with exciting material
and all the more so. The pop
> people always complained they had to work on the same budget as classical
but they were generating
> occasional mega-hits. Yes, but they also generated many misses. A
successful classical department
> generated many more successful revenue streams than loss-leaders. By the
time the classical labels
> got conglomerated, there emerged a hit mentality in these new corporate
classical departments. The
> success of "Three Tenors" type releases fed this hit mentality, and
suddenly the classical division
> could be a big contributor to quarterly results. The thinking became,
"hey, who needs another
> Beethoven, how about that exquisit looking and relatively talented
violinist we can market to the
> nth degree?" Besides, the thinking went, those damn musicians unions make
orchestral recordings
> unprofitable. This was also the time that many American orchestras lost a
regular-standing recording
> contract -- and also around the time that symphony ticket prices started
getting so outrageous that
> the whole musical genre was guaranteed to be relegated exclusively to the
elite who could afford to
> hear it.
>
> So, as you can probably see, the old kind of economics flies in the face
of stock-driven
> quarterly-results-obsessed megaglomerates. Plus, these megaglomerates own
such huge catalogs, they
> barely can keep track of it all, much less successfully mine every vein
for maximum profits. Note
> that Time Warner cut Warner Music loose because it turns out a record
company wasn't a good fit for
> a media megaglomerate, ie it wasn't as profitable as magazines, cable
networks and cable systems.
> They are probably going to cut AOL loose too because that was just an
unmitigated disaster, but not
> relevant to this conversation.
>
> I don't think it's a good thing for "dead" or "near-dead" or "niche"
musical styles like jazz and,
> arguably, classical to be under the umbrella of these huge organizations,
and I wish there were ways
> to bring pressure to bear for easier licensing arrangements because I
think that specialty/niche
> labels can be very successful doing reissues of back catalog where the
megaglomerate can't be
> bothered -- but only if the cost of entry is low enough for them to have a
reasonable chance of
> success. I cite the examples of Mosaic with jazz CD sets and now
individual albums from the RCA and
> Columbia vaults. And I cite the few long-term-successful (successful =
able to stay in business; I
> doubt any of them are super-profitable) LP reissue companies.
>
> You are seeing how things have shaken out. A player like Naxos or Telarc,
which has a
> classical-focused staff and knows their customers and their marketing and
can survive with a few
> thousand copies of something sold per quarter, will be the main
new-release generator in this
> market. I would also say that the failure of high-resolution formats to
attact much of an audience
> has further set back the megaglomerates since their marketing and
new-release machinery is obsessed
> with technology and "latest-greatest" thinking. It's not flashy or perhaps
"interesting" to quietly
> work hard to build a great classical catalog, and this probably does not
attract the best and
> brightest in these corporate cultures. By the way, back in the "golden
era", even very large
> companies like RCA and CBS/Columbia had a small cadre doing the classical
work. Classical has always
> been a "specialty shop" with U.S. labels, which is why some of the
recordings are so beloved -- 
> because the whole thing was the antithesis of corporate, it was very
personal and hand-crafted. I
> think classical was more institutionalized in Europe because it was a
bigger music market and
> because it was a bigger part of broadcasting for longer than in the US.
Remember that jazz and rock
> didn't catch on until after the US.
>
Interestingly enough, that's very similar to the way the 78 record industry
worked prior to about 1930 or so (when both radio and the depression hit).
The companies had numbers of "standard" records, which stayed in print for
many years, and didn't have to be replaced (except when recording was
electrified). They also released the current hit tunes...which, in general,
stayed in the catalog until the supply ran out, selling ever more slowly.

The "standard" series also included well-known classical pieces...only
the actual "major" labels (Victor and Columbia) recorded and released
classical material performed by "name" artists...and then on higher-
priced records. However, those labels advertised mainly their classical
product in general magazines.

Also, it wasn't until the "swing era" that record firms gradually
changed their practice from promoting primarily the songs (every
label had versions of the hit songs) to the artists...

Steven C. Barr
(the one thing I'd like to know is how records were sold before
c.1936 or so...I have flyers from record dealers dated in 1939
that offer hits on all the labels...but have noticed that earlier
paper items read "Now at your <label> dealer!" which, to me,
implies that dealers were franchised to offer the products
of only one company...?)