RebLem wrote:
Perhaps artists ought to ba able to buy the masters to destroy them, but not just to keep them off the market. However, I think the rights of fans and the companies need to be in better balance. George Szell did not get along with the members of the London symphony when he recorded the Tchaikovsky 4th with them, and as he left the podium, someone said the thing would be released sometime soon.
"Over my dead body," decreed Szell, and, indeed, the record was released posthumously. I think Szell should have been given the option of reimbursing the record company for the entire cost of the sessions so they would be held harmless, in exchange for the masters being destroyed. And, if they don't, I don't think the record company should be allowed to just keep it in storage if there are people who want it. For a standard fee set by law, one should be able to get a CD-R made of anything in the vaults. It should be low enough so that the companies would have an incentive to release anything themselves that they can make money on, but they don't just want to make money, they want to make obscene amounts of money. They shouldn't be allowed to do so at the expense of art, at the espense of people being able to hear things. They have a right to be compensated for the making of a CD-R, but that fee should be kept low to allow only a modest profit, which would encourage them to release anything they could really make any money on at all.
If you've ever heard the rehearsal material from Monteux's Westminster Beethoven 9th, you'd probably understand Szell's reaction. But that Tchaikovsky 4th (like Monteux's Beethoven 9th) sounds very good as a record.
I can understand the issuing of less than perfect live performances, especially when it's repertoire for which commercial recordings of an artist do not exist. But some pirate labels are pumping out droves of historic material solely for commercial gain.
I disagree about record companies withholding material because of its inability to generate obscene profits, although they would certainly wish everything they produced became a mega-hit. Re-issues are projects with budgets. Companies seem to be contracting their mastering work (how many of DG's new releases are mastered out-of-house?) and there is graphic design, writing, editing and printing, production and distribution. And all of it done by a limited number of staff. Re-issue series with graphics themes and original artwork and notes help reduce some of the time and labor costs. And look at some of the material appearing on Philips/Decca/DG
Original Masters series (that Gary and Lance mention from time to time) or Sony/BMG Legacy.
I'm sure very few employees remain with the majors who were there during their golden years and unless the new management are also serious collectors, they may be only superficially aware of or just discovering the wonderful performances in their vaults. Long-time collectors know the work of artists like Szell, but to a young person first discovering classical music or inexperienced in the business, Szell is an artist without context (or a limited one) as he cannot be experienced live. For those persons an artist like Hilary Hahn can provide that living context--I'd like to see her in person too! I don't think classical music can survive without the living context.
John
Y'know, I'd have guessed they'd do this to me, even with as innocent an ad as the one I'd posted on craigslist.com these last few months:
HOO-BOY! Well, I've always wanted to keep my old pal Nate Brown's name under wraps....I'm quite familiar with him & have indeed gotten several BSO concerts (& Paray/Detroit & Monteux/San Francisco....as well as Manuel Rosenthal's only surviving recordings with the Seattle Symphony) from him over the years. Again, the legality thereof is a puzzle to me, but since he's out here in the open, he was a real help to my collecting habit (outrageous as his prices have been).