Thread: Julia Fischer future plans

Posts: 161
Page: prev 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 17 next

Post by Windsurfer November 15, 2007 (81 of 161)
Livy said:

Sour picture of monopolistic hegemony? I paint a picture of the free market at work. Tell me what I've described that's monopolistic? I don't think you understand what that word means. In a free market, people make their own choices about buying and selling - Julia's made her choice to sell her product to Decca. I don't see a monopoly, commonly defined as "exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices".

I wonder if you are confusing "free market" with "competitive market"? What I was thinking about is the ownership by Universal Studios, primarily a movie conglomerate, of what was once Polygram, a similarly monopolistic aggomeration of record labels that dates to the time of the LP record. It is that which I criticize. A competitive market exists when the buyers and sellers are "atomistic" you can find this concept and the word "atomistic" in any first year economics text. The concept is only that, a concept and it is (or was) most closely approached by the agricultural industry - one of the qualities defining a competitive market, believe it or not is that an individual buyer or seller cannot set the price - that is done by the market and occurs where supply and demand crossover. Most economists believe the public is better served the more closely a market approaches a competitive market as described above. The Monopolistic market is the extreme opposite and a middle position is the Oligarchic (I think I remember that word correctly) market which actually is what the record industry most closely resembles.

Philips was reasonably benign in their control of the Polygram empire, but one sorry result was the degradation of Decca recordings when they started pressing them in the Netherlands, for there the stampers were polished to get rid of (the obviously) undesirable snap crackle and pop which often afflicted British pressings. The downside was that the life was also pretty much polished right out of the recordings as the highest frequencies also went with the noise.

But that is an aside, While Philips was a reasonably benign master, I don't think Universal is. Their bean counters decided not to continue with "dual release" on CD and SACD of their product. Not the individual labels. You of course are entitled to your own opinion as to whether that kind of control is so wonderful.

Post by Livy November 15, 2007 (82 of 161)
Windsurfer said:

But that is an aside, While Philips was a reasonably benign master, I don't think Universal is. Their bean counters decided not to continue with "dual release" on CD and SACD of their product. Not the individual labels. You of course are entitled to your own opinion as to whether that kind of control is so wonderful.

I guess at the end of the day, the bean counters are trying to keep the business alive and profitable. Someone in another thread mentioned that smaller labels may be run by one person, with all of the production outsourced. A label like Decca or Universal could never do that.

I appreciate SA-CD sound and I certainly would like to see it adopted more universally throughout the classical (and rock) recording industries. But I also recognize that tough choices have to made when running a business. I have made decisions that employees (and consumers) haven't always liked, but they were done in order to further the business objectives of the company. That's just way it is. Not continuing with SA-CD is, currently, a market-premised decision. I don't like it, but I can understand it, if you're in a business to make money.

Post by Windsurfer November 15, 2007 (83 of 161)
Livy said:

Artist of the Year - let's face it, she got that on the basis of her talent and her "splash" - there are several (Barenboim mentioned earlier) that are equally deserving. Let's confuse Artist of the Year with "Violinist of the Millenium" or some other award that it's not.

I really do not see the point in this part of your post - care to elaborate? I was expressing the idea that this is an artist who really does NOT need the so-called prestige you associate with being a "Decca" (or DG or Philips) recording artist. She ALREADY has that popularity as witnessed by her winning that "Artist of the year" accolade. She could not have won that if she were not so popular. I don't think you have an awareness of her concert schedule (which used to be on her website - now unfortunately in a stasis but which promises to come online again soon)

What is the big deal with being a "Decca" artist? PentaTone's recordings are far far superior! That is where the prestige SHOULD be! Yes I am underplaying this "association with other famous artists" that you think is so important. How many Heifetz recordings do you have? Have you noticed how many are with "big name" orchestras and conductors, and how many not?

Post by Windsurfer November 15, 2007 (84 of 161)
Livy said:


Sour picture of monopolistic hegemony? I paint a picture of the free market at work. Tell me what I've described that's monopolistic?

Caught up as I was in my previous post in describing types of markets, I forgot to speak to what it is that makes the picture you presented:

sour, monopolistic and reeking of a hegemony.

Your picture makes it seem that an artist will only get invited to play (at least regularly) "in the big leagues" (with the world acclaimed orchestras and conductors) if that artist has a recording contract with Decca, DG, Philips, (do you include EMI?) or Sony-BMG.

That would, to my way of thinking, represent a monopolistic hegemony that does no one any good! For me it is an extremely sour picture.

Post by Livy November 15, 2007 (85 of 161)
Windsurfer said:

I really do not see the point in this part of your post - care to elaborate? I was expressing the idea that this is an artist who really does NOT need the so-called prestige you associate with being a "Decca" (or DG or Philips) recording artist....What is the big deal with being a "Decca" artist? PentaTone's recordings are far far superior! That is where the prestige SHOULD be!

You opine she doesn't "need" Decca - perhaps not, but that is not the question to be answered. The fact that troubles you is that she went to Decca at all. Why? Not because she needed to, but because she _wanted_ to.

And the reason why she wanted to go to Decca is in the 2nd part of your post. Perhaps the prestige "should" be with Pentatone, but as you acknowledge, the greater respect rests with Decca.

And get over this idea that the issue revolves solely around recording quality - it doesn't! The people running Decca certainly aren't putting out inferior recordings - Chailly's recent Gewandhaus recordings are a great example. The issue is the perception of each label and, currently, the perception to a large number of people in the classical music community is that Decca is a more prestigious label than Pentatone. Julia Fischer is obviously one of them.

Jasha Heifetz died in 1987, 20 years ago, when classical music was unwittingly laying the foundation for its own near self-destruction by releasing too many recordings of the same music. Market conditions have changed. I fail to see why the number of Heifetz recordings I own means anything to anyone.

Post by Livy November 15, 2007 (86 of 161)
Windsurfer said:

Your picture makes it seem that an artist will only get invited to play (at least regularly) "in the big leagues" (with the world acclaimed orchestras and conductors) if that artist has a recording contract with Decca, DG, Philips, (do you include EMI?) or Sony-BMG.

That would, to my way of thinking, represent a monopolistic hegemony that does no one any good! For me it is an extremely sour picture.

I believe that is exactly how the classical music recording industry currently functions. I can't think of a single recording the great orchestras have done recently that has not been for a major label like Decca, RCA, EMI, etc.

By and large it's a good thing for the industry. Without the back catalogs of these companies and, consequently, their distribution channels, independents couldn't exist. Many other industries are dominated by oligarchies and as long as there's no evidence of price fixing, it's usually an economic "win" for the consumer.

Specialty niches like Pentatone and SA-CD's would never exist without the entities of Sony and Philips. You call it hegemony. From a business perspective, you've got the telescope backwards again.

Post by Windsurfer November 15, 2007 (87 of 161)
Livy said:

I believe that is exactly how the classical music recording industry currently functions. I can't think of a single recording the great orchestras have done recently that has not been for a major label like Decca, RCA, EMI, etc.

By and large it's a good thing for the industry. Without the back catalogs of these companies and, consequently, their distribution channels, independents couldn't exist. Many other industries are dominated by oligarchies and as long as there's no evidence of price fixing, it's usually an economic "win" for the consumer.

Specialty niches like Pentatone and SA-CD's would never exist without the entities of Sony and Philips. You call it hegemony. From a business perspective, you've got the telescope backwards again.

Actually, I was talking about the implication you left us with that she would not be invited to perform with these orchestras, not record with them. More later!

Post by wehecht November 15, 2007 (88 of 161)
Livy said:

I believe that is exactly how the classical music recording industry currently functions. I can't think of a single recording the great orchestras have done recently that has not been for a major label like Decca, RCA, EMI, etc.

Maybe our definitions of a "great orchestra" are different, or perhaps I just imagined the self produced series of recordings by the London Symphony, San Francisco Symphony, Concertgebouw Orchestra, London Philharmonic, Chicago Symphony, et al, not to mention the London Symphony's Vaughn Williams series for Chandos, the Philharmonia's Mahler series for Telarc, and my hometown Philadelphia Orchestra's five recent recordings for Ondine with more "in the can".

Ms. Fischer has made the choice of label that seems best to her. That's fine, and I wish her the best with it, though I think she might have asked herself whether she has fared better as an artist with Pentatone's support than Hilary Hahn has with Sony's and DG's. In terms of concert performances any difference would seem to be somewhere between negligible and imaginary, and in terms of recordings Ms. Fischer has been much better served. I have no idea how the financial rewards compare.

In any event, I think this thread has become more about the recording industry and its economics than Julia Fischer. Perhaps it needs to be transferred to something called "do the 'majors' really matter anymore?" A quick look at the last couple of years of release schedules for BIS and Decca should answer the question, even without reference to quality issues like sacd vs rbcd.

Post by BenPatient November 15, 2007 (89 of 161)
Livy said:

She might also be thinking Decca likely will still be around 20 years from now, which means her recordings will still be being reissued in the latest iterations of "Legends" or "Original Masters". Pentatone simply does not yet have that track record. She'll be on the same label as Solti, Maazel, and many of the greatest classical musicians making recordings with the WP, BP, in the greatest concert halls - she's never going to turn that down.

Even if PentaTone isn't around in 20 years, Naxos will be, so it's not a big deal.

PentaTone will be fine, though. they have some plans for the future. Also, they aren't terribly upset about this. They sort-of expected it to happen sooner.

Their sales of Julia's current releases will go up if Decca spends more money marketing her, and now she'll get to fly first class to her gigs instead of riding Southwest.

I can't say that I blame her, but she'd have been better served long-term sticking with PentaTone. The money was probably too good to pass up, though.

Post by BenPatient November 15, 2007 (90 of 161)
Livy said:

I believe that is exactly how the classical music recording industry currently functions. I can't think of a single recording the great orchestras have done recently that has not been for a major label like Decca, RCA, EMI, etc.

By and large it's a good thing for the industry. Without the back catalogs of these companies and, consequently, their distribution channels, independents couldn't exist. Many other industries are dominated by oligarchies and as long as there's no evidence of price fixing, it's usually an economic "win" for the consumer.

Specialty niches like Pentatone and SA-CD's would never exist without the entities of Sony and Philips. You call it hegemony. From a business perspective, you've got the telescope backwards again.

A single recording of a great orchestra done recently for an independent label:

Joan Tower's "Made in America" disc, Nashville Symphony Orchestra, Leonard Slatkin conductor, released on Naxos this year.

It's not hi-res, but it's good. and Nashville's Symphony (and their new Symphony Hall) are top notch, even if they haven't been properly recognized yet.

I happen to know a bit about CD distribution, and you'll find that Naxos, which is not only a label but also a distribution channel for a couple dozen indie labels, does quite well getting CDs from independent labels to consumers.

Page: prev 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 17 next

Closed