Music Chats: The Major Labels Should Give Up Releasing New Recordings

[@martinhaub6828]

You have to feel sorry for young up-and-coming conductors and other artists who will never, ever have the opportunity to create a recorded legacy in the way that Ormandy, Karajan, Bernstein, Heifetz, Rubinstein, Mehta, and their like did.

[@seashanty4597]

Market reality. World doesn't need them.

[@markfarrington5183]

...to say nothing of Toscanini, Szell, Reiner, van Beinum, Beecham, and so many others.

[@denbigh51]

Klaus Makela and John Wilson seem to be doing Okay

[@niko_____3820]

@@denbigh51 I`m sure Mr. Mäkelä could record every concert with every orchestra he has, but the question is: Does that amount to a recorded legacy? Is the industry doing him a favour? Is he able to decline an offer?

[@seashanty4597]

@denbigh51 Forced, manufactured stardom as per a check box list, I'll agree.

[@matthewwalther1904]

This may not be welcome or interesting news to many listeners here, but DG has done an absolutely first-rate job with their recent vinyl reissues. This is true not only of the mastering (from the original tapes rather than digital sources) and the pressing (all these years later they somehow discovered how to eliminate the infamous DG static) but of the sleeves, which are lovingly reproduced on higher grade cardboard than the originals. These "Original Source Series" releases are routinely selling out. In any case, whatever you think of the vinyl revival (it's affected; it's a hassle; the equipment is expensive etc), at least it's nice to see a label putting out a quality product that people actually want to buy. I suspect this kind of release strategy-thoughtful, targeted, implicitly acknowledging the growing market for an older physical media-will succeed even as CDs sales continue to decline.

[@thevault3853]

And yet the young up and coming artists seem to be doing just fine with the majors: Daniel Lozakovich (DG, then Warner), Yunchan Lim (Decca), Jan Lisiecki (DG), Edgar Moreau (Erato/Warner), Sheku Kanneh-Mason (Decca), Danill Trifonov (DG), Klaus Makela (Decca), Randall Goosby (Decca), Isata Kanneh-Mason (Decca), and so on. And many of those are putting out well-recorded, well-thought-out discs. What they don't get the chance to do is record anywhere near as much as their predecessors. We have a 80+CD set of a five year period of Ormandy, but these young artists might manage 25-30 CDs in their whole career, and that is both their loss and ours. But it's no different on the smaller labels. But on the whole, I think it is that we are prone to think that the past was always better. in some cases that's very true - opera recordings today are nearly all live, and suffer because of it. I'd much rather listen to a studio recording from the past. But while the young instrumental artists around aren't stifled with regards to what repertoire they record when on the majors, everything is actually OK.

[@GregoryWalz-c5z]

Excellent observations -- especially the likelihood of 25-30 commercial recordings for even the "biggest" solo classical artists nowadays in their entire career.

[@benrlego]

This is a topic on which I wholeheartedly agree with you. If this were some 20 odd years ago I probably would've had some reservations, but as time has gone by it has become painfully obvious that much of what the record labels are churning out is just repetitive, redundant, and useless dreck. I see absolutely no reason for the obsession with new recordings, when all that matters is good recordings. Most of these composers have been dead for many years, so does it really matter if the interpreters have been as well? We're well past the Karajanesque rush to re-record the repertoire in digital, and as you've noted in fact the sound quality is just declining as we go along. It seems to me that writ large many of these recordings are simply vanity projects, there's no reason every conductor has to toss out a token Beethoven or Mahler cycle just to say they did it. There's thousands of hours of time-tested, excellent recordings sitting out of print or in obscurity that could be promoted in a strong catalogue that would do them just fine. If BIS can keep everything they've ever recorded in print, I see no reason why DG/Decca/Sony can't at least curate theirs and just leave it available for once. You have gold, sell it.

[@GregoryWalz-c5z]

"...much of what the record labels are churning out is just repetitive, redundant, and useless dreck." A comment easily made and upvoted -- but where is your evidence other than a mere assertion? "...and as you've noted in fact the sound quality is just declining as we go along." Again, mere assertion. And an "argument from authority," aka Mr. Hurwitz's opinion.

[@geraldmartin7703]

I miss record stores. Certainly they helped in marketing.

[@Adrian-hq5jk]

I discovered late 20th century and contemporary composers largely through labels like Biss, Chandos and Naxos, but certainly not through DG or Decca, etc. Someone needs to expertly curate, promote and package contemporary 'classical' music..

[@gavingriffiths2633]

Isn't it funny how Naxos bucks the trend with new, interesting and very well recorded releases both of familiar and unfamliar material? It can be done. By the way, I don't work for them....

[@bomcabedal]

And CPO, Toccata et al. But Naxos has a fundamentally, more repertoire-driven approach to their catalogue (and not the same kind of back catalogue, either).

[@bobmeyers186]

I think there is a heavy bias towards earlier recordings, or golden-age recordings. I myself lean towards recordings in the 50s, 60s (think prime Columbia Masterworks, Deutsche Grammophon, Decca). For violin, for example, I listen to the likes of Heifetz, Oistrakh, Stern. Orchestral works, I go for Karajan, Bohm, Ormandy, Reiner, etc. This bias makes sense because in the first couple of decades following the birth of sound recordings, everybody sought after finding the "best" artists to have a chance at recordings, which at the time was a big investment. This resulted in amazing relationships between performers, conductors, and record labels which paved the way towards legacy and greatness. I believe the reason behind this bias, again, is the massive upheaval and change in recording technology, including the transition to vinyl in the late 40s, early 50s. This was right after post WWII as well, which at the time there were tremendous efforts in dedicating major efforts towards perfecting art and recording. Almost philosophically, at the time every inch of tape used for recording was costly and was considered a major investment. These days, we have the issue of mass quantity of supply (number of artists, recording technologies, remasterings, etc.) which is the opposite mindset of how it was back in the day. Record labels now incentivize marketing, profits, and numbers far more than artistic merit.

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

I don't think there is any bias. I think those recordings are better. Period.

[@dmntuba]

Couldn't agree with you more. 👍

[@richardgoldberg4310]

There are clearly important reissues emerging (especially through the efforts of Cyrus with Eloquence and Robert Russ at Sony). However, as you correctly note much of their great catalogues remain unissued. Whilst there are some exceptions, much of the old EMI catalogue remains unissued by Warner. The fact that there was no complete Solomon box or Schnabel box or Leonid Kogan box over the last couple of years is nonsensical. The EMI Karajan Operas that you reviewed are still not available. In the old days you could at least write and make a suggestion to EMI Classics. Warner do not even have the courtesy to reply to their customers when suggestions have been made to them. As a collector, I am disillusioned. Perhaps it would have been better had Sony Classics outbid Warner for the EMI Classics catalogue. Alain Lanceron needs to listen or Sony should try and buy them out.

[@GregoryWalz-c5z]

I disagree with this assertion. Just one very recent example will begin the counter-argument: you would not be able to praise the Deutsche Grammophon recording of Messiaen's Turangalila-Symphonie with the Boston Symphony Orchestra and Andris Nelsons. Perhaps it would have still been released on the Boston Symphony's own apparently moribund BSO Live or BSO Classics label?

[@michaelhughes1504]

DG's new Original Source Series is doing somewhat what you are suggesting, albeit focused solely on vinyl and in purposely limited runs. They are high price / high margin endeavors, but they are focused on packaging and producing a product to the highest standard. I completely share your sentiment and wish they would extend these efforts into digital physical product.

[@RobertDiVito]

Enjoying your channel and thank you for addressing a timely topic. Oddly enough I am in the midst of contemplating the merits of starting a classical music label myself and many of the issues you bring up are relevant to the discussion. The fact of the matter is the recorded music industry is suffering badly and the classical music industry is hemorrhaging significantly and has been for years. The onslaught of moving to a streaming based delivery service has only expedited its demise. To answer your question about major labels suspending new recordings all together I have a few thoughts and observations and I will use one real world example to illustrate. A few weeks ago I attended the final performance of a Toronto Symphony concert in which they were recording, among other things, Bartok’s Concerto for Orchestra and the Miraculous Mandarin, for a future release. This is part of a multi disc record deal the TSO music director, Gustavo Gimeno, signed with Harmonia Mundi. 1. These live recordings encompass recording 3 performances and include a touch up session on one of the performance days. This is the new recording reality with large orchestras, and for the most part, can provide good results with clean recordings. 2. The recording was by no means a simple one. There were 30+ microphones between mains and spots, many included extended frequency DPA’s, and some of the mains were doubled up for additional options in mix-down. Suffice it to say, the engineer and by extension, Harmonia Mundi, were not skimping out on the quality of the pickup. 3. The musicians were not paid one dime more for this recording other than their regular salary. This recording project is part of a yearly buyout that is made possible by the AFM Digital Services Agreement that allows orchestras to have exclusive use of this media for a rather low one time payment. 4. I would venture to speculate that Harmonia Mundi would not be able to make this recording work if it had to pay the musician fees for all the sessions. For all the reasons you mentioned it would be fiscally irresponsible as a business decision. 5. Even at just covering the cost of recording I would again speculate that those costs will be non-recoupable in either digital streaming or physical sales. 6. Once this gets released it will be up against some rather glorious recordings of these works in back catalogs. Like Reiner/Chicago famous 1955 recording or the more modern Helsinki Philharmonic/Susanna Mälkki offering. So your question is a good one. Why do major labels continue to record? It’s certainly not for the business model as the cost is un-recoupable. They are not signing 360 deals to get a percentage of touring money plus bar and t-shirt sales. Half joking but true. So why do it? I would imagine for Harmonia Mundi is part philanthropy, part ego, part dedication to an art form they love. For a label like Sony Classical, it is likely prestige and it’s probably being funded by its other corporate activities. To your point, it is far more advantageous for Sony Classical to be associated with YoYo Ma than the opposite at this point in time. What’s in it for the Artist? Signing to a major label at one point had a huge advantage in marketing. They had, and some still do, all the inside connections to terrestrial radio, TV, print and digital media to promote their artists and business. So besides stroking their ego, signing to a major label gave the artist much further reach in the promotional arena. If major labels, and to an even lesser extent indie labels, did the promotional heavy lifting that is required with any new release then one could make an argument for the efficacy of signing to a label in 2024. The fact of the matter is most major and indie labels will not help the artist record the album and will do even less to promote it. Mostly because there is no financial return as a business. In fact the only financial justification some indie labels can claim for even existing is the government grants they receive for supporting local talent. The fact of the matter is, in classical music, the financial justification for recorded music simply doesn’t make sense. People can cite any number of reasons but I again will speculate that the prime reason is lack of demand for the product. The cost of producing the product, whether live or recorded, far outweighs the interest in the product by the fan base. All one needs to look at is Taylor Swift to see the economies of supply and demand working in the business of music and recording. Back in the day, the soloist and the conductor, drove the agenda in releasing records that elevated their stature. There is no reason to think that current soloists like Yuja, conductors like Gustavo, or orchestras like the TSO, shouldn’t desire or deserve any less. In some ways, with all the marketing noise, they need it even more in 2024. So my preference would be that major labels do even more recording, spend even more money, and even do studio based recordings where the artists can spend time honing their craft. Although the back catalog is vast and rich, human creativity needs to keep creating.

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

That would be my preference do, but it's not going to happen for all the reasons you describe.

[@folanpaul]

This is excellently put, thank you; but as David points out, the desire you express in your last paragraph, while being no doubt true, seems an impossible sell in 2024.

[@RobertDiVito]

@@folanpaul classical music has remained a form of art music and, like visual art, it relies on philanthropic endeavours to sustain it. While the larger institutions will survive, It has become harder to expect wealthy patrons and government subsidies to sustain smaller organizations because of the economics. Unless we find a way to drive demand, the art form will eventually cease to be viable. I agree with your comments wholeheartedly. My last paragraph was nothing more than wishful thinking. Thanks for reading!

[@robhaynes4410]

Spot on. Other than megaboxes, the only DG title I've bought in years is Kit Armstrong's album of Byrd on the piano. That was 2021. And I can't recall a DG release more recent than that that I streamed, either. It's the same for the other majors, too. One or two releases in years. Nearly all of the great recent classical albums are on Chandos, BIS, Naxos, CPO, Delphian, Alpha, Somm, Sigmund, Bru Zane, et al.

[@clarkebustard8672]

A couple of vintage models the majors might follow, maybe even profitably, in recycling their catalogues: - The RCA Soria series: Deluxe boxes of records packaged with coffee table-grade art booklets, the art related to the musical contents (Verdi Requiem meets Sistine Chapel ceiling, for example). These sets from the late 1950s and early ’60s were pricey when issued and subsequently very pricey on the collectors’ market. Some in-house labels, notably the Berlin Philharmonic’s and Jordi Savall’s AliaVox, already do deluxe packaging and charge a premium for their releases. As physical products they are status items, classical recordings’ answer to the big-H throw blanket. Whether they’re worth the price is another matter. - The Penguin Modern Library series: Literary classics in sturdy hard-cover editions, consistent in size and format, reasonably priced and kept in print for decades. The major record labels had somewhat comparable series in the early and mid-years of the CD era - Decca/London’s Jubilee, Sony’s Great Performances, etc. - but they were budget-priced discs, spottily curated, with bare-bones packaging, and they drifted out of print. "Iconic" recordings in state-of-the-art remasterings/restorations are already being done for vinyl reissues of analogue titles from DG, Decca, RCA and other labels. Seems like a no-brainer to do the same with CDs - just not at the preposterous prices charged for the LPs. What not to do is the current practice of issuing huge boxes of everything that Artist X recorded for Label Y. They’re physically unwieldy, cost hundreds of dollars, and you’ll never get around to listening to a lot of the contents. Taylor Swift can get away with this sort of packaging. It won't, and shouldn't, move much product for classical music.

[@daawesomedude6119]

Dave, as a young person, I totally agree with you that as someone who has grown up with streaming and digital media always available to them, the only classical music I’ve ever bought is this obscure CD from ebay of Klaus Tennstedt doing Mahler 7 with Cleveland in 1976 (mostly because it’s not available on streaming and it’s TCO with most the Szell musicians) that shipped internationally from Japan. All the knowledge I know about record labels I know exclusively from watching your videos, and while I find much of what you say fascinating, I’ve just never cared for the labels because at the end of the day, I just open an app on my phone and play what I want. I really lament how modern recordings are not the groundbreaking thing that they should be. I feel like these companies just slap “dolby atmos spatial audio” on their Apple Music tracks and think it somehow makes up for bad engineering/balance/conducting. I think part of it is due to the self-indulgent internet bubbles that these artists and orchestras unknowingly (or knowingly) curate for themselves that just didn’t happen half a century ago. There is simply no driving force that just rewards really rock solid good musicianship anymore. I don’t want to say something negative like “nobody knows the difference between good and bad music” but most people don’t get INTELLIGENTLY curated music recommended to them, so they play their favorite recording of handsome Klaus with the spatial audio and live the rest of their days not knowing what could be. Mediocrity is being rewarded because there aren’t enough voices shouting back at it; As long as content is being provided, people will consume it without question, which is the real issue.

[@bobk4402]

As someone who's probably a good case study of the 'ignorant masses', who isn't a lifelong classical music listener and somewhat regularly buys new releases, I have two points: First, there's the feel-good aspect of supporting active musicians by buying these releases instead of something recorded forty or fifty years ago, and second, a logo like DG's has a lot of marketing power itself, whether the product is the best or not, as exemplified by Amazon's algorithms recommending me the most popular new recordings. As for the first, considering that I'm among the ignorant masses, I'm not yet able to hear the difference between mediocre and good, or good and great, so it's all the same to me (that is, to us, the ignorant masses). And regarding my second point, DG's logo is leading people to new performers they may not otherwise hear about or listen to. All this is not to say you're wrong that they should be more selective or hands-on in getting the best possible quality of material, but even as a profit-motivated organization, these major labels are not without value.

[@Leo_ofRedKeep]

The only real difference between modern releases and old ones is that the old ones are being hyped up to the heavens by old curmudgeons talking down to fools. Supporting modern performers keeps the art alive. Buying the old stuff cheap only helps it die out faster

[@geoffharris9396]

I think Hilary Hahn said she likes the cd product of her recordings to help promote her concert tours. She signs the art work on the covers for fans who buy concert tickets.

[@matthewweflen]

As an "audiophile," I do want the best possible digital recordings of a piece of repertoire. The physical pleasure of listening to great sound is equally important as the quality of the interpretation for me, and the hissy magnetic tape recordings of the 60s do not always cut it (though they can often be remastered to great effect). But the truth is that most of those great digital recordings were already made in the 80s and 90s (the DG output of Orpheus Chamber Orchestra and Emerson String Quartet, and the Decca releases of Blomstedt/SF spring to mind). So ultimately I agree with the sentiment of fewer releases done very well, as opposed to a spaghetti-on-the-wall approach. I am very glad that the Michael Sanderling/Dresden Shosty cycle, exists, for instance. Sony knocked it out of the park in terms of engineering. But that sort of release only needs to (or even could) happen once a year or less, really. And I would not want to do without Naxos releasing fresh "lesser known" repertoire in good quality recordings.

[@stephenkeen2404]

I think I'm mostly aligned with the Major label pessimists. But I want to point out how this illustrates a flaw in our approach to business: the myopic focus on growth. A corporate board isn't going to bring on a CEO who says "The company's reached its limit, we should just scale down and maximize the revenues from our existing catalogue." They're trained to look for CEOs who are going to find new channels for growth, even if that will result in lower net profits. No one gets a bonus for making a company smaller.

[@davidrowe1004]

I couldn't agree more. And sadly, the whole digital download aspect has ruined it forever, because labels know most people are paying for it cheap and listening to it on cheap plastic crappy earbuds, so the labels don't care what it sounds like. I'm so grateful for the small independent labels (and mid-sized ones like Chandos Bis and Naxos) that still care about, and have pride in, what they put out.

[@Leo_ofRedKeep]

Only idiots believe that others listen on "crappy earbuds". Typical idiot believing others are even dumber than themselves.

[@avihalevi5042]

In part I agree with you. Taking the huge catalogue of past great recordings, cleaning them up, Some remasterings have improved upon the original job that in some cases , was botched. and making them available again (sometimes the opposite is true as leave well enough alone). However, given that live performances are important, Why not set up really excellent recording equipment in concert halls to capture these , perhaps using some rehearsal material or edits from other performances of the same concert and issuing these.....SWR seems to do a fairly good job often. The emphasis should be on the quality of the performance and the success or failure of capturing that ,ie. not for the sake of merely issuing "something" Critics may disagree, but often they agree on what is worthy of a listen even when they disagree.... great food for thought .... also as someone noted Naxos has made a success of producing high quality recordings at low cost without sacrificing artistic excellence....I hope record executives are Listening????

[@jupiterkansas]

I think symphonies are recording their concerts. The point seems to be that they don't need a major label to release those recordings. They can release the recordings themselves, or just put them online. All the label does is put it on a disc and get those discs in stores, but many people don't even have disc players anymore.

[@classicalmusiclists]

I worked in publishing and for small presses the print run was 3,000 to 5,000 books. In the music business what is the typical production quantity for a new release classical CD?

[@GregoryWalz-c5z]

Likely 5,000 production CDs or less (even just 1,000 initial CDs in many cases), especially for labels like Naxos -- and this would only be for the projected "best sellers." Klaus Heymann of Naxos addresses this matter in one of his interviews in the last 5 years.

[@classicalmusiclists]

@@GregoryWalz-c5z Thank you! It's really interesting to know.

[@jeffheller642]

It's fascinating yet not surprising that you would reach this conclusion, even though it would mean less work for the music critic. I think it is necessary to admit that not only does free streaming and self producing militate against big label record distribution but there has been and continues to be a notable decline in demand for what is generally regarded as classical music. Nor will it help to stretch that definition to include pop etc, imo. That said, acquiring my classical music collection has been a highlight of my later years, and I would never have been able to do so were it not for CD sets of quality performances of the standard (mostly tonal) repertoire selling for the low low price of $2-4 per disc.

[@willcwhite]

I'm not sure it would necessarily mean less work for the music critic. Mainly it would free up music critics to comment on the much more interesting releases produced by independent labels. I don't think there's any shortage of those!

[@peterboer9572]

The Alpha label has a private sponsor which allowes them to build a relationship with their artists and make quality products.

[@ChristianBaumann-z9c]

So true, so sad. Listen to some old Mercury Living Presence recordings, spectacular sonics, leaving the impression that you stand in the center of a phantastic orchestra, playing thrilling, well-probed and individually interpreted music. Contemporary recordings reproduce a distant, cold, silky and two-dimensional artificial sound, transporting uniform interpretations that strive for technical accuracy rather than moving musicality.

[@neilcameronable]

Quality over quantity,Time over Money.The white elephants in the classical room that need addressing.Thanks for addressing it.The major labels need to concentrate on their huge back catalogues and make them present and keep them constantly in print.Or is that a 20th Century out of date view now in this world of streaming.Ok then get the back stuff streamed.These pointless new recordings do the label and the listener no favours.They damage it.The quality new recordings are being swamped by the dross.Most unfair to those artists trying to keep their heads above the morass and trying to give us quality recordings.

[@gregm5775]

It is an undisputable fact that, speaking of classical music, the majors labels' distribution networks are no longer the way to fame for musicians striving to make a name for themselves -- and this does not bode well for the future as budding musicians will despair of making a living out of (classical) music, as mentioned below. Perhaps the way to create awareness nowadays is to give concerts (with heavy publicity), or to be recruited into newsworthy positions (Makella for example), or any other distinction that can make its way into the general media. And of course, it's important to be talked about regularly in the social media; but the problem is, how does a young musician go about drawing attention to begin with?

[@murraylow4523]

Pavane for les labels defunctes- yes I agree re universal etc. However, I’m more optimistic, as other commentators seem to be, because there is just vast amounts of high quality stuff, in physical form, coming from the other companies. There has never been so much, so I can’t get exercised about DG,for example, losing its way. There are so many ways now that it has become nothing to get funereal about at all.

[@joosroets5533]

From the top of my head, some excellent (relatively) recent DG recordings, which were eye-openers and really added something to the existing repertoire: Paavo Järvi's Franz Schmidt symphonies, Kit Armstrong's William Byrd and John Bull, Mirga Grazinyte-Tyla's Weinberg symphonies, Yannick Nezet-Seguin's Florence Price 1&3 (a huge shame that the next one was an only digital release) and Joana Mallwitz's Kurt Weill 1&2. These albums alone, justify their continued existence as a label.

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

Uh, no, I don't think they do. The Schmidt symphonies are very well covered, as are Weinberg's and Weill's. Price was good to have, but as you point out, there was no follow up. The Armstrong was wonderful, but a small handful of releases to do "justify" a major label's existence, and (it's worth pointing out) this is all stuff that the indies have been doing for years. Given the lack of promotion and scant chance of any of these releases becoming profitable in a meaningful way, releasing these titles made little sense.

[@tommynielsen7163]

Nezet-Seguin’s Florence Price 1-3 only appeared in durable format long after its digital release. But then Chineke orchestra appeared independently and outshone it completely. But I don’t agree with the funereal thoughts since there has never even been so much many great recordings of varied repertoire available. We just need to stop considering DG, Sony etc as ‘majors’ - since they are not,

[@HoheBrachtAcht]

@@DavesClassicalGuide I would not classify the Franz Schmidt symphonies as "very well covered." at least in terms of cycles by one orchestra and one conductor: N. Järvi on Chandos, Sinaisky on Naxos, Luisi on Querstand, P. Järvi on DG, Berman on Accentus. Five such "cycles." Is that too many? As far as I am concerned, we could have at least 5 more -- and why not. "Given the lack of promotion and scant chance of any of these releases becoming profitable in a meaningful way, releasing these titles made little sense." Such arguments, followed to their logical conclusions, more or less argue for no new classical music releases by any label whatsoever. But it makes for a fine talking point.

[@BVcello]

Interesting chat, Dave. About 20 years ago I wrote an email to DG proposing to them to make a new series of recordings of the Brahms chamber music, which I felt was a bit dated at the time (in all my youthful enthusiasm)... They politely turned it down. But it made me start to wonder, why are these labels all so stuck on the major repertoire only? Why didn't they decide to make some more daring choices to drastically extend the repertoire, back then and now? It certainly would have opened more paths to staying relevant. Yes, from time to time we see things like Schmidt symphonies popping up. But why for example, is there hardly any Martinu to be found on DG, Decca or Warner? Or they could for example cash in on someone like CPE Bach, who remains woefully under-represented... Why always release a symphony fantastique when recording Berlioz? There's still so much music to be explored by the best musicians and technicians out there. I certainly would rejoice...

[@doctorzingo]

I don't know the specifics of the Schmidt symphonies, but in general these projects aren't the result of the major label planning their releases. It's just some files from a live recording done by somebody somewhere that they slap their cartouche on.

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

Yep!

[@TheAboriginal1]

Warner and Decca seen to be doing a nice job getting their back catalogs boxed up for reissuance. I would like to see more single or dual disc releases with fresh pairings of repertoire. The old Philips dual discs were great because they felt like very good value for money but without the bull and heft of a giant box.

[@Vikingvideos50]

Some great points. I agree that if they can't do it right, don't do it.

[@matthewsussman7043]

Brilliantly argued. The small independents can keep up what they are uniquely set up to do but as for the majors 100% right.

[@barryguerrero6480]

I completely agree about intelligently curating existing catalog. The stuff is there and already paid for.

[@alfreeburger]

I’m a relative newbie to classical, so I’m sure my perspective will be very different from that of long-time aficionados, but maybe that’s good. I see no need for new recordings of the core repertoire. My observation is that part of the fun for classical collectors is trying to find “the best” version of this or that piece, but how many recordings of Mozart’s late symphonies or Beethoven do I need? And for most of this stuff there are already a lot of classic recordings to choose from. There are standards in Jazz that have been and continue to be recorded over and over again, but inasmuch as those are used as vehicles for improvisation and artists are encouraged to personalize them in any number of ways, including completely reharmonizing them, changing tempos, arranging them for ensembles of different sizes, etc. the situation is much different. The scope for “interpretation” in classical music seems to be, by comparison, rather narrow. As you pointed out in another video, listening requires an investment of time. So, how much time do I want to spend listening to different recordings of the same piece vs. listening to a broader range of repertoire? I really only need one representative recording of most pieces - a reasonably good performance in reasonably good sound (i.e., I like it, even if there are arguably better, maybe even much better performances, to be had). A favorite piece may merit multiple recordings if I happen to hear one that excites me enough to make me want to add it to the collection. In building my collection, my sights have been set squarely on the established artists and conductors from the glory days of recorded classical music. I couldn’t tell you who today’s stars are. The people I consider to be more “contemporary” have actually been around for decades at this point. I suppose I consider them contemporary because they’re still alive. I ignore most of them, too. 😉 Even in those instances where I might be tempted to invest in multiple recordings of a piece - I’d be looking to acquire classic recordings by acknowledged masters…there really isn’t a lot of bandwidth left for the latest prodigy. I don’t find modern classical music to be of much interest. What I think would be more interesting would be for the first tier orchestras to record all of the great 18th century music that is typically left to smaller period or chamber groups. I’d love to hear say, the Concertgebouw record all of CPE or JC Bach’s orchestral work…or Stamitz or Cannabich or Boccherini or Sammartini… I think that would be a greater contribution to the preservation, rediscovery, promotion of our musical legacy than another ill-conceived attempt to “interpret” music that’s been done over and over and in most cases much better. At the other end of the spectrum, it would be great if young composers were encouraged to create new works that are less academic, modern, etc. and more tonal and popular, and orchestras were encouraged to play them. We need new orchestral HITS of which a younger generation of musicians could create definitive reference recordings.

[@c05.63]

Major Lebels almost never gives a Chance to Minor composers or non Standard repertoire, Minor lebels are mostly the interesting ones nowadays. DG Lives out of the past and new recordings nobody needs, I Love Krystian Zimerman, his Late Szymanowsky is amazing!, why to re record the Beethoven Piano concertos? And out of his technical peak, with weaker interpretations.... like geez, all the DG artist play the same Symphonies and most Mainstream Pianist live out of playing the same 10 Famous Chopin Pieces.... like dude. Orchestras Like the Concertegebouw have a tradition of performance as well as Favorite repertoire, id like to hear many thungs with different orchestras, will it happen? No, Is it necesary? Nope, why to bother? Better to stick to old recordings of most things and look for new releases of minor labels, I think.

[@bigtom6939]

If I may add- your series on "Greater Recordings Ever" and Reference Recordings is proof that there are plenty of great recordings that can be re-introduced to the public. Of course, the main problem is finding a new audience for even the best of the best.

[@Delius1958]

Streaming, big cheap box sets, the second hand market, overfed collectors: all these are the undertakers of the classical music market. We are living in an era of retrospection where things quickly can become sales. New recordings might at least have the effect of keeping the discourse alive. A recording may be bad, but as long as people talk about it, the train rolls on. Some might look for alternatives and find real classics. New recordings open a door to the classical world no less than other things do. I think, you made a point, Dave, but we should not completely shut this door.

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

I didn't say that. They should leave the job to those who still know how to do it.

[@bigtom6939]

I am still learning classical music , but I do agree with you. Look at thee success DG is having with its "Original Source" re issue selections. Unfortunately they are only in vinyl now but who knows if they will issue CD's. People are raving about the sound quality on them. One can only hope.

[@hiphurrah1]

Great chat and spot on. When i see that DECCA release a Mäkela Debussy Stravinsky or Shostakovich disc i just don't understand the reason behind it and even more: who will buy this stuff when there are so many reference recordings already. It just adds absolutely nothing to what already exist.The big labels are just stuck in a bizar system.

[@kellyrichardson3665]

Fascinating question! I've reached the point, too, when I see 7 recordings of Mahler's 8th Symphony released THIS WEEK where I wonder -- why? I read someone's individual review once of a recording where they asked the question -- to the artist apparently -- WHY record and release (another) recording of this (major work!) if you have nothing special to say? In other words, the performance wasn't even close to comparing with the 100 or more BEST recordings already done of the piece, so why are YOU recording it? Perhaps, I guess, these recordings are being made for family and friends.

[@Richard-b5r9v]

I remember the Phase 4 recordings as being the very popular years ago

[@bendingcaesar65]

I thought Nelsons' new Turangalîla-Symphonie was really boring, like most other things he does. I turned it off after 15 min. Doesn't hold a candle to Previn.

[@metaljay842]

The only time I even take note of a major label release is when a major label is reissuing material in a box. Perhaps it has become time to reconsider what is a "major label" and what is just an "archival label." The term "major labels" in the modern-day market for classical music brings to mind Naxos, BIS, cpo, Brilliant Classics, Supraphon to name a few. The "indies" and ex-state enterprises have become the new major labels. Hyperion seems to have retained some level of autonomy but that will remain to be seen. They are the labels I keep the closest eye on. They are putting out the material of interest, recording music from little-known composers, and so on. On the topic of the majors not knowing what to do with what they have, it is quite simple; there is a lack of commercial potential. Pop recordings are not subsidizing classical productions like in the LP era. Even many of the big boxes happen thanks to some kind of private third-party subsidy, like the Robert Craft Columbia cube. The major label archives are an Aladdin's Cave of legendary and not-so-legendary recordings and they need to be treated as proper cultural artifacts and not just as product.

[@joshgrumiaux6820]

This best-kept secret about how labels are just distributors, and all the production concerns have been foisted upon the artists, has long been the case for small independent labels. And even then most people -including some reviewers -think that Navona or Toccata or Centaur or Albany or whomever actually do the recording. It's sad that even the legacy labels like DG are now following the same business model. It's also sad that the labels that did have a distinctive sound and vision - like EMI - have now been whitewashed out of existence by the likes of Warner. It's like their logo has been cancelled, even though it's part of music history.

[@maximisaev6974]

Well, somebody had to say it, recognize the elephant in the room, and Lord knows Dave you've been saying it many, many times. It's well past time for the recording companies to recognize what they have, be fortunate they have it, curate what they have, and MARKET what they have. Until this happens, I guess we're stuck with meaningless, mediocre product that should never have been recorded in the first place. I have to wonder if there's even the funding, not to mention the audience out there to do even that much. I believe in my old and cynical heart there's not, and what we're witnessing is the slow death of the music us geezers love so much. It's not my intent to fan the flames of any "Western Culture Wars," but the past demand for quality Classical recordings was a direct result of Mom and Dad's hunger for culture, making certain they had the recordings at home to prove it so they could show it off to their friends and family, and let's not forget Granny dragging the little ones, mostly against their will, to a live concert a few times a year. "Seeds" don't sprout in arid soil. Since it appears nobody is interested anymore in laying the groundwork for a life long appreciation of Classical music, there's no demand, therefore no market. Until there is, and I highly doubt that day will ever dawn, it's far better for us "old survivors" and the curious youth to buy what was once outstanding than to be constantly subjected to what's "new and hot" and constantly disappointed as a result. Thanks Dave for an illuminating chat, and I hope it wasn't wasted on the bleakly cynical, like myself.

[@patsuarez3833]

For the newer musicians. Imagine this mind-set before Szell.

[@johannesortmann2789]

Who needed this new Turangalila? It can not compete. It is in no way a major production. Back in the days we would have listened to performances like that on the radio and forgot about it after a while.

[@Leo_ofRedKeep]

Compete. The question of sports fans who have no understanding of art whatsoever.

[@johannesortmann2789]

@@Leo_ofRedKeep Indeed!

[@arthurgoodman2531]

The franchise classical radio programs seem to have an insatiable appetite for the junk you're talking about.

[@tarakb7606]

Less is more as the saying goes.

[@kennethoransky4881]

How about making classical cds available on demand?

[@charleslawson6824]

ArkivMusic tried this approach some years ago by getting rights to some legendary out-of-print recordings and making them available as CDs-on-demand. (That’s how I got my copy of the incredible Previn/LSO Walton Symphony No. 1.) With the seeming rebirth of interest in the CD format (following the LP trend, though lagging farther back), perhaps the conglomerates which own much of this material will follow suit?

[@kennethoransky4881]

@charleslawson6824 There's always hope.

[@clarkebustard8672]

The British retail site Presto Classical stocks its own CDs of back-catalogue titles from most of the major labels. Not cheap, especially factoring in trans-Atlantic shipping charges. It's more cost-effective to purchase a quality download (FLAC or Hi-res FLAC) and burn your own disc.

[@charleslawson6824]

@clarkebustard8672 I wonder how many folks here still have the capability to burn their own.