Musical Heritage Society Has Ceased To Exist

[Mark S]

I heard that MHS has ceased to exist as of today. The sale of the
assets to Passionato by the Nissim family is now complete.

MHS was started as a small, NYC-based operation by a Dr Naida, who
had good musical sense but no business sense. He quickly sold the
business to Al Nissim, who was involved in the direct marketing of
wigs, among other things, and who felt it would be neat to own a music
company. Most of us who became members of MHS did so during the time
the Nissims owned the business. MHS saw it's first real success when
they marketed the Palliard recording of the Pachelbel Canon, basically
putting that piece on the map in America. The family's fortunes were
made on the strength of offering that LP as a loss leader to gain new
members, who then received LP after LP of unordered "negative option"
LPs that kept showing up in the mail. Enough were kept and enough
invoices were paid to make for a tidy business.

They stayed in business for many years, operating as a family owned
record club that had the classical ground to themselves until BMG
decided to really go after the classical market in the early 90s. That
caused them real angst as BMG's aggressive pricing structure wreaked
havoc on the high CD prices MHS was charging its members. MHS had to
follow suit, and the business got a lot more complicated. Eventually,
MHS started offering more finished goods and a greater variety of
product, looking to sell multiple CDs to a smaller customer base,
rather than a single CD to millions.

Between the pressure brought by BMG, the evolution of the internet and
the fatiguing of the club model with the public, MHS's fate was
sealed. After Al Nissim passed away, the sons looked to sell off the
business while it was still worth something, and they did sell to
James Glicker and his Passionato group. MHS continued to do
fulfillment out of their warehouse for about a year, and the MHS name
was kept active to transition former MHS members into Passionato's
online business.

While Passionato still offers a "Record of the month," members must
actively order it, rather than it being shipped to them through
negative option, which was the hallmark of the record clubs (MHS, RCA
and Columbia House).

The following letter appears today on the Passionato website:

A Letter From the Editor

Dear Member,

We have just passed an important milestone — it has been a year since
Passionato bought the assets of Musical Heritage Society from its
parent company. It has been three months since we took over the
warehousing and billing operations from the same company. It has been
a rocky period that inconvenienced some customer and, again, we
apologize. The good news is that the majority of errors from the
conversion have been resolved. If you are still experiencing issues,
please contact me personally at ja...@passionato.com

Before we get to the sale catalog headlines, I would like to make an
important announcement. From now on, if you want to receive the Record
of the Month you must check the box on your order form, order online
at www.passionato.com or call a customer care representative.

Next month's catalog will also be dramatically redesigned in order to
go to a full-sized magazine and enlarge the type size for easier
reading. Please look at the brochure in this catalog containing more
details about your next issue.


James Glicker

President, Passionato

The latest cover of the Passionato Review catalog notes that this
catalog is "formerly the MHS Review."

So, rest in peace, I guess, MHS.

[The Historian]

On Aug 14, 3:52 am, Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The latest cover of the Passionato Review catalog notes that this
> catalog is "formerly the MHS Review."
>
> So, rest in peace, I guess, MHS.

I miss Greene and his horrible puns - Glinka summoning his peasant
orchestra with the call "Serf's up!", for instance.

[Oscar]

On Aug 14, 12:52 am, Mark S wrote:
>
> So, rest in peace, I guess, MHS.

Do you have any kind words about your former boss, Mr. Nissim?

<<Born in Manhattan, Al Nissim was raised in the Bronx, graduating
from Evander Childs High School. During World War II he was a U.S.
Marine with the Third Amphibious Corps in the South Pacific Theatre of
Operations. He developed a love of the sea and a keen interest in
ships of all sizes, which endured for the remainder of his days. He
traveled the world on business jaunts, trying his hand at many types
of work before settling in New Jersey in 1953 and taking a position
with Skylark Industries, Asbury Park, where he developed a liking for
the direct mail business. He established Shore Typing Service and
Shore Direct Mail, Neptune. An innovator in direct mail, he opened one
of the first direct mail service bureaus, International Computer
Sciences, in 1966. Ten years later, he became owner and president of
Musical Heritage Society in Oakhurst, which remains the largest direct
mail club for classical music in North America. He was respected by
all who knew him in his business dealings, a shrewd, savvy, but always
fair man. He was known for his sharp mind, quick wit, and kind heart.
His outlook on life was positive and his success was assured at
whatever he chose to do. Al had many other business interests,
foremost among them were his automobile dealerships in Shrewsbury and
Neptune.>>

[Mark S]

On Aug 14, 1:05 am, Oscar <oscaredwardwilliam...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Do you have any kind words about your former boss, Mr. Nissim?
>

They treated me pretty well when I worked for them, especially after I
had proved myself by turning around their biz when it had hit the
skids. I bought my VW Beetle from their dealership. They also had a
Jeep dealership. After my first two years with the company, they
provided me with a Jeep Cherokee gratis for my personal use.

Al joked that he was like Don Corleone running the family business. It
was true - family came first, come hell or high water. There are many
who worked for him who would hardly call him a fair person, but he did
OK by me.

I reported to his son Jeff, who was the president of MHS after Al
retired. Jeff was the person who hired me, and he would often complain
that his dad gave me all the credit for saving their business "but he
never gives me credit for hiring you in the first place."

[wagnerfan]

RIP for sure - many many happy memories of those white covers!!!!
Glad that you're here as a connection to those great memories

Wagner fan

[William Sommerwerck]

> MHS saw its first real success when they marketed the

> Palliard recording of the Pachelbel Canon, basically
> putting that piece on the map in America.

For me, it was the disk of Vivaldi mandolin (?) concertos.

I gave up on MHS when it started charging full price for licensed
recordings.

[Abbeddrose Bierce]

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 00:52:27 -0700 (PDT), Mark S
<markst...@yahoo.com> wrote:

According to RMCR logic, any successes that Stenroos had there are now
cancelled

Abbedd

[Kip Williams]

The Historian wrote, On 8/14/12 3:56 AM:

That reminds me of Jerryco and their surplus catalog. They had some
military, some government, some educational, and some commercial stuff
they bought in job lots and gleefully sold. Sometimes they bought stuff
without knowing what it was and described it accordingly. The conclusion
that some items were bought just so they could use a certain horrid pun
in the description was unavoidable.

When we were in Newport News, a place opened up in Virginia Beach called
"Grande Junquetion." The name seems like a warning to stay away, but it
turned out to be the living embodiment of the catalog (and in fact they
were associated). It was a sort of wonderland for a few years, and then
it went away again.

Now I'm not even sure if the catalog is still around. They were sort of
an Archie McPhee for every kind of offbeat widget imaginable.


Kip W

[Kip Williams]

Mark S wrote, On 8/14/12 3:52 AM:

> I heard that MHS has ceased to exist as of today. The sale of the
> assets to Passionato by the Nissim family is now complete.

They were able to provide me with a lot of off-the-beaten-path titles,
and I'm still listening to them today. (I keep wishing for a CD reissue
of the Franck Symphony played on pipe organ by Calvin Hampton.)

I'll miss them, but it's been years since I was buying stuff from the
club. More recently, I've purchased used LPs under their imprint. I
could be wrong, but it seemed like they were ditching the oddities — the
transcriptions, the unknowns — and selling a lot of mainstream things I
already have. I don't usually look for a half dozen different versions
of the same pieces, and just wasn't finding new things in the catalog
any more that looked like my kind of music.

Sorry to hear it, though.


Kip W

[Norman Schwartz]

Mark S wrote:
> I heard that MHS has ceased to exist as of today. The sale of the
> assets to Passionato by the Nissim family is now complete.
>
> MHS was started as a small, NYC-based operation by a Dr Naida, who
> had good musical sense but no business sense. He quickly sold the
> business to Al Nissim, who was involved in the direct marketing of
> wigs, among other things, and who felt it would be neat to own a music
> company.

IIRC, I believe it was at a time during which you were no longer associated
with them, they emailed a Xmas card showing dozens of employees. I remember
it because it took me by surprise, as I imagined MHS as a much smaller
operation.

[Mark S]

On Aug 14, 7:37 am, "Norman Schwartz" <n...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
> IIRC, I believe it was at a time during which you were no longer associated
> with them, they emailed a Xmas card showing dozens of employees. I remember
> it because it took me by surprise, as I imagined MHS as a much smaller
> operation.

The bulk of their employees worked in the mail processing department,
as is to be expected when you're sending out 18 classical catalogs a
year to around 200,000 members and mailing maybe 3,000,000 new member
offers a year as well.

On the other hand, their selection committee that decided on what
recordings would be offered through MHS was a 3-person team consisting
of me, myself and I, at least when I ran the show. Strangely, the same
"musical team" made up their entire marketing department. :)

[Mike Painter]

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 05:40:47 -0700, Kip Williams wrote
(in article <hHrWr.77152$8b4....@newsfe08.iad>):

> Mark S wrote, On 8/14/12 3:52 AM:
>> I heard that MHS has ceased to exist as of today. The sale of the
>> assets to Passionato by the Nissim family is now complete.
>
> They were able to provide me with a lot of off-the-beaten-path titles,
> and I'm still listening to them today. (I keep wishing for a CD reissue
> of the Franck Symphony played on pipe organ by Calvin Hampton.)
>
> I'll miss them, but it's been years since I was buying stuff from the
> club. More recently, I've purchased used LPs under their imprint. I

> could be wrong, but it seemed like they were ditching the oddities ￜ the
> transcriptions, the unknowns ￜ and selling a lot of mainstream things I

> already have. I don't usually look for a half dozen different versions
> of the same pieces, and just wasn't finding new things in the catalog
> any more that looked like my kind of music.
>
> Sorry to hear it, though.
>
>
> Kip W
>
>

The oddities are what I liked. That's where I first discovered the Liszt
transcriptions of the Beethoven symphonies, for instance, with Cyprien
Katsaris.

They recently sent out an online survey, and one of the questions was why I
might not buy the featured selection. I replied that my collection was big
enough and complete enough that I didn't rely on them any more to add new
things to it. So they've become sort of just another source of recordings to
browse through and perhaps buy from when the price is right.

cheers,
Mike

[Kip Williams]

Mike Painter wrote, On 8/14/12 1:44 PM:

> The oddities are what I liked. That's where I first discovered the Liszt
> transcriptions of the Beethoven symphonies, for instance, with Cyprien
> Katsaris.

Exactly. The 4-hand "chopsticks" variations, the Diabelli variations by
everybody but Beethoven, Sorabji, Czerny, the Brandenburg concertos for
four-hands by Reger, and lots of other great obscure items.

Going through the catalog and marking everything that looked interesting
was a joy. Winnowing it down to what I could buy in a given time frame
was a tough one. Waiting for the package to arrive...


Kip W

[Matthew�B.�Tepper]

Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> appears to have caused the following letters
to be typed in news:hHrWr.77152$8b4....@newsfe08.iad:

> They were able to provide me with a lot of off-the-beaten-path titles,
> and I'm still listening to them today. (I keep wishing for a CD reissue
> of the Franck Symphony played on pipe organ by Calvin Hampton.)

So do I! I've made my own transfer from the LP for my own personal use, but
I'm sure that a transfer from the master tapes could be much, much better.

--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers.

[Mark S]

On Aug 14, 2:48 am, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:

Almost everything issued by MHS over the decades was through a
licensing deal. They actually recorded very little repertoire on their
own. Their most-active period of recording was after the owners of MHS
launched the MusicMasters label as a retail brand. Those same titles
were also released through MHS as well.

In the early years, MHS licensed from the many small European indies
that had no exposure in the USA. Erato was one, later, Telefunken.
Many indy labels felt that MHS was shortchanging them on royalties
owed, and being overseas, it was more difficult to get a good reading
of what was actually owed. One of the ongoing jokes at MHS was
imagining MHS accounting royalties to an indy label in a scene that
resembled George Bailey in "It's A Wonderful Life" explaining why he
couldn't give everybody their money right then and there when there
was a run on the bank ("We can't give you all those royalties..they're
in our mansions, and boats and luxury cars!!")

Many of those indy labels went away, or were absorbed into larger
label groups. Eventually, MHS had to start dealing with the major
labels for their licensing deals, and major labels are much better at
tracking and receiving the royalties they're owed than were these
little companies. That meant the business and book-keeping had to be
much less "creative" than it could be in the early years.

The higher prices MHS was charging for CDs that featured material
licensed from the majors reflected the fact that initially, MHS had no
boilerplate contract to offer the majors that included an MHS-friendly
royalty rate. One of my greatest accomplishments at/for MHS was
getting the majors to agree to a "favored nations" royalty rate for
MHS that was in line with what they had with BMG and Columbia House,
rates that I was privy to from my years at BMG. To shave 5 points off
a royalty rate AND to get rid of a deemed price point from which that
royalty rate was calculated resulted in millions of dollars of profit
into the MHS coffers. It also upped the number of units sold, which
favorably impacted the costs of production runs. And, we made shipping
and handling a revenue generator as well as we didn't pay royalties on
s&h.

[Matthew�B.�Tepper]

Mark S <markst...@yahoo.com> appears to have caused the following letters
to be typed in news:2536eba3-933f-419d-95b3-
8ed3f4...@oz6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com:

> Almost everything issued by MHS over the decades was through a licensing
> deal. They actually recorded very little repertoire on their own. Their
> most-active period of recording was after the owners of MHS launched the
> MusicMasters label as a retail brand. Those same titles were also
> released through MHS as well.

Which reminds me to ask -- does anybody know recording dates for the
MusicMasters collection, "The Birth of Rhapsody in Blue," conducted by
Maurice Peress?

[Dave Cook]

On 2012-08-14, Oscar <oscaredwar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> They sound like Republicans. How did you manage?

They were probably among those rare Republicans who aren't fucking assholes.

Dave Cook

[Frank Berger]

Matthew B. Tepper wrote:
> Mark S <markst...@yahoo.com> appears to have caused the following
> letters to be typed in news:2536eba3-933f-419d-95b3-
> 8ed3f4...@oz6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Almost everything issued by MHS over the decades was through a
>> licensing deal. They actually recorded very little repertoire on
>> their own. Their most-active period of recording was after the
>> owners of MHS launched the MusicMasters label as a retail brand.
>> Those same titles were also released through MHS as well.
>
> Which reminds me to ask -- does anybody know recording dates for the
> MusicMasters collection, "The Birth of Rhapsody in Blue," conducted by
> Maurice Peress?

Or this Brahms Piano Quintet featuring John Browning?

[Frank Berger]

Forgot the link:

http://tinyurl.com/9ofxa2d

[William Sommerwerck]

> They were probably among those rare Republicans
> who aren't fucking assholes.

I assume you're using "fucking" as an adjective, not a verb.

[Mark S]

On Aug 14, 11:26 pm, Dave Cook <davec...@nowhere.net> wrote:

> On 2012-08-14, Oscar <oscaredwardwilliam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > They sound like Republicans. How did you manage?
>
> They were probably among those rare Republicans who aren't fucking assholes.
>
> Dave Cook

The parents were Rs, the boys were Ds. I worked for the boys.

[Al Eisner]

On Tue, 14 Aug 2012, Mark S wrote:

> I heard that MHS has ceased to exist as of today. The sale of the
> assets to Passionato by the Nissim family is now complete.

[interesting post snipped]

Could you perhaps clarify something about MHS: are their releases (of
CD's in particular) identical to releases under labels which sourced
the material, or are they in some way different? I ask because a
number of them have shown up at Berkshire Record Outlet.
--

Al Eisner

[Mark S]

They are the same as far as the master used to produce the CDs. The
contracts with the licensors always stipulated that they provide MHS
with the master to be used. We had access to their latest mastering of
a particular recording.

As far as packaging, there was a difference. MHS would cut out any non-
English liner notes that appeared in a 4-language booklet. Until I got
there, most of the CD covers were produced with a one-color, cheesy
B&W look. On a few occasions, we added original language/English
translations to opera and oratorio booklets where the label didn't
provide any at all.

I'm assuming the MHS titles for sale at BRO are MusicMasters titles,
as MHS was not allowed to remainder overstock of licensed titles. It
had to be sold or destroyed by the end of contract date.

[William Sommerwerck]

> Until I got there, most of the CD covers were produced
> with a one-color, cheesy B&W look.

Nothing personal, but the color covers were even worse.

[Al Eisner]

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Mark S wrote:

> On Aug 15, 2:42 pm, Al Eisner <eis...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Aug 2012, Mark S wrote:
>>> I heard that MHS has ceased to exist as of today. The sale of the
>>> assets to Passionato by the Nissim family is now complete.
>>
>> [interesting post snipped]
>>
>> Could you perhaps clarify something about MHS: are their releases (of
>> CD's in particular) identical to releases under labels which sourced
>> the material, or are they in some way different?  I ask because a
>> number of them have shown up at Berkshire Record Outlet.
>>

>>                                                               Al Eisner
>
> They are the same as far as the master used to produce the CDs. The
> contracts with the licensors always stipulated that they provide MHS
> with the master to be used. We had access to their latest mastering of
> a particular recording.
>
> As far as packaging, there was a difference. MHS would cut out any non-
> English liner notes that appeared in a 4-language booklet. Until I got
> there, most of the CD covers were produced with a one-color, cheesy
> B&W look. On a few occasions, we added original language/English
> translations to opera and oratorio booklets where the label didn't
> provide any at all.
>
> I'm assuming the MHS titles for sale at BRO are MusicMasters titles,
> as MHS was not allowed to remainder overstock of licensed titles. It
> had to be sold or destroyed by the end of contract date.

Thanks. On that last point, I don't know how to tell. (They do give
catalog numbers. The titles can be found from their advanced search by
selecting "Musical Heritage Society" rather than MHS as the label.)
--

Al Eisner

[Mark S]

On Aug 15, 4:07 pm, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> > Until I got there, most of the CD covers were produced
> > with a one-color, cheesy B&W look.
>
> Nothing personal, but the color covers were even worse.

I wonder how that happened, considering that the film/e-file used to
produce those color covers was not only supplied by the labels but
often produced at the same printing house used by the labels. All MHS
did was have the printer cut out the label's barcode and insert MHS's
barcode, and to strip in MHS's product number on the spine.

[William Sommerwerck]

>>> Until I got there, most of the CD covers were produced
>>> with a one-color, cheesy B&W look.

> Nothing personal, but the color covers were even worse.

> I wonder how that happened, considering that the film/e-file used to
> produce those color covers was not only supplied by the labels but
> often produced at the same printing house used by the labels. All MHS
> did was have the printer cut out the label's barcode and insert MHS's
> barcode, and to strip in MHS's product number on the spine.

My memory is that they were overly dark and unpleasantly muddy-looking. But
then, my memory might be failing.

[William Sommerwerck]

>> My memory is that they were overly dark and
>> unpleasantly muddy-looking. But then, my
>> memory might be failing.

> Or your eyesight. :-(

It wasn't 20 years ago.

I pulled out the MHS CDs in my collection. All but one have B&W covers.
They're clean and simple, and nothing that needs apology.

I suspect I'm thinking of the color images in the MHS flyers. So...
criticism withdrawn.

[Mark S]

On Aug 16, 7:51 am, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:

I think that was the case when MHS converted a 4-C CD cover to their
B&W look, which is what they were doing before I arrived. In those
cases, they would scan the 4-C cover on a flatbed scanner, then
convert it to B&W in the computer and then run out a single piece of
film to produce what amounted to a duo-tone cover. The scanning
process alone could result in a Moiré pattern being embedded in the
scan, which would make the artwork look blurry.

BTW - the entire rationale for doing the B&W covers at MHS was one of
cost that stemmed from the days when a piece of film cost $90. Doing a
4-C cover meant 4 pieces of film or $360 per cover. Spending more than
the absolute minimum required to produce a CD cover was a bête noire
for the matriarch of the family, and it took a lot of convincing by my
to assure her that times had changed, and that MHS could produce 4-C
covers via e-files more cheaply than we had been producing B&W covers
with film.

[Ward Hardman]

On Aug 14, 12:52 am, Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I heard that MHS has ceased to exist as of today. The sale of the
> assets to Passionato by the Nissim family is now complete.

[snip]

About this time this time last month, I was seeking the Szell/DF-D/
Schwartzkopf Mahler "Wunderhorn" CD on EMI GROC as a supplement to my
old Morris/Baker/Evans on IMP. Since new copies of the out-of-print
EMI were selling for close to $40 on Amazon, I was happy to see an MHS
version of the same recording on Amazon for under $10 new.


http://www.amazon.com/Mahler-Wunderhorn-Conductor-Symphony-Orchestra/dp/B0007YZU90/ref=sr_1_7?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1345192806&sr=1-7&keywords=mahler+szell

I ordered it and was pleased to hear how good it sounded (although M/B/
E were a bit plainer and more straightforward). While checking the
MHS website to find whether offered any other GROCs, I was puzzled to
be shunted off to a site called "Passionato" (although, thankfully, it
wasn't the porn-oriented outfit to be expected with such a steamy
name ;-).

Your post forestalled my inquiring here whether other EMI GROCs had
been licensed to MHS, since the Passionato website lacked adequate
search facilities at the time I visited it. Too bad, it would have
been nice to have a back-up source for items EMI/Universal has
deleted.

Thanks for the update on MHS's fate.

--Ward Hardman

"The older I get, the more I crave and admire competence,
just simple competence, in any field from adultery to zoology."
- H.L. Mencken

[Jon Bell]

In article
<3909ea4d-144e-4783...@sn4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

Mark S <markst...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I heard that MHS has ceased to exist as of today. The sale of the
> assets to Passionato by the Nissim family is now complete.

Sic transit etc...

MHS was one of my early methods of buying CM recordings in the early
1970s. I think I joined just before I graduated from high school. At
first I had only a cassette player, not a "real stereo" with a
turntable, so I started out with cassettes. In the late 1990s I dubbed
to CD-R the ones that hadn't gone flaky, and about a year ago I ripped
to digital media the CD-Rs that hadn't deteriorated irretrievably.

Looking in iTunes now, I see Dukas orchestral music conducted by Jean
Martinon; Villa-Lobos woodwind chamber music with the Soni Ventorum;
horn trios by Anton Reicha; a collection of music for string orchestra
by the ECO under Asensio; and a collection of bassoon chamber music
from Arthur Grossman and the Philadelphia String Quartet.

[jenn...@gmail.com]

Le jeudi 2014 Jenny Zacharieva-Maleeva a ecrit:
Comment je peux recevoir l'information au sujet de mon CV - est-ce qu'il est en vente:
- Clara Schumann restored Breitkopf & Hartel CONCERTFLUGEL at Schloss Branitz?
> En attendant votre reponse,
Avec mes compliments,
Jenny Zaharieva

> We have just passed an important milestone -- it has been a year since

>
> Passionato bought the assets of Musical Heritage Society from its
>
> parent company. It has been three months since we took over the
>
> warehousing and billing operations from the same company. It has been
>
> a rocky period that inconvenienced some customer and, again, we
>
> apologize. The good news is that the majority of errors from the
>
> conversion have been resolved. If you are still experiencing issues,
>
> please contact me personally at ja...@passionato.com
>
>
>
> Before we get to the sale catalog headlines, I would like to make an
>
> important announcement. From now on, if you want to receive the Record
>
> of the Month you must check the box on your order form, order online
>
> at www.passionato.com or call a customer care representative.
>
>
>
> Next month's catalog will also be dramatically redesigned in order to
>
> go to a full-sized magazine and enlarge the type size for easier
>
> reading. Please look at the brochure in this catalog containing more
>
> details about your next issue.
>
>
>
>
>
> James Glicker
>
>
>
> President, Passionato
>
>
>

[MiNe109]

On 2/26/14, 11:17 PM, jenn...@gmail.com wrote:
> Le jeudi 2014 Jenny Zacharieva-Maleeva a ecrit:
> Comment je peux recevoir l'information au sujet de mon CV - est-ce qu'il est en vente:
> - Clara Schumann restored Breitkopf & Hartel CONCERTFLUGEL at Schloss Branitz?
> En attendant votre reponse,
> Avec mes compliments,
> Jenny Zaharieva

There are copies of the cd on sale from second-hand sources but MHS and
Passionato seem to be gone.

Il existe des copies du cd en vente à partir de sources de seconde main,
mais MHS et Passionato semblent avoir disparu.

Stephen

[William Sommerwerck]

When I lived in New York many years ago, I'd go down to their offices and buy
disk. At that time, they were $2.50, and mastered/pressed by Columbia Special
Products.

MHS killed itself (though the death took years) by charging full price for
what were mostly licensed recordings.

[wade]

and charging per disc shipping/service charges regardless of the number of items bought.

[Frank Berger]

Why would their being licensed have any bearing on the price?

[William Sommerwerck]

"Frank Berger" wrote in message
news:roadnTgP8qyO55LO...@supernews.com...

For exactly the same reason that their LPs -- which were mostly licensed
recordings -- cost only $2.50.

[Frank Berger]

I believe that's a non-answer. Never mind.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Frank Berger" wrote in message

news:pMWdnX6HXZG44JLO...@supernews.com...

It's a perfect answer. It's simple economics.

As MHS didn't have to pay to make the recording in the first place (of which
only a fraction of that cost is passed along by the record company in its
license fee), there is no reason an MHS recording should sell for full price!

Good grief, Frank.

[Frank Berger]

On 2/27/2014 1:09 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Frank Berger" wrote in message
> news:pMWdnX6HXZG44JLO...@supernews.com...
> On 2/27/2014 12:52 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> "Frank Berger" wrote in message
>> news:roadnTgP8qyO55LO...@supernews.com...
>> On 2/27/2014 10:36 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>>>>> MHS killed itself (though the death took years) by charging
>>>>> full price for what were mostly licensed recordings.
>
>>>> Why would their being licensed have any bearing on the price?
>
>>> For exactly the same reason that their LPs -- which were mostly
>>> licensed recordings -- cost only $2.50.
>
>> I believe that's a non-answer. Never mind.
>
> It's a perfect answer. It's simple economics.
>
> As MHS didn't have to pay to make the recording in the first place (of
> which only a fraction of that cost is passed along by the record company
> in its license fee), there is no reason an MHS recording should sell for
> full price!
>
> Good grief, Frank.
>
>

You analysis is wrong (which is not an insult, by the way). Price is
determined by supply and demand. You are considering only the supply
side. Besides do you know how much MHS paid? What does Testament pay
to EMI? Aren't those also full price?

The "good grief" was gratuitous. Think simple questions and simple
answers. Then nobody gets angry or hurt. It's so, so simple.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Frank Berger" wrote in message

news:A-udnSrXp4N6FZLO...@supernews.com...

Would someone please explain this to Frank? That you do not need to charge for
a non-existent expense?

[Frank Berger]

You continue to ignore the demand side of the marketplace, even after I
told you about it. If you release a small number of copies of material
for which there is an accumulated pent-up demand, you may be able to get
quite a high price, *even though* you may have lower expenses. No one
is obligated to charge prices that conform to your moral code. Would
someone (else) please explain this to William (again)?

[Bob Harper]

Frank's right, Bill. Price is determined not by what a product or
service costs to produce, but by what a buyer is willing to pay. Goes
for CDs just as much as it goes for asparagus out of season.

Bob Harper

[Bob Lombard]

Jeez, how easily you guys forget the original context - which was MHS
going OOB because they were charging too much for their product. Their
price was too high for the demand, but maybe it didn't have to be.

bl

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[William Sommerwerck]

"Bob Harper" wrote in message
news:2nQPu.323346$sp1.1...@en-nntp-15.dc1.easynews.com...

>>> Would someone please explain this to Frank? That you do not need to
>>> charge for a non-existent expense?

>> You continue to ignore the demand side of the marketplace, even after
>> I told you about it. If you release a small number of copies of material
>> for which there is an accumulated pent-up demand, you may be able
>> to get quite a high price, *even though* you may have lower expenses.
>> No one is obligated to charge prices that conform to your moral code.
>> Would someone (else) please explain this to William (again)?

> Frank's right, Bill. Price is determined not by what a product or service
> costs to produce, but by what a buyer is willing to pay. Goes for CDs
> just as much as it goes for asparagus out of season.

You and Frank couldn't be more wrong. Not surprising, since both of you
believe the ONLY reason people are in business is to make as much money as
possible. Nothing else matters.

Your response to everything you disagree with is... "Money is they only thing
that should be considered when making judgments about /anything/." (Unless
it's some point of "morality" that accords with your superstitious beliefs.)

[William Sommerwerck]

I am continually surprised when I read posts from people who obviously worship
Mammon -- especially in a classical-music group.

Haven't most people here had "ecstatic" musical experiences that transcend
food, sex, power, (whatever), suggesting that there are things more-important
in life than /wealth/?

Money is a practical necessity. It is not the be-all and end-all of existence.

[Frank Berger]

And you know they would been profitable if they charged lower prices
because........?

[Frank Berger]

Your quotes, not mine. I'm describing how the world generally works, not
how I want it to work or how you want it to work. There are socialist
who teach economics. Not socialist economics, just economics.

[Bob Harper]

Sigh :( There you go again, telling me what I believe. You're wrong, of
course. There are many things more important than money, but *in the
world of commerce* it is the most efficient way to bring willing buyers
and sellers together. If MHS went out of business because they were
charging too much, that was a poor business decision, no more and no
less. Their *cost* (as long as they covered it) is immaterial, and the
argument that they didn't 'need' to charge for something is irrelevant.

Bob Harper

[Frank Berger]

OF course not. But that hyperbole aside, if you assume profit
maximization in building economic models (simplifying assumptions are
necessary to build tractable models), you can predict a lot of aggregate
behavior. Science is about describing the world as it it, not as one
wants it to be.

[Frank Berger]

Right. I wonder. Do they think *every* business that fails does so
because they charge too much? Or only businesses that sell stuff they
really, really, care about.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Frank Berger" wrote in message

news:zvidnWDI5aCtf5LO...@supernews.com...

> And you know they would been profitable if they charged

> lower prices because...?

...when they were charging $2.50 for LPs, they were profitable.

You have an inane, meaningless response for everything, don't you?

[William Sommerwerck]

"Bob Harper" wrote in message

news:nrRPu.118366$2V.1...@en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com...

> Sigh :( There you go again, telling me what I believe. You're wrong, of
> course. There are many things more important than money, but *in the world
> of commerce* it is the most efficient way to bring willing buyers and
> sellers together.

What is?

> If MHS went out of business because they were
> charging too much, that was a poor business decision, no more and no
> less. Their *cost* (as long as they covered it) is immaterial, and the
> argument that they didn't 'need' to charge for something is irrelevant.

Those things couldn't be more relevant. They're at the very heart of running a
successful, profitable business.

Henry Kloss told me a few months before he died that KLH often charged "too
little" for their products (that is, less than what conventional economic
models dictated). He apparently had misgivings about it, but KLH eventually
went out of business because of competition from cheaper Japanese products. I
doubt that, as he lay on his deathbed, he worried much about whether his
companies hadn't made enough money. Kloss's companies were consistently
"customer-oriented", more-worried about whether their customers were happy
than whether they made a fat profit.

There are examples when "gouging" the customer is appropriate. Koss admitted
it could have profitably retailed its original stereo headphones for $10, but
decided on $20 -- and plowed the "unwarranted" profits back into new-product
development. Nothing wrong with that.

[ljk...@aol.com]

I have a lot of MHS LPs that I acquired in the old days, and I'm glad to have them. Still find some in used stores and am pleased all over again, e.g. the Oscar Shumsky/Kreisler LPs. OTOH, I inadvertently got tangled up with a jazz arm of their operation a few years ago and found that they were operating under false colors -- running the old "you've ordered this month's CDs unless you tell us in time not to send them" record club deal without telling the people who had bitten on their first tempting offer that they were signing up for that sort of record club deal. Further, they charged full price for the CDs they then sent me that I didn't want, even though they clearly were cutouts. Finally, as one might expect, after I sent those CD's back to them ASAP, they sic'ed a collection agency on me. I paid up, damn their eyes.

Larry Kart

[William Sommerwerck]

"Frank Berger" wrote in message

news:E-ednfFGBqHBeZLO...@supernews.com...

On 2/27/2014 7:35 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

>> Money is a practical necessity. It is not the be-all and end-all of
>> existence.

> Of course not. But that hyperbole aside, if you assume profit

> maximization in building economic models (simplifying assumptions are
> necessary to build tractable models), you can predict a lot of aggregate
> behavior. Science is about describing the world as it it, not as one
> wants it to be.

And how does "science" model ethics and morality?

[Frank Berger]

And you can't be disagreed with or questioned without becoming personal
and insulting, can you? Why not try keeping your responses civil just
to see how it goes? Could it hurt?

My response was neither inane nor meaningless and I have already
explained why. Can an honest question be either inane or
meaningless? Have you ever been around children? Are their questions
inane and meaningless?

It could be you are right; that MHS could have made money (enough to
stay in business) by charging less money. But I'm inclined to believe
they know better than you. Mostly because the evidence is on their
side. After all, they went out of business rather than lowering prices.
And you've provided nothing but wishful thinking that they could have
done otherwise. And what did or didn't happen in the LP era may not have
much relevance today.

[John O'Brien]

Economics aside, by the 1990s MHS had little to offer that wasn't generally available, at lower prices. A look through the catalogs showed nothing other than the usual classical music fare. I had bought some great Lps earlier from MHS, but by the CD era. There was little that I didn't already have or found of no interest. I doubt that I was the only one who felt that way.

[Frank Berger]

On 2/27/2014 8:41 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Bob Harper" wrote in message
> news:nrRPu.118366$2V.1...@en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com...
>
>> Sigh :( There you go again, telling me what I believe. You're wrong,
>> of course. There are many things more important than money, but *in
>> the world of commerce* it is the most efficient way to bring willing
>> buyers and sellers together.
>
> What is?
>
>> If MHS went out of business because they were
>> charging too much, that was a poor business decision, no more and no
>> less. Their *cost* (as long as they covered it) is immaterial, and the
>> argument that they didn't 'need' to charge for something is irrelevant.
>
> Those things couldn't be more relevant. They're at the very heart of
> running a successful, profitable business.
>
> Henry Kloss told me a few months before he died that KLH often charged
> "too little" for their products (that is, less than what conventional
> economic models dictated).

No economic models dictate prices. The invisible hand of market forces
generally determine prices. No economist is necessary for businesses to
operate successfully, only to try to describe what's going on.

> He apparently had misgivings about it, but
> KLH eventually went out of business because of competition from cheaper
> Japanese products. I doubt that, as he lay on his deathbed, he worried
> much about whether his companies hadn't made enough money. Kloss's
> companies were consistently "customer-oriented", more-worried about
> whether their customers were happy than whether they made a fat profit.
>
> There are examples when "gouging" the customer is appropriate. Koss
> admitted it could have profitably retailed its original stereo
> headphones for $10, but decided on $20 -- and plowed the "unwarranted"
> profits back into new-product development. Nothing wrong with that.

I paid $495 for a KLH Model 20 compact stereo in 1969. I felt it was
quite a lot of money at the time, but worth it. It should have had a
better turntable built in, though. I don't recall anyone saying KLH
prices were below market. Perhaps I missed it.

[ljk...@aol.com]

Fact is, MHS raised their prices while still offering what looked like, and in some senses was what MHS albums always had been -- a bargain product. That is, every reasonably savvy purchaser of an MHS album could see that it had been licensed from another source, no doubt under an agreement that reflected the fact that MHS didn't have to pay for the cost of recording the music. Thus, one had every reason to expect from MHS what one had always had gotten from them: musically decent but bargain-priced albums -- for much the same reason that one expects to pay bargain prices for the cutouts that Berkshire Record Outlet sells (BRO having bought them from the original manufacturers at low costs). If BRO started charging their customers regular prices, they'd be out of business pronto, no?

Larry Kart

[Frank Berger]

I imagine most people don't feel that MHS charging more than you think
they should have charged is unethical or immoral.

Beyond that, there is a lot of literature regarding ethics and science.
Have you read any of it? (I haven't, that I recall).

By the way, not all economic models assume profit maximizing behavior.
The more general case is "utility" maximization, which allows the study
of all sorts of real-world interesting behavior such as charity and
non-economic discrimination, Nobel winning University of Chicago
economist Gary Becker pioneered a lot of this type of modeling.

[Frank Berger]

Did they start charging full price? And that busted them? Why would
they do that? Stupidity?

[Larry Kart]

I don't have personal experience there, not having been a MHS customer for many years, but see statements in several previous posts on this thread, particularly one by Mark S. He doesn't say that MHS stated charging full price but that they raised their prices a fair bit over what they had been. If you're selling Kias and suddenly they cost as much as Toyotas, that may not go over so well. If that's what happened, I wouldn't guess that stupidity per se was the reason for the price rise. Probably, MHS's costs were rising significantly for some reason, and ... fill in the blank. Even so, if you're largely known as a bargain outfit, one would think that barring some radical upward shift in the quality of what you're selling, you're stuck with being a bargain outfit or going out of business.

Larry Kart

[Frank Berger]

The point being that it is unlikely they could have made a go of it with
any pricing policy.

[Gerard]

"Frank Berger" wrote in message

news:NfidnXuR7qmfVZLO...@supernews.com...

You continue to ignore the demand side of the marketplace, even after I
told you about it.

======================

Right. I'm stil wondering why people don't simply shut up after you have
explained the world.
(At least it should help to prevent those endless Berger threads.)

[Frank Berger]

Do you have anything to contribute to the question of MHS' pricing
policy? Anything at all?

[Gerard]

"Frank Berger" wrote in message

news:oeOdnUHzZ63OFY3O...@supernews.com...

============

After YOU have spoken? What more is there to say?

[William Sommerwerck]

"Frank Berger" wrote in message

news:ObmdnWsLrI5UcZLO...@supernews.com...

It was $399. The 20+ (with a "console" cabinet and pedestals) cost $499.

> I felt it was quite a lot of money at the time, but worth it.

It was actually "reasonably" priced, considering what separate components
cost. (You couldn't match the 20 with $400 worth of components.) I agree,
though, the the Garrard turntable wasn't exactly great. But there wasn't
anything of decent quality that could have been used at a system cost of $399.

> I don't recall anyone saying KLH prices were below market.
> Perhaps I missed it.

That isn't what Henry Kloss said. He said his company sometimes charged less
than it "should" have. He didn't give an explanation, but his tone suggested
that the "proper" price, based on then-current economic models, was not fair
to the customer.

Kloss was always interested in "value for the dollar". He designed many
classic products (the Advent speaker being arguably the greatest -- I'm
restoring a pair), and he most-assuredly did not die in poverty. I still own a
Model 11 FM portable. People are still amazed at it, especially the sound.

[William Sommerwerck]

"John O'Brien" wrote in message
news:1a68176d-5036-4dac...@googlegroups.com...

> Economics aside, by the 1990s MHS had little to offer that
> wasn't generally available, at lower prices. A look through
> the catalogs showed nothing other than the usual classical
> music fare. I had bought some great Lps earlier from MHS,
> but by the CD era. There was little that I didn't already have
> or found of no interest. I doubt that I was the only one who
> felt that way.

I bought a few titles that were not, at that time, available as CDs from the
original label. You're right. MHS went from being a label with unusual
repertoire (I still have the calliope set), to one that was boringly
middle-of-the-road.

[Frank Berger]

On 2/28/2014 9:03 AM, Gerard wrote:
>
>
> "Frank Berger" wrote in message
> news:oeOdnUHzZ63OFY3O...@supernews.com...
>
> On 2/28/2014 4:42 AM, Gerard wrote:
>> "Frank Berger" wrote in message
>> news:NfidnXuR7qmfVZLO...@supernews.com...
>>
>> You continue to ignore the demand side of the marketplace, even after I
>> told you about it.
>>
>> ======================
>>
>> Right. I'm stil wondering why people don't simply shut up after you have
>> explained the world.
>> (At least it should help to prevent those endless Berger threads.)
>
> Do you have anything to contribute to the question of MHS' pricing
> policy? Anything at all?
>
> ============
>
> After YOU have spoken? What more is there to say?
>
>

..
I thought not.

[nm...@optonline.net]

In this thread, back in '12, I made note of and posted that MHS had dozens of employees on their staff (as shown in a Xmas I received from them). Those people had bills to pay, just as do everyone else and perhaps they even thought of saving some money.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Frank Berger" wrote in message

news:qqadnevQk-cpdpLO...@supernews.com...

On 2/27/2014 8:29 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Frank Berger" wrote in message
> news:zvidnWDI5aCtf5LO...@supernews.com...

>>> And you know they would been profitable if they charged
>>> lower prices because...?

>> ...when they were charging $2.50 for LPs, they were profitable.
>> You have an inane, meaningless response for everything, don't you?

> And you can't be disagreed with or questioned without becoming personal and
> insulting, can you? Why not try keeping your responses civil just to see
> how it goes? Could it hurt?

> My response was neither inane nor meaningless and I have already explained
> why. Can an honest question be either inane or meaningless? Have you
> ever been around children? Are their questions inane and meaningless?

Yes, it can. I have been known to ask inane questions.

> It could be you are right; that MHS could have made money (enough to stay in
> business) by charging less money. But I'm inclined to believe they know
> better than you. Mostly because the evidence is on their side. After all,
> they went out of business rather than lowering prices. And you've provided
> nothing but wishful thinking that they could have done otherwise. And what
> did or didn't happen in the LP era may not have much relevance today.

What so badly bothers me, Frank, is that I (and other people, in this and
other groups) ask straightforward questions whose import is either not
understood or is deliberately ignored. Are you incapable of seeing
relationships?

It appears I have to spell this out, in so many words, because otherwise it
just won't get through...

At a time when classical LPs cost $5 or $6, MHS was a successful business,
selling LPs for $2.50. Why do you think that was? The answer, of course, is
that they sold licensed recordings they didn't have to invest their capital in
to produce. And with direct sales, they didn't have to pay a distributor, or
leave room in the price for a retailer's profit. I don't know what CSP charged
at that time (40+ years ago), but I wouldn't be surprised if MHS's gross
profit was $1.50 a disk.

Now... class... does it not seem reasonable that the same economic rules would
apply to CDs? CDs have never cost much more than $1 to manufacture (and that's
the buyer's final price). * Let's pessimistically assume MHS paid $2 for the
disk, case, and insert. Let's also assume that the record company charged $2
royalty per disk. (That's probably too high, but again, I'm being
pessimistic.) So, you tell me... If a recording costs $4 to manufacture -- why
must it sell for $16? It's not for me to give MHS the benefit of the doubt,
but for them to explain why their LP and CD business models appear to be so
different.

I get angry with people who think that Business Rules (in both senses of
rules), and we have no right to question any company's business practices.
Well, Bob & Frank, I am the customer, and have every right (and obligation) to
question /any/ company's business practices, and be told how it establishes a
price.

Hayll, as a cowboy might say. If you wish to be economically sodomized, go
right ahead. (Or -- ahem -- behind.)

* The last time I looked -- about seven years ago -- you could get 1000 CDs,
along with jewel cases (no insert) for $750 -- and that included the mastering
charges!

[Frank Berger]

On 2/28/2014 10:25 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Frank Berger" wrote in message
> news:ObmdnWsLrI5UcZLO...@supernews.com...
> On 2/27/2014 8:41 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>>> There are examples when "gouging" the customer is appropriate.
>>> Koss admitted it could have profitably retailed its original stereo
>>> headphones for $10, but decided on $20 -- and plowed the "unwarranted"
>>> profits back into new-product development. Nothing wrong with that.
>
>> I paid $495 for a KLH Model 20 compact stereo in 1969.
>
> It was $399. The 20+ (with a "console" cabinet and pedestals) cost $499.

Perhaps I overpaid. But I defer to your memory.

>
>> I felt it was quite a lot of money at the time, but worth it.
>
> It was actually "reasonably" priced, considering what separate
> components cost. (You couldn't match the 20 with $400 worth of
> components.) I agree, though, the the Garrard turntable wasn't exactly
> great. But there wasn't anything of decent quality that could have been
> used at a system cost of $399.

A couple of years after I bought it, I bought a Pioneer PL12-D turntable
and patched it in. Fortunately, the Garrard changed wasn't hardwired to
the amp; it just plugged into a board, so it was easy. I still have the
Pioneer.

>
>> I don't recall anyone saying KLH prices were below market.
>> Perhaps I missed it.
>
> That isn't what Henry Kloss said. He said his company sometimes charged
> less than it "should" have. He didn't give an explanation, but his tone
> suggested that the "proper" price, based on then-current economic
> models, was not fair to the customer.
>

Anecdotal evidence such as this is pretty worthless. "Fair" has no
meaning in this context. And I've already said their are no economic
models that suggest "proper" prices. A perfect example of what I mean
by your ignoring what I said. You could disagree. You could cite some
models to show I'm wrong, but no, you just ignore the point and plow on
ahead.

> Kloss was always interested in "value for the dollar".

So is every businessman, because then you have good sales and have a
chance at making money. Was he interested in this more than other
businessmen? How do you know?

> He designed many
> classic products (the Advent speaker being arguably the greatest -- I'm
> restoring a pair), and he most-assuredly did not die in poverty. I still
> own a Model 11 FM portable. People are still amazed at it, especially
> the sound.

He was a great engineer; no doubt about it. Of course, he founded AR
and Cambridge SoundWorks, too. I always wanted an AR turntable, but
settled for the Pioneer.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Frank Berger" wrote in message

news:bcCdnSpPqpFzLY3O...@supernews.com...

>>> I don't recall anyone saying KLH prices were below market.
>>> Perhaps I missed it.

>> That isn't what Henry Kloss said. He said his company sometimes charged
>> less than it "should" have. He didn't give an explanation, but his tone
>> suggested that the "proper" price, based on then-current economic
>> models, was not fair to the customer.

> Anecdotal evidence such as this is pretty worthless. "Fair" has no meaning
> in this context. And I've already said their are no economic models that
> suggest "proper" prices.

Well, at the time when electronic equipment was mostly hand-assembled by
American workers, it was widely agreed that a product should retail for five
times its parts costs.

>> Kloss was always interested in "value for the dollar".

> So is every businessman, because then you have good sales and have
> a chance at making money.

Sure. Note the price of women's cosmetics, versus the cost of raw materials.

> Was he interested in this more than other businessmen? How do you know?

He was, and we know because everyone knew. He discussed it in his ads, and his
companies produced products that were often considered excellent value for the
money. He knew how to get a lot of a little.

[Frank Berger]

Asked and answered. Generally speaking if the seller can get $16
because people will pay that, then they can charge that. You may
consider this immoral, but so what? Whether monopoly power per say is
"bad" or whether it takes anti-competetive *behavior* (like price
colusion or killing your competitors) to be anti-social (illegal) has
varied in the justice system. Now, in a competitive world, in such a
situation, other companies would come in and offer the license holders
more money in an effort to get some of that profitable business. As a
result, profits would return to "normal" levels. Prices would be
wherever they would be (but would have to be competitive with competing
products). Of course, copyright laws don't permit as much competition as
there would otherwise be.

> I get angry with people who think that Business Rules (in both senses of
> rules), and we have no right to question any company's business
> practices. Well, Bob & Frank, I am the customer, and have every right
> (and obligation) to question /any/ company's business practices, and be
> told how it establishes a price.
>

Again, I am trying to describe how things work, not as they should be.
How a company establishes its prices is its own business, not yours.
Why on earth would you be entitled to that information? If you put your
car on the market for $20,000, can I demand you tell me how you arrived
at that number? Of course, you can question anything you want. It's a
(more or less) free country.

> Hayll, as a cowboy might say. If you wish to be economically sodomized,
> go right ahead. (Or -- ahem -- behind.)
>
> * The last time I looked -- about seven years ago -- you could get 1000
> CDs, along with jewel cases (no insert) for $750 -- and that included
> the mastering charges!

Do you know what MHS had to pay in license fees in the CD era. Maybe it
was more. I mentioned Testament before, an outfit that licenses EMI
material and sells it at full, or nearly full price. What's the
difference between Testament and MHS? Or is that also an inane question?

[Gerard]

"Frank Berger" wrote in message

news:obKdnYds_IOhMY3O...@supernews.com...

=============

Exactly.
That's why it is so hard to understand why you never stop posting, even
after you have spoken so clearly.

[Frank Berger]

On 2/28/2014 11:00 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Frank Berger" wrote in message
> news:bcCdnSpPqpFzLY3O...@supernews.com...
>
>>>> I don't recall anyone saying KLH prices were below market.
>>>> Perhaps I missed it.
>
>>> That isn't what Henry Kloss said. He said his company sometimes charged
>>> less than it "should" have. He didn't give an explanation, but his tone
>>> suggested that the "proper" price, based on then-current economic
>>> models, was not fair to the customer.
>
>> Anecdotal evidence such as this is pretty worthless. "Fair" has no
>> meaning in this context. And I've already said their are no economic
>> models that suggest "proper" prices.
>
> Well, at the time when electronic equipment was mostly hand-assembled by
> American workers, it was widely agreed that a product should retail for
> five times its parts costs.
>

It could be that market forces produced such a result. It surely wasn't
the result of any economic model. And there was no ethical component.

>
>>> Kloss was always interested in "value for the dollar".
>
>> So is every businessman, because then you have good sales and have
>> a chance at making money.
>
> Sure. Note the price of women's cosmetics, versus the cost of raw
> materials.
>

Don't understand. Neither I, nor my wife, for that matter, buy
cosmetics. I know it's a very, very big business, because a lot of
people care how they look. The people who buy cosmetics must think
their getting some "value for the dollar" or they wouldn't buy. Nobody
is forcing them. Is the cosmetics industry characterized by monopoly
power? Only one or maybe a few manufacturers that collude on price?
Then, of course prices would be higher than under competition and there
would be less "consumer surplus," which is jargon for "value for the
dollar."

>
>> Was he interested in this more than other businessmen? How do you know?
>
> He was, and we know because everyone knew. He discussed it in his ads

That's a good one.

> and his companies produced products that were often considered excellent
> value for the money. He knew how to get a lot of a little.

I agree he seemed to be a good businessman as well as a good engineer.

[Frank Berger]

It's hard for you to understand anything at all.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Frank Berger" wrote in message

news:J9qdnfXHgYjwKY3O...@supernews.com...

On 2/28/2014 10:49 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

>> At a time when classical LPs cost $5 or $6, MHS was a successful
>> business, selling LPs for $2.50. Why do you think that was? The answer,
>> of course, is that they sold licensed recordings they didn't have to
>> invest their capital in to produce. And with direct sales, they didn't
>> have to pay a distributor, or leave room in the price for a retailer's
>> profit. I don't know what CSP charged at that time (40+ years ago), but
>> I wouldn't be surprised if MHS's gross profit was $1.50 a disk.

>> Now... class... does it not seem reasonable that the same economic rules
>> would apply to CDs? CDs have never cost much more than $1 to manufacture
>> (and that's the buyer's final price). * Let's pessimistically assume MHS
>> paid $2 for the disk, case, and insert. Let's also assume that the
>> record company charged $2 royalty per disk. (That's probably too high,
>> but again, I'm being pessimistic.) So, you tell me... If a recording
>> costs $4 to manufacture -- why must it sell for $16? It's not for me to
>> give MHS the benefit of the doubt, but for them to explain why their LP
>> and CD business models appear to be so different.

> Asked and answered. Generally speaking if the seller can get $16 because
> people will pay that, then they can charge that. You may consider this
> immoral, but so what?

SO WHAT? How can I rationally respond to such an obnoxious remark?

>> I get angry with people who think that Business Rules (in both senses of
>> rules), and we have no right to question any company's business
>> practices. Well, Bob & Frank, I am the customer, and have every right
>> (and obligation) to question /any/ company's business practices, and be
>> told how it establishes a price.

> Again, I am trying to describe how things work, not as they should be.

So "what is, is right, and there is no need to question it, because the market
determines what is and isn't right".

> How a company establishes its prices is its own business, not yours.

And why shouldn't it be my business? Why?

> Why on earth would you be entitled to that information?

Because customers have a right to know. An incorporated business is not a
human being, and had no right to any sort of privacy. And as conservatives
like to say... "If you have nothing to hide..."

> If you put your car on the market for $20,000, can I demand you tell me
> how you arrived at that number?

You could, and I'd be happy to tell you.


> Do you know what MHS had to pay in license fees in the CD era?

No. Does Tom know? No?

> I mentioned Testament before, an outfit that licenses EMI material and sells
> it at full, or nearly full price. What's the difference between Testament
> and MHS? Or is that also
> an inane question?

Perfectly reasonable. The difference is that Testament does not have MHS's
market base. It probably feels that the increased sales at a lower price would
not make up for the loss of profits. (That doesn't change the fact that feel
Testament gouges.) I'd like to hear Testament's views on this matter.

[Frank Berger]

On 2/28/2014 11:21 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Frank Berger" wrote in message
> news:J9qdnfXHgYjwKY3O...@supernews.com...
> On 2/28/2014 10:49 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>>> At a time when classical LPs cost $5 or $6, MHS was a successful
>>> business, selling LPs for $2.50. Why do you think that was? The answer,
>>> of course, is that they sold licensed recordings they didn't have to
>>> invest their capital in to produce. And with direct sales, they didn't
>>> have to pay a distributor, or leave room in the price for a retailer's
>>> profit. I don't know what CSP charged at that time (40+ years ago), but
>>> I wouldn't be surprised if MHS's gross profit was $1.50 a disk.
>
>>> Now... class... does it not seem reasonable that the same economic rules
>>> would apply to CDs? CDs have never cost much more than $1 to manufacture
>>> (and that's the buyer's final price). * Let's pessimistically assume MHS
>>> paid $2 for the disk, case, and insert. Let's also assume that the
>>> record company charged $2 royalty per disk. (That's probably too high,
>>> but again, I'm being pessimistic.) So, you tell me... If a recording
>>> costs $4 to manufacture -- why must it sell for $16? It's not for me to
>>> give MHS the benefit of the doubt, but for them to explain why their LP
>>> and CD business models appear to be so different.
>
>> Asked and answered. Generally speaking if the seller can get $16
>> because people will pay that, then they can charge that. You may
>> consider this immoral, but so what?
>
> SO WHAT? How can I rationally respond to such an obnoxious remark?
>

Obnoxious? The remark means that not everyone agrees with your personal
more code. It means that your personal moral objection is nothing more
than your personal moral objection. Should an atheist be offended by
someone else believing in God? Should a believer be offended by a
denier? No. They should be tolerant of each others' views. Tolerance
meaning not displaying contempt for each other, even while disagreeing
on important matters.

I'm still waiting for you to compare and contrast the Testament and MHS
cases. I'm not saying I expect you to fail at this or even to say
something I'm going to disagree with. I'm simply interested to know if
you have anything to say about the similarities or differences. Based
on what I've read here so far, I suspect MHS failed because of decisions
it made concerning its catalogue and not its pricing policy. Testmament
licenses classic EMI recordings that have a definite, if small,
clientele, and has to charge highish prices not just because of license
fees (I have no idea what those are), but also to cover the higher per
unit costs associated with small production runs.

What say you?

[Bob Harper]

Dear Gerard, it's because some people are not as convinced by a clear
explanation as you are. Frank seeks to enlighten even Bill, Herculean as
that task may be.

Bob Harper

[Gerard]

"Bob Harper" wrote in message

news:Is3Qu.173555$8V.6...@en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com...

============

I wouldn't say *some* people.
Do you remember any people (in this ng) who were convinced by such 'clear
explanations' by Berger?

[Bob Harper]

On 2/28/14, 8:21 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
(snip)

> Perfectly reasonable. The difference is that Testament does not have
> MHS's market base. It probably feels that the increased sales at a lower
> price would not make up for the loss of profits. (That doesn't change
> the fact that feel Testament gouges.) I'd like to hear Testament's views
> on this matter.
>
>

You're beginning to see the light, Bill. "Increased sales at a lower
price would not make up for the loss of profits." Testament's still in
business, so apparently it works for them. MHS isn't, so it didn't work
for them, possibly because what they had to offer was of far less
interest than Testament's titles. How you 'feel' about Testament's
pricing is, again, irrelevant. I don't like their prices, so I don't buy
many of their CDs. If enough people did likewise, Testament would either
have to cut prices or go out of business. The fact that they haven't
done either would seem to indicate that their prices are being
determined by market forces.

Bob Harper

[William Sommerwerck]

"Bob Harper" wrote in message

news:Sz3Qu.125148$RU.1...@en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com...

On 2/28/14, 8:21 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:


>> Perfectly reasonable. The difference is that Testament does not

>> have MHS's market base. It probably feels increased sales at a

>> lower price would not make up for the loss of profits. (That doesn't
>> change the fact that feel Testament gouges.) I'd like to hear
>> Testament's views on this matter.

> You're beginning to see the light, Bill. "Increased sales at a lower
> price would not make up for the loss of profits."

No, I'm not. I've said this before. It's not any new insight for me.

> Testament's still in business, so apparently it works for them. MHS isn't,
> so it didn't work
> for them, possibly because what they had to offer was of far less
> interest than Testament's titles. How you 'feel' about Testament's
> pricing is, again, irrelevant. I don't like their prices, so I don't buy
> many of their CDs. If enough people did likewise, Testament would
> either have to cut prices or go out of business. The fact that they
> haven't done either would seem to indicate that their prices are being
> determined by market forces.

Well... It might be just that they're getting away with it. As I said the
Frank, it would be nice to hear something from Testament.

It's also true that people who run such small businesses aren't worried about
"getting rich", and are happy with the income they have.

[Frank Berger]

I bet I have at least 75% of Testament's releases.

No one is saying that businesses always make the right decisions. By
"right," I mean profitable, not ethical. But often what happens is that
someone capable of making better decisions buys out the company and runs
it better. Not always, but often.

[Frank Berger]

You mean that *some* "people who run small businesses aren't
worried......." Many large businesses started as small businesses. I
would bet that the vast majority of small business owners would like to
get rich.

[Dana John Hill]

I don't have any MHS stuff in my own collection, but we have hundreds of
discs at my work. I always knew, of course, that these were licensed
reissues of other labels' recordings, which didn't bother me in the
least, but I could never understand why MHS redesigned the jackets or
inserts. Even if they clearly didn't spend a lot of creative energy on
this endeavor, it still involved some amount of time and expense. Why
not just go the BMG Club/Columbia House route and slap a little notice
over the UPC and use the original labels' art? Was it just overall
cheaper to print in black and white only?

Dana John Hill
Gainesville, Florida

[Willem Orange]

We have to thank Testament for a great deal - it was that firm that finally released the Holy Grail (to some) of Wagner Rings the 1955 stereo set Bayreuth set that Decca sat on for years. They supplemented that set with other very rare Wagner issues and the documentation and presentation are superb.

[Frank Berger]

I guess Decca gets come credit for licensing the material. They
couldn't have made a boatload doing so.

[Richard Sandmeyer]

In article <1a68176d-5036-4dac...@googlegroups.com>,
"John O'Brien" <jobr...@kc.rr.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, February 27, 2014 7:43:07 PM UTC-6, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> > "Frank Berger" wrote in message
> >

> > news:E-ednfFGBqHBeZLO...@supernews.com...
> >
> > On 2/27/2014 7:35 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >> Money is a practical necessity. It is not the be-all and end-all of
> >
> > >> existence.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Of course not. But that hyperbole aside, if you assume profit
> >
> > > maximization in building economic models (simplifying assumptions are
> >
> > > necessary to build tractable models), you can predict a lot of aggregate
> >
> > > behavior. Science is about describing the world as it it, not as one
> >
> > > wants it to be.
> >
> >
> >
> > And how does "science" model ethics and morality?

>
> Economics aside, by the 1990s MHS had little to offer that wasn't generally
> available, at lower prices. A look through the catalogs showed nothing other
> than the usual classical music fare. I had bought some great Lps earlier from
> MHS, but by the CD era. There was little that I didn't already have or found
> of no interest. I doubt that I was the only one who felt that way.

This is similar to my own experience. Back in the late 1960s, when I
first joined MHS, and continuing through the LP era, MHS licensed a lot
of recordings from Erato, Lyrita, Muza, and other labels that did not
have good (or any) distribution in the USA. And they sold them for
$2.50 per LP (price later increased, but they were still "budget"
items). The combination of low price and otherwise hard-to-find
recordings made them an attractive source (comparable to the
conventionally distributed Nonesuch label of the time -- though Nonesuch
did make some original recordings as well as license foreign-sourced
material). As MHS prices increased and their LP pressing quality
decreased, I bought fewer MHS LPs, but still added the occasional
interesting item to my collection.

When CDs came on the scene, MHS licensed some items from other labels,
but as those items became readily available in their original label
packaging for comparable prices (first in brick and mortar CD stores and
later on-line), there was no reason to buy them from MHS (except perhaps
in the case of an item on sale).

There were other things working against MHS in my view: 1) Their
'negative option' monthly mailings irritated many customers who ended up
with unwanted LPs or CDs because they didn't send back the rejection
card in time (it was possible to change to a positive option, but MHS
wouldn't tell you about this until you threatened to quit or unless you
asked about it after learning of it from another member). 2) Their
shipping and handling charges were quite high compared to other mail
order sources. 3) Competition from ebay and Amazon Marketplace made it
easy to find the same items at lower prices (especially if one were
willing to buy used items). 4) Finally, the iTunes store and other
download services have obviously cut into CD sales in general.

I still have some of their LPs and a few of their CDs, but I haven't
bought anything from them in years.

[Willem Orange]

Better than just siting on it like they had done for the thirty years prior.

[Bob Harper]

There you go again:"getting away with it." Getting away with *what*?
When will you understand that they can charge whatever they want to
charge. People are free to buy (Frank) or not to buy (me, usually).
What's the problem?

Bob Harper

[richard...@gmail.com]

On Friday, February 28, 2014 1:04:00 PM UTC-5, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Bob Harper" wrote in message
>

Testament is not a high priced label if you don't buy in the USA. From Presto etc it's mid priced, with occasional 20-25% off sales.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Bob Harper" wrote in message

news:kK9Qu.177693$8V.1...@en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com...

On 2/28/14, 10:04 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Bob Harper" wrote in message
> news:Sz3Qu.125148$RU.1...@en-nntp-16.dc1.easynews.com...
> On 2/28/14, 8:21 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

>>> Perfectly reasonable. The difference is that Testament does not
>>> have MHS's market base. It probably feels increased sales at a
>>> lower price would not make up for the loss of profits. (That doesn't
>>> change the fact that feel Testament gouges.) I'd like to hear
>>> Testament's views on this matter.

>> You're beginning to see the light, Bill. "Increased sales at a lower
>> price would not make up for the loss of profits."

> No, I'm not. I've said this before. It's not any new insight for me.


>> Testament's still in business, so apparently it works for them. MHS
>> isn't, so it didn't work
>> for them, possibly because what they had to offer was of far less
>> interest than Testament's titles. How you 'feel' about Testament's
>> pricing is, again, irrelevant. I don't like their prices, so I don't buy
>> many of their CDs. If enough people did likewise, Testament would
>> either have to cut prices or go out of business. The fact that they
>> haven't done either would seem to indicate that their prices are being
>> determined by market forces.

> Well... It might be just that they're getting away with it. As I said
> the Frank, it would be nice to hear something from Testament.

> It's also true that [some] people who run such small businesses aren't

> worried about "getting rich", and are happy with the income they have.

There you go again:"getting away with it." Getting away with *what*?
When will you understand that they can charge whatever they want to
charge. People are free to buy (Frank) or not to buy (me, usually).
What's the problem?

-------------------------------------
In most societies, it's considered wrong to steal.

Your neighbor is so sick he can't go to the drugstore. He gives you $20 to get
OTC medications. You tell him they cost $16, when they actually cost $12.
That's stealing. If you don't think so, I invite you to stop by and help
yourself to whatever you like.

Businesses factor many costs into deciding how to price something. Besides the
direct costs of providing a product or service, there are indirect costs. For
example, how much money does the business need to invest in development? For
advertising? To put aside for a rainy day? To pay stockholders a fair return
on their investments? * To subsidize employee insurance and education? All
these (and more) are legitimate business expenses, and need to be covered.

After those calculations, anything extra you charge is THEFT, plain and
simple. You expect the customer to cough up money YOUR BUSINESS DOESN'T NEED,
just because you CAN.

The self-serving excuse is that short supply or high demand justifies a higher
price. Which is fair, if the profits from the higher price are plowed back
into producing more of the thing in short supply or of high demand -- not used
simply to line the investors' pockets. (I suspect Adam Smith would be appalled
to hear that the primary focus of many businesses is maximizing their
investors' income. **)

Market economies work best when supply and demand are /elastic/. A current
example is the high price of pork products, due to a hog shortage. The high
price "should" encourage increased production, which "should" cause prices to
fall back. ***

Some markets aren't very elastic. Housing is one. Seattle is currently going
through a housing shortage, and new apartments and condos are being built.
Unfortunately, most of them are higher-priced units, because the builders want
to maximize their profits for the available space. This is perverse, working
against the interests of those people who need reasonably priced city housing.
What is right for the market is not always right for the consumer. But, of
course, that's the way things are. So they must be right. Right?

* I don't want to talk about this.

** This appears to be, in part, due to government regulation of executive's
salaries.

*** It would be interesting to know the real effects of government subsidies
and food stamps on the price of food.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Frank Berger" wrote in message

news:R7ydnc4i1tCRXY3O...@supernews.com...

>> ...Testament does not have MHS's market base. It probably feels

>> increased sales at a lower price would not make up for the loss of

>> profits. (That doesn't change the fact I feel Testament gouges.) I'd

>> like to hear Testament's views on this matter.

> I'm still waiting for you to compare and contrast the Testament and
> MHS cases. I'm not saying I expect you to fail at this or even to say
> something I'm going to disagree with. I'm simply interested to know
> if you have anything to say about the similarities or differences.

I'm not sure I understand what you want. I expressed a plausible opinion
(which one other poster agreed with). Past that, I don't have data to base a
broader opinion on. That's why I'd like to hear Testament's perspective. We
might all learn from it.

It's possible we're all wrong -- that MHS went kaput because of free and
low-priced MPEGs on the Web.

> Based on what I've read here so far, I suspect MHS failed because of
> decisions it made concerning its catalogue and not its pricing policy.

The two are unavoidably linked. Customers are more likely to pay a higher
price for unusual repertoire.

> Testmament licenses classic EMI recordings that have a definite,
> if small, clientele, and has to charge highish prices not just because
> of license fees (I have no idea what those are), but also to cover the
> higher per unit costs associated with small production runs.

I wouldn't call their prices "highish", but verging on "unreasonable", even
allowing for the smaller market. As I said, it would be nice to hear some
facts from Testament, so we can come to better understanding.

[Steve de Mena]

On 2/27/14, 4:09 PM, Bob Lombard wrote:

> Jeez, how easily you guys forget the original context - which was MHS
> going OOB because they were charging too much for their product.
> Their price was too high for the demand, but maybe it didn't have to be.
>
> bl

With the advent of the internet and easy online ordering and
comparison shopping, maybe the market had no need for a service such
as MHS. I didn't care for their CD packaging when the quality of the
printing was inferior to the original or modified to look "uglier",
for lack of a better word.

Steve

[Steve de Mena]

On 2/28/14, 7:49 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:

> Now... class... does it not seem reasonable that the same economic
> rules would apply to CDs? CDs have never cost much more than $1 to
> manufacture (and that's the buyer's final price). * Let's
> pessimistically assume MHS paid $2 for the disk, case, and insert.
> Let's also assume that the record company charged $2 royalty per disk.
> (That's probably too high, but again, I'm being pessimistic.) So, you
> tell me... If a recording costs $4 to manufacture -- why must it sell
> for $16? It's not for me to give MHS the benefit of the doubt, but for
> them to explain why their LP and CD business models appear to be so
> different.

Wasn't the offer for new members something like 10 CDs for $10, or
some ridiculously low price per CD? If so, that had to be funded by
charging more down the road for subsequent purchases. And this might
have been in the day when rural customers had no local brick and
mortar store to find classical CDs and the internet (amazon.com, etc.)
were not yet alternative options.

Steve

[Steve de Mena]

At Amazon UK single Testament CDs seem to be from £10.50 to £13, which
I'd consider full-priced. It's strange how their prices vary,
depending on the release. Some double CD sets are priced as one.

The past year or two they seemed to have switched from reissuing EMI
recordings to live performances, many of the Berlin Philharmonic under
Karajan or Giulini.

Steve

[Steve de Mena]

On 2/27/14, 6:08 PM, ljk...@aol.com wrote:
> Fact is, MHS raised their prices while still offering what looked like, and in some senses was what MHS albums always had been -- a bargain product. That is, every reasonably savvy purchaser of an MHS album could see that it had been licensed from another source, no doubt under an agreement that reflected the fact that MHS didn't have to pay for the cost of recording the music.

But if a recording had been particularly expensive to record, wouldn't
the original label (DG or whomever) factor the recording costs into
the licensing fee?

Steve

[John Wiser]

"Steve de Mena" <st...@demena.com> wrote in message
news:RICdnYcW8uDpUIzO...@giganews.com...

A better word may be "plain,"
which used to serve as a euphemism for "ugly."

At some point Mark Stenroos expounded at some length
on the subject of MHS packaging. Someone with more
skill and interest than I have may wish to search RMCR
for his posts. At least one stalwart has them on his
hard drive.

jdw