Carlos Kleiber R.I.P
John Durbin
Nick X Sun
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/kultur/artikel/562/35527/
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/9191925.htm?1c
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=peopleNews&storyID=5708607
Nick
"John Durbin" <johne...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:90fof0dcsiuu4diet...@4ax.com...
Tom Deacon
"John Durbin" <johne...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Just heard of death of Carlos Kleiber at age 74. Very sad.
So far we haven't heard from Hurwitz.
Strange.
He usually weighs in with some destructive "witticism" at poignant moments
like this.
TD
David Hurwitz
Actually, I think your use of this occasion as yet another opportunity to engage
in cheap potshots trivializes the poignancy of the moment far better than I ever
could.
Dave Hurwitz
Tom Deacon
"David Hurwitz" <David_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
Oh, dear.
Speechless at last.
What a relief!
TD
David Hurwitz
>
>Oh, dear.
>
>Speechless at last.
>
>What a relief!
>
>TD
>
Actually, I do have one speech: I pray that the legacy of mostly fine recordings
that Kleiber authorized during his lifetime is not now compromised by a flood of
mediocre concert airchecks and pirates that dilute and destroy the high standard
of excellence that characterized what he himself deemed worthy of preservation
and release to the public. I doubt this hope stands much of chance of being
fulfilled now that he is gone, and it's true that his live stuff is probably
going to be of higher quality than the reams of dreck by Barbirolli, Horenstein,
Schuricht, and various other "cult" conductors being foisted on the public as
historically "valuable," but if the almost unanimous respect accorded this
artist by this group is sincere, then let everyone promise NEVER to touch a
recording of his that he did not personally approve for general release, no
matter how interesting it looks, how inexpensive its cost, or how
quasi-legitimate its provenance.
Let's see if people here are willing to do more than pay lip-service to the
right of the artist to leave a legacy of his own choosing, and that the respect
we see accorded Kleiber today trumps the omnivorous appetite of those of his
fans willing to encourage the profiteering desire of "historical" labels to make
a quick buck on the back of the very reputation that the artist worked so hard
to create during his lifetime. How about it folks? Anyone prepared to preserve
Kleiber's memory by insisting on the artistic integrity of his legacy the way HE
defined it? Or will you all run after the next bargain box of unauthorized
concert material and, as usual, overpraise the results as a means of justifying
what we all know perfectly well Kleiber would have regarded as an inexcusable
slap in the face that defies everything he stood for?
Dave Hurwitz
Richard Loeb
we know what he would have approved once he got around to hearing the
broadcasts - and if your position is that since we don't know we shouldn't
release anything that didn't have his approval at the time of his death, I'm
not sure I would agree though I understand your position Richard"David
Hurwitz" <David_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:100284415.0...@drn.newsguy.com...
Tom Deacon
"David Hurwitz" <David_...@newsguy.com> wrote the following>
Finally Hurwitz has issued a statement of ethics in recording.
This newsgroup is full of pirates, friends of pirates, and those who profit
from pirates.
Each and every one of them is anxious to get their greedy little hands on
the latest unauthorized recording by their favourite conductor, pianist,
violinist, etc. etc.
I abhor the whole process.
And I am glad that Hurwitz has stood up for Kleiber in this fashion. Kleiber
was a great man. But so, of course, was Celibidache. The pity is that his
relatives were greedy and so we have this flood of Celibidache CDs. Not one
of them approved by the maestro.
Now, perhaps, Hurwitz will go one step further, if he has not already done
so, and decry the entire industry of sub rosa reissues, fake transfers,
unauthorized releases on whatever medium which infect and pollute the entire
industry, most of them claiming "public domain" status.
Perhaps, you know, it is just fine that the ABC buried all those Ignaz
Friedman acetates in a landfill. He hadn't approved them for release, just
for broadcast. And some sleazy individual - I could give names to such
people, but I won't here - screaming about how it was the "right" of
everyone today to hear this pianist in his mature years, would have thrown
this stuff on the public!
And the same goes for the rafts of Toscanini dreck that has been issued
without the maestro's approval. And Callas. And Karajan. And Bernstein. etc.
etc. The list is very, very long and the story a sad and dreary one, indeed.
Hear, hear! Mr. Hurwitz.
TD
Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in
news:100284415.0...@drn.newsguy.com:
> How about it folks? Anyone prepared to preserve Kleiber's memory by
> insisting on the artistic integrity of his legacy the way HE defined it?
> Or will you all run after the next bargain box of unauthorized concert
> material and, as usual, overpraise the results as a means of justifying
> what we all know perfectly well Kleiber would have regarded as an
> inexcusable slap in the face that defies everything he stood for?
One thing's for sure -- I'm not going to pay premium price for an Orfeo CD
containing his Beethoven "Pastoral" in mediocre sound, and nothing else.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Take THAT, Daniel Lin, Mark Sadek, James Lin & Christopher Chung!
David Hurwitz
>
>But David - it isn't that easy to determine is it?? esp. with him??? How do
>we know what he would have approved once he got around to hearing the
>broadcasts - and if your position is that since we don't know we shouldn't
>release anything that didn't have his approval at the time of his death, I'm
>not sure I would agree though I understand your position Richard"
Yes, it is that easy. He's dead. We know what he approved. Now the world will
just have to make due with what they have. Or not. We shall see.
Dave Hurwitz
David Hurwitz
>Now, perhaps, Hurwitz will go one step further, if he has not already done
>so, and decry the entire industry of sub rosa reissues, fake transfers,
>unauthorized releases on whatever medium which infect and pollute the entire
>industry, most of them claiming "public domain" status.
>
>
>
>TD
>
Thank you Tom, in all sincerity. In answer to your point, if you had any
familiarity with my work, or even the history of my postings in this NG, you
would know that I have ALWAYS spoken out very strongly for exactly the above
position and stand with you 100% on this issue.
Dave Hurwitz
JRsnfld
Perhaps, you know, it is just fine that the ABC buried all those Ignaz
Friedman acetates in a landfill. He hadn't approved them for release, just
for broadcast. And some sleazy individual - I could give names to such
people, but I won't here - screaming about how it was the "right" of
everyone today to hear this pianist in his mature years, would have thrown
this stuff on the public! >>
What's the difference between approval for "release" and approval for
"broadcast"? You seem to be saying that a performance ok'd for broadcast once
is somehow not worthy of re-broadcast in the future, or for release for home
listening. This makes no sense, if one's primary mission is to protect an
artistic legacy.
There may be commercial/business reasons for denying future broadcast of such
performances, and one can applaud the protection of the ownership rights of
Friedman's heirs assuming these rights would still be covered by copyrights,
etc., but I fail to see good artistic reasons for such a stance.
If an artist is willing to broadcast a performance, then it is reasonable, from
an historical or artistic point of view, for that broadcast to be repeated
someday. And, to take that a step further, it is reasonable to assume the
performance is of sufficient quality for it to be repeated for an audience of
one, on a home stereo, time and time again, via a CD or record or tape.
You seem to make a distinction between broadcast performances and recordings,
as if the former are temporary statements that must be heard only once and the
latter are meant to be heard repeatedly.
Performing artists generally seem to approach live performances differently
than recordings. But, in terms of acoustic conditions, a broadcast is
essentially the same as a recording--the ultimate listener is a person sitting
in a room in a home.
Now, one might argue that some performances do not bear repeated hearing as
well as others, just because the interpretations are faulty or exceedingly
strange. A listener's impression of a performance does indeed change from first
hearing to second. This is equally true, however, for the most carefully
"vetted" multi-take performances edited in the recording studio. Ultimately, if
something is good enough to be heard once, it is good enough to be heard again
under the same circumstances. It is worth studying even if it is
flawed--especially if the artist gave approval for broadcast. Evidently,
Friedman didn't think these acetates were all that flawed.
I can understand the (often greedy) protection of commercial rights, but not
the decision to destroy acetates that could have eventually repeated Friedman's
performances before new audiences, in the future. Such destruction was a
terrible mistake.
--Jeff
JRsnfld
will
just have to make due with what they have. Or not. We shall see. >>
That's a strange attitude. Did he "disapprove"? Or did he just never get around
to "approving"? And if we know what he did and did not approve, wouldn't it be
valuable to future musicians and scholars and students of performance to
compare the "approved" with the "unapproved" performances to get a sense of
Kleiber's priorities, sensibilities, and standards?
The more I think about the statement you make here, the less value I see in it.
I can understand wanting to limit commercial release of performances--there are
copyrights to protect and money to be made by the rightful owners of this
legacy (at least for now), but I hope you're not advocating destroying the
records or denying access to them by interested members of the public.
Ultimately, this zeal to "protect" an artist's legacy is tantamount to a
distortion of the artist's legacy. Performers and audiences today labor under a
false conception of previous performance standards if all they listen to are
selected, edited recordings. I think the lack of distribution of live broadcast
performances, warts and all, plays a significant part in the unreasonable
standards audiences often bring to concerts (as well as the indifference people
often display toward excellence in classical performance.)
Our ability to sample several of Kleiber's Beethoven 7s, for instance, gives us
an even richer understanding of his abilities and standards in this work.
Hearing him with different orchestras gives scholars and serious students a
chance to appreciate the art of conducting. To limit ourselves to the one or
two versions he approved robs us of some aspect of the truth.
Sure, I understand the artist's desire to destroy second rate work. But keep in
mind that many artists are, intellectually, a moving target. They are
constantly rethinking, reconsidering, and disavowing their earlier thoughts. We
shouldn't limit ourselves to an artist's "last word" on a subject. We should
have access to the "first word" too.
I think it is more productive for music, musicians, and our cultural heritage,
if we have more, not less, evidence of Kleiber's work, before the listening
public. If portrayed honestly, Kleiber's legacy will remain at the pinnacle of
artistic achievement. The good performances will be seen and valued; the lesser
performances identified by the responsible critics and astute listeners, then
listeners can choose and evaluate on their own, duly forewarned. Any and all of
these performances should be compared and studied by those who are interested.
I much prefer a situation conducive to free and open scholarship and opinion
than the desecration of a cultural heritage which could result if a chosen few
decide for the rest of us what is worthy of preservation and what is not.
Frequently critics (I should say "other critics" since I am one of them) make
firm choices and recommendations that I consider unmusical. I should certainly
hope they are not the ones "enforcing" the highly temperamental Kleiber's will
as evinced by his decisions and, frequently, by his lack of decisions about his
performances.
Kleiber's opinions should be duly noted, but not used as an excuse to distort
the historical record. He's dead; the rest of us are still alive willing to
learn from his successes and his failures.
Performance art can and should be seen as a pursuit of excellence, not as an
unmoving standard of excellence in which only a few concerts are worthy of
hearing and the rest are just drivel. When you filter the truth, you distort
it.
--Jeff
Tom Deacon
"JRsnfld" <jrs...@aol.com> wrote:
I have worked for many, many years in the broadcast business for CBC in
Canada.
Broadcasts of live music is contracted usually for one, possibly two, plays.
Period. If further "plays" are requested of the musician or musicians,
further payments are required. Moreover, the presenter of the concerts, who
originally hired the artists, is also involved in the discussions.
It may seem "reasonable" for you to assume that an artist would see this
broadcast as a historic artefact. But to him, it is just a gig, for which he
was remunerated according to a contract.
Moreover, whose mission is it to preserve the legacy of the artist? Is it
yours, or your neighbours, or mine? Or does not that belong to the artist
himself? I would suggest the latter. And probably would have the law on my
side, at least for a number of decades.
The destruction of the Friedman materials was, perhaps, a mistake. But
better that mistake than that a number of unprincipled self-styled
"admirers" would get hold of these materials and make commercial hay out of
them. The Horowitz CH acetates were mined, partially, by his widow. The rest
remain locked up in a library. Which is sort of where they belong. Neither
the artist nor his widow wished any further mining of this particular vein
of gold (or lead, according to your point of view). Wanda described the
Islamey as "junk", and as I own a copy of this which was given to me by one
of his students, I have to agree with her. Moreover, Horowitz's performance
of the piece is sloppy, both technically and musically. So, better
forgotten. In any event, we do not have the right to make that decision for
the artist.
It would be truly appalling should we witness reams of Carlos Kleiber "live"
material appear for sale now that he has passed away, a la Celibidache. Or,
perhaps, a la Michelangeli. Or worse still, a la Richter. Quelle horreur!
Sure, his recorded repertoire was small. But he chose to make it that way.
Let's hope the "pirates" or "admirers" just leave it at that.
TD
Tom Deacon
Xns952BC51C5BC...@207.217.125.204, "Matthew B. Tepper"
<oy?@earthlink.net> wrote:
> David Hurwitz <David_...@newsguy.com> appears to have caused the
> following letters to be typed in
> news:100284415.0...@drn.newsguy.com:
>
>> How about it folks? Anyone prepared to preserve Kleiber's memory by
>> insisting on the artistic integrity of his legacy the way HE defined it?
>> Or will you all run after the next bargain box of unauthorized concert
>> material and, as usual, overpraise the results as a means of justifying
>> what we all know perfectly well Kleiber would have regarded as an
>> inexcusable slap in the face that defies everything he stood for?
>
> One thing's for sure -- I'm not going to pay premium price for an Orfeo CD
> containing his Beethoven "Pastoral" in mediocre sound, and nothing else.
Ever the cheapskate.
"Music by the pound" Tepper.
TD
Tom Deacon
"JRsnfld" <jrs...@aol.com> wrote:
We have heard this all before.
Each and every issue of "live" "unapproved" material could have this little
homily tacked onto it.
The point is, the artist did not approve the release.
Everything stops there. You cannot go further with the arguments, as this
very fact blocks all other moves.
Just deal with it.
TD
Doru Ionescu
> And I am glad that Hurwitz has stood up for Kleiber in this fashion. Kleiber
> was a great man. But so, of course, was Celibidache. The pity is that his
> relatives were greedy and so we have this flood of Celibidache CDs. Not one
> of them approved by the maestro.
As far as I know, a lot of young romanian musicians are supported
financialy by the Celibidache Foundation. On the other hand, I will
give my entire cd collection only to be able to hear live a musician
like Celibidache.
Cheers,
Doru Ionescu
Simon Roberts
>Actually, I do have one speech: I pray that the legacy of mostly fine recordings
>that Kleiber authorized during his lifetime is not now compromised by a flood of
>mediocre concert airchecks and pirates that dilute and destroy the high standard
>of excellence that characterized what he himself deemed worthy of preservation
>and release to the public.
Assuming such a flood takes place and is, in fact "mediocre", it won't affect
one bit the quality of the recordings he approved. It might, however, suggest a
disparity between the quality of his studio recordings and his live
performances, but if that's the case and the live stuff's worse, it's not clear
why that fact should be hushed up. But what if some of the live stuff's better?
I doubt this hope stands much of chance of being
>fulfilled now that he is gone, and it's true that his live stuff is probably
>going to be of higher quality than the reams of dreck by Barbirolli, Horenstein,
>Schuricht, and various other "cult" conductors being foisted on the public as
>historically "valuable,"
Don't you think it's useful to have examples of their "dreck" on record?
but if the almost unanimous respect accorded this
>artist by this group is sincere, then let everyone promise NEVER to touch a
>recording of his that he did not personally approve for general release, no
>matter how interesting it looks, how inexpensive its cost, or how
>quasi-legitimate its provenance.
You seem to be confusing respect for his musicianship with respect for his
decisions concerning approval of the release of recordings. The respect
demonstrated in this forum concerns the former and implies nothing at all about
the latter. Besides, as Jeff pointed out in his excellent post, there's a
difference between a recording whose release was not authorized by Kleiber and a
recording whose release was disavowed or rejected (etc.) by Kleiber. Do we
actually know which are which?
>Let's see if people here are willing to do more than pay lip-service to the
>right of the artist to leave a legacy of his own choosing, and that the respect
>we see accorded Kleiber today trumps the omnivorous appetite of those of his
>fans willing to encourage the profiteering desire of "historical" labels to make
>a quick buck on the back of the very reputation that the artist worked so hard
>to create during his lifetime. How about it folks? Anyone prepared to preserve
>Kleiber's memory by insisting on the artistic integrity of his legacy the way HE
>defined it?
You can respect that if you want. Others may think it's his music-making that's
the more worthy object of respect and will, as a result, be interested in
hearing hitherto unavailable recordings of his concerts regardless of whether he
approved their release; and they will do so based on their respect for him as a
musician. And when they do so, their respect for him as a musician may
increase; the examples of musicians whose live performances are better than
their "approved" studio recordings are too obvious to need mentioning.
Simon
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in
I heard Celibidache live three times, and while I found those concerts very
interesting, I'm glad I still have my CD collection (which does contain a
couple of Celibidache recordings).
Terrymelin
>recordings
>that Kleiber authorized during his lifetime is not now compromised by a flood
>of
>mediocre concert airchecks and pirates that dilute and destroy the high
>standard
>of excellence that characterized what he himself deemed worthy of
>preservation
>and release to the public. I doubt this hope stands much of chance of being
>fulfilled now that he is gone, and it's true that his live stuff is probably
>going to be of higher quality than the reams of dreck by Barbirolli,
>Horenstein,
>Schuricht, and various other "cult" conductors being foisted on the public as
>historically "valuable,"
How sad that one would take the occasion of the death of a highly respected
conductor to bash the reputations of others. Predictable I realize, but sad
nonetheless.
but if the almost unanimous respect accorded this
>artist by this group is sincere, then let everyone promise NEVER to touch a
>recording of his that he did not personally approve for general release, no
>matter how interesting it looks, how inexpensive its cost, or how
>quasi-legitimate its provenance.
That's just so silly as to not be worth comment.
>Let's see if people here are willing to do more than pay lip-service to the
>right of the artist to leave a legacy of his own choosing, and that the
>respect
>we see accorded Kleiber today trumps the omnivorous appetite of those of his
>fans willing to encourage the profiteering desire of "historical" labels to
>make
>a quick buck on the back of the very reputation that the artist worked so
>hard
>to create during his lifetime. How about it folks? Anyone prepared to
>preserve
>Kleiber's memory by insisting on the artistic integrity of his legacy the way
>HE
>defined it? Or will you all run after the next bargain box of unauthorized
>concert material and, as usual, overpraise the results as a means of
>justifying
>what we all know perfectly well Kleiber would have regarded as an inexcusable
>slap in the face that defies everything he stood for?
>
>Dave Hurwitz
What's the old line about sound and fury signifying nothing?
Terry Ellsworth
Ramon Khalona
> One thing's for sure -- I'm not going to pay premium price for an Orfeo CD
> containing his Beethoven "Pastoral" in mediocre sound, and nothing else.
Matthew, have you actually *listened* to this CD? The sound is not
mediocre at all. It is not state of the art digital, but it certainly
is more than listenable. I had my reservations when I read it
described, by someone else, as "mediocre sound", which it certainly is
not. I am not fond of the performance (way too fast and rigid in
places), but that's another story.
One thing about this performance: it probably has the weirdest
applause I've ever heard.
R.
Paul Goldstein
Agreed; in addition, I find this fetishizing of the Maestro's Approved Releases
to be repellent. It all sounds like a Time-Life infomercial. There is also a
sycophantic quality to it that is apparently common among record industry
insiders, but nauseating for real music lovers. Kleiber wasn't Michelangelo,
you know. He was a performing musician whose performances gave a lot of people
pleasure. If there are hitherto 'unapproved' Kleiber recordings that could give
some people more pleasure, I hope they are released. The market will decide if
any 'unapproved' releases of his performances are worth keeping around.
Paul Goldstein
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in
No, I haven't listened to it. That probably will not happen unless someone
lends or gives it to me, because as I already said, I won't pay premium price
for it.
Tepperpotamus
How lucky that those 'great pianists' Brendel, Uchida and Previn will
never cause anyone worries of this sort. It might even be amusing to
hear things they themselves tried to hold back, if there are any.
Ssg217
>applause I've ever heard.
Could you explain, please?
regards,
SG
Pierre-Normand Houle
"Tom Deacon" <deac...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message news:BD22832C.56CD%
> We have heard this all before.
>
> Each and every issue of "live" "unapproved" material could have this little
> homily tacked onto it.
>
> The point is, the artist did not approve the release.
>
> Everything stops there. You cannot go further with the arguments, as this
> very fact blocks all other moves.
>
> Just deal with it.
What of recordings of operas, concerti, etc. if the lead signers or soloists
want their own performance preserved for the posterity? Do conductors
necessarily have the last say as to which recordings to censure? What
if two members of a string quartet approve of a performance but the two
other members disapprove of it? Can we listen to the recording or not?
Is the first violin the boss?
What about the composers? Shouldn't they have priority over conductors
regarding these censure decisions? What if Bach's Brandenburgh concerti were only
approved by him for "release" to the Margrave? Should we boycott all existing
recordings or performances of these scores unapproved by Bach for release to the
general public? Should we only listen to Bach's Clavieruebung I-IV? (The B minor
mass is probably OK too. The Art of the Fugue should be burnt. It was prepared for
publication but it is still unfinished and a fortiori unaproved.) What of all those
recordings (approved by the conductors) of Brueckner's various earlier versions
of his symphonies?
This sounds more argumentative than I intended but I wanted to point out some
problems with the idea that conductors (and artists, generally) are authoritative
censors of their "own" collaborative efforts in the midst of a living tradition.
JRsnfld
Everything stops there. You cannot go further with the arguments, as this
very fact blocks all other moves.
Just deal with it. >>
If this were true, then the Celibidache family would be breaking the law and
they and the EMI and DG executives would all be thrown in jail, no?
You decry the Celibidache releases, yet his artistic legacy is more
honestly--and much more widely--appreciated than ever before. That's a big gain
for musicians and listeners everywhere, forever; what's the downside?
--Jeff
JRsnfld
Period. If further "plays" are requested of the musician or musicians,
further payments are required. Moreover, the presenter of the concerts, who
originally hired the artists, is also involved in the discussions. >>
In other words, the broadcast agreements do not prohibit future release in
recordings or further broadcasts. Further release is a business decision made
by the artists and producers, or in the case of their death, by those who
represent them.
<< It may seem "reasonable" for you to assume that an artist would see this
broadcast as a historic artefact. But to him, it is just a gig, for which he
was remunerated according to a contract. >>
We agree--performance artists are not particularly interested in historical
legacy. Nor should they be: great artists remain "in the moment". Let the
artists focus on the gigs; let someone representing them with a better
historical appreciation focus on the history of the gigs.
<< The destruction of the Friedman materials was, perhaps, a mistake. But
better that mistake than that a number of unprincipled self-styled
"admirers" would get hold of these materials and make commercial hay out of
them. >>
Someone is always making commercial hay out of an artist's work, whether it's
the record companies that draw up the contracts or the pirates who circumvent
them. It's bad enough that the exigencies of greed often thwart artistic
achievement in the here and now; why muzzle historical legacies for the same
reason?
<< Wanda described the
Islamey as "junk", and as I own a copy of this which was given to me by one
of his students, >>
I'm glad you admit to listening to unapproved performances. Clearly you value
the opportunity (and brag about it) as much as I would. The difference between
us is not in our principles but in our access.
--Jeff
Simon Roberts
Indeed. There's a paradox at work here: the main reason we respect Celibidache
(or any other musician, for that matter) is because of his musicianship. The
only way to judge his musicianship *now* is through recordings. Remove the
recordings and....
Simon
Gerrit Stolte
> << The point is, the artist did not approve the release.
>
> Everything stops there. You cannot go further with the arguments, as this
> very fact blocks all other moves.
>
> Just deal with it. >>
>
> If this were true, then the Celibidache family would be breaking the law and
> they and the EMI and DG executives would all be thrown in jail, no?
No, at least with respect to the DG recordings. Here, Celibidache signed a
deal with a German Radio Symphony Orchestra, all of whose concerts are at
least taped and most of which get aired live. And it's the RSO which exerts
the sole and exclusive power over the rights of the recordings. By signing
with Stuttart, Celi invariably agreed to have these concerts published with
or without his consent. Even a dissenting voice wouldn't have stopped the
release and he would have lost any court case, if he'd have wished to take
it to court.
Gerrit
Terrymelin
>
>Everything stops there. You cannot go further with the arguments, as this
>very fact blocks all other moves.
What a ridiculous and narrow-minded viewpoint.
Terry Ellsworth
Ramon Khalona
> >> One thing's for sure -- I'm not going to pay premium price for an Orfeo
> >> CD containing his Beethoven "Pastoral" in mediocre sound, and nothing
> >> else.
I am not trying to sell it to you, but MDT has had an Orfeo sale (less
than 5 UKP per disc). Hardly "premium price".
RK
Ramon Khalona
> >One thing about this performance: it probably has the weirdest
> >applause I've ever heard.
>
> Could you explain, please?
There is silence after the performance ends, then a very timid
applause begins and only gradually builds up to a boisterous ovation,
almost as if they changed their mind. Pretty strange.
RK
Ramon Khalona
> If there are hitherto 'unapproved' Kleiber recordings that could give
> some people more pleasure, I hope they are released.
Same here. Richter, in his old age, panned his recording of the Brahms
2nd PC with Leinsdorf/CSO (he said it was too fast and did not observe
the "proper" tempo), preferring his remake with Maazel. Artists
can be wrong about their own work.
RK
Tom Deacon
"JRsnfld" <jrs...@aol.com> wrote:
> << Wanda described the
> Islamey as "junk", and as I own a copy of this which was given to me by one
> of his students, >>
>
> I'm glad you admit to listening to unapproved performances. Clearly you value
> the opportunity (and brag about it) as much as I would. The difference between
> us is not in our principles but in our access.
You think describing something as "junk" is bragging?
Perhaps we use a different dictionary.
The performance was NOT sollicited, came with other material by the person
who sent it, and was, in fact, something of a surprise when I heard it -
once. It remains buried in a bunch of junk I never listen to.
That is where it belongs.
TD
M. Ryan
> On 7/19/04 8:46 PM, in article 100284415.0...@drn.newsguy.com,
> "David Hurwitz" <David_...@newsguy.com> wrote the following>
<snip>
> > How about it folks? Anyone prepared to preserve
> > Kleiber's memory by insisting on the artistic integrity of his legacy
> > the way HE
> > defined it? Or will you all run after the next bargain box of unauthorized
> > concert material and, as usual, overpraise the results as a means of
> > justifying
> > what we all know perfectly well Kleiber would have regarded as an
> > inexcusable slap in the face that defies everything he stood for?
<snip>
> Perhaps, you know, it is just fine that the ABC buried all those Ignaz
> Friedman acetates in a landfill. He hadn't approved them for release, just
> for broadcast. And some sleazy individual - I could give names to such
> people, but I won't here - screaming about how it was the "right" of
> everyone today to hear this pianist in his mature years, would have thrown
> this stuff on the public!
>
> And the same goes for the rafts of Toscanini dreck that has been issued
> without the maestro's approval. And Callas. And Karajan. And Bernstein. etc.
> etc. The list is very, very long and the story a sad and dreary one, indeed.
>
> Hear, hear! Mr. Hurwitz.
>
> TD
I can see why people would disapprove of a legacy of fine work tainted
by that performer's off days. (And as a repertoire-based buyer, I'ld
never buy it anyway!) But to elevate this into an ethical principle of
'the performer is the only real judge of his own work' (or something
like that) would be a mistake.
Artists are not necessarily their own best judges -- part of our
existing culture is founded on people on ignoring the wishes of the
original creator.
Were we to apply this standard retroactively, we would have to toss
out things like Saint-Saens "Carnival of the Animals", Rachmaninoff's
Sym #1, most of Emily Dickinson, most of Kafka, perhaps even many of
Shakespeare's plays. The list could go on for a long time.
Just to tie it into another thread: one could argue that artistically
Szell knew the high/low frequency balance that he wanted with his
recordings, and Sony re-mastering them is betraying his choices and is
issuing something he didn't approve.
Over time, the greedy consumerism of the moment will be forgotten, and
the true art will win out. (We don't see it in the past, because
we've already forgotten it!)
Mike R.
Tom Deacon
"JRsnfld" <jrs...@aol.com> wrote:
The downside is that he did not wish this to happen.
His greedy relatives, once he was dead and buried, struck a deal for
money.It was almost as though they didn't even know their father.
That is the downside.
I don't even wish to get into whether the CDs are any good or not. The
question is beside the point.
TD
Tom Deacon
"Pierre-Normand Houle" <houlepn...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> "Tom Deacon" <deac...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message news:BD22832C.56CD%
>
>> We have heard this all before.
>>
>> Each and every issue of "live" "unapproved" material could have this little
>> homily tacked onto it.
>>
>> The point is, the artist did not approve the release.
>>
>> Everything stops there. You cannot go further with the arguments, as this
>> very fact blocks all other moves.
>>
>> Just deal with it.
> This sounds more argumentative than I intended but I wanted to point out some
> problems with the idea that conductors (and artists, generally) are
> authoritative censors of their "own" collaborative efforts in the midst of a
living tradition.
A recent instructive case was the release of Meistersinger on Testament. It
had to be withdrawn after being issued because it did not have the approval
of one of the artists.
Does that answer your questions?
TD
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:49087db9.04072...@posting.google.com:
> Private reissuers and music circulators perform an essential service
> to the community and, ultimately, to humanity. They help avoid
> tragedies like the destruction of 75% of silent films in the hands of
> their "official" owners.
>
> Art has no owners. It belongs to everybody. Reissuers and circulators
> ensure not only the availability but, even more importantly, the
> survival of recorded sound. In the context of survival, vague property
> rights are secondary.
Hear, hear! (Literally, at that.)
When Decca wished to reissue Kathleen Ferrier's broadcast BBC performance of
Chausson's "Poème de l'amour et de la mer," they couldn't use an actual BBC
source -- that had long since been wiped according to some regulation written
by a genius who probably didn't even know how to wipe himself. So they had
to rely on a home copy made by a collector.
The record companies should have to kiss the backsides of us collectors, just
to remind them whose money they're taking in the first place.
Matthew B. Tepper
be typed in news:20040720160618...@mb-m17.aol.com:
><< Wanda described the Islamey as "junk", and as I own a copy of this
><< which was given to me by one of his students, >>
>
> I'm glad you admit to listening to unapproved performances. Clearly you
> value the opportunity (and brag about it) as much as I would. The
> difference between us is not in our principles but in our access.
God help us if we had to rely on people like Wanda Horowitz for judgements
of musical compositions and performance. You might as well rely on Arthur
MacArthur IV for military strategy and leadership, while you're at it.
Ssg217
Mr. Tepper:
<<When Decca wished to reissue Kathleen Ferrier's broadcast BBC performance of
Chausson's "Poème de l'amour et de la mer," they couldn't use an actual BBC
source -- that had long since been wiped according to some regulation written
by a genius who probably didn't even know how to wipe himself. So they had to
rely on a home copy made by a collector.>>
Imagine one of these recording industry arseholes entering in the possession of
some unknown, private recording of, say, Caruso, in an entire opera performance
[rather than an aria only], or of Joachim performing Brahms' Concerto, or of a
unique recording left by Felix Blumenfeld, who reportedly could extract a more
vocal sound from the piano than Chaliapin could sing. The arsehole would use
the recordings to build a highway. Not the families of the artists are greedy
and inconsiderate, but the ungrateful, overpaid-for-nothing beneficiaries of
the recording industry's most blatant sinecures, upset at their universe
crumbling in ruins under the assault of the inescapable reality.
<<The record companies should have to kiss the backsides of us collectors, just
to remind them whose money they're taking in the first place.>>
Speak for yourself, if you don't mind. I frankly wouldn't dream of feeling on
my holy derriere their lips anymore than I would want to have such hypocrites
anywhere near me in general.
Such a deadweight would have burned Vergilius' Aeneis, according to the
exceedingly exigent -- dying and perhaps confused author's -- own wish,
depriving posterity of a singular masterpiece. Fortunately the disciple in the
hands of whom Vergilius trusted the cruel auto-dafe knew better than to be a
"principled" moron and disobeyed his instructions to the benefit of the future
generations, our included.
regards,
SG
David7Gable
>artist by this group is sincere, then let everyone promise NEVER to touch a
>recording of his that he did not personally approve for general release, no
>matter how interesting it looks, how inexpensive its cost, or how
>quasi-legitimate its provenance.
I wouldn't dream of promising to avoid touching pirates of live Kleiber
performances unapproved for general release by the conductor himself: have you
heard him conduct Otello? He's sensational, and there is no studio recording.
On the other hand, I think Kleiber's studio Traviata is the worst conducted and
most wrong headed performance of an Italian opera I've ever heard.
>Let's see if people here are willing to do more than pay lip-service to the
>right of the artist to leave a legacy of his own choosing
I've never seen anybody here pay service, lip or otherwise, to this particular
right of the artist. Thank God we aren't forced to accept the final
"authorized" versions of Wordsworth's Prelude and Schumann's Davidsbündlertänze
but also have access to earlier versions widely regarded as far superior to
them.
>How about it folks? Anyone prepared to preserve
>Kleiber's memory by insisting on the artistic integrity of his legacy the way
>HE
>defined it?
Absolutely not. As with studio recordings, some are good and some are not.
The "integrity" of his legacy is not going to be helped by suppressing
recordings, "authorized" or not. Nor will it be hurt if some of the
performances aren't all that terrific.
>and, as usual, overpraise the results
I generally have to hear things before I begin overpraising them. Maybe you
should, too.
>we all know perfectly well Kleiber would have regarded as an inexcusable
>slap in the face that defies everything he stood for?
Boy, this is about as far over the top as it gets.
-david gable
JRsnfld
Perhaps we use a different dictionary.
The performance was NOT sollicited, came with other material by the person
who sent it, and was, in fact, something of a surprise when I heard it -
once. It remains buried in a bunch of junk I never listen to. >>
There you go again...it matters not one whit whether it was a good recording or
a bad one. You make a point based on this recording; thus it had intellectual
value, after all, even as "junk," and exclusive value at that. I'll bet others
would like to have heard it once too.
"Unsolicited" or not, I see you decided to keep it, anyway. Like I said, our
principles are similar, just not our access.
--Jeff
Stephen Worth
Tepper <oy兀earthlink.net> wrote:
> God help us if we had to rely on people like Wanda Horowitz for judgements
> of musical compositions and performance.
I've never understood why being related to a genius gives one the
ability to think like one. But I guess Mrs. H and Britten Jr. qualify!
See ya
Steve
--
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VIP RECORDS: Rare 78 rpm recordings on CD in great sound
20s Dance Bands - Swing - Opera - Classical - Vaudeville - Ragtime
FREE MP3s OF COMPLETE SONGS http://www.vintageip.com/records/
justin
I have mixed feelings about releases of unauthorized material, as I
would wish to respect the rights of the artist / author / etc..., but
when one looks at a historical legacy in the long run (say 200-300
years from now), the personal issues or "control" of one's own legacy
don't seem to me as important, especially if the work is of seminal
historic or artistic worth. Is the entire world committing a grave
and mortal sin by reading and enjoying Virgil's Aeneid, one of the
seminal works of literature in all history, because the author wanted
the manuscript burned upon his death? (Luckily it was saved by
Augustus) Should the Classics Departments of Oxford, Yale and
Berkeley be banned from teaching the work?
Both sides of the debate have some merit, and have been argued
elsewhere. That aside, I have a question for Mr. Deacon.
You have written in the group before that you love the Carnegie Hall
recitals by Richter which were on Columbia LPs but withdrawn because
he didn't approve their release or was somehow not satisfied with
them. (I don't know the details and please correct me on the facts if
I am wrong.)
You previously wrote regarding the releases:
-----
There are a couple of problems: first of all Richter did not want to
SEE the microphones. So, my understanding is that they were underneath
the lip of the stage. I have never heard that from engineers, but the
sound of the originals - and I have them all from the early 1960s -
was always extremely compromised. There is not much one can do with
these tapes, I would imagine.
The second problem has to do with the ownership of the tapes. Sony
obviously owns the tapes. But they may not own what is on the tape, as
the deal to record these was made between Columbia and the Goskonzert
agency, in direct contravention of the deal already struck by Sol
Hurok with RCA Victor, which resulted in a few items from the same
tour. Moreover, Richter insisted upon the discs being withdrawn from
the catalogue, which is what made them disappear all of a sudden,
never to appear again
----
I believe you own these Lps and you also recently praised the
Rachmaninoff selections on another Columbia LP and said they were your
favorites.
Again, I apologize if I have misunderstood the facts of the releases
and Richter's wishes, but how can you listen to these and enjoy them
in good conscience if the artist's intention was for you not to hear
them? And how does this influence your thoughts about the rights of
the artist to control their legacy.
Thanks,
Justin
Tom Deacon <deac...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > Perhaps, you know, it is just fine that the ABC buried all those Ignaz
> > Friedman acetates in a landfill. He hadn't approved them for release, just
> > for broadcast. And some sleazy individual - I could give names to such
> > people, but I won't here - screaming about how it was the "right" of
> > everyone today to hear this pianist in his mature years, would have thrown
> > this stuff on the public! >>
>
> I have worked for many, many years in the broadcast business for CBC in
> Canada.
>
> Broadcasts of live music is contracted usually for one, possibly two, plays.
> Period. If further "plays" are requested of the musician or musicians,
> further payments are required. Moreover, the presenter of the concerts, who
> originally hired the artists, is also involved in the discussions.
>
> It may seem "reasonable" for you to assume that an artist would see this
> broadcast as a historic artefact. But to him, it is just a gig, for which he
> was remunerated according to a contract.
>
> Moreover, whose mission is it to preserve the legacy of the artist? Is it
> yours, or your neighbours, or mine? Or does not that belong to the artist
> himself? I would suggest the latter. And probably would have the law on my
> side, at least for a number of decades.
>
> The destruction of the Friedman materials was, perhaps, a mistake. But
> better that mistake than that a number of unprincipled self-styled
> "admirers" would get hold of these materials and make commercial hay out of
> them. The Horowitz CH acetates were mined, partially, by his widow. The rest
> remain locked up in a library. Which is sort of where they belong. Neither
> the artist nor his widow wished any further mining of this particular vein
> of gold (or lead, according to your point of view). Wanda described the
> Islamey as "junk", and as I own a copy of this which was given to me by one
> of his students, I have to agree with her. Moreover, Horowitz's performance
> of the piece is sloppy, both technically and musically. So, better
> forgotten. In any event, we do not have the right to make that decision for
> the artist.
>
> It would be truly appalling should we witness reams of Carlos Kleiber "live"
> material appear for sale now that he has passed away, a la Celibidache. Or,
> perhaps, a la Michelangeli. Or worse still, a la Richter. Quelle horreur!
>
> Sure, his recorded repertoire was small. But he chose to make it that way.
> Let's hope the "pirates" or "admirers" just leave it at that.
>
> TD
Pierre-Normand Houle
"Tom Deacon" <deac...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message news:BD234631.5755%deac...@nospam-yahoo.com...
The issue is not whether such things happen or even whether they are legal
but whether they are desirable.
Matthew B. Tepper
typed in news:20040720235319...@mb-m24.aol.com:
O that I have lived to see the day when my remarks are comparatively
moderate!
The purpose of demanding a record company drone to kiss one's derrière is
not for the physical sensation itself, but for the sense of unbridled joy
that someone from that dishonest industry has been humiliated at last.
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:200720042132190799%ne...@vintageip.com:
> In article <Xns952CC9B9184...@207.217.125.201>, Matthew B.
> Tepper <oyţ@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> God help us if we had to rely on people like Wanda Horowitz for
>> judgements of musical compositions and performance.
>
> I've never understood why being related to a genius gives one the
> ability to think like one. But I guess Mrs. H and Britten Jr. qualify!
Britten Jr.? Who's that? The only blood-relative of Britten I can think
of who might yet survive would be his sister.
A. Brain
news:RbeLc.31665$cR4.3...@weber.videotron.net...
There are all sorts of examples of this, of course. The Bernstein
recording with Glenn Gould of the Brahms piano concerto no. 1,
and the Rubinstein recording(s) of Schubert D. 960 come to mind.
The Brahms clearly was not so eccentric as Bernstein thought,
at least in its broad tempos, and the consensus is that Rubinstein's
1965 recording is better than the one he liked from 1969. Many
would certainly argue that Bernstein's early recordings were much
better than the later ones, but I bet the artist thought he was finally
doing it "right", as I think he said about some late opera recordings.
So I don't think that artists can be implicity trusted to be the best
judges of their works. What is more; every time I pick up
a review magazine, there are discussions about how the recording
process itself robs the performance of spontaneity or whatever,
so if you have someone like Szell obsessing over sound or
whatever, it's not likely to help.
And I reiterate that I would trade most, if not all of Glass, Adams, et
al. for some of the music Brahms threw out. Having said that, I just
read a review of a new recording of the Brahms trios, including the
original version of Op. 8
and the reviewer was puzzling over Brahms' failure to throw that out.
Now I guess I have to buy it to find out how bad the original version
was.
--
A. Brain
Remove NOSPAM for email.
Doru Ionescu
> His greedy relatives, once he was dead and buried, struck a deal for
> money.It was almost as though they didn't even know their father.
Greedy? Why are you so sure?
As far as I know the money are used in artistical and humanitarian
purposes (scholarships, Tibet etc).
All the best,
Doru Ionescu
Ssg217
>read a review of a new recording of the Brahms trios, including the
>original version of Op. 8
>and the reviewer was puzzling over Brahms' failure to throw that out.
>
>Now I guess I have to buy it to find out how bad the original version
>was.
>
>--
>A. Brain
It wasn't any "bad". The reviewer didn't know what he was talking about.
regards,
SG
Andrys Basten
Tom Deacon <deac...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:
>It may seem "reasonable" for you to assume that an artist would see this
>broadcast as a historic artefact. But to him, it is just a gig, for which he
>was remunerated according to a contract.
I have personally met many, and others report the same,
who ASK if they know of anyone who taped one of their
concerts (this happens if they feel it went well), so
sometimes it's not 'just a gig' and, while they might
feel uncomfortable if they knew for sure someone was
recording, they often {and I do mean often} hope outloud
that someone recorded a concert they felt good about.
I've hardly met an artist who didn't request a
tape at some point if one might exist.
I agree totally that if an artist did not do well
in a concert, that tape should not be circulated.
Naturally, they 'should' not be circulated without
prior approvals, but reality for live concerts that
most cannot attend (geographic location) means in
a portable electronic age taping that people will
share with others for no profit whatsoever.
Profiteering from such things is wrong, totally,
but in private trading (that has gone on widely
the 70s), most who do this and share a representation
of what they heard (and what one hears, live,
usually depends on what kind of seat you have) do
that at a loss, financially, if not musically.
I won't argue that legally this is 'wrong' --
I'm just talking reality and that artists often want
an archived copy of a recital/concert that went
well.
- Andrys
--
http://andrys.com
Ssg217
>O that I have lived to see the day when my remarks are comparatively
>moderate!
Oh, Mr. Tepper, we are both "moderates". Only a Saudi-like legislation could
treat these incompetent parasites who call themselves "specialists" in the way
they really and truly deserve.
>The purpose of demanding a record company drone to kiss one's derrière is
>not for the physical sensation itself, but for the sense of unbridled joy
>that someone from that dishonest industry has been humiliated at last.
They are too foolish to realize it.
Our very own Senile Resident of Magisterial Incontrovertible Incompetence had
the gall to comment:
____________
<<Perhaps, you know, it is just fine that the ABC buried all those Ignaz
Friedman acetates in a landfill. He hadn't approved them for release, just
for broadcast. And some sleazy individual - I could give names to such
people, but I won't here - screaming about how it was the "right" of
everyone today to hear this pianist in his mature years, would have thrown
this stuff on the public!>>
________________________
Now who is the Canadian Guru (or CURU, actually, but you don't want to know
what CUR means in Romanian) throwing dirt on? Of course, a specialist of superb
knowledge of piano recordings and their history, a genuine recording producer
of real credentials, rather than frauds landed in places they never deserved.
Well, if you still wonder, the slandered one is none other than Allan Evans,
who makes himself guilty of having a pair of ears attached to his head and
using them.
Allan Evans is surely not as hopelessly DEAF as to publish a Moiseiwitsch
recording under the name of Paderewsky, without even realizing the immense
difference between the technique, sonority and phrasing of the two artists.
Allan Evans is not a lazy sineCURist (again, you don't want to know what CUR
means in Romanian, but it fits) who sinks his incompetent hand in a bucket of
recordings that some rich archives keep handy for him -- no effort of any kind
involved --, picking some stuff at random and forgetting with blatant
incompetence who was that was playing what and when.
Allan Evans actually travels, researches, begs, fights for, unearths rare
recordings. And such an example for us, historical recordings collectors, gets
to be bad-mouthed by an incompetent fossile who wouldn't be able to discover
one important pianist who wasn't already known if [that pianist] came and bit
his ass -- a quite uncouth thing to do, not only according to the principle
that biting asses is uncouth, but also specifically applied to the particular
ass under discussion.
From where I stand, the recording industry would get much further by
multiplying its Allan Evanses, if possible, and sending to the trash bin where
they anyway belong all the unqualified failures who took the industry in the
morass it finds itself in the first place.
And yes, this IS the moderate version of how we should treat these agonizing
and unspeakably worthless weeds.
regards,
SG
Tom Deacon
a59f1ca7.04072...@posting.google.com, "M. Ryan"
<mik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I can see why people would disapprove of a legacy of fine work tainted
> by that performer's off days. (And as a repertoire-based buyer, I'ld
> never buy it anyway!) But to elevate this into an ethical principle of
> 'the performer is the only real judge of his own work' (or something
> like that) would be a mistake.
>
> Artists are not necessarily their own best judges -- part of our
> existing culture is founded on people on ignoring the wishes of the
> original creator.
They may not be always the best judges, but they are the only legal judges.
> Were we to apply this standard retroactively, we would have to toss
> out things like Saint-Saens "Carnival of the Animals", Rachmaninoff's
> Sym #1, most of Emily Dickinson, most of Kafka, perhaps even many of
> Shakespeare's plays. The list could go on for a long time.
You would, I suppose, like to resurrect Brahms' first efforts at string
quartets from the ashes of his chimney?
S-S is not enhanced by the Carnival of the Animals, nor Rachmaninoff by his
Symphony No. 1.
> Just to tie it into another thread: one could argue that artistically
> Szell knew the high/low frequency balance that he wanted with his
> recordings, and Sony re-mastering them is betraying his choices and is
> issuing something he didn't approve.
The only thing Szell specified was the vinyl incarnation.
He never heard a CD in his lifetime.
>
> Over time, the greedy consumerism of the moment will be forgotten, and
> the true art will win out. (We don't see it in the past, because
> we've already forgotten it!)
And I have already forgotten what "points" you were trying to make.
Unsuccessfully.
TD
Tom Deacon
Xns952CC9B887F...@207.217.125.201, "Matthew B. Tepper"
<oy?@earthlink.net> wrote:
> The record companies should have to kiss the backsides of us collectors, just
> to remind them whose money they're taking in the first place.
Nobody should have to kiss Tepper's backside.
Ever.
TD
Tom Deacon
20040720235319...@mb-m24.aol.com, "Ssg217" <ssg...@aol.com>
wrote:
> <<The record companies should have to kiss the backsides of us collectors,
> just
> to remind them whose money they're taking in the first place.>>
>
> Speak for yourself, if you don't mind. I frankly wouldn't dream of feeling on
> my holy derriere their lips anymore than I would want to have such hypocrites
> anywhere near me in general.
Tepper and Golescu would make a lovely picture, I think, in this particular
posture.
TD
Tom Deacon
a7fa5126.0407...@posting.google.com, "justin"
<rmcran...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I can listen to them, Justin, because they were "legally" released through a
deal signed by Richter's agent, Gosskonzert, with a legal entity called
Columbia Records. Richter later implored Columbia to delete them, which they
graciously did. As far as I know the only place where MORE items were
released was Japan, where an additional "encore" LP was released. And the
whole lot may have survived longer in Japan than in the USA. I don't know
for sure. Japan was very far away at that time.
The battle, in this instance, is more between the various contracts which
seem to have been signed simultaneously. As for Richter not seeing the
microphones, he wouldn't have known whether they were the one's signed for
by RCA or by Columbia.
You have to remember that at this time RCA and Columbia were locked in what
one might call "total war", each out to get the other. Richter was merely a
particular incident in this war.
TD
Tom Deacon
Basten" <and...@panix.com> wrote:
What you say is quite true. Artists would often like to "hear" what they
have done. As though they couldn't hear when they were doing the doing.
The "trading" issue - I personally find this noun a soft word to use - is a
problematic one.
How far do the "trades" go? When does one of the "traders" decide to cash in
on what he has in his grubby little hands?
Now we have digital recordings, such trades are often of high quality.
The result may be that the artist will see his or her work not traded by
SOLD.
That is the problem.
TD
Tom Deacon
"Ssg217" <ssg...@aol.com> wrote:
In fact not.
I never even thought of Mr. Evans, who is, from my experience with him, an
absolute gentleman.
Unlike Golescu, or Tepper, of course, who now as the Band of Mad Hatters,
are busy trying to see who is peering up their derrieres.
Answer: each other.
TD
Simon Roberts
a couple of mistakes:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I14124BD8
Simon
Simon Roberts
If you're interested in Celibidache's artistry, it's the only question that's
relevant.
Simon
Owen Hartnett
<david...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Let's see if people here are willing to do more than pay lip-service to the
> >right of the artist to leave a legacy of his own choosing
>
> I've never seen anybody here pay service, lip or otherwise, to this particular
> right of the artist. Thank God we aren't forced to accept the final
> "authorized" versions of Wordsworth's Prelude and Schumann's
> Davidsbündlertänze
> but also have access to earlier versions widely regarded as far superior to
> them.
Nobody gets to leave a legacy of their own choosing. If we applied
this to everyone, Nixon would be remembered as only a great statesman.
-Owen
Tom Deacon
<sd...@comcast.net> wrote:
If I was interested in his artistry, I would have gone to his concerts.
Presumably he allowed an audience to attend his seances with dead composers.
TD
Tom Deacon
"Owen Hartnett" <ow...@xids.xnet> wrote:
You remember him as something else, perhaps?
TD
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:210720040925452410%ow...@xids.xnet:
> Nobody gets to leave a legacy of their own choosing. If we applied
> this to everyone, Nixon would be remembered as only a great statesman.
Lord Dunsany wrote a little book entitled _If I Were Dictator_. In it are
many capricious ideas about how the world might be made over. One of them
is that any politician may apply to have a statue of himself put up, but
his political opponents get to select the quotation or motto which appears
on the plaque.
Matthew B. Tepper
the "r" turned to an "l."
Todd Schurk
> On 7/20/04 3:16 PM, in article RbeLc.31665$cR4.3...@weber.videotron.net,
> "Pierre-Normand Houle" <houlepn...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Tom Deacon" <deac...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message news:BD22832C.56CD%
> >
> >> We have heard this all before.
> >>
> >> Each and every issue of "live" "unapproved" material could have this little
> >> homily tacked onto it.
> >>
> >>
> >> Everything stops there. You cannot go further with the arguments, as this
> >> very fact blocks all other moves.
> >>
> >> Just deal with it.
>
> > problems with the idea that conductors (and artists, generally) are
> > authoritative censors of their "own" collaborative efforts in the midst of a
> living tradition.
>
> had to be withdrawn after being issued because it did not have the approval
> of one of the artists.
>
> Does that answer your questions?
>
The recording was not "Meistersinger" but "Gotterdamerung" that was
withdrawn by testament. And a pity it was for it is one of the great
performances. I'm lucky I got my copy the day it came out.
Tom Deacon
5c7b5e29.0407...@posting.google.com, "Todd Schurk"
<patte...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Tom Deacon <deac...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<BD234631.5755%deac...@nospam-yahoo.com>...
>> A recent instructive case was the release of Meistersinger on Testament. It
>> had to be withdrawn after being issued because it did not have the approval
>> of one of the artists.
>>
>> Does that answer your questions?
>>
>> TD
>
> The recording was not "Meistersinger" but "Gotterdamerung" that was
> withdrawn by testament. And a pity it was for it is one of the great
> performances. I'm lucky I got my copy the day it came out.
Correct. My mistake.
TD
ansermetniac
<deac...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:
>My mistake.
>
>TD
Has hell frozen over?
Abbedd
________________
Go To Abbedd's Place For the MP3S of the Week
http://members.aol.com/abbedd/abbedd
Boycott Inglotted CDS
http://home.earthlink.net/~abbedd/noinglottecds.htm
E.A.F.E.
Ssg217
>
>the "r" turned to an "l."
Judging by how obsessed the Canadian Curu is with it, he is a rose that
shouldn't be called by any other name.
regards,
SG
Ssg217
>The recording was not "Meistersinger" but "Gotterdamerung" that was
>withdrawn by testament.
For a "specialist" it's the same difference. The miracle is when one of them
remembers it's Wagner.
regards,
SG
Pierre-Normand Houle
"Ssg217" <ssg...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20040721132349...@mb-m11.aol.com...
Lindsay Wagner? Didn't know she was an opera signer too.
Richard Loeb
"Todd Schurk" <patte...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5c7b5e29.0407...@posting.google.com...
Roland van Gaalen
news:5c7b5e29.0407...@posting.google.com...
> Tom Deacon <deac...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<BD234631.5755%deac...@nospam-yahoo.com>...
[...]
> > A recent instructive case was the release of Meistersinger on Testament.
It
> > had to be withdrawn after being issued because it did not have the
approval
> > of one of the artists.
> >
> > Does that answer your questions?
> >
> > TD
>
> The recording was not "Meistersinger" but "Gotterdamerung" that was
> withdrawn by testament. And a pity it was for it is one of the great
> performances. I'm lucky I got my copy the day it came out.
Which performance was this?
--
Roland van Gaalen
Amsterdam
r.p.vangaalenATchello.nl (AT=@)
Richard Loeb
never released until a few years ago. Richard
"Roland van Gaalen" <SeeSig...@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:2m7qe8F...@uni-berlin.de...
Owen Hartnett
<deac...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Nobody gets to leave a legacy of their own choosing. If we applied
> > this to everyone, Nixon would be remembered as only a great statesman.
>
>
> You remember him as something else, perhaps?
There seems to have been a few other items, like taking us off the gold
standard, and opening relations with China (er, Chiner), and something
else, which I can't quite put my finger on....
-Owen
Owen Hartnett
Pierre-Normand Houle <houlepn...@attglobal.net> wrote:
As a bionic woman, I'd say she's capable of anything.
-Owen
Tom Deacon
"Ssg217" <ssg...@aol.com> wrote:
Very surprising that Golescu seems to know his Wagner from his Wagner.
After all, old Richard was an arch Jew-hater. His music was always featured
at Nazi affairs.
Golescu also claims a predilection for Mengelberg and Furtwangler. And maybe
even Cortot. YIKES!
Is there a pattern here? I think so. It's all about loving one's torturers.
They call it masochism in technical jargon.
One might also call it stupidity, which fits.
TD
Simon Roberts
You're a bionic woman? Cool!
Simon
Tom Deacon
"Owen Hartnett" <ow...@xids.xnet> wrote:
I have the same problem.
Great man, Nixon. And his Veep was sterling too, as I remember.
TD
Stephen Worth
<deac...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Artists are not necessarily their own best judges -- part of our
> > existing culture is founded on people on ignoring the wishes of the
> > original creator.
>
> They may not be always the best judges, but they are the only legal judges.
I thought the record label had the right to decide what gets released
and what doesn't.
See ya
Steve
--
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VIP RECORDS: Rare 78 rpm recordings on CD in great sound
20s Dance Bands - Swing - Opera - Classical - Vaudeville - Ragtime
FREE MP3s OF COMPLETE SONGS http://www.vintageip.com/records/
Owen Hartnett
<deac...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 7/21/04 3:06 PM, in article 210720041506084873%ow...@xids.xnet,
> "Owen Hartnett" <ow...@xids.xnet> wrote:
>
> > In article <BD23EE70.57FC%deac...@nospam-yahoo.com>, Tom Deacon
> > <deac...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> Nobody gets to leave a legacy of their own choosing. If we applied
> >>> this to everyone, Nixon would be remembered as only a great statesman.
> >>
> >>
> >> You remember him as something else, perhaps?
> >
> > There seems to have been a few other items, like taking us off the gold
> > standard, and opening relations with China (er, Chiner), and something
> > else, which I can't quite put my finger on....
>
> I have the same problem.
>
> Great man, Nixon. And his Veep was sterling too, as I remember.
No, he was Spiro, we never had a Veep named Sterling.
-Owen
Owen Hartnett
<sd...@comcast.net> wrote:
Oops! The secret's out, not to mention my dangling modifier.
-Owen
JRsnfld
From: david...@aol.com (David7Gable)
Date: Tue, Jul 20, 2004 9:11 PM
Message-id: <20040721001112...@mb-m16.aol.com>
>if the almost unanimous respect accorded this
>artist by this group is sincere, then let everyone promise NEVER to touch a
>recording of his that he did not personally approve for general release, no
>matter how interesting it looks, how inexpensive its cost, or how
>quasi-legitimate its provenance.
I wouldn't dream of promising to avoid touching pirates of live Kleiber
performances unapproved for general release by the conductor himself: have you
heard him conduct Otello? He's sensational, and there is no studio recording.
On the other hand, I think Kleiber's studio Traviata is the worst conducted and
most wrong headed performance of an Italian opera I've ever heard.
>Let's see if people here are willing to do more than pay lip-service to the
>right of the artist to leave a legacy of his own choosing
I've never seen anybody here pay service, lip or otherwise, to this particular
right of the artist. Thank God we aren't forced to accept the final
"authorized" versions of Wordsworth's Prelude and Schumann's Davidsbündlertänze
but also have access to earlier versions widely regarded as far superior to
them.
>How about it folks? Anyone prepared to preserve
>Kleiber's memory by insisting on the artistic integrity of his legacy the way
>HE
>defined it?
Absolutely not. As with studio recordings, some are good and some are not.
The "integrity" of his legacy is not going to be helped by suppressing
recordings, "authorized" or not. Nor will it be hurt if some of the
performances aren't all that terrific.
>and, as usual, overpraise the results
I generally have to hear things before I begin overpraising them. Maybe you
should, too.
>we all know perfectly well Kleiber would have regarded as an inexcusable
>slap in the face that defies everything he stood for?
Boy, this is about as far over the top as it gets.
-david gable >>
Of course--so over the top that we can actually assume the author is beign
facetious. After all, he apparently does not live by them and actually urges
us to ignore them. I refer you to his Classicstoday.com Web site, which
reviewed this very pirated Otello from Kleiber, on Opera D'Oro, and gave it a
very strong recommendation to consumers: "remarkable performance" the reviewer
says. Classicstoday reviews and recommends purchase of numerous pirated
performances, released without consent of the artists.
--Jeff
Tom Deacon
"Stephen Worth" <ne...@vintageip.com> wrote:
> In article <BD23C931.57CE%deac...@nospam-yahoo.com>, Tom Deacon
> <deac...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Artists are not necessarily their own best judges -- part of our
>>> existing culture is founded on people on ignoring the wishes of the
>>> original creator.
>>
>> They may not be always the best judges, but they are the only legal judges.
>
> I thought the record label had the right to decide what gets released
> and what doesn't.
We were discussing "live" material, Steve.
You should check the thread before you chime in.
TD
Dave Hurwitz
>
>
>I can see why people would disapprove of a legacy of fine work tainted
>by that performer's off days. (And as a repertoire-based buyer, I'ld
>never buy it anyway!) But to elevate this into an ethical principle of
>'the performer is the only real judge of his own work' (or something
>like that) would be a mistake.
I think you miss my point. I do not elevate the concept to an "ethical
principal" in general--only with respect to artists whose wishes are clearly
known or can be deduced with reasonably accuracy from their behavior during
their lifetimes. I would not apply the same standard, for example, to Neeme
Jarvi, or Martha Argerich, or any number of artists whose willingness to release
many recordings, multiple recordings of the same works, or recordings clearly
not representitive of their best work demonstrates that they are not entitled to
the same degree of consideration. I am speaking here of consideration for the
rights of the artist--a moral consideration--to which I feel Kleiber is entitled
because it was precisely his refusal to flood the market with recordings and his
high musical standards that account for his reputation in the first place. Any
violation of his clear intent in this regard will inevitably damage his
reputation. This strikes me as given.
>
>Artists are not necessarily their own best judges -- part of our
>existing culture is founded on people on ignoring the wishes of the
>original creator.
This is also true, but again, it is you who are generalizing the matter when I
am speaking of a specific case. We have no evidence for this being the case with
Kleiber. I have, in fact, heard virtually every pirate issues of his
performances (and some private stuff besides) and I would say that he WAS indeed
the best judge of his own work. And even if he were not, that does not address
my point, which is whether or not anyone else has the moral right to second
guess him in this respect. Indeed, I find your comment extremely ingenuous as it
applies to this particular case, since, once again, it is precisely the scarcity
of his interpretations that has created their value.
>
>
>Over time, the greedy consumerism of the moment will be forgotten, and
>the true art will win out. (We don't see it in the past, because
>we've already forgotten it!)
>
This may also be true, but this is also not the point. I am all for "letting the
market decide" when all of the products coming to market start on a level
playing field: that is, those labels that took the time, trouble, and expense to
manufacture a product to the artist's exacting specification are not undercut by
a flood of illegal pirate issues or postumously "authorized" but similarly
haphazzard posthumous "historical" editions. Or let me put it to you
this way: all pirated recordings or posthumous editions should be required to
have a label stating the following:
"This content of disc was stolen, and produced without the artist's permission
or consent, and therefore may not in any way represent work which he deemed
worthy of preservation and presentation to the public."
If they do that, then we have a level playing field, do we not, because people
then know what they are buying.
You see, many members of this group operate from the incorrect assumption that
the rest of the world knows what you do--that these are pirates and that you buy
them at your own risk because you have an interest in this particular conductor
no matter what the thing actually sounds like or how bad it turns out to be. But
as I have said so many times, your views are atypical, and your monetary
contribution to the survival of classical music on disc irrelevant in the grand
scheme of things.
Most people are not so interested in Kleiber that they will buy anything, no
matter how crappy, as long as his name is attached to it. Normal people want
single copies of specific works, not multiple copies of the same thing by the
same guy (or dozens of different artists) and they feel comfortable choosing
Kleiber because of the quality image that attaches to his name. These people
constitute the vast majority of classical music purchasers. They have a right to
know that they are buying a product sanctioned by the artist in question when
this forms part of the reason for making the purchase in the first place.
So what may be delightful for a few of you is a terrible disservice to the
public at large, the public that truly sustains the classical music recording
industry. If the industry were ever stupid enough to cater to the demands made
of it in this NG, it would be as bankrupt as those demands are, for the most
part, ridiculous. I say this not to insult: these are facts. Others here have
deplored such sentiments as the sinister musings of industry "insiders." Well,
folks, there are some things we insiders know, and you may disgregard our
efforts to explain the real world to you and share that knowledge all you like,
but that doesn't change the facts.
Or let me put it to you this way: that Tom Deacon and I are in agreement on this
issue ought to give at least some of you pause.
Dave Hurwitz
Paul Goldstein
>
>In article <BD23C931.57CE%deac...@nospam-yahoo.com>, Tom Deacon
><deac...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > Artists are not necessarily their own best judges -- part of our
>> > existing culture is founded on people on ignoring the wishes of the
>> > original creator.
>>
>> They may not be always the best judges, but they are the only legal judges.
>
>I thought the record label had the right to decide what gets released
>and what doesn't.
Under U.S. law, this is strictly a matter of contract. Some contracts provide
the artist with the right to disapprove a recording, and thereby to prevent the
record company from releasing it. Other contracts omit such a provision. It is
up to the parties to negotiate their deal.
In other threads, I've speculated that record companies may sometimes honor an
artist's request to refrain from releasing a given recording, even though the
artist does not have the contractual power to insist on it.
You'd have to examine the relevant contract (and talk to the lawyers or business
people involved) to know for sure whether the artist had an enforceable right of
approval, or whether the record company withheld the recording for some other
reason.
Paul Goldstein
Paul Goldstein
>it is precisely the scarcity
No, it is - and can only be - the quality of his interpretations that has
created their value. If scarcity of output sufficed to create value, a
conductor like Semyon Bychko would be as valued as Kleiber. The scarcity of
output simply adds an aura of mystery to the performer.
>This may also be true, but this is also not the point. I am all for "letting the
>market decide" when all of the products coming to market start on a level
>playing field: that is, those labels that took the time, trouble, and expense to
>manufacture a product to the artist's exacting specification are not undercut by
>a flood of illegal pirate issues or postumously "authorized" but similarly
>haphazzard posthumous "historical" editions. Or let me put it to you
>this way: all pirated recordings or posthumous editions should be required to
>have a label stating the following:
>
>"This content of disc was stolen, and produced without the artist's permission
>or consent, and therefore may not in any way represent work which he deemed
>worthy of preservation and presentation to the public."
>
>If they do that, then we have a level playing field, do we not, because people
>then know what they are buying.
>You see, many members of this group operate from the incorrect assumption that
>the rest of the world knows what you do--that these are pirates and that you buy
>them at your own risk because you have an interest in this particular conductor
>no matter what the thing actually sounds like or how bad it turns out to be. But
>as I have said so many times, your views are atypical, and your monetary
>contribution to the survival of classical music on disc irrelevant in the grand
>scheme of things.
You imply that "the rest of the world" has been duped into buying posthumously
released and inferior recordings by some artists, instead of buying those
artists' approved commercial releases. What evidence do you have that this is
true? Anything beyond self-serving tales of woe by industry executives?
>Most people are not so interested in Kleiber that they will buy anything, no
>matter how crappy, as long as his name is attached to it. Normal people want
>single copies of specific works, not multiple copies of the same thing by the
>same guy (or dozens of different artists) and they feel comfortable choosing
>Kleiber because of the quality image that attaches to his name. These people
>constitute the vast majority of classical music purchasers. They have a right to
>know that they are buying a product sanctioned by the artist in question when
>this forms part of the reason for making the purchase in the first place.
In my experience, such people can be counted upon to look for the DGG Cartouche,
and to ignore anything else they may see in the bin. What evidence do you have
to the contrary?
Paul Goldstein
Stephen Worth
<deac...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I thought the record label had the right to decide what gets released
> > and what doesn't.
>
> We were discussing "live" material, Steve.
I understand that, but the artists are rarely the ones who have control
over what gets released and what doesn't, whether it's a live or studio
recording.
I would bet that most artists, if they had a say, would prefer that
MORE of their recordings be available to the public, not less. It's
swell to be gung-ho for artists' rights. But if you're going to be
honest about it, you have to admit just who it is that holds all the
cards.
My point is this... protecting the rights of corporations isn't
necessarily the same as protecting the rights of the creator. The way
the system has been set up, the balance of power is all on the
corporate side. Artists really don't have a heck of a lot of say at
all.
The record companies are the ones who hold the keys to our musical
culture. That isn't just a right... it's a responsibility. And that
responsibility to the public gives music lovers a right to complain if
the companies aren't being good stewards of our musical heritage.
The sad thing is how little power artists really have. Thankfully,
corporations only hold the keys for a certain length of time. Then the
locks come off and the music belongs to everyone. You can't steal what
already belongs to you.
Stephen Worth
<pgoldst5...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Under U.S. law, this is strictly a matter of contract. Some contracts provide
> the artist with the right to disapprove a recording, and thereby to prevent
> the record company from releasing it. Other contracts omit such a provision.
> It is up to the parties to negotiate their deal.
That's absolutely true on the face of it. But are you aware of the
chances of an average (non-superstar) recording artist being able to
negotiate final approval rights? The answer is no chance in hell...
It's not a matter of "negotiations". Artists' rights just don't exist
for the vast majority of artists; and if they do exist at all, it's in
a very limited form.
> In other threads, I've speculated that record companies may sometimes honor an
> artist's request to refrain from releasing a given recording, even though the
> artist does not have the contractual power to insist on it.
I would bet that's a very rare circumstance. The easiest way to see
that is to try to see how far that respect for the artist goes... Say
an artist feels that a particular recording, or group of recordings,
represents his best work. What chance do you think the artist would
have convincing the record company to release them if the company had
no plans to do that otherwise? Do you think that the majority of
classical performers feel that they are well served by the way the
major labels are handling their catalogs?
Ssg217
Dave Hurwitz:
>Or let me put it to you
>this way: all pirated recordings or posthumous editions should be required to
>have a label stating the following:
>
>"This content of disc was stolen, and produced without the artist's
>permission
>or consent, and therefore may not in any way represent work which he deemed
>worthy of preservation and presentation to the public."
LOL! I expect recording labels will rush to apply your idea . . . ( :
>Or let me put it to you this way: that Tom Deacon and I are in agreement on
>this
>issue ought to give at least some of you pause.
There are some who may be tempted to rather say: that Tom Deacon and you are in
agreement on this issue ought to give *you* some pause. (-;
regards,
SG
Peter Breskin
news:100448770.0...@drn.newsguy.com...
> it is precisely the scarcity
> of his interpretations that has created their value.
Thanks--I always thought it was their quality. My mistake.
> folks, there are some things we insiders know, and you may disgregard our
> efforts to explain the real world to you and share that knowledge all you
like,
I wonder if you realize exactly how much your efforts are appreciated.
Peter
David Hurwitz
>There are some who may be tempted to rather say: that Tom Deacon and you are in
>agreement on this issue ought to give *you* some pause. (-;
>
>regards,
>SG
LOL! Not least the two of us, I'm sure.
Dave
Andrys Basten
Tom Deacon <deac...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:
>What you say is quite true. Artists would often like to "hear" what they
>have done. As though they couldn't hear when they were doing the doing.
It's not the same as when they're trying to perform. Some
feel as if they're in a time warp. I've seen some call
a concert the best they've ever done when playing near their
worst and the opposite situation too. But I've heard that
some feel as if they go on automatic (though not really)
and have no idea how the music making came across on 'the other side'...
>The "trading" issue - I personally find this noun a soft word to use - is a
>problematic one.
>
>How far do the "trades" go? When does one of the "traders" decide to cash in
>on what he has in his grubby little hands?
I've so far seen only two sites that charge for these things, and
most forum types warn against any interaction with them. They're
scorned by the great majority of people I've ever encountered, who just
at times pass on wanted concerts to friends in other cities, who wish
they'd heard one, with the kind of generosity that doesn't expect an
even exchange.
Warnings about that type of person (rare) won't always work because
some don't know how to even start exchanges.
I've not met people who would accept shipping costs or cost of
materials unless you threaten never to accept another concert.
But then I've mainly come across people who mainly want to share
and hear various concerts. These are also people who spend a lot
of money for any official recordings sold.
>Now we have digital recordings, such trades are often of high quality.
That's true. Still, sound quality isn't the driving factor.
Almost all of these people go to concerts constantly, paying top
dollar, and they are heavy buyers of label recordings.
>The result may be that the artist will see his or her work not traded by
>SOLD.
That would be really lousy. But I'm glad to say that in my own
experience I've not come across that except under agreements with
an artist or his/her estate.
>That is the problem.
It definitely can be. Agreed.
- Andrys
--
http://andrys.com
David Hurwitz
>
>In article <100448770.0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Dave Hurwitz says...
>>it is precisely the scarcity
>>of [Carlos Kleiber's] interpretations that has created their value.
>
>No, it is - and can only be - the quality of his interpretations that has
>created their value. If scarcity of output sufficed to create value, a
>conductor like Semyon Bychko would be as valued as Kleiber. The scarcity of
>output simply adds an aura of mystery to the performer.
The naivté of that statement is really quite frightening.
>
>You imply that "the rest of the world" has been duped into buying posthumously
>released and inferior recordings by some artists, instead of buying those
>artists' approved commercial releases. What evidence do you have that this is
>true? Anything beyond self-serving tales of woe by industry executives?
I have never heard any "self-serving tales of woe" by industry executives on
this issue, nor have I discussed it with them. Those executives are as guilty as
anyone for the current glut, and indeed caused it to a degree far in excess of
the impact of pirate recordings, which is in fact a recent phenomenon on its
current, international scale (and growing worse). I have plenty of evidence of
exactly the problem of which I speak from my previous work on the retail side,
as well as from my personal and ongoing contacts with classical buyers at major
chain and independent stores. Had I not this evidence, I would not have made the
claims that I do. That said, I feel no special impulse to rise to your challenge
to "prove" anything. I am simply sharing the results of my professional
experience with the group. You, and they, may believe about it what you like.
Dave Hurwitz
Tom Deacon
"Stephen Worth" <ne...@vintageip.com> wrote:
> In article <BD2464C0.58A1%deac...@nospam-yahoo.com>, Tom Deacon
> <deac...@nospam-yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> I thought the record label had the right to decide what gets released
>>> and what doesn't.
>>
>> We were discussing "live" material, Steve.
>
> I understand that, but the artists are rarely the ones who have control
> over what gets released and what doesn't, whether it's a live or studio
> recording.
You really should KNOW MORE about what you say.
Your ideas are completely wrong.
Artists ALWAYS are the ones who decide what happens to their work.
Always.
TD
Tom Deacon
"Stephen Worth" <ne...@vintageip.com> wrote:
> In article <cdmqo...@drn.newsguy.com>, Paul Goldstein
> <pgoldst5...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Under U.S. law, this is strictly a matter of contract. Some contracts
>> provide
>> the artist with the right to disapprove a recording, and thereby to prevent
>> the record company from releasing it. Other contracts omit such a provision.
>> It is up to the parties to negotiate their deal.
>
> That's absolutely true on the face of it. But are you aware of the
> chances of an average (non-superstar) recording artist being able to
> negotiate final approval rights? The answer is no chance in hell...
> It's not a matter of "negotiations". Artists' rights just don't exist
> for the vast majority of artists; and if they do exist at all, it's in
> a very limited form.
Evidence, please.
>> In other threads, I've speculated that record companies may sometimes honor
>> an
>> artist's request to refrain from releasing a given recording, even though the
>> artist does not have the contractual power to insist on it.
>
> I would bet that's a very rare circumstance. The easiest way to see
> that is to try to see how far that respect for the artist goes... Say
> an artist feels that a particular recording, or group of recordings,
> represents his best work. What chance do you think the artist would
> have convincing the record company to release them if the company had
> no plans to do that otherwise? Do you think that the majority of
> classical performers feel that they are well served by the way the
> major labels are handling their catalogs?
A different matter.
The artist almost NEVER has rights over what a company re-releases, once the
original recording has been cut out of the catalogue.
Nor should he or she. At that point, the only reason to issue the item is
potential sales.
The market rules.
Always.
TD
Tom Deacon
Basten" <and...@panix.com> wrote:
And just imagine how long it will take someone to start to cash in on the
Carlos Kleiber "live" pirated recordings?
This is precisely the danger which Hurwitz raised in his piece.
It is precisely the problem we are adressing. Not the friendly trades, which
I personally dislike, but the commercialization of an artist who closely
guarded his reputation throughout his life.
The Michelangeli situation is quite catastrophic. For a man who slaved over
each and every note to have his concerts appear on junk labels like Aura is
particularly galling.
And then there is Jacob Harnoy's "Legendary" series devoted to pirated
Gilels, Kogan et al.
Shameful. Disgusting. Vile.
TD
Stephen Worth
<David_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> Those executives are as guilty as
> anyone for the current glut, and indeed caused it to a degree far in excess of
> the impact of pirate recordings
I refuse to believe that there's a "glut" of music on the market. In
fact, the exact opposite is true. I go into a CD store and see very
little of interest. The racks are filled with a tiny handful of nearly
identical recordings. If less recordings on the market was the solution
to the problem, business would already be booming.
The real problem is a lack of smarts when it comes to promoting and
marketing music. The record companies have shown absolutely no interest
in cultivating listenership in the classical music market. The dismal
sales figures reflect that. How do you sell someone a Shostakovich or
Mahler cycle when you haven't even gotten them interested in Mozart and
Beethoven yet? The only introduction most people have to classical
music is on boring background music FM stations and in stuffy college
music appreciation classes. That isn't the fault of the music or the
people who make it... and it certainly doesn't mean that there's too
much music out there. Naxos is proof-positive that deep catalog *can*
be profitable; and its historical line is proof that older recordings
sell too. Its catalog invites repeat business and cultivates its
customers to try out unknown repetoire.
No... the problem has nothing to do with music. The problem wears a
suit. You can only exist on automatic pilot so long... eventually the
customers start slipping away.