It has been a bit more than a week since the news broke that many, if not all, of British pianist Joyce Hatto’s recordings for her husband’s Concert Artist label are fakes. One fact is clear. As far as the damage done to the so-called victims, those artists whose work was pirated and issued under Hatto’s name, there probably isn’t a one who shouldn’t be lining up to kiss the recently deceased lady on her cold and decaying lips. And they aren’t alone. Sound cynical? Let’s take a moment and work our way down this particular food chain, examining the impact of the scandal on the various participants.
The Predator
William Barrington-Coupe
Now that the cat’s out of the bag, Barrington-Coupe has done the smart thing. First, he has suggested that he himself is the victim of either some nefarious English plot to “take him down,” or of some specific person’s malice. He also claims, rather more interestingly, that the recordings are indeed genuine and that he will bring his own technicians in to analyze them and prove it. His victimization theory we can dismiss out of hand; it’s paranoid and silly. The second assertion is both more interesting and more difficult to tackle. Either Barrington-Couple is out of his mind and living in his own reality (possible, particularly in this business), or he’s a very shrewd con man.
Personally, I opt for the latter view, and don’t care about the former. As the owner and head of Concert Artist, not to mention the theoretically zealous guardian of his wife’s legacy, he is ultimately responsible for everything that the label does, period. So let’s retain at least a smidgeon of moral and legal clarity in this respect. Trying to frame the issue in terms of a purportedly objective, technological solution is a smart move on his part, one which has been handed to him on a silver platter by Gramophone in foolishly attempting to “prove” the identity of the first two stolen recordings (Chopin Mazurkas and Liszt Transcendental Etudes) that way, rather than by appealing to the ears of its resident staff of expert, seasoned critics.
In order to answer this accusation, all Barrington-Coupe has to do is produce his own analysis which shows the various recordings as different, no difficult task since they have been altered sonically and in other ways as well (time-stretching, pitch, etc). Indeed, many of the performances seem to be composites of several different recordings, making identification extremely difficult and time-consuming. By standing his ground and reducing the facts to a battle of technical experts, rather than leaving it to the sound judgment of knowledgeable music lovers and critics based on musical details of interpretation (phrasing, dynamics, accent, relative timing), Barrington-Coupe stands at least a fighting chance, should he be so inclined, of surviving the authenticity challenge.
Muddying the waters, and in general creating a protracted and torturous process, works to his advantage. Already several labels have told me that there is no financial benefit to engaging a lawyer in the U.K. to fight this issue. It is simply too expensive irrespective of the likely outcome (Would any award for damages be collectable at all?), and the longer it takes, the more costly any sort of legal action becomes. Hopefully someone will at least have the enthusiasm and resources to seek an injunction closing Concert Artist down, but this is by no means assured, particularly when we consider the reality of the damages done and harm caused.
The Prey
Labels and Artists
If this episode teaches anything, it is that there is no such thing as bad publicity. It’s a fact that the artists and labels whose work thus far has been revealed as the source of the purported Hatto recordings are being given a degree of attention that they would never have otherwise received. Also, because the pirated recordings really are mostly excellent, despite the sporadic ire directed at critics for having been duped in the first place, the general consensus seems to be that a recommendation made in good faith still stands (as well it should), irrespective of the identity of the artist. The result is, at the end of the day, an opportunity for the labels, the artists, and music lovers.
Granted, this being classical music, it’s not exactly a financial bonanza, but more significantly, at least from the legal perspective, it will be difficult for either the labels or the artists to substantiate a claim for money damages. The reason is simple. People who purchased the fakes on Concert Artist thought they were buying Joyce Hatto; they did not know about, and would never have purchased the originals. This isn’t a zero-sum game, after all, so although there’s no question that the material for the Hatto discs was stolen, and that the victims are entitled to compensation accordingly, the quantitative degree of harm done (statutory penalties aside) will be extremely tricky, if not impossible to assess.
More to the point, the greater the enthusiasm with which the labels and artists capitalize on their newfound notoriety, the more they bolster the defense’s potential argument that no harm was actually done them. And let’s not kid ourselves: most will not be able to resist. Virtually all artists believe that they are unjustly ignored. Who among them will not claim to be a victim? Unfortunately, this mentality is hard-wired into the entire state and tax-subsidized performing arts culture. Given a legally just cause, the temptation will surely be overwhelming. As more stolen material gradually comes to light, and Concert Artist remains in the public eye, the chance for artists and labels to seek some form of opportunistic benefit grows accordingly, and further weakens the case for material damages.
For just this reason, Classicstoday.com will not be publishing any lists of additional stolen material. We have in fact identified quite a few recordings aside from those already published in various chat rooms, websites, and on Wikipedia. Our policy is to note the correct artists to the extent possible for the eleven discs that we actually reviewed. This is our responsibility to our readers, as well as to the labels and artists in question. Otherwise, we have been informing the labels directly of anything else we have discovered. It is, after all, their right to decide what to do with the information.
The Scavengers
1. The Media
Classical music seldom makes the news, not because it’s classical, but because music is not news. Think about it. Pop music is about the often revolting personalities of star singers, seldom if ever about performance. When Britney Spears shaves her head and enters rehab, or Michael Jackson goes on trial for child molestation, or some rapper gets gunned down, that’s news. You won’t find a major column devoted to Miss Spears’ stunning rendition of song “x” at her most recent concert. Similarly, when Riccardo Muti has a battle royal at La Scala and resigns in disgust, that’s news too. People (especially artists) who complain about the dearth of attention accorded classical music have an easy way to address the problem: commit a crime, attempt suicide, do something stupid or grotesque, and they’ll get plenty of attention. Kathleen Battle built an entire career on being obnoxious behind the scenes. It can be done, even in classical music.
The media certainly understands this reality, and no one is immune from its effects. Traffic at Classicstoday.com has surged since this hoax first came to light. I suspect the same is true for MusicWeb, the most vocal supporter of Hatto and her work. Within 24 hours of Gramophone’s breaking the story, I received a press release from their U.S. publicist congratulating them on their perspicacity and (incorrectly) taking full credit on their behalf for the discovery. The promise of a major article in a forthcoming issue will keep the Hatto affair in the spotlight for as long as humanly possible. This is news. It has little if anything to do with music; it certainly doesn’t serve the cause of promoting the classics to existing music lovers or new listeners. Indeed, it appeals to the same audience that follows pop music news: the people who like to read about artists behaving badly.
The critics who were taken in by the hoax are also embarrassed, and this too is news, at least to those who already view the profession with a jaundiced eye. I have been very gratified by the number of emails I have received from readers agreeing with the position expressed in my previous editorial, and expressing confidence in our work. No one who actually purchased a Hatto CD on our recommendation has communicated any dissatisfaction at all to us on musical grounds. The hate mail, on the other hand, exclusively concerns the fact that we were fooled into reviewing these recordings in the first place, and in particular that we had the nerve to praise them. There really is no answer to that accusation: we did it, we stand by our recommendations, we’re not sorry, and that’s that.
2. The Technical Experts
Two further parties also belong in the list of scavengers: The Research Centre for the History and Analysis of Recorded Music at Royal Holloway College, The University of London, and Andrew Rose of Pristine Audio. The former is enjoying its fifteen minutes of fame for discovering that Hatto’s set of Chopin Mazurkas is really Eugen Indjic’s Calliope recording, a happy state of affairs for an otherwise useless organization engaged in an ongoing waste of time at the British taxpayer’s expense. Mr. Rose was asked by Gramophone to analyze the Liszt Transcendental Etudes to confirm what our ears already told us: that these were largely the same as the Laszlo Simon recording on BIS. Since that initial effort, Rose has built an entire “Hatto Hoax” mini-website and is relentlessly promoting himself, and by extension his real work, in various classical music internet chat rooms. He seems to be enjoying himself immensely.
ITunes and the Gracenotes database are also no doubt pleased as punch for their part in making it easier to identify the original source recordings. The former has reason to chortle: it’s a marvelous service that reveals the interesting and unusual role that the internet, digital downloads, and new technology may play in keeping a chaotic industry honest. The latter is in a different position: the Gracenotes database is replete with errors. The fact that Simon’s recording was correctly identified can’t alter the fact that it also confirmed that the two tracks on the Hatto CD that were not from the BIS disc belonged to it as well. So the jury is still out on the utility of this partially functional resource. It’s better than nothing, but far from ideal.
Wikipedia, the online reader-created free encyclopedia, also has an interesting role to play in this saga. Within a day or so of the news breaking, the Joyce Hatto article had been substantially revised. It now sports an ongoing list of purportedly stolen recordings, which is all very nice as long as the information provided is indeed accurate. So far it seems to have been carefully compiled, and the attributions judiciously worded. Still, the possibility for mischief is very real. It will be fascinating to see how this tale continues to unfold, and if future entries adhere to minimum standards of editorial responsibility.
3. The Protozoa
Finally, at the bottom of the food chain, and last on the list of scavengers, comes the classical music lunatic fringe: the piano wackos, conspiracy theorists, disaffected losers, self-styled chat room “critics,” and other unicellular organisms. They wouldn’t be worth mentioning at all save for the noise and clutter that they produce. I’ve received email from some of them. When I bother to read it, which is seldom, it only confirms the utter futility of engaging in any sort of ongoing dialog with someone whose limited vision only operates by virtue of hindsight. It’s extremely funny, if also a mite pathetic, to hear the cries of “I told you so,” the assertions that “I would never have been fooled,” and that ultimate badge of honor: “I never bought or listened to a Hatto CD!”
All I can say in answer to this last assertion is that I bought all of my 90+ Hatto CDs at full price from Crotchet (no, I never received promotional copies). Most were sitting in a pile, unheard, when this story broke. I had planned to sample them gradually, over time. Now I have listened to many more over a much shorter period than I ever actually intended. When I asked Jed Distler a few months ago to review a limited selection of them (owing to their lack of general availability in the USA) I said: “Just pick a handful of the best ones. We’ll give our readers a taste, and leave it at that.” I could place the resulting fracas under “No good deed goes unpunished,” except that would be hypocritical. As noted above, we scavengers are doing rather well at present.
I’m certainly not getting rid of my Hatto CDs. Speaking purely personally, one music lover to another, I have to confess that some of the sonic and tempo manipulations performed on the originals strike me as real improvements. I paid for those recordings, and will continue to enjoy them irrespective of the identity of the performer. And if the “interpretation” resulted in some degree from the use of electronic trickery, well, think of it as the classical music equivalent of breast augmentation surgery. It may be fake, but you don’t see too many guys complaining about the results, do you?
I do hope, though, that some trade organization in Britain, or one of the more outraged labels, puts Barrington-Coupe out of business as soon as possible and destroys whatever remaining stock of Hatto discs he may still have sitting around. First, he deserves it, but second, I want to get the best possible price on eBay for the Hatto discs that I no longer want.
Welcome to classical music in the 21st century!
David Hurwitz
