Here’s a news item I’d love to see:
WARNER APOLOGIZES FOR BARENBOIM SCHUMANN CYCLE
New York, February 4, 2004. The president of the AOL/Time Warner entertainment group has offered an official apology for the release of Daniel Barenboim’s superb new recording of Schumann’s complete symphonies. The written statement reads: “We never actually planned to issue what may well be the finest recording ever of these works. I assure you that given our dwindling commitment to classical music and lack of interest in supporting ‘hard core’ new releases of the standard repertoire, it was an accident that we will do our best never to repeat. We are truly sorry if this release has called into question our disdain for preserving the recorded legacy of Teldec and Erato, and apologize sincerely to music lovers everywhere for any false expectations that may have been raised by this mistake on our part.”
First let me make it very clear that my intention here is not to engage in “label bashing.” It’s just that the startling appearance of this marvelous new set, completely unheralded and with a near total absence of promotional fanfare, has prompted some reflections on the disparity between the greatness of so much of today’s talent and music making, and the seeming inability of the major labels to capitalize on this fact in anything but the most superficial and random way. Indeed, one of the principal factors feeding the sense of desperation among classical music labels of all stripes is the confusion that arises from feelings of helplessness: the inability to understand and exploit what is happening in the market today, and the ensuing panic and frustration that leads to enlightening statements like “Nothing sells!” and “Classical music is dead!” Most of the time this means little more than, “Oh my God, I’m going to be unemployed!” but for reasons I don’t care to speculate about many close to the business fail to see the distinction.
Last month, I took Norman Lebrecht to task for his stupid assertion that 2004 will be the “the last year” for the classical music industry. But if this isn’t true, then what will 2004 bring? What will be the shape of things to come at a time of tremendous ferment in which the traditional models of marketing and distribution seem to have broken down, where the “majors” are major no longer, and where battles between sound formats (stereo vs. multi-channel) and agonizing debates about the internet’s role in music delivery all seem to be taking place in a rarified realm completely divorced from the realities of the marketplace and the practical concerns of music lovers?
However, rather than focusing on the failures (perceived or actual), I thought we’d start the year off right and have a look at some of the successes, because even if Warner doesn’t know what to do with Barenboim’s Schumann, its appearance and so much that’s happening in the world of classical music recordings offer reasons for celebration and not despair. Perhaps some of these examples will serve as models for the future, and offer some lessons on the art of making classical music recordings in this strange new world. Here, in any case, are three.
SUPRAPHON
This is a classic case of success arising from being true to oneself. Few labels have been through the vicissitudes that Supraphon has had to face, including political turmoil, privatization, the collapse of the domestic economy, and rebellion within its own workforce. Imagine this (entirely true) dialog that I had with an ex-managing director of the label back in the early 90s.
SUPRAPHON: We are in the process of being privatized. How many people do you think it would take to run a label of our size.
ME: How many employees do you have today?
SUPRAPHON: 1,246.
ME: I’d say you need at least seven.
SUPRAPHON: (Silence and expression of shock and horror).
Back in the glory days of Communism, we must remember, the label owned all of the shops, the manufacturing facilities, music publishing, distribution–you name it. Now the label does indeed employ only a handful of people, and thrives not just on the quality of its back catalog, which is second to none of course, but continues to mine the ongoing rich tradition of world class Czech music and musicians, and so turn out superb new releases. Upcoming productions featuring pianist Ivan Moravec, Charles Mackerras in Janácek with the Czech Philharmonic, and choice recent issues such as a new Martinu symphony cycle and wonderful Tchaikovsky and Dvorak Violin Concertos played by Pavel Sporcl attest to the ongoing vitality and commercial viability of a label that has never tried to do anything other than stay close to its roots.
ONDINE
Like Supraphon, Finland’s Ondine label has the inestimable advantage of a world class local pool of musicians on which to draw, and beyond that a generous system of state subsidies for the arts. What makes Ondine’s success so interesting is that it has been achieved almost entirely within the sphere of that ultimate marketing horror: contemporary music. Indeed, the label has managed to make composers with unpronounceable names like Einojuhani Rautavaara world-renowned, and its success has enabled it to branch out into the music of living composers in the Baltic countries and even here in the United States. Future releases of music by John Corigliano and Christopher Rouse, alongside the release of Mark Adamo’s opera Little Women and the signing of major artists like Christoph Eschenbach demonstrate what can be achieved when an intelligently managed label with a firm local base broadens its horizons in a manner consistent with its image and artistic vision.
TELARC
Remember Telarc? The label that had us all watching our turntable tone arms swinging dangerously back and forth as the canons in the 1812 Overture blasted away with ear-splitting realism? The label that took advantage of its enviable location (Cleveland) to launch itself with a stunning series of orchestral recordings as artistically fine as anything the majors were doing, only in much better sound? The label that made a stunning series of Strauss tone poems in Vienna? That went on to prove that American regional orchestras such as St. Louis, Atlanta and Cincinnati could work consistently on a level that was world class? The label whose artist roster includes such “major label” names as Leonard Slatkin, André Previn, Charles Mackerras, Michael Murray, Robert Shaw, Frederica von Stade, Edita Gruberova, David Zinman, Felicity Lott, and many others besides?
Telarc has succeeded in perhaps the most difficult field of all, the standard orchestral repertoire, and it has done it by becoming an industry standard bearer for sonic excellence. Now it is leading the charge (along with Holland’s Channel Classics) in favor of multi-channel SACD reproduction. The jury is still out on whether or not this will become the format of choice among audiophiles and (more importantly) normal people, but Telarc’s legacy of fine quality work speaks for itself eloquently, even if (ironically) not quite as loudly as those digital canons.
I could go on, and talk about Harmonia Mundi’s huge success with Anonymous 4, Albany’s marvelous ongoing series of recordings by American composers like Don Gillis and Morton Gould, Haenssler’s relationship with South German Radio and Michael Gielen, Bridge’s ongoing George Crumb edition, or Analekta’s survey of rewarding keyboard, vocal, and ensemble works by Graupner and its discovery of countertenor Matthew White. Labels like Naxos, BIS, and Hyperion deserve articles all to themselves. Obviously none of these “success stories” offers much comfort to major labels. You won’t often find sales in the tens of thousands, artist appearances on television interview shows, or crossover spectaculars, but you will find great recordings in abundance and businesses that sustain themselves ably, and indeed have done so for (in some cases) decades. And even at the majors, events such as DG’s signing of Hélène Grimaud, and RCA’s recent acquisition of Nikolaus Harnoncourt prove that there’s life there still. The only question is whether or not they can bring their overhead costs into line with the current market reality in which a glut of product necessarily means fewer and slower sales at lower prices.
It’s worth remembering that the economic challenges facing mega-corporations in which classical music is an insignificant fraction of their total entertainment business will always be different from those of labels who specialize in one type of music only. For decades the major labels enjoyed what was essentially a natural monopoly, reducing the entire world of classical music performance to a handful of star artists and ensembles, and leaving the others to entertain local audiences or make occasional appearances on “second tier” sub-labels. Rising performance standards, reduced costs of making records, comparatively easy access to international markets, and freely available funds subsidizing recording activities of all sorts necessarily shattered this monopoly, and over the past decade the majors have struggled to deal with the consequences.
The point, though, is that this situation is not a disaster, despite the claims of the Norman Lebrechts of the world and others with a vested interest in the status quo. It’s a process. I predict that in 2004 this process will continue; great recordings will be made and issued; new technologies and formats explored; the back catalogs of the majors will be exploited through reissue and licensing to specialty labels; and the failure of some companies will sustain the success of others. More artists will migrate back to the independent firms that gave many of them their start or find outlets either in “vanity” releases or personally financed productions licensed to established labels. And who knows? Maybe Warner won’t have to issue that apology for Barenboim’s Schumann cycle after all.
David Hurwitz
