Classical Labels: The Reputable and The Pirates

[Dancing Divertimentian]

As to the second point, the owner of the recording has the legal right to override the artist's desire.  Every time.  That's the way it should be.  Property rights trump artistic desire.

That's incorrect and you know it. The prime example of this is Annie Fischer's Beethoven sonata cycle. Annie's objection to these recordings put the stops on any record label issuing them. Period. Only after her DEATH did any label (Hungaroton) issue them.

[Todd]

That's incorrect and you know it. The prime example of this is Annie Fischer's Beethoven sonata cycle. Annie's objection to these recordings put the stops on any record label issuing them. Period. Only after her DEATH did any label (Hungaroton) issue them.

It's correct. 

I'm not sure your example is a strong one.  Why were the recordings withheld?  Perhaps Hungaroton had some type of contractual arrangement with Ms Fischer giving her the final say on what gets released during her lifetime.  Perhaps they chose not to for some other reason.  (Why, for instance, did DG pull Zimerman's solo Brahms?  Did they have to contractually, or did they do so because they wanted to maintain a long-term relationship with Mr Zimerman?)  One thing I know for certain is that neither you nor I, nor anyone else on this forum (or most likely the net in its entirety), is privy to the contractual arrangement Ms Fischer and Hungaroton had, nor to any other contracts any other artists and labels have.  Nor are netizens privy to publishing and licensing arrangements between companies.  Liner notes and net gossip are not reliable guides to what happens in such instances. 

Whoever owns a recording can publish it, subject to contractual restrictions.  Recordings may not be published for other reasons, as well.  Again, property rights trump artists' desires.

[Scarpia]

That's incorrect and you know it. The prime example of this is Annie Fischer's Beethoven sonata cycle. Annie's objection to these recordings put the stops on any record label issuing them. Period. Only after her DEATH did any label (Hungaroton) issue them.

You seem to have missed the word "legal."  It will all depend on the language in the contract that was signed.  That a label may have honored an artists wishes even though they were not legally required to do so is irrelevant.  (The label may have any number of motivations for doing this, from a sense of duty to the artist, or to prevent a temperamental artist from raising a stink and derailing other important projects.)

[Gurn Blanston]

Membran International?

[Scarpia]

Membran International?

Membran at Berkshire, is that pirated squared?

[Gurn Blanston]

Membran at Berkshire, is that pirated squared?

Don't know. Hoping someone does. They do have a website, but that means nothing; my cousin Louie has a website too, and he's not necessarily legit....

 

----------------
Now playing:
Hélène Schmitt (Violin) / Gervreau, Alain (Cello) / Jansen, Jan (Clavecin) - BWV 1025 Suite in A for Violin & BC 3rd mvmt - Entrée

[George]

Don't know. Hoping someone does. They do have a website, but that means nothing; my cousin Louie has a website too, and he's not necessarily legit....

I recall that Membran released a set of the Schnabel Beethoven sonatas. I also recall that no one was able to confirm if they had done their own work or had pirated someone elses.

[George]

Don't know. Hoping someone does. They do have a website, but that means nothing; my cousin Louie has a website too, and he's not necessarily legit....

I just found this over at RMCR:

> On Feb 25, 4:56 am, elraeburn wrote:
> > I'd be gateful if anyone would advise me about the sound quality of
> > the releases of Schnabel's Beethoven Sonatas on Membran Interntional
> > and Regis.  I am aware of several other releases and have read about
> > their relative merits; it is the two releases above for which I seek
> > information.

> I haven't heard the Membran or the Regis sets myself, but the word on
> them I've caught is not good.

> Membran is supposedly heavily filtered. And this label may well be a
> pirate. (Anyone confirm/deny that?)

> Regis is legit, but my understanding is that they've reissued the
> Nuova Era set, which had poor transfers.

Membran had taken the complete catalogue of Nuova Era.*

Source - http://groups.google.com/group/rec.music.classical.recordings/browse_thread/thread/fcb7691eee55d150/427b381aac38084c?lnk=gst&q=Membran+Beethoven+Schnabel#427b381aac38084c
_____________

* Nuova Era themselves are listed in my OP as being pirates.

[just Jeff]

Well, it is not exactly sorting anything out unless one knows what the term pirate means and what a bootleg means, and what a counterfeit is.

A pirate is a similar disc, or exact disc (same basic material) with a new cover design and label.  This may not even be illegal, as when the material is public domain, anyone is free to issue it.  This is why there are so many labels out there doing it with no one stopping them.

A bootleg is an unauthorized release.  This may have been recorded with artist approval (or not), and the artist may not mind that it is out there, but the issuing label label does not have the legal rights from copyright holder.  Many concert recordings would fall into this area.

A counterfeit is total knockoff that looks like the original release, it has the original label, and exact same material as the original issue, but it was copied.  It may also fall into the area of a legal issue, since the material may be public domain, and original label my be out of business, so nobody is to stop anyone from reviving the name, and the disc.  It is shady to say the least.  It may even be totally illegal, both mastering and graphics are owned by other parties, and it is out there to fool the buyer.

As time marches on, many MAJOR labels will see their original "classic" recordings fall into public domain.  Just like those old scores to symphonic works, or chamber works that they did not have to pay royalties on in order to record and release, their own recordings will also become open for others to compile & reissue.  Big box sets of conductors could appear, and they could contain material from DG, EMI and Columbia all in one massive set.  And there is not one damn thing any of those companies can do legally about it provided the material is in public domain.

[Gurn Blanston]

Jeff,
As I posted a little bit back, my main interest is in pirates (by your definition). I mean for example people who buy a Music & Arts CD and filter it enough to alter the basic sound and then re-release it on their own label as their own work product giving no credit or royalties to the people who paid for and performed the actual work of rescuing the originals from the garbage dump of history. I know there are other issues out there, but I can't solve all the world's problems, so I just picked this one for a start.





----------------
Now playing:
Itzhak Perlman / David Garvey (Piano) - Leclair Op 9 #03 Sonata in D 1st mvmt - Adagio molto moderato

[Gurn Blanston]

I just found this over at RMCR:

> On Feb 25, 4:56 am, elraeburn wrote:
> > I'd be gateful if anyone would advise me about the sound quality of
> > the releases of Schnabel's Beethoven Sonatas on Membran Interntional
> > and Regis.  I am aware of several other releases and have read about
> > their relative merits; it is the two releases above for which I seek
> > information.

> I haven't heard the Membran or the Regis sets myself, but the word on
> them I've caught is not good.

> Membran is supposedly heavily filtered. And this label may well be a
> pirate. (Anyone confirm/deny that?)

> Regis is legit, but my understanding is that they've reissued the
> Nuova Era set, which had poor transfers.

Membran had taken the complete catalogue of Nuova Era.*

Source - http://groups.google.com/group/rec.music.classical.recordings/browse_thread/thread/fcb7691eee55d150/427b381aac38084c?lnk=gst&q=Membran+Beethoven+Schnabel#427b381aac38084c
_____________

* Nuova Era themselves are listed in my OP as being pirates.

Thanks, George. Doesn't look promising anyway. You know, sometimes even if they are perfectly legal, they sound like shit and you don't want to buy them anyway.



----------------
Now playing:
Itzhak Perlman / David Garvey (Piano) - Leclair Op 9 #03 Sonata in D 2nd mvmt - Allegro

[Scarpia]

As time marches on, many MAJOR labels will see their original "classic" recordings fall into public domain.  Just like those old scores to symphonic works, or chamber works that they did not have to pay royalties on in order to record and release, their own recordings will also become open for others to compile & reissue.  Big box sets of conductors could appear, and they could contain material from DG, EMI and Columbia all in one massive set.  And there is not one damn thing any of those companies can do legally about it provided the material is in public domain.

When a recording goes out of copyright, the original sound carrier is public domain, not subsequent reissues.  That means if, for instance, a Callas recording on EMI goes out of copyright, someone can copy an LP that was sold during the out-of-copyright period, remaster it on CD and sell it.  The fact that the original recording is out of copyright does not give anyone the right to copy a later release until copyright has expired on that later release.   So a CD that EMI subsequently released of the Callas recording is not in public domain and can't be used as the basis for a reissue by another label without permission.  Since the origional label has the original tapes, they presumably have an advantage over those who would take advantage of the public-domain status of an old recording.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Well, I haven't had much time lately but looking back I'm a bit puzzled at the direction this thread took. Why the argument started about "artists rights" I can't say, especially when I never claimed an artist trumps a recording contract. What I said was this:

When it comes to "artist approval", when an artist is steadfastly resistant to having a concert recorded, to the point of religious fervor, then what outside individual (in whatever capacity) has the right to override this desire? And I'm not even talking about broadcasts, here. Profiteering is a dirty business and artists have the right to rebel against this.

In this instance, I'm talking about something completely different than "artists rights". I'm talking about concerts that have been surreptitiously recorded (bootlegs) which then find their way into the market place. The "outside individual" I'm referring to is the bootlegger, not a record label rep. And Richter is the artist "steadfastly resistant to having a concert recorded" (bootlegged) - something for which he was famous for. In this case, I was arguing that bootleggers don't trump the artist.

I of course did jump on the "artist rights" bandwagon with my Annie Fischer comments but that post was in error as I hadn't the time that morning to properly read/understand Todd's post. I was too distracted getting ready for work (and was running late) and wasn't focused enough on the discussion. So I shouldn't have even posted.

[Scarpia]

In this instance, I'm talking about something completely different than "artists rights". I'm talking about concerts that have been surreptitiously recorded (bootlegs) which then find their way into the market place. The "outside individual" I'm referring to is the bootlegger, not a record label rep. And Richter is the artist "steadfastly resistant to having a concert recorded" (bootlegged) - something for which he was famous for. In this case, I was arguing that bootleggers don't trump the artist.

That is an interesting question.   Presumably the artist signs a contract with the concert promoter or the owner of the concert hall which may or may not give the promoter the right to record the concert.   The promoter will always forbid attendees from recording the concert.

[otterhouse]

Ok, this is very personal, it's legal, but the "ethics" of the EMI Icon series are questionable.
I have to admit that the most recent issues are showing signs of improvement, but still I am angry on EMI
for there sloppy handeling (milking!!) of their cataloge.
I have made a youtube video about the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbKhSLUeD8s

Curious to your opinion!

Rolf

[George]

Ok, this is very personal, it's legal, but the "ethics" of the EMI Icon series are questionable.
I have to admit that the most recent issues are showing signs of improvement, but still I am angry on EMI
for there sloppy handeling (milking!!) of their cataloge.
I have made a youtube video about the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbKhSLUeD8s

Curious to your opinion!

Rolf

Hi Rolf,

I am at work right now, but will watch your video later.

I can say that the EMI boxes that offer everything that the artist recorded for that label (Richter, Cziffra, etc) were a great idea, but the Icon series often omits too much of the artists output,IMO.

[Scarpia]

Ok, this is very personal, it's legal, but the "ethics" of the EMI Icon series are questionable.
I have to admit that the most recent issues are showing signs of improvement, but still I am angry on EMI
for there sloppy handeling (milking!!) of their cataloge.
I have made a youtube video about the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbKhSLUeD8s

Curious to your opinion!

Rolf

I have not gotten any of the Icon boxes because I have the choice of repertoire has not appealed to me, what that is a question of marketing, not ethics.  But that begs the question, why should we watch a rambling youtube video with jiggly image of your computer screen when you could type your comments in a paragraph here for us to read?

[Todd]

but still I am angry on EMI
for there sloppy handeling (milking!!) of their cataloge.

A company is supposed to "milk" its profitable assets. 

[just Jeff]

Jeff,
As I posted a little bit back, my main interest is in pirates (by your definition). I mean for example people who buy a Music & Arts CD and filter it enough to alter the basic sound and then re-release it on their own label as their own work product giving no credit or royalties to the people who paid for and performed the actual work of rescuing the originals from the garbage dump of history. I know there are other issues out there, but I can't solve all the world's problems, so I just picked this one for a start.

They don't even have to filter it or change it at all.  The mastering cannot be copyrighted.  It's mean and shoddy to take someone else's work and make it look like your own and then issue it, or reissue it, but the sound recordings is PD, and mastering cannot require a license, or be copyrighted.

When a recording goes out of copyright, the original sound carrier is public domain, not subsequent reissues.  That means if, for instance, a Callas recording on EMI goes out of copyright, someone can copy an LP that was sold during the out-of-copyright period, remaster it on CD and sell it.  The fact that the original recording is out of copyright does not give anyone the right to copy a later release until copyright has expired on that later release.   So a CD that EMI subsequently released of the Callas recording is not in public domain and can't be used as the basis for a reissue by another label without permission.  Since the origional label has the original tapes, they presumably have an advantage over those who would take advantage of the public-domain status of an old recording.

Sorry, but um, no.  The original recording and it's original release date is what starts the clock a-ticking.  If EMI wants to legally reissue some material from another label, they sadly do not get to restart that clock.  Wouldn't it be groovy if we all could restart clocks because we felt old, or slightly out of date.

Previously unissued recordings from the 40s or 50s might get a fresh and brand new copyright date of 2011 providing the company issuing it owns the work legally to behing with.  But basically, once a work it issued once, a performance I am speaking of, that clock, Father Time if you will begins marching on.

The time it takes for works to go into PD are different in various parts of the world.  So I big box set of Stravinsky, say 300 discs, could be issued legally in Japan, while in the US the set is not legal.  It matters none that some of the material was recently issued on some Sony Music 19 disc box set just a few years ago.  The material will fall into PD based on original issue date.   Later reissues do not set new dates.  A 5.1 remix now on the other hand will get a new copyright date, it is a new product, new production.  Outtakes from original session never issued before, again, new item, new date.

[Scarpia]

Sorry, but um, no.  The original recording and it's original release date is what starts the clock a-ticking.  If EMI wants to legally reissue some material from another label, they sadly do not get to restart that clock.  Wouldn't it be groovy if we all could restart clocks because we felt old, or slightly out of date.

You seem to be confused.  If EMI issues a recording and that recording goes out of copyright, they anyone can sell copies of that recording.  If EMI goes back to its master tape and issues a digital master of the recording which is not identical to the original release EMI can claim that a new copyright applies to the digital master.   That does not "reset" the clock on the original recording.   Anyone can still  sell copies of the recording, but those copies must be based on the original issue, not on the newly made digital master.  At least that is what EMI (or any other record company) will claim since they specify a fresh copyright whenever they issue a remastered recording.