Interview with Klaus Heymann - Naxos Records

[listener]

http://www.sfcv.org/events-calendar/artist-spotlight/klaus-heymann-defy-labels-to-be-the-one

[Opus106]

I just love the cool air of confidence this man exudes in almost every interview I've read.

[bigshot]

I have to say, I think Brilliant Classics is doing the Naxos model better than Naxos ever did, and X5 Music Group just may eclipse both of them.

[Opus106]

I have to say, I think Brilliant Classics is doing the Naxos model better than Naxos ever did, and X5 Music Group just may eclipse both of them.

BC is perhaps doing the model that was. The present "Naxos model" has been redefined from licensing and producing inexpensive-but-good recordings by unheard-of performers to the largest distributor of classical labels and vendor of online services. And they have pretty much left the giants in the dust in that respect.

[Brahmsian]

BC is perhaps doing the model that was. The present "Naxos model" has been redefined from licensing and producing inexpensive-but-good recordings by unheard-of performers to the largest distributor of classical labels and vendor of online services. And they have pretty much left the giants in the dust in that respect.

And for some time now, Naxos is no longer the poor-quality cheap label alternative.  It has fantastic recording artists, and top notch sound too.

[Brian]

And for some time now, Naxos is no longer the poor-quality cheap label alternative.  It has fantastic recording artists, and top notch sound too.

Plus, it should be added, it's moved from budget to mid-price. (MusicWeb actually stopped posting each CD's price range on its reviews because of a big internal debate when someone from Naxos complained about reviewers not using the "budget" label anymore.)

I agree with Op106, though - the Naxos model is now physical and digital distribution, MP3 downloading platforms, and especially their streaming and licensing outfits. In previous interviews Heymann has actually described recording CDs as a "prestige" thing done primarily to keep up the label's high profile and acclaim. Speaking of which, this fall sees the start of a complete Villa-Lobos symphonies cycle with the Sao Paulo SO and a complete Rossini overtures set with the Prague Sinfonia.

[bigshot]

Actually, I think X5 Music Group might be larger than Naxos in the online classical music market. They've been kicking a lot of the major labels' butts for the last year or so.

[bigshot]

And for some time now, Naxos is no longer the poor-quality cheap label alternative.  It has fantastic recording artists, and top notch sound too.

So does Brilliant Classics.

[Opus106]

Actually, I think X5 Music Group might be larger than Naxos in the online classical music market. They've been kicking a lot of the major labels' butts for the last year or so.

Do you have the stats to support that assertion?

[bigshot]

I read a magazine article that said X5 was the second place online publisher on the Billboard classical music charts. I think it was in Forbes.

Number one was Universal (natch).

[Brian]

I read a magazine article that said X5 was the second place online publisher on the Billboard classical music charts. I think it was in Forbes.

Number one was Universal (natch).

Maybe in MP3 sales? But they don't make any of their own recordings, they barely have a website which lists no product info except UPC and cover photos, they don't offer streaming or really any other service. Since they license their recordings from labels like Vox (I see a lot of Vox stuff), they can keep costs way down. It's apples and oranges comparing them to Naxos, which has to actually send guys with microphones to Baltimore, Glasgow, and Leipzig.

[bigshot]

X5's sets are sold through the iTunes and Amazon stores which handle streaming. They're smart. They use the channels where people are already shopping instead of trying to create their own. Their music comes from a whole bunch of lcensed sources, not just Vox.

It's hard to know how Naxos is doing with their subscription service, but I would bet that the lion's share of their business is library connections with educational institutions. I can't see regular consumers signing on with one label with one type of music, and a great deal of content that's blacked out in the US.

[Brian]

I can't see regular consumers signing on with one label with one type of music, and a great deal of content that's blacked out in the US.

I use a library subscription. So, guilty. That said, NML is not one label, it has 400 (!) labels including Naxos, EMI, Warner, Teldec, Erato, Virgin, Nonesuch, BBC, BIS, Chandos, CPO, Haenssler, Hungaroton, Naive, PentaTone, Regis, Vox, and the orchestras LPO, LSO, CSO, SFSO, Royal Philharmonic, and the symphonies of Atlanta, Cincinnati, Dallas, San Diego...

KH has said a few times that the subscription service is Naxos' big moneymaker. Heck, he says it in that article! But yes, they charge quite a large amount of money for a library or university, because of the amount of users which will be logged in at any given time. Looking at their website, for institutions you must write to them to ask about the price.

[bigshot]

My point is that I don't think consumers are willing to subscribe for just one kind of music. In fact, I think for a subscription based service to be successful it would have to have a wide variety of all media. People just aren't into signing up for another cable bill sort of thing. It would have to replace cable.

[Brian]

My point is that I don't think consumers are willing to subscribe for just one kind of music. In fact, I think for a subscription based service to be successful it would have to have a wide variety of all media. People just aren't into signing up for another cable bill sort of thing. It would have to replace cable.

Heh, funny analogy, when I move to a new apt., I plan to get rid of cable and just use Netflix (subscription to spotty coverage of all kinds of TV) and MLB.TV (subscription to baseball games).

[Scarpia]

X5's sets are sold through the iTunes and Amazon stores which handle streaming. They're smart. They use the channels where people are already shopping instead of trying to create their own. Their music comes from a whole bunch of lcensed sources, not just Vox.

It's hard to know how Naxos is doing with their subscription service, but I would bet that the lion's share of their business is library connections with educational institutions. I can't see regular consumers signing on with one label with one type of music, and a great deal of content that's blacked out in the US.

What you are describing is a subscription version of the major labels, like Sony, Universal, EMI, where the classical business is an inconsequential appendage to a marketing effort which makes all of its money off Michael Jackson, Madonna, the Beatles, etc.   That is going to be unsatisfactory to the classical enthusiast because such a global service will make their environment cater to "songs" rather than the native structure of classical music.   A subscription service that caters to classical will be much more likely to get it right.  The whole advantage of the internet is that it allows specialization, and it would be a wasted opportunity if classical music gets dumped into the same pot with pop music. 

[bigshot]

I don't think the classical enthusiast is a big enough market to support a subscription service on its own. Streaming services like Spotify already offer "everything under one virtual roof" approaches, and they seem to be all that consumers will accept. No one will ever go for separate subscriptions for each label and each type of music.

[Scarpia]

I don't think the classical enthusiast is a big enough market to support a subscription service on its own. Streaming services like Spotify already offer "everything under one virtual roof" approaches, and they seem to be all that consumers will accept. No one will ever go for separate subscriptions for each label and each type of music.

From an economic point of view, that statement does not make sense.  The most reasonable way to host a classical subscription services would be to put it on a cloud server, such as Amazon AWS, in which case it would benefit fully from the economies of scale that a major service would enjoy.  Therefore, if it is economically justified to add classical to a general service, then it is economically viable to have the service as a free-standing entity.  Sure, they can be bundled together, but I don't see much overlap between the market who wants to hear latest Justin Biber track and the market that wants access to 75 different recordings of Bruckner symphony No 8.  Beyond that, your claim that a market can't support a classical subscription service seems bizarre in view of the fact that Naxos music library is quite successful and profitable. 

[71 dB]

I listened to Keith Burstein's music on Spotify. I was checking Amazon to buy a copy only to find out there is no physical release, only downloads, which I hate and avoid as much as possible.

http://www.naxos.com/catalogue/item.asp?item_code=9.70167

[Karl Henning]

I listened to Keith Burstein's music on Spotify. I was checking Amazon to buy a copy only to find out there is no physical release, only downloads, which I hate and avoid as much as possible.

http://www.naxos.com/catalogue/item.asp?item_code=9.70167

Naxos prefers the download-only model.  For Jack Gallagher's Symphony № 2 to be available on CD, the composer had to guarantee that he would buyback any discs up to a certain number which did (do) not sell.