The Classical Music Guide Forums

Y'know, I'd have guessed they'd do this to me, even with as innocent an ad as the one I'd posted on craigslist.com these last few months:

"BSO COLLECTOR:
I collect BSO concerts on cassette/CD; looking for fellow collector to swap with (no selling)."

Just a trade thing, right? No concert bootlegs for profit, or anything of that nature. The craigslist site never tells you WHO flagged your ad, or WHY, but it's gotta be the nice folks at WGBH, the main owners of the Boston Symphony archive. And yet, they don't do ANYTHING with their vast (and valuable) archive--except sit on it.

Their stinginess is legendary.

Wallingford wrote: Y'know, I'd have guessed they'd do this to me, even with as innocent an ad as the one I'd posted on craigslist.com these last few months:

"BSO COLLECTOR:
I collect BSO concerts on cassette/CD; looking for fellow collector to swap with (no selling)."

Just a trade thing, right? No concert bootlegs for profit, or anything of that nature. The craigslist site never tells you WHO flagged your ad, or WHY, but it's gotta be the nice folks at WGBH, the main owners of the Boston Symphony archive. And yet, they don't do ANYTHING with their vast (and valuable) archive--except sit on it.

Their stinginess is legendary.

Well, they gotta protect their investment or lose their rights to it. And you know that along with energy security, intellectual property rights will be one of the main issues of the 21st century. However, as a collector of certain opera artists on bootleg tapes, I do sympathize.

It's interesting how fast copyright holders find these online ads and posts.

Ralph wrote:It's interesting how fast copyright holders find these online ads and posts.

It's a trivial matter to scan search engines. If there's something you want to watch, I can show you a small script that will email you with all the notations noticed by Google and a few other fast-update sources in the course of the day. And spidering craigslist? Easy: the internal links are easily discerned even by a 4 IQ point script.

With craigslist, as on Wikipedophile, beware of the revenge of the masses. They love to shut someone else down

Ralph wrote:It's interesting how fast copyright holders find these online ads and posts.

I think there ought to be some kind of "use it or lose it" rule. In other words, either issue it or license it to people who will.

There is a fellow who has stuff for sale at premium prices--about $30 a concert for a CD-R of literally scores of BSO and other concerts. You can write to him for a catalogue. Music & Arts sends out a notice of his offerings with every mail order placed direct with them, and I requested mine after receiving one. His name is Nathan E Brown, PO Box 94673, Albuquerque, NM 87199, and can be emailed at nateincottonwood2@webtv.net

RebLem wrote:

Ralph wrote:It's interesting how fast copyright holders find these online ads and posts.

I think there ought to be some kind of "use it or lose it" rule. In other words, either issue it or license it to people who will.

I like it.

I wonder how Brown gets away with it.

Wallingford wrote: Y'know, I'd have guessed they'd do this to me, even with as innocent an ad as the one I'd posted on craigslist.com these last few months:

"BSO COLLECTOR:
I collect BSO concerts on cassette/CD; looking for fellow collector to swap with (no selling)."

Just a trade thing, right? No concert bootlegs for profit, or anything of that nature. The craigslist site never tells you WHO flagged your ad, or WHY, but it's gotta be the nice folks at WGBH, the main owners of the Boston Symphony archive. And yet, they don't do ANYTHING with their vast (and valuable) archive--except sit on it.

Their stinginess is legendary.

You know how certain labels have been able to release NY Phil live recordings by simply not mentioning the actual name of the orchestra? Maybe you could re-word your ad: "I collect live concerts of Koussevitzky, Munch, Leinsdorf, Steinberg.."?

Corlyss_D wrote:

RebLem wrote:

Ralph wrote:It's interesting how fast copyright holders find these online ads and posts.

I think there ought to be some kind of "use it or lose it" rule. In other words, either issue it or license it to people who will.

I like it.

I wonder how Brown gets away with it.

But what about the wishes of artists? One of the LPs of the old Bruno Walter Society (which I believe became Music & Arts) featured a performance of Schnabel complete with memory lapse. Issuing such performances doesn't do the artist any credit.

On the other hand, if the transcription discs of the concerts Sir Hamilton Harty conducting the Chicago Symphony ever turn up (broadcast from the 1933 World's Fair)---you better believe I want to hear them. But then the CSO would probably issue them.

John

For the record, the BSO is the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra.

Who's ever heard of the Boston Symphony Orchestra? Bunch of scrubs, if you ask me.

HOO-BOY! Well, I've always wanted to keep my old pal Nate Brown's name under wraps....I'm quite familiar with him & have indeed gotten several BSO concerts (& Paray/Detroit & Monteux/San Francisco....as well as Manuel Rosenthal's only surviving recordings with the Seattle Symphony) from him over the years. Again, the legality thereof is a puzzle to me, but since he's out here in the open, he was a real help to my collecting habit (outrageous as his prices have been).

Reminds me. My wife was once flutist and PR person for a (late, unlamented) community orchestra in Brookline, Mass. It was called the Brookline Symphony Orchestra, and her publicity referred to it as "the other BSO."

She also said that they got a horrific review once in one of the local papers, whose reviewer said, "Brookline Symhpony soars to new lows." She used that in their publicity materials as "Brookline Symphony soars . . ."

She said she sold a lot of subscriptions; few renewals, however.

CharmNewton wrote:

Corlyss_D wrote:

RebLem wrote:

Ralph wrote:It's interesting how fast copyright holders find these online ads and posts.

I think there ought to be some kind of "use it or lose it" rule. In other words, either issue it or license it to people who will.

I like it.

I wonder how Brown gets away with it.

But what about the wishes of artists? One of the LPs of the old Bruno Walter Society (which I believe became Music & Arts) featured a performance of Schnabel complete with memory lapse. Issuing such performances doesn't do the artist any credit.

On the other hand, if the transcription discs of the concerts Sir Hamilton Harty conducting the Chicago Symphony ever turn up (broadcast from the 1933 World's Fair)---you better believe I want to hear them. But then the CSO would probably issue them.

John

Perhaps artists ought to ba able to buy the masters to destroy them, but not just to keep them off the market. However, I think the rights of fans and the companies need to be in better balance. George Szell did not get along with the members of the London symphony when he recorded the Tchaikovsky 4th with them, and as he left the podium, someone said the thing would be released sometime soon.

"Over my dead body," decreed Szell, and, indeed, the record was released posthumously. I think Szell should have been given the option of reimbursing the record company for the entire cost of the sessions so they would be held harmless, in exchange for the masters being destroyed. And, if they don't, I don't think the record company should be allowed to just keep it in storage if there are people who want it. For a standard fee set by law, one should be able to get a CD-R made of anything in the vaults. It should be low enough so that the companies would have an incentive to release anything themselves that they can make money on, but they don't just want to make money, they want to make obscene amounts of money. They shouldn't be allowed to do so at the expense of art, at the espense of people being able to hear things. They have a right to be compensated for the making of a CD-R, but that fee should be kept low to allow only a modest profit, which would encourage them to release anything they could really make any money on at all.

RebLem wrote: Perhaps artists ought to ba able to buy the masters to destroy them, but not just to keep them off the market. However, I think the rights of fans and the companies need to be in better balance. George Szell did not get along with the members of the London symphony when he recorded the Tchaikovsky 4th with them, and as he left the podium, someone said the thing would be released sometime soon.

"Over my dead body," decreed Szell, and, indeed, the record was released posthumously. I think Szell should have been given the option of reimbursing the record company for the entire cost of the sessions so they would be held harmless, in exchange for the masters being destroyed. And, if they don't, I don't think the record company should be allowed to just keep it in storage if there are people who want it. For a standard fee set by law, one should be able to get a CD-R made of anything in the vaults. It should be low enough so that the companies would have an incentive to release anything themselves that they can make money on, but they don't just want to make money, they want to make obscene amounts of money. They shouldn't be allowed to do so at the expense of art, at the espense of people being able to hear things. They have a right to be compensated for the making of a CD-R, but that fee should be kept low to allow only a modest profit, which would encourage them to release anything they could really make any money on at all.

If you've ever heard the rehearsal material from Monteux's Westminster Beethoven 9th, you'd probably understand Szell's reaction. But that Tchaikovsky 4th (like Monteux's Beethoven 9th) sounds very good as a record.

I can understand the issuing of less than perfect live performances, especially when it's repertoire for which commercial recordings of an artist do not exist. But some pirate labels are pumping out droves of historic material solely for commercial gain.

I disagree about record companies withholding material because of its inability to generate obscene profits, although they would certainly wish everything they produced became a mega-hit. Re-issues are projects with budgets. Companies seem to be contracting their mastering work (how many of DG's new releases are mastered out-of-house?) and there is graphic design, writing, editing and printing, production and distribution. And all of it done by a limited number of staff. Re-issue series with graphics themes and original artwork and notes help reduce some of the time and labor costs. And look at some of the material appearing on Philips/Decca/DG Original Masters series (that Gary and Lance mention from time to time) or Sony/BMG Legacy.

I'm sure very few employees remain with the majors who were there during their golden years and unless the new management are also serious collectors, they may be only superficially aware of or just discovering the wonderful performances in their vaults. Long-time collectors know the work of artists like Szell, but to a young person first discovering classical music or inexperienced in the business, Szell is an artist without context (or a limited one) as he cannot be experienced live. For those persons an artist like Hilary Hahn can provide that living context--I'd like to see her in person too! I don't think classical music can survive without the living context.

John

This calls to mind an "illicit" issue (technically NOT illicit at all: it was on the Italian INTAGLIA label, imported for a very short time out here before the BSO gave its usual ban, stateside....in Italy, copyright expires after 30 years). It's a '66 Tanglewood concert by Sir Adrian Boult, an all-Mozart program. In the 39th Symphony, Boult elects to take the last-movement repeats--both exposition AND development-recap-coda. Many audience members primped themselves to stand up & cheer once the first playing of the last section was over. A HOWLARIOUS example of the audience, not the musicians, being caught with their drawers down!!!

There's also a Barbirolli concert (same orchestra, same label) which Boston also thwarted in this country. I've got them both.