Re: (TV) Patronage system

["Philip P. Obbard" <pobbard@yahoo.com>]

It's funny you suggested a patronage system. In today's Arts section of the NY
Times (Jan 5, 2000) there is an article about how today's major opera stars
often don't get a chance at making studio recordings of full operas anymore, at
least not those operas for which several full-length recordings already exist.
Labels are instead encouraging 'compilation'-type approaches where a singer
records excerpts from operas for which she is famous, or record more obscure
operas in their entirety. The main reasons for this are (1) the cost of
recording an opera in the studio is around $500k, and (2) labels don't see much
point in new recordings of operas when 15 different versions already exist on
CD in record stores. This wasn't so bad in the days of LP, when stuff would
regularly go out of print, but CD reissue campaigns have put more stuff in
print simultaneously than ever before.

But, at the tail-end of the article, it mentions that some opera companies are
now soliciting underwriters to finance studio recordings. JP Morgan is named.
So, perhaps a patronage system for the arts will make a return, someday.
Stranger things have happened: witness David Bowie selling shares in his back
catalog!

--Philip

--- Emilie Hsu <ehsu@mindspring.com> wrote:
> 
> Come on Michael, record labels (regardless of how much we dislike them) are
> really not supposed to be charity institutions.  Should Britney Spear start
> losing money, they would drop her as well.  Maybe Michael would like to go
> back to the pre-Beethoven patronage system?  The blanket statement on all
> MBA's is pretty offensive, man, most MBA's I know would probably not regard
> working for a record label as their primary aspiration.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com
--------------
To post: Mail tv@obbard.com
To unsubscribe: Mail majordomo@obbard.com with message "unsubscribe tv"