Editorial: Pure in Heart?Source: The Musical Times, Vol. 138, No. 1847 (Jan., 1997), p. 3Published by: Musical Times Publications Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1003409 .

Accessed: 22/12/2014 11:48

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Musical Times Publications Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TheMusical Times.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 22 Dec 2014 11:48:35 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Editorial

Pure in heart? T 'HE

QUESTION of how much publishers may charge record companies for the use of copyright material belonging to them was raised in a recent letter to Gramophone

from the directors of nine separate record labels. Led by Ted Perry of Hyperion, they express them- selves with some force: 'collusion amounting to a cartel exists between publishers more or less throughout the world whereby any request to record their music results in a demand for "music hire charges" of, at present, up to ?65 per minute...' 'The rates have virtually doubled in the last five years, particularly those of continental publishers. The publishers also make additional demands for large numbers of complimentary copies (up to 2000) without justification.' To this they add that 'the condition of the hired parts, some of which haven't been used for many decades, is frequently unsatisfactory and the source of extra work and expense, often being full of errors.' There then fol- lows a list of examples of 'rapacity and unreason on the part of publishers'.

The burden of these examples is that there is effectively no upper limit on what a copyright holder can demand for material he owns, and that periodically the higher reaches are explored by insensitive people who don't realise that they may kill off projects which would help to advertise what they themselves have invested in. The risk, the need to advertise, the desirability of having a recording of a 'difficult' score, are all factors which are greatly increased when one is dealing with 20th-century music, and especially contemporary music by little- known composers, the natural constituency of copyright laws. Mr Perry's examples make gruesome reading; but the publishers are due a little under- standing.

It was, after all, the publisher who took the risk in the first place. Without that initiative a record company would have no music to put in front of the musicians. Sometimes the availability of a score may spawn a recording, but just as often one can be sure it doesn't - the publisher has no control over this - which amounts in the end to wasted invest- ment. Since the revenues to music publishers from

the more traditional repertories have been declining for some years, there has been a pressing need to find new opportunities. Amongst these are num- bered the plethora of early music editions which have recently made an appearance; but the real hope is to be holding the rights to a palpable hit from a living composer. As this is a very rare commodity the temptations to charge a high rate for a recording of a new piece, in a sense as insurance in case it doesn't do anything much, must be real.

stories, recordings of unlikely music con- tinue to be made. Why did Thorofon plan to record a chamber opera by Robert

Platz? Why do Hyperion intend to record Henry Litolff's Concerto symphonique no.2? What made CPO issue Wolfgang Rihm's opera Die Eroberung von Mexico? Is it really 'the generous and selfless zeal common to proprietors of the smaller independent classical labels' who do these things 'not for making money but in order to help the composer to get known'? One likes to believe in pure altruism; but for those competing in a crowded market-place is this really credible? Surely these producers are also trying to discover a hit, by championing music no one else has thought of? If they get it wrong they have to sustain the costs of having taken the risk, like the publisher: and since the publisher came first he will represent the first costs.

Which is not to dismiss the charge of rapacity. Since the potential public interest in any of the pro- jects Mr Perry describes is so delicate, it is apparent that each case needs to be considered in isolation and with understanding. The directors of the larger publishing houses (like those of the larger record companies unrepresented in this complaint) have a habit of setting inflexible rules and then losing sight of what actually happens when these are put into effect. The hands-off approach almost inevitably leads to bruising encounters with the people on the ground, and the loss of good business opportunities. If Mr Perry has drawn attention to some of the worst excesses in this matter, he has performed a valuable task.

One likes to believe in pure altruism; but for those competing in a crowded market-place is this really credible?

Letters on this or any musical topic are warmly invited. Please mark them 'For publication' and send them by post to The

Editor, The Musical Times, 63b Jamestown Road, London NW1 7DB, or by fax to 0171-482 5697.

It may be necessary for us to edit letters if space is tight.

THE MUSICAL TIMES /JANUARY 1997 3

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Mon, 22 Dec 2014 11:48:35 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions