Flattery all the way 🙂

This is the prevailing attitude amongst professional orchestral musicians. “If you want to record us, then pay us what we’re worth!” they say.

When has personal worth been directly congruent to a pay scale? Personal worth is a separate—not contradictory, just separate—issue, unrelated to pay.

It can be nearly a desperate thing, to have had such a feast set before us… and to know that the memory of it shall have to suffice, to ease the hunger pangs, until it’s eventual (proper) release.

I am neither a musician nor a composer; I am but a simple patron of the arts. My (perhaps quite flawed) thought is that composers should always have the right to obtain a high-quality copy of a performance of their work (for a nominal sum, and/or with waivers such as those offered by the SPCO?).
In my perfect world, a composer would be able to post at least a sound clip of their work (for example, on their personal website). By mutual agreement(s) between parties involved, the public could be allowed to purchase an “advance copy” of the piece, and monies received would still arrive at their final destinations.

This opportunity exists, however, only in my perfect world 🙁

So glad you decided to follow up on the last post about recordings. We discussed your last post on today’s SoundNotion podcast (http://goo.gl/BQ3FO).

It’s this second issue that interests me at least as much as the personal development issue. As you say, the recording is being made already, and if it isn’t, making it is trivial. The cost of selling that recording digitally is trivial, and what better way to generate buzz? Imagine dozens of people walking out of a concert tweeting “I just saw this incredible performance. Check out the recording here: [LINK]”

It’s a new direct revenue stream (which orchestras desperately need) AND an indirect one. Audiences would pay the orchestra to advertise on the orchestra’s behalf. Win. Win. Win. Right?

1. Tries out their new songs live (and bootleg recordings are not just permitted, but encouraged),

2. Records an Album with new songs on them, some of which were tried out live in Step 1, and some of which are new-new, tailor-made for the Album,

3. Tours in support of that new Album, at which time they then (maybe) try out some new songs at their live shows, and the process begins anew.

The classical model is, it seems to me, MUCH less fit to survive in the world we live in:

1. Orchestra/Ensemble commissions Composer to write a Piece. The Composer writes the Piece.

2. The Orch./Ens. mounts a PR campaign to generate excitement for the World Première of the Composer’s new Piece.

3. The Orch./Ens. performs the Piece once, maybe twice or three times if it’s a subscription series. Everyone and their Lawyers do a really good job of making sure there are no bootleg recordings available.

4. A whole shit-ton of time goes by wherein nothing happens. The only people who have heard the piece are (a) the Composer, (b) the Orch./Ens., (c) the Audience at the première, and (d) the Composer’s Students, if they’re really lucky and beg the Composer, promising they won’t show it to anyone.

5. The Orch./Ens. mounts a second PR campaign to generate a second round of excitement (because, by this point, all the original excitement has long since fizzled, as excitement is wont to do) for the Commercial Recording.

6. The Commercial Recording drops, there is a bunch of press about it, maybe a couple thousand people buy it if you’re really lucky. After a few weeks it fades from the Public Consciousness and is usually never heard of again. The Orch./Ens. may throw a release party (much, much less likely if it’s an Orchestra) where they play the music on the CD, but other than that, there is no touring done in support of the Record.

7. The Orch./Ens. commissions a different Composer to write a new Piece…

Forget commercial considerations for a second–which business model seems more MUSICALLY healthy?