SIGNALS & NOISE (Letters to Editor) (Jun. 1989)

The Cost of Music

Dear Editor:

In the October 1988 "Signals & Noise" column, David A. Morton of Greenville, S.C. stated that record and CD clubs offer the most cost-effective opportunity for purchasing recorded material. He went on to say that the average cost of these purchases demonstrates overcharging by record labels at the retail level. This is not the case, and Mr. Morton obviously does not have sufficient information on which to base his opinion.

The fact of the matter is that the reproduction costs of recorded material are subsidized by the artist. It is universally accepted in the recording industry, pursuant to contracts, that the artist shall reimburse the label for all mechanical costs of reproduction including recording, engineering, marketing, production of the sound-source medium (such as CDs and LPs), jacket costs, and sometimes promotional materials (such as videos and advertising). In regard to record clubs, the artist receives no royalties for sales at reduced prices or for giveaway items. Furthermore, the artist's royalties are limited to 50% of the customary rate for sales at the regular club prices.

As you can see, the giveaways and the reduced prices available through record clubs are not a result of reduced profiteering but subsidies at the expense of the artist. The artist generally makes 650 on every recording (regardless of the format) sold at retail prices. In fact, a major recording artist (highest paid in terms of market sales) may make as much as $1.00 to $1.20 per record. Major expenditures are necessary for unknown talent, and the likelihood of success is poor. A general exception exists in the classical and jazz idioms, but this market comprises less than 10% of total sales and combined market share. Also, artists who are fortunate enough to obtain a recording contract generally receive a sizable initial bonus, but all reproduction and marketing costs are credited against this amount before the royalties are paid.

Finally, this is not to say that the recording industry is not profitable, as the opposite is true. Whether recording artists are treated unfairly has and will be an ongoing dispute. The purpose of this correspondence is only to clarify the profit and loss structure of record clubs.

-J. Michael Gatien, Esq., North Canton, Ohio

Lookin' Good

Dear Editor:

I have been a reader of your magazine off and on since the '50s. I was in on the do-it-yourself period of the late '40s through the '50s and into the '60s I would like to say that I enjoy Edward Tatnall Canby's articles on the early days of hi-fi, and that I am glad Joseph Giovanelli has been able to continue his work with audio equipment. I've known of Mr. Giovanelli since the beginning. I still have an article from an Audio of long ago, entitled "Our Mr. Giovanelli Decides To Go Stereo," which described his design for an audio amplifier.

What prompted this letter was my appreciation of an area not usually mentioned. I think the "make up" of your magazine--especially the stunning covers, which show great character and what I would term "masculine beauty"-is probably one the most outstanding among today's periodicals. The staff of Audio is to be commended. You are obviously devoted to the pursuit of excellence. Allow an old man to salute you.

-William C. Poole; Albuquerque, N.M.

Silencing a Musical Voice

Dear Editor: I read with great interest Michael Wright's article, "Putting the Byte on Noise: NoNoise from Sonic Solutions," in the March issue. I have a large collection of older LPs and 78s containing both jazz and classical selections, and I am quite familiar with the noise problems on these earlier discs.

I purchased the Jelly Roll Morton disc on vinyl, and I thought you would be interested to know that, at least on the vinyl version of this recording, the NoNoise process seems to have thrown the baby out with the bath water. While there is indeed a significant reduction in surface noise from the older Morton records (and I have them in various incarnations and reissues from over the years), the music has been robbed of most of its vitality and life.

The entire record sounds as if the music is coming from deep inside some artesian well with a tarpaulin thrown over it. Orrin Keepnews' liner notes to the contrary, in my opinion this disc will not introduce new generations to the Morton repertoire because the pieces sound very much like old and dusty museum objects, robbed of all of the vitality of the originals. This is evident to my audiophile and non-audiophile friends. I have directly compared the music on this disc with earlier French RCA and American Bluebird material.

Everyone on my informal listening panel agrees that the older discs, while perhaps a bit noisier, are much more lifelike and emotionally rewarding as a musical experience.

True, I have not heard the CD of the music, and perhaps the Morton material is not representative of what the NoNoise process can attain. I am by no means a romantic about old vinyl noise, but I do assure you that I will be very cautious in purchasing material which has been subjected to this a-musical process.

On another subject, I want to point out that a continuing highlight of your magazine is the various contributions by Edward Tatnall Canby. Whatever the subject, his knowledge, enthusiasm, and sheer enjoyment of recorded music come shining through.

Thanks very much for an enjoyable read each month.

-Richard P. Clancy Ashland, Mass.

The MIDI Is the Message

Dear Editor:

I have been a subscriber to Audio for 10 years, and I am finally writing to tell you how much I enjoy your magazine. I have always found Audio to be one of the best sources of theory, new developments, excellent do-it-yourself projects, product information, and reviews. Your magazine is an important part of my monthly reading. As a recording engineer, I subscribe to Mix, Recording Engineer/Producer, Studio Sound, dB, Electronic Musician, and Audio. Of all these, yours is by far the most well rounded. The theory and construction articles are interesting and informative to pros as well as con sumers, while the product reviews are beautifully balanced between objective measurements and subjective listening. I think you do a fine job of presenting the pro's perspective to the consumer, and vice versa. No other journal does it so well.

May I offer a suggestion? There are some amazing developments going on right now in the music world. MIDI (Musical Instrument Digital Interface) and the development of the sampler (short-term, solid-state digital recording) are revolutionizing the way music is made.

New sounds are being made by digitally splicing acoustic sounds onto synthesized sounds. A composer using a sequencer and multi-voice MIDI instruments can hear how a piece will sound with an almost unlimited variety of sounds, not just the sounds of a few available instruments. On the other hand, some people argue that MIDI is replacing live musicians with robots, and the music sounds like it. I see it as a great leap forward for the tools available for making music, but there is plenty of room for debate here. I think readers would find this subject fascinating, and the ensuing letters will add plenty of spice.

Again, thank you for such a fine magazine. I look forward to each issue.

-John McCortney, Los Angeles, Cal.

Editor's Note:

Although we editors are staying on top of MIDI and sampling technologies, we have yet to include a feature on either area. Such articles would probably get into the ethical and aesthetic questions you raise. Any questions, comments, or concerns about articles on these topics?

-E.P.

PS Equals Public Service

Dear Editor:

I recently had something go wrong with my five-year-old PS Audio preamp one of the phono channels was getting noisy. I called PS Audio, and they said to send it to them for repair. Two weeks later, I received my repaired preamp, and the company had also replaced a few noisy transistors in the line-level stage. Although my preamp was years out of warranty, there was no charge for the repairs.

As a subscriber to Audio, I believe that manufacturers who value their customers as much as PS Audio need to be publically recognized. Consumers of audio equipment need more than good sound to get their money's worth. PS Audio is setting standards few companies will match in service or good sound.

-Roger Sherman; Seattle, Wash.

Editor's Note: We agree with Mr. Sherman's opinion--such equipment makers ought to be publicly applauded. If you feel you have received service above and beyond the normal call of duty, either from a manufacturer or from a dealer, let us know, so that we can let the rest of our readers know. -E.P.

(adapted from Audio magazine, Jun. 1989)

= = = =