Copyrights and Wrongs

[Ein Heldenleben]

Very true, especially where companies (Decca Headline here) were already paying royalties to living composers, to enable the disc release at all.

Naxos still have to pay composer royalties, of course. The big difference was that the company applied the 'no performer royalty' rule across the board, even for 18th and 19th century music which was well out of copyright, and even for performers who considered themselves 'star names'; and the scale of their operation alarmed many artists at the time as well as the Musicians' Union. I know a couple of players who still won't buy Naxos material, on principle.

Meanwhile, Naxos did (and still does) very nicely from its CD and DVD releases. It even created its own 'stars' - Maria Kliegel and Jenő Jandó spring to mind as early examples, or the Maggini Quartet from a later period - who had a more pragmatic attitude to the royalty question, and knew how to exploit the company's unparalleled, worldwide distribution to their advantage. These days there are many more small, independent companies following the same model - or even, like the Czech label Odradek, acting as artists' co-operatives, where everyone clubs together to support each other's distribution - while the "majors" have become almost a fringe activity.

I've no idea what model (e.g.) Warner Classics use today. Perhaps others might know?

No idea but I know that broadcasters often expect minority sports e,g yachting , some motorsports to be not just rights free but to have all production costs covered as well. The money all comes from sponsorship. What keeps classical music recording afloat are the vast sums the companies like WB make from pop rock hip hop and a residual cultural awareness from their highly educated and highly paid execs. (Cue laughter)