It was Sir Simon Rattle who hit on the biggest reason I like the idea. Without the obligation to please a record company, the orchestra can literally release whatever it wants. They are no longer being restricted to the "surefire bestsellers", as Rattle calls them. If the orchestra feels they have something unique to say, they can choose to release it. And generally, we end up seeing more releases. The LSO Live, for instance, has released over 100 albums since being founded back in 2000. We all know nothing close to that output could have come from a regular record label.
In general, the sound on these labels is actually better. The LSO Live sound has bothered some, but the RCO Live and BR Klassik are stellar, almost definitively so. And we can now add the Berlin Phil label to that list. I finally acquired their new Schumann set, and the sound is knockout quality.
I'm insistent that we continue to be blessed with new recordings from today's major orchestras. The in-house label idea seems to insure that we get better sound, better selection, and more releases. For that reason, I'm a huge fan of the movement, and hope other orchestras jump on the bandwagon. Is the Vienna Philharmonic listening?
My original comment somehow didn't go through, but it was basically about how I don't think they make much, if any money form these recordings. That's why they some call them "vanity labels". It probably has more to do with marketing or "branding" although I am not quite sure how much the latter actually matters in "classical" music, and with keeping the name of the orchestra alive and in the discussion in circles outside of their geographic area. That may be good for when the orchestra is on tour and people know the name and who and what to expect.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think the sound on these labels is *generally* better than on the old "major" labels?
In my experience, the sound has been better, speaking generally, often more vivid. And since the orchestra would understand the sound potential of their orchestra and the acoustics of their hall, they could create a sound scheme suited to their own individuality.
DeleteAnd yes, they're probably not making much money from these recordings, but they weren't getting much money from the major labels towards the end anyway. I think the publicity gained from recordings indirectly benefits the orchestra in ways beyond the up-front sales. And of course we're heading into a new era musically speaking that still has many unknowns.
But it has been noted (including by you) that the sound on the LSO live releases isn't all that great, and those generally stem from live recordings made in their home hall.
Delete"And since the orchestra would understand the sound potential of their orchestra and the acoustics of their hall, they could create a sound scheme suited to their own individuality."
What does that mean?
I'm not troubled by the sound of the LSO Live, I just know that many are. Not the best, but that's due more to the Barbican than anything else, I'd speculate. Regardless, the sound from BR Klassik, LPO, CSO Resound, RCO Live, and now Berliner Philharmoniker Recordings is absolute top of the line.
DeleteHow can an orchestra create a sound suited to its own individuality? Well, since the orchestra is managing the whole recording process, they'd be more involved in the final product. And again, they could release exactly what they wanted to, without having to please the record company. They could tamper with the audio to make it sound more realistic.
I was prompted to make the remark largely because I just heard the Berlin Phil's first recording on their label for the first time. Having heard the orchestra live, the nature of the new recorded sound captures their real sound with incredible accuracy for a recording, far more so than EMI or DG ever achieved, I'd daresay.