On 08/08/08, John Ross wrote:
> At 8/8/2008 04:01 AM, Tom Fine wrote:
>> There should be NOTHING out of print, anywhere in the world --
>> anything that's not viable as a manufactured CD should be sold
> Purely as a business proposition, reissuing archival material online
> is probably a marginal enterprise. Just because there are master
> tapes or metal parts in the warehouse, there are costs involved in
> preparing the content for digital distribution -- and the owners of
> the archives must expect to recover those expenses on very small
> per-copy revenue. So there's some kind of relatively high minimum
> sales volume needed to justify the effort. You can do it for Caruso
> or Jimmie Rogers, but it's a lot harder to justify the expense for a
> reissue of Mose Tapiero's ocarina solos.
> Sure, there's plenty of unissued stuff out there that would probably
> sell in decent numbers, but there's so much more, including much of
> the vinyl and shellac on collectors' shelves, that might
> realistically sell fewer than 100 copies worldwide. That might be
> enough for some offshore shovelware producer to crank out a CD copied
> from old LPs or 78s with no quality control, but it's probably not
> enough for Sony, EMI or some other major archive to find the master,
> perform a good transfer, and make a new digital master.
But the point is that Sony and EMI consistently release bad transfers,
especially from 78s. Naxos, Marston, Dutton, and the half-dozen labels
that JRT Davies worked for all get better results.
> There's a reason that quality reissue labels like Mosaic and Bear
> Family charge a lot more than the shovelware packages.
Mosaic charges more because of the elaborate packaging.
[log in to unmask]