Last week, I wrote about free downloads of Beethoven symphonies offered by the BBC’s Radio 3. I personally missed the first group but did managed to grab the Sixth through Ninth symphonies. In addition to the excellent performances, the mp3 files also offer a bit of background on both the music and the composer, making it a truly educational experience.
Well, it seems that increasing the public’s awareness of great cultural works pisses off the people who make a living by selling performances of those works. Spokespeople from a couple of classical labels have expressed their displeasure with the BBC’s actions, complaining that the network is undermining their ability to profit from classical recordings. The label reps play the “cost of hiring musicians” card, like they’re doing the musicians a big favor by contracting with them to play. The simple fact is that by offering the public a chance to hear this great music, the BBC will likely broaden its audience, especially among the more technically-adept young. The hope is that people will hear these works and will seek more out on the radio, in concerts and by purchasing recordings, a cycle that provides an income for many people.
The idea that free downloads of Beethoven symphonies will “devalue” the music, as was expresses by one record company wanker, is as elitist an attitude as one in this business might have. This is like saying that if you can’t afford this music on CD or at a concert, you should not have the opportunity to hear it because giving it away somehow cheapens it. This is more evidence why the music industry is fighting so hard against file sharing and digital distribution of music. They’re either asking you to spend lots of money on mediocre product, where downloading instead allows you to be selective about the things you want. Or they’re sticking their noses in the air, all in a huff over the fact that you common folk might want to learn more about one of the masters.
What these folks forget is, unlike most pop music, one recording of a classical work isn’t the definitive version. Some works are recorded by many performers, providing different interpretations or nuances of the original. Hearing these free recordings might interest someone in another performance of the same work, or in that composer’s other works. Sounds like good marketing to me. The record labels ought to be kissing the BBC’s hind quarters in public to thank them.
The BBC claims over a million downloads of the last round of recordings. I hope they continue with other artists. I’m waiting on Mozart month, myself.
Thanks to Mike at Techdirt for the link.
I’ve got all of the Symphonies and I rarely buy any CDs, classical or otherwise. What the ‘wankers’ at the record companies leave out of the discussion is that MP3 files are only a shadow of the CD-quality sound track. MP3 files are pretty good but they’re nowhere near as good as the commercial product. The record companies see it as competitive but the reality is that, assuming it’s competitive at all, it would only be competitive for the totally non-discriminating listener. You’re quite right that the MP3 Symphonies will almost certainly broaden the audience and is likely to increase CD sales to new listeners rather than cause a reduction in those who already exist.
I’ll have to think of a way to make the Symphonies available. It would probably be a violation of copyright so I’ll have to verify that first.
Alan,
Interesting point about the MP3 vs. CD quality. I have to wonder, given the increasing improvement of digital music medium in recent years, if someday there exists a format that allows for CD-quality sonics in a reasonably-sized file format. I believe some formats are close, but the big sizes and lack of complete compatibility are still an issue. Perhaps when broadband is really available to anyone who wants it, this won’t be much of an issue.
I’ve also thought about making my copies of the last four symphonies available, but I’m thinking I should ask the Beeb first. I need One through Five, too.
I doubt that MP3 quality will improve significantly but it won’t be required as devices such as the iPod have such an incredible amount of storage space that the size of the file is getting less significant. Current iPods will support AIFF and that is a lossless format (i.e., full-spectrum audio). A 3-4 minute tune will require about 30-40 MB of disk space but who cares when your iPod storage is anywhere up to 60 GB!
Well, it will matter to my daughter who just spend a chunk of her graduation gift money on an iPod mini with 4 GB.
My guess is that she’ll live with the mp3 format for a while, as long as she can squeeze 600 or so songs on that mini.
I agree with you on the storage thing, and I expect to see some big jumps in both flash and disk-type storage in the future, which will render file size irrelevant. The only problem I see might be getting the general public to come to terms with a single file standard. As long as we have mp3, ogg, wma, aiff and the rest, the user community is going to be somewhat fractured on this. I have a small iRiver flash player that only handles certain formats (mp3, ogg, wma, wav), and I might not be ready to dump it just yet. Besides, it’s far too small to handle the kind of filesize you referenced. Besides, I’m cheap.
Here’s what I’m waiting for: all my music stored on a small pill-like device which I can swallow, then listen to the music in my brain. When I get tired of those selections, I poop it out, load up another one and drop it down the old piehole.
I hope I’m not out of line here, Joe, but there is such a thing. It’s called LSD.