why do good recordings of Brian go out of print?

A thread I tried to respond said: 'There is nothing so rabid as a card-carrying Brian fan ...' Well I guess that means such fans belong to the HBS society. Sadly I don't, but I've known Brian since high-school when I bought an LP release of Meyer Fredman's performance of the 6th and 16th symphony. I've repeatedly kicked myself for not having bought the recording when it was briefly re-released on CD. And then there's the 8th and 9th too (Groves) that I'd like to get a hold of. Anybody know why CD's like these go out of print? I mean aren't they cheap enough (media wise) to stay in print perpetually. Why doesn't the HBS (acquire the rights to) sell HB performances? Certainly not selling them at all must be less profitable to the original performing artists (and record companies) than selling them sometimes. Probably, I have a simplistic sense of things.

Also, I heard that there was a foundation working on new recordings (Rex foundation), but that its future is uncertain. Anybody got any definitive updates on this? Or on Marco Polo's heroic attempt to record all the symphonies? Are these two efforts related?

What about sponsoring midi, synthesizer, or small ensemble interpretations of some of Brian's unperformed (or even performed) symphonies. Unfortunately, there may not be any musician champions of this composer who would be willing to do something like this (e.g. transcribe as well as perform). But if it happened, would this hurt or help Brian's reputation? It depends on the quality of the interpretation, of course, but it's hard to think a good interpretation (in whatever medium) would hurt relative to not performing/recording them.

Ok the rest are just opinions (designed to drum up a vigorous thread?).

I've known many Brian recordings; for instance, most of the 'pirate' Aries label recordings, as well as the modern Marco Polo releases. I think Brian symphonies have problems with interpretation more so than most other composers, although Fredman, Groves, and Mckerras have done great work by some of his symphonies. If you are interested in Brian, the one thing you should NOT do is judge his work solely by the first symphony (which I think is great, but just not representative of the composer). His later work has the virtue of terseness, and while compensatingly dense, that work is still very tonal and rambunctious (frequently). Brian really liked the percussion section; he also liked to have frequent (but short) solos for the other instruments, so the idea that some of his later symphonies are jazz-like is not too far fetched. He could also write great slow movements (e.g. 11th and 20th) and write in a neo-classical vein (e.g. 15, 32). Brian wrote 20 of his 32 symphonies after 80 years of age. While that's not a reason to like his music, I especially like bucking the 'most-productive period of genius is before middle-age' trend; in my opinion he REALLY bucked it in a major way.

Keep thinking and posting about Brian. There's lots of stuff that is yet to be recorded (e.g. cello concerto, concerto for orchestra). It's frustrating that it's not.

The wonderful Fredman versions of symphonies 6 and 16 never ever made it to LP sdo you have not missed them. Perhaps one opf these days when the owner of Lyrita finally decides to release his treasury of recordings ..............

as for the Brian 8 and 9 you CAN get that now - have a look at
http://www.musicweb.uk.net/classrev/2003/Feb03/ havergal_brian_emi.htm

I am sure you could order this from MDT or AMazon Uk or Crotchet

Very useful review, except that this is not 'the first CD issue of symphonies 8 and 9.' That was EMI Studio CDM 69890.

Thanks for the head's up on this new issue!

At this point, I wish we had a real business economist among us to explain the reasons. John Carter, we miss you!

But from my slough of ignorance, whence I peer as usual like a crocodile stoned on some expensive substance, it appears that there are surprisingly high overheads associated with simply keeping physical inventory in a warehouse.

As well, there may be accounting issues that impute considerable indirect costs to keeping inventory on hand. And there is a signficant tendency in modern business practice to demand that all parts of an enterprise yield profits at surprisingly high levels. Long term low-level profits are not fashionable. You can thank the widespread adoption of computerized accounting systems for this.

But at the end of the day, you'd really have to put your question to one of the bean counters

Mark Stenroos provided an extensive and persuasive explanation a year or two ago, at least with regard to what used to be the 'major' labels. It should be findable via google. At least one label (BIS), though, stated a few years ago that it would never allow any of its recordings to go out of print. Assuming they've kept their word, how do *they* manage?

Oh yes indeed. See 'How Many Recordings Makes a Fetish' ...

Thanks Matthew. I'll correct that. Rob

I'll bet they don't keep inventory in the US. That would make the economics better right away.

Tony Movshon