Continued missed opportunities for SACD & DVD-A... (1 Viewer)

[Kevin C Brown]

One more: Another remaster of Cream's Disraeli Gears is coming. But no word on a high res version.

 

[AricB]

I believe I read that, they will be working on releasing possibly 3 titles at a time on sacd, everyso often, ala, ziggy, lets dance, and scary montsers, a few months back. I would imagine a diamond dogs would be a possibility to be in the next batch?

 

[AricB]

I believe I read that, they will be working on releasing possibly 3 titles at a time on sacd, everyso often, ala, ziggy, lets dance, and scary montsers, a few months back. I would imagine a diamond dogs would be a possibility to be in the next batch?

 

[Paul.S]

Harry Potter score DVD-As? Helloooo Warner?? Passion Of the Christ SACD? Helloooo Sony??

What are they waiting for? In the case of Sony, clearly their early SACD output shows that they don't have a problem releasing a stereo-only SACD. This even eschews the Fox Agency demand letter/multiple royalties issue.

Why hasn't there been more consistent presentation of SACDs from artists who had their catalogs remastered? Babyface's Sony albums were remastered including bonus tracks but only The Day hit SACD (thankfully with the bonus tracks). But SEs were done for Michael Jackson's catalog and none were released on SACD (the Thriller SACD does not include the redbooks SE's bonus material).

And to spread the teeth-gnashing wealth: Helloooo UMG?? Where are the SACDs or DVD-As for the many remaining titles released on DTS CD but which have yet to make it to hi rez? Why re-release some (Vince Gill's High Lonesome Sound) but not others (The End of the Innocence, . . . Nothing Like the Sun . . . both of which prolly sold more than Vince)?

-p

 

[Paul.S]

Harry Potter score DVD-As? Helloooo Warner?? Passion Of the Christ SACD? Helloooo Sony??

What are they waiting for? In the case of Sony, clearly their early SACD output shows that they don't have a problem releasing a stereo-only SACD. This even eschews the Fox Agency demand letter/multiple royalties issue.

Why hasn't there been more consistent presentation of SACDs from artists who had their catalogs remastered? Babyface's Sony albums were remastered including bonus tracks but only The Day hit SACD (thankfully with the bonus tracks). But SEs were done for Michael Jackson's catalog and none were released on SACD (the Thriller SACD does not include the redbooks SE's bonus material).

And to spread the teeth-gnashing wealth: Helloooo UMG?? Where are the SACDs or DVD-As for the many remaining titles released on DTS CD but which have yet to make it to hi rez? Why re-release some (Vince Gill's High Lonesome Sound) but not others (The End of the Innocence, . . . Nothing Like the Sun . . . both of which prolly sold more than Vince)?

-p

 

[Seth--L]

What's the deal with Sony? They are finally giving Szell's Beethoven cycle the deluxe treatment in terms of remastering and packaging (long long overdue), and you'd think they'd use this as an opportunity to release the cycle as a SACD (hybrid) to counter DG's recent release of their own classic stereo cycle -- Karajan's '60s version, but this is not the case. And if they do release the cycle as a SACD, I'm still going to be pissed since I just paid $80 for this new redbook release.

 

[Seth--L]

What's the deal with Sony? They are finally giving Szell's Beethoven cycle the deluxe treatment in terms of remastering and packaging (long long overdue), and you'd think they'd use this as an opportunity to release the cycle as a SACD (hybrid) to counter DG's recent release of their own classic stereo cycle -- Karajan's '60s version, but this is not the case. And if they do release the cycle as a SACD, I'm still going to be pissed since I just paid $80 for this new redbook release.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

My guess is that Sony and other labels are possibly holding up titles as a negotiating tactic to get Harry Fox to an agreement, or they are limiting some financial exposure but waiting until the royalty rights have been worked out.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

My guess is that Sony and other labels are possibly holding up titles as a negotiating tactic to get Harry Fox to an agreement, or they are limiting some financial exposure but waiting until the royalty rights have been worked out.

 

[Will_B]

Aren't the royalties paid to artists something like 5 cents per tune? So if they simply caved in to Harry's demands, the price would go up a buck?

If so, either pay the man off, or pay him. Either way, get him out of the way.

 

[Will_B]

Aren't the royalties paid to artists something like 5 cents per tune? So if they simply caved in to Harry's demands, the price would go up a buck?

If so, either pay the man off, or pay him. Either way, get him out of the way.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

The Harry Fox Agency is demanding 3X this or more, which can come to $2+. That changes the economics greatly. Some labels only keep a dollar or two per disc after expenses, for example.

That is why it is such an issue. The labels must get a middle ground because all these music & video formats are converging and under the current rules there would be too much money paid out. They need to generate a profit and have some extra cash flow to support future recording sessions and promotions.

HFA is not doing a service to their clients either. It's better to give up some money to sell the disc in the first place IMHO given the current business climate.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

The Harry Fox Agency is demanding 3X this or more, which can come to $2+. That changes the economics greatly. Some labels only keep a dollar or two per disc after expenses, for example.

That is why it is such an issue. The labels must get a middle ground because all these music & video formats are converging and under the current rules there would be too much money paid out. They need to generate a profit and have some extra cash flow to support future recording sessions and promotions.

HFA is not doing a service to their clients either. It's better to give up some money to sell the disc in the first place IMHO given the current business climate.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

It's actually about 7.5 cents a song (with a sliding scale for extra long songs).

7.5 cents ain't what it used to be, and of course rightsholders always want more money after a few years. Don't fool yourself into thinking this is all about charging for each mix/layer on the disc, it's about getting more money for a new format. Just like how we didn't get any Beatles or Beach Boys CDs for four years after CD was introduced...the artists and the publishers wanted higher royalties for CD than vinyl/cassette...which makes sense in many different ways. New formats = new negotiations, this is nothing new because of high-res.

This is all jockeying for some kind of negotiated compromise, that's all. Ultimately we'll probably see something like 10 cents/song for a high-res hybrid, 15 cents if it includes surround. Something in the middle, more than today, but less than triple.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

It's actually about 7.5 cents a song (with a sliding scale for extra long songs).

7.5 cents ain't what it used to be, and of course rightsholders always want more money after a few years. Don't fool yourself into thinking this is all about charging for each mix/layer on the disc, it's about getting more money for a new format. Just like how we didn't get any Beatles or Beach Boys CDs for four years after CD was introduced...the artists and the publishers wanted higher royalties for CD than vinyl/cassette...which makes sense in many different ways. New formats = new negotiations, this is nothing new because of high-res.

This is all jockeying for some kind of negotiated compromise, that's all. Ultimately we'll probably see something like 10 cents/song for a high-res hybrid, 15 cents if it includes surround. Something in the middle, more than today, but less than triple.