 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Aug 28, 2016 - 12:22 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
manderley
(Member)
|
Soundtrack "labels" are not the future of soundtracks, in my opinion. At present they are simply producing, assembling, and mastering material owned by the studios---material which will one day be reclaimed by the studio when the license expires, and which will, in effect be all "prepared" and ready for MOD release with very little further effort.
I don't disagree that the studios will be only too glad to reissue material that has already been produced, assembled, and mastered. But who's to "issue" what they want to "re-issue?" Are we doomed to a future of nothing but reissues? No new material?
The "new" old material issued for sale may well be raw music session tracks, unproduced, unassembled, unedited, waiting for industrious and interested soundtrack buffs to get their SoundForge (or whatever) editing programs in place and make their own private assemblies of the material as they see fit.
No more waiting for releases of this cue or that cue, or this order or that order, or this exclusion or that exclusion to be handed to you. You'll do it yourself, based on the original material that you've bought, and in the manner that you want to hear it. It's a little like "mix tapes" or "mix discs" isn't it? And we've been doing those for years.
You'll be thrilled to do it again in this process. That is....if you REALLY TRULY want the never-before-released music material in the first place and care enough to expend the time to assemble it.
But you don't even HAVE to assemble it if you don't want to. You can listen to it in raw form, a form which brings its own kind of rewards, with fascinating and sometimes touching between- cues chatter and events of the moment and alternates to the takes you've always known and loved.
And, later on, if the studios discover that they have more than average sales for a specific "raw tracks" music title, they may jump in and produce their own complete assembly of a given score, much as Warner Archive has done in video, giving us Blu-ray versions of titles like SUSAN SLEPT HERE which they previously only released on MOD-DVDrs.
You NEVER know what the market will accept until you jump in and pursue it.
Many years ago when George Feltenstein was the key executive at the old MGM/UA Home Video, they had a "meet-and-greet" session at the now long-gone Dave's Video in Studio City, California, a store which specialized in laserdiscs. George had run the MGM/UA video program well, particularly by releasing titles which everyone wanted, and releasing titles that only limited numbers of people wanted, and averaging the costs over the whole endeavor. The good "sellers" subsidized the low "sellers". The program seemed to run on how successful and profitable it was as a whole, and not dependent on individually-selling hot titles.
On that day, I thanked him for putting out some of the less well-known titles from the back catalog, and made special reference to a two-disc set of two Esther Williams swim-pix. He thanked me for my purchase, but pointed out that while they'd pressed 2500 copies, they'd only sold about 500 or so. So I was apparently one of the few who knew these films or cared.
Flash forward to the DVD era, and now George again took a chance on more Esther Williams films, this time in a DVD box set of 4-5 films. It was later reported that this was one of Turner/Warner video's biggest selling titles. Go figure. They ended up producing two more bubbling box sets, to good, but I think lessening sales over the next few years. Nonetheless we had 15-or-so swimming films to view at home where in the past he could only sell a few. One of the other huge DVD successes for the company over the ensuing years was the box set of the THIN MAN films, which apparently sold many, many thousands of copies.
You simply can not write off this old material, you just have to figure out a new way of packaging and selling it to an old or new audience and understand that as the world moves on and brand-new product is produced, the older stuff lessens in sales numbers, but it also becomes catalog assets that sell small numbers at any moment, but sells consistently for years and years if you make it available.
David Cunard/Gooch once told me that his licensing of the Decca Judy Garland "Meet Me in St. Louis/Harvey Girls" master for LP release kept his AEI Records company in business for years and years because after the initial big sales the record kept selling limited copies each month.
And, in fact, how long did Decca keep the original Newman LP recordings of "The Robe" and "The Egyptian" in print? At least 25 years, by my reckoning.
This is what Warner Archive has done, and is doing, on a regular basis now. Where else can you buy a considerable selection of Ramon Novarro or Kay Francis or Dennis Morgan pictures in decent copies anymore? Some will say, "Who cares?".....but others, discovering this old material, will be entranced or educated or entertained.
I'd give a lot to hear, for example, the raw tracks of Waxman's DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE or CAPTAINS COURAGEOUS (.....well, I DID hear some of "Courageous" about 40 years ago!), Stothart's MARIE ANTOINETTE or THIRTY SECONDS OVER TOKYO, Kaper's GASLIGHT or JOHNNY EAGER, and more material from the 1940s Fox archives. And the musicals---that would be a revelation as raw music tracks. Quite some years ago I assembled a complete DEEP IN MY HEART in stereo from the raw music tracks available on an old laserdisc. It took about 30-40 hours of editing, but the final result is 2 discs long and is a wonderful listen.....what singing.....what underscore! I think I listen to it once a month now.
So.....in the end.....I don't think we're finished with these old tracks yet. I think some studio which is enterprising enough will get to them and release them in one form or another. It's an asset which can make money, and if it's not a lot, at least it contributes to the bottom line
and subsidizes other studio ventures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 28, 2016 - 1:36 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
SchiffyM
(Member)
|
isn't the real problem licensing costs? If it didn't cost the labels an arm and a leg for the license, they could sell less but still make a pretty little profit on obscure titles.
Are you basing this on actual known figures, or just an assumption?
I have no figures at all, except what an obscure title could be hoped to sell. MV reports that "Link" totally tanked, and they only offered 2,000 copies of that one. From "totally tanked," I'd have to guess it sold fewer than half of that number. So 1,000 copies at $20 is $20,000… if LLL sells all of them directly. Any copy sold at Screen Archives or Intrada gets LLL only around $15. So let's arbitrarily take a couple thousand off that figure.
Now obviously, there are often remastering costs (though not in this particular case) and manufacturing costs. The composer needs to be paid, and often the musicians. And the label has to pay the rent, and the electricity, and, yes, its employees. So subtract all that, and how much could they possibly be paying for licensing?
And by the way, the license owners also deserve to be paid. Not only do they own the piece, they spent money to create it or at least preserve it. And they, too, have costs, and employees who need to be paid. And if you're, say, Warner Bros., there is a significant cost to even getting out the necessary contracts (sometimes written up years ago) to make sure everything is done according to their agreement. And if they lose money on it, why would they bother?
So it's very easy to say that the license owners are being greedy, or unrealistic, but is that really the case?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
isn't the real problem licensing costs? If it didn't cost the labels an arm and a leg for the license, they could sell less but still make a pretty little profit on obscure titles.
Are you basing this on actual known figures, or just an assumption?
I have no figures at all, except what an obscure title could be hoped to sell. MV reports that "Link" totally tanked, and they only offered 2,000 copies of that one. From "totally tanked," I'd have to guess it sold fewer than half of that number. So 1,000 copies at $20 is $20,000… if LLL sells all of them directly. Any copy sold at Screen Archives or Intrada gets LLL only around $15. So let's arbitrarily take a couple thousand off that figure.
Now obviously, there are often remastering costs (though not in this particular case) and manufacturing costs. The composer needs to be paid, and often the musicians. And the label has to pay the rent, and the electricity, and, yes, its employees. So subtract all that, and how much could they possibly be paying for licensing?
And by the way, the license owners also deserve to be paid. Not only do they own the piece, they spent money to create it or at least preserve it. And they, too, have costs, and employees who need to be paid. And if you're, say, Warner Bros., there is a significant cost to even getting out the necessary contracts (sometimes written up years ago) to make sure everything is done according to their agreement. And if they lose money on it, why would they bother?
So it's very easy to say that the license owners are being greedy, or unrealistic, but is that really the case?
HA! I wish we sold 1000 units of the flops! 
MV
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
