In a World of ever improving technology and much advancement in the way we listen and feel music, the music industry finds itself in the depths of a huge dilemma – should they sink or swim?
In years gone by, it was very easy for mediocrity to sell and flourish; many budget labels enjoyed great success as a result. Today however, with the ease of digital file sharing and distribution - a whole new World of possibilities have evolved.
One of the biggest issues however, is with respect to the way in which products are packaged. One key piece of information which is failed to be included on the vast majority of releases is a declaration of sources and engineering. As a result, we now have a sea of pirated releases where labels are copying recordings from each other with no credit to the original source and engineering. In recent years, these activities have reached epidemic proportions. Consumers cannot identify the wheat from the chaff. It is only on careful individual product analysis that one can see what is going on here... alternate takes popping up within releases inadvertently and very inconsistent mastering to name but a couple of issues.
Those consumers who truly care have lost trust in the labels; those who never cared anyway will be content with mp3’s. Many are not even aware of what is going on... these are the innocent consumers who are fooled into buying products which have been supposedly sourced from “Premium Masters” and such.
When questioned about this, the labels are very dismissive on all counts. They are ready to squeal “copyright!”, yet have no consideration for any misleading within their product packaging.
A very important aspect of this whole issue is that it is not unique or limited to any one artist or group of performers – every artist is affected in the same way; as are the engineers who master the recordings.
The word “Master” in itself is a highly over used and exaggerated term. By correct definition, there is only one master of a recording; that is the actual recording as captured at the very time of the original performance – it is these originals which hold the most faithful reproduction possible from each recording. Any other masters are simply copies – each time drawing further away from the original source. Really speaking, there is no such thing as a “Master Copy” – the two words contradict each other... it is either a “Master” or a “Copy”. This has changed in more recent years with exact digital duplication.
Imagine an original watercolour painting – it is scanned, then copied and copied again and again. Each time, we are drawing further away from the original; fine details become less apparent, clarity is lost and resolution drops considerably. The same fundamental issue is within the recording industry; but, standards have dropped so low that mediocrity appears to be the new “best”!
The reality is that the labels will use absolutely any source they have close to hand and very willingly refer to it as a “master”; regardless of whether the source is phonograph records, audio cassette tapes or simply making exact duplications from compact discs.
“Public Domain” is another big issue… in the United Kingdom this generally means commercially released musical sources that are 50 or more years old can be copied and used by labels without any credit or reimbursement to the original source. The sources in question as it currently stands are generally phonograph records that are 50+ years old… mainly 78 rpm discs and earlier 45’s and LP’s. The “Public Domain” definition is often misused and is not clearly stated. As a result, we see labels using recordings of 50+ years old, but sources of far more recent years. A gramophone record, audio cassette or other commercially released format is not a recording – it is simply a container. There is only one recording.
There is far more to this issue than whether one can tell the difference or not – it’s also a matter of consumer protection. If a consumer wishes to buy mediocrity, they are absolutely entitled to; however, they should be able to clearly determine which product is which, prior to any exchange of money. If you’ve been unhappy with previous or present releases, don’t hesitate to get in touch with the labels – to express your displeasure and demand a full refund. This is the only language they understand. Equally, if you are very pleased with a release – you should certainly consider contacting the label to express your satisfaction – the main issue here though is: Was the product as good as it could or should have been… or has deceptive packaging misled you?
So, what can we do about it? I believe that a full declaration of sources and mastering on product packaging is the essential key to resolving this whole problem. This way, all consumers have the opportunity to find out exactly what they are purchasing and needn’t worry about being deceived by fancy packaging... as the old saying goes – “Don’t Judge a Book by Its Cover”.
With this mandatory declaration in mind, those who choose to produce good or excellent work are protected and their efforts cannot be freely copied and used by other labels for their own profit. It’s no different to the farmer who puts time and effort into planting and harvesting his crops, whilst another simply steals from his crop for his or her own profit. Penalizing individuals for downloading files online is not the answer; online downloading is actually an incredible promotional tool. If one enjoys a recording so much, they will be prepared to pay good money for a proper release, produced to very high standards – it is this foundation on which the whole High Fidelity industry is based. The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of commercial releases to date are very little better than mp3’s; in fact, many CD’s are now being sourced from them. Save your money – the best is yet to come!
Everything begins with the original recording – no recording can be better than its source.
If “fancy” packaging is used, it is often the result of a label whose sources have cost little or no money to compile, leaving the vast budget to deceive customers with very attractive packaging. Like with a box of fine chocolates... it’s the quality of the chocolates that is the top priority – we don’t eat the box! And, like all food products are required to include content details, so the same should be for media products.
If you care about the music you listen to, want to hear the best potential from it and also care for its preservation for future generations – please join us; whether you’re an industry professional or a concerned consumer. There is no discrimination – all are welcome. As individuals, we can all make a difference. We must work together and campaign for change.
Contact your local Members of Parliament and make your voices heard!
