BBC news has a story that a new top record chart for 'purely' classical music (as opposed to Katherine Jenkins singing Leonard Cohen and calling it a 'sacred aria') is being launched in Gramophone's March edition and will be updated weekly on their website. (More from Tommy Pearson on the subject here.)
So how useful is this? Should they have done it years ago? Is this an industry that takes 40 years to cotton on to a good idea, in a magazine named after a machine that all but vanished 20 years ago? But now that it is on its way - with the late Richard Hickox doing well - is it actually of any positive value whatsoever? I am put in mind of the book trade, which is desperately skewed by several big, depressing factors that are usually nothing to do with quality but more about who is willing to spend money on what. (If I start telling you what these factors are, though - and how pernicious, how poisonous and how ought-to-be-illegal - someone will tell me to stop being a whingeing author. So you'll just have to take my word for it.)
In short: the discs that become 'bestsellers' are almost certainly going to be those on which the most money is spent in terms of promotion. Promotion means that the public will know something exists (nobody will buy anything if they don't know it's there). The CDs will then bowl on up the chart, and will sell more. Or are we classical aficionados more independent-minded than crossover and pop flock-followers? What do you think, folks?
6 comments:
Well speaking personally, I never buy a CD just because I see it heavily promoted and advertised - that usually puts me off! Having said that, I am in the marketing business, so probably view things with a more critical eye.
I decide to buy a CD based on informed reviews and also if the repertoire is unusual and thereby stimulates my curiosity.
A chart would not really affect my choice, though I can imagine GRAMOPHONE deciding to create one for more cynical reasons - i.e. appeasing its biggest advertisers with yet another platform highlighting the success of its product.
It is rather like posting a logo onto the end of a live TV broadcast or giving a gong to a CD, DVD or whatever.
HMV had a 'chart' - not sure if it still does - which reported the top sellers in its London stores. You can guess who was up in the top 5 places.....
What intrigues me is the notion of how the term 'Classical' will be defined by the chart...
What makes the grade?:
ALW's Pie Jesu = no
Bernstein's Maria = yes?
Which reminds me of seeing the Pittsburgh Symphony's 09/10 season announcement last week, and being slightly horrified by the black-and-white usage of terminology to define 'The Eras in Classical Music'
Surely audiences are a little more able to handle the subtlety of stylistic definition than that?
I'm not surprised that "Gramophone" has sunk to this, following in the footsteps of "Classic fm" with its bite-size chunks of "the classix". Actually, I think "Gramophone" has been going downhill for some time, reaching its nadir in October 2007 when Rob Cowan said of Solti that he was at his best "when just letting people get on with it."
In all honesty, does anyone who's serious about classical music really care that it'll now have its own sales chart? Wonderful for the recording companies with (as Jessica says) big-enough budgets to promote their top stars - they can watch delighted as yet another Joshua Bell compilation of romantic favourites whistles up the charts - but pretty pointless for listeners, no?
Besides, charts don't really reflect what's actually being listened to (as opposed to bought). Want proof? One word for you: 'torrents'. Let's say no more ...
FK
I don't care about charts, but it should be fun to look at a chart and seeing the names of Beethoven or Chopin or - a dream - Reich at the top, but what do we have here? Gilbert & Sullivan! The poor Katherine Jenkins is out of the chart because she sings an Andrew Lloyd Webber's piece and Gilbert & Sullivan lead the chart? What days is it, April Fools' Day?
It's useless. Completely.
Post a Comment