Anyone who pays much attention to the
world of classical music cannot have
missed the furore that has erupted in
recent days over the authenticity of
some of Joyce Hatto’s recordings. This
is a story that will run and run. By
no means are all the facts known, but
so far four recordings have been proven
to be not played by Hatto. They are:
- Godowsky (CACD9147-2) some of which
are actually played by Carlo Grante
on the Altarus label
- Liszt (CACD9259-2) actually played
by László Simon on BIS
- Rachmaninov Concertos (CACD9217,
9218) actually played by Bronfman
under Salonen on Sony
- Brahms Piano Concerto 2 (CACD80012)
actually played by Ashkenazy under
Haitink on Decca
Someone with only marginal knowledge
of the recording industry may ask what
all the fuss is in fact about. To put
it at its simplest this is a case that
centres on plagiarism and copyright
infringement. Much as any author is
declared the copyright holder of their
work, unless they sell the rights to
another party, a musician’s intellectual
property is founded in the interpretation
they make of a score. Any company recording
the performance would own the rights
to copy, distribute and possibly directly
sell that performance by any means they
see fit. Consequently, any recording
that is pirated and passed off as another’s
work is open to question and possible
legal pursuit on two sizable fronts.
The Hatto/Concert Artist case highlights
several issues that comment to a large
degree upon how recordings are received
and listened to these days. In tandem
with this, it is worth commenting at
length on the role that technology has
played in the promotion of Hatto’s cause
and the uncovering of the deception
that has taken place.
With the multitude of recordings to
choose from in the core repertoire,
and increasingly in other repertoire
also, the public and critics are no
longer forced into directly comparing
any newcomer to one of a select few
alternatives. Reviewers, no matter how
knowledgeable, cannot know all of the
available recordings of a piece so intimately
that a pirated version could immediately
be identified. That at least three of
the pirated recordings are by major
pianists on major labels may suggest
some audacity in the attempt to deceive
in this case. I wonder if, at least
in part, the success of any deception
with regard to recordings relies upon
how closely we actually listen to the
recordings today. How many instances
can you recall where you have listened
to a CD only once, or with minimal attention?
Many of us simply do not have the time
to give to music that it demands if
we were to really listen to it.
The internet, and specifically Musicweb-International.com,
played a large part in the initial drawing
of attention to Hatto’s recorded
legacy as a showcase for her artistic
qualities. Favourable review followed
favourable review. There might well
have been mutterings on various web-based
news groups that somehow Musicweb was
party to the scam, a thought I not only
doubt in the strongest terms but also
resent being levelled. Much of the music
criticism establishment chooses to treat
some web authors as little better than
idle dilettantes who write for their
own amusement. I, however, have enough
faith in my colleagues’ opinions to
feel that not only were they right to
express those they did, including about
the plagiarised discs, but that the
opinions are still largely valid. Surely
if one finds a pianist’s playing to
be fine (or indeed, poor), that opinion
should still stand if only the name
printed on the disc is altered rather
than any of the interpretation itself?
I have not up to now written about
the Hatto recordings, but I think we
all owe Gramophone, ClassicsToday.com
and Pristine Audio our thanks for exposing
the deception. That Gramophone threw
down a gauntlet in challenging anyone
with suspicions about the authenticity
of Hatto’s recordings to come forward
with evidence and that certainly opened
the field. That no one did initially
produce any evidence seemed to stop
all speculation before it really got
going. That one of their own reviewers
raised the first seriously credible
alarm bell courtesy of a computer and
ITunes certainly makes for good copy
in a story such as this. The level of
analytical listening required has moved
far beyond what the human ear can cope
with, which explains why many people
were only left clutching at suspicions
rather than hard evidence.
It did not stop me, for one, wondering
about several aspects that did not seem
to wholly add up. Someone in full health
might be hard pushed to summon the stamina
and physical effort required for much
of Hatto’s recorded repertoire – which
seems to contain a remarkable number
of composers’ complete piano output.
All this from a pianist forced to recede
from the public stage due to cancer?
Different people are affected in different
ways by the cruel disease, and I do
not for a moment belittle her suffering.
It might just be credible that she could
record so much, given that (as far as
I know) few details are known of Joyce
Hatto’s cancer and the state of its
remission.
Reflect that in the case of a Pollini,
Richter, or Michelangeli even, they
were heard in public and seen to perform
too. Their artistry might be mythical
in one sense but it is a myth that is
based on the live experience being available
for direct comparison. Joyce Hatto’s
total stage absence left nothing for
recent meaningful comparative judgements
to be made against – a unique point
in her case that easily aided the furtherance
of this deception, it could be claimed.
In the case of the orchestra and conductor
employed for some Hatto recordings,
there was scant information to be had
other than that found from Concert Artist
on Musicweb. My general assumption was
that the National Philharmonic-Symphony
Orchestra was a session orchestra assembled
for the recording, a not uncommon practice
amongst smaller and budget-price labels.
Rene Köhler, the conductor, proved
harder to exactly pin down. No one I
asked on the Continent or in the UK
really recalled hearing the name other
than in connection with Hatto’s recordings
or ever hearing him live. There are
many conductors though who are available
for guest or session work, where interpretive
prowess is required second to mere competence.
Might such a conductor have existed,
but fail to register in memory of a
single person? Strange then that just
such a person could be chosen to head
recordings attracting increasing levels
of press interest. Yet, we have Concert
Artist’ supplied biography, which it
transpires must be taken as carefully
crafted fiction. If Köhler is in
fact Salonen or Haitink, then who else
might he be?
There could be some who think the Hatto
case a one-off incident, and of its
type it is the most serious recent one
I know of. But it is not the first time
that record companies have passed off
one product as another. The practice
of budget labels rebranding their releases
and renaming their artists in the 1980s
and 1990s has long been known, as this
posting
to a news list proves. Historically,
minor infringements that have come to
light include Elisabeth Schwarzkopf
singing Isolde’s high Cs for Flagstad
in the EMI Furtwängler recording,
which Walter Legge sanctioned.
At the core of any deception is a betrayal
of trust, and record companies play
us for fools when they intentionally
seek to deceive. That our honest love
of music is treated with such scorn
is one aspect of it, but the more deep-seated
damage that is to be done can only be
told over time. Musicians’ careers could
suffer by association with any notorious
case? Record label executives are likely
to find themselves persona non grata
in the honest music world. And the financial
future of any label that takes this
course must look very shaky indeed.
In the United States, the world’s single
largest classical record market, they
have only just started to wake up to
Joyce Hatto’s recordings. As this news
spreads Stateside any hope of breaking
new distribution ground can be written
off.
For me though, the most harsh betrayal
of trust is that made towards Hatto’s
true legacy – her real recordings. I
have only recently started listening
to the complete Mozart piano sonatas,
and they are as far as I know genuinely
hers, and fine readings also. That these
will have to be painstakingly pored
over and questioned so that we get the
definitive opinion on their authenticity
should not be something that has to
happen. But we are owed an apology and
full explanation, even if it means uncovering
something of Hatto’s own complicity
in the deception along the way. There
has been no comment as yet from the
record company, and it might ever be
thus.
A dark period for the industry without
doubt, but with honesty and integrity
of product other companies will yet
keep our confidence in their operations
high, and the tills ringing with our
purchases. I certainly hope so.
Evan Dickerson
20 February 2007
