Classical orchestral records are typically recorded direct to two-track, much of the material is public domain, and often the orchestra is paid a one-time fee instead of royalties on sales. Consequently, production costs are quite low. The ongoing costs to keep a title in print are much lower than with anything contemporary, which is how the business is profitable: the music has a very, very long shelf life. Recordings may not sell much in the short-term, but classical labels can market the same recordings for decades. It's not like it would ever sound dated in the "so last year" sense of the term.
Disco -- at least for the big-sounding classic records -- requires not only an orchestra, but multi-track recording, an army of skilled studio musicians, engineers and effects. There are royalties and publishers to pay in addition to all the performers. While the costs of multi-track recording have plunged in recent years, it's not possible to produce a true disco record in your bedroom. You still need a decent studio, and that costs money.
To break even, such a production would need to sell many thousands of units. That would require major-label promotion and distribution, and with pretty much all major and minor labels struggling these days, it would be a tough sell. I wouldn't expect any significant interest from DJs either, since mainstream demand for disco is close to nil, and nowadays it seems most DJs just play a very narrow style of music to define a sound for themselves.
In other words, making a vintage-style disco record is a hell of a lot more complicated and expensive than any classical record, and tougher to sell. Remember the rule of capitalism when it comes to the marketplace: if there was any money to be made in it, someone would already be doing it.



Reply With Quote

Bookmarks