LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  November 2013

ARSCLIST November 2013

Subject:

Re: The EMI split

From:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 10 Nov 2013 21:51:49 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (80 lines)

I think all the branding stuff went to UMG. Warner may be able to use the brand Parlophone. I think 
one reason that EMI Classics went away so fast is that there was no agreement to keep the brand EMI 
associated with what Warner bought. UMG made sure to keep the Philips brand for 10 years after they 
got Polygram, but for the new Philips classical box set, they had to lease the brand anew from the 
light bulb company, and could only use it on that specific box set and those specific CDs within the 
box set, and the quid pro quo was advertising text about Philips consumer electronics gear right in 
the front of the booklet.

I do wonder about Nipper, though. Has anyone noticed Nipper on any Sony-owned reissues of RCA 
recordings? How did it shake out with Nipper, did RCA ever get worldwide ownership or just in the 
US?

Also, what about labels like Angel and Ricordi, which released recordings all now owned by Warner 
(as far as I know)? Did Warner get the right to keep those brands? I'm also not sure how Pye Records 
shook out. I assume Warner got all the classical recordings, but what about the Kinks and the other 
British Invasion stuff?

One other thing -- the article in Resolution mentioned that getting Pink Floyd wasn't a big feather 
in Warner's cap because the latest Pink Floyd deal with Capitol/EMI was not seen as profitable for 
the record company.

A final interesting thing to watch is what will happen with Concord Music Group? They have been 
putting out a steady stream of good reissues in recent years, and have collected a bunch of 
well-reviewed if not massive-selling artists. They also scored Paul McCartney's solo catalog. I hope 
they are able to remain standing, because I have definitely enjoyed the quality, choices and 
packaging of their reissues lately. I have this fantasy where Warner will need to raise some 
debt-service cash and will sell them the Stax catalog from Atlantic at a workable price, and then 
the whole Stax history gets reissues on par with what Concord has done with later-era Stax in recent 
times.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Thomas Stern" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 9:35 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] The EMI split


> Who gets NIPPER and MAGIC NOTES ???
>
> Thomas.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Tom Fine
> Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 9:22 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [ARSCLIST] The EMI split
>
>
> I found an article in Resolution magazine (UK, they were handing out free copies at the AES
> Convention) that seems to explain the EMI split. Some highlights:
>
> UMG got The Beatles, The Beach Boys, Abbey Road, the Capitol Tower, Katy Perry, apparently most of
> the Capitol back catalog, and more.
>
> Warner Music got Pink Floyd, Jethro Tull, Cold Play, EMI Classics (including Angel and Capitol
> classical recordings) and apparently back-catalog material assoicated with Parlophone (I'm 
> assuming
> that goes back to the Louis Armstrong sides and all the side that John Hammond produced for
> Parlophone in the 30's).
>
> Warner paid a premium because some hedge funders and BMG got into the bidding late, some UMG's 
> deal
> now looks better.
>
> I noticed on HDTracks that titles formerly listing EMI Classics as the label now list Warner 
> Erato.
> And there is now a Warner Classics website:
> http://www.warnerclassics.com/
>
> Industry observers seem happy that Warner ended up bigger, so they are a bit more of a 
> counterweight
> to Sony and UMG.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager