DS Forums

 
 

EMI Music sold to Universal


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-11-2011, 19:51
CLL Dodge
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Green Hills of Earth
Posts: 80,454

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15697973

This puts the Capitol, Parlophone, Virgin, HMV & Blue Note labels in the same family as Def Jam, Motown, Decca, Island, Interscope and Polydor.
CLL Dodge is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 11-11-2011, 20:26
Mike_1101
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Lancs
Posts: 7,928
It was coming - maybe it's for the best.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n....2bn-deal.html

"Sir Mick Jagger, frontman for the Rolling Stones who left EMI for Universal in 2008, said EMI would “once again be owned by people who really do have music in their blood

It doesn't say much for the people who mismanaged the company in recent years...

I wonder if the Warner-WEA group are big enough to survive against Universal and Sony-BMG although I think they will.
Mike_1101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2011, 20:27
CABLEDUDE
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,127
Terra Firma should never have bought EMI in the first place, look at the damage it did. Paul McCartney left, then the Rolling Stones, then Queen, then Robbie Williams, etc

Now Universal has it, the behemoth of music.
CABLEDUDE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2011, 21:29
Mike_1101
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Lancs
Posts: 7,928
Terra Firma should never have bought EMI in the first place, look at the damage it did. Paul McCartney left, then the Rolling Stones, then Queen, then Robbie Williams, etc

Now Universal has it, the behemoth of music.
A real shame it couldn't survive, the oldest HMV record I have dates from 1911!

I read somewhere that EMI have all the master discs (and tapes) going back to the very beginning in 1901 - I hope they are preserved. Apparently much of the Decca archive was destroyed after Polygram (now Universal) took them over in 1980.

EMI - another company run into the ground by bean counters and people with MBAs
Mike_1101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2011, 21:46
Theshane
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,740
Considering the bands that were or are on EMI, from the Beatles, Stones, Floyd to Radiohead, its pretty tragic its been broken up like this.
there was a cracking article in the Guardian the other day about it all and how music isn't seen as culturally significant to keep by the Government but they will fight tooth and nail for paintings.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011...sical-heritage
Theshane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2011, 22:31
foxla
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,175
And of course partly due to those who want stuff 'free' and downloads it, no doubt many will disagree with that statement, but if there aint no money coming in, or not enough anyway, the down the drain a company will go
foxla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2011, 23:06
drakephil
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 578
It's a great buy for Universal given the roster of artists past/present, if approved by the anti-trust rules though.

They will own close to half of the music market now!

And keep Warner from getting as big as them.
drakephil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2011, 00:43
Capablanca
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London
Posts: 4,901
Terra Firma should never have bought EMI in the first place, look at the damage it did. Paul McCartney left, then the Rolling Stones, then Queen, then Robbie Williams, etc

Now Universal has it, the behemoth of music.
Terra Firma's problem was they paid way too much and couldn't restructure the debt due to the credit crunch.

It really depends on how much of an advance those artists wanted to renew their contracts as to whether it was wise for EMI to let them go (I suspect it was). I'm sure they would have stayed if the money was right.
Capablanca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2011, 00:51
Josh Pinder
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: A Pirate At Sea
Posts: 23,943
SO very excited for this! Cannot wait to see what happens! Music is OWNED by Music essentially.

Very interesting times ahead
Josh Pinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2011, 00:51
CABLEDUDE
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,127
Considering the bands that were or are on EMI, from the Beatles, Stones, Floyd to Radiohead, its pretty tragic its been broken up like this.
there was a cracking article in the Guardian the other day about it all and how music isn't seen as culturally significant to keep by the Government but they will fight tooth and nail for paintings.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011...sical-heritage
Reminds me to paraphrase Yes Minister, 'preserving Radio 3, the Royal Opera House' 'But nobody goes there' 'Yes, but at least they're there'

The people who run the government are largely snobs, that like classical music (not because they listen to classical music, because they believe its superior and they are too), the 'finer things' and so saving something popular like a pop music company despite having a lot of classical works in its archive wouldn't be in their interest.
CABLEDUDE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2011, 04:47
Scratchy7929
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,167
It's a great buy for Universal given the roster of artists past/present, if approved by the anti-trust rules though.

They will own close to half of the music market now!

And keep Warner from getting as big as them.
Sony has bought the publishing rights, they seem to have the more profitable part of EMI
EMI Group sold as two separate pieces to Universal Music and Sony

'In addition, the recording business is not the crown jewel of EMI. It's the publishing business, which holds the rights to 1.4 million songs, including those by David Bowie, Stevie Wonder and many others.

Though smaller in size than its recorded music division, EMI's publishing group punched above its weight when it came to earnings. The group accounted for 29% of the company's revenue in 2010, the last year for which financial results were made available, but it made up 45% of EMI's operating profit'.
Scratchy7929 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2011, 05:28
drakephil
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 578
Sony has bought the publishing rights, they seem to have the more profitable part of EMI
EMI Group sold as two separate pieces to Universal Music and Sony

'In addition, the recording business is not the crown jewel of EMI. It's the publishing business, which holds the rights to 1.4 million songs, including those by David Bowie, Stevie Wonder and many others.

Though smaller in size than its recorded music division, EMI's publishing group punched above its weight when it came to earnings. The group accounted for 29% of the company's revenue in 2010, the last year for which financial results were made available, but it made up 45% of EMI's operating profit'.
Universal has a stronger and the largest publishing business after its acquisition of BMG Music Publishing in 2007. And that is why they did not want to buy it.

Sony does not "own" it. They are 1 of several investors of it. Sony and Universal probably couldn't get away with buying that on their own due to anti-trust, but I don't see Universal wanting it.

For Universal, they wanted rights to the artists and their work under EMI (Coldplay, Lady Antebellum).
drakephil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2011, 10:15
Mike_1101
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Lancs
Posts: 7,928
Sony has bought the publishing rights, they seem to have the more profitable part of EMI
EMI Group sold as two separate pieces to Universal Music and Sony

'In addition, the recording business is not the crown jewel of EMI. It's the publishing business, which holds the rights to 1.4 million songs, including those by David Bowie, Stevie Wonder and many others.

Though smaller in size than its recorded music division, EMI's publishing group punched above its weight when it came to earnings. The group accounted for 29% of the company's revenue in 2010, the last year for which financial results were made available, but it made up 45% of EMI's operating profit'.
Just what do "music publishers" actually do these days?

Maybe I am showing my age but I thought "music publishing" is selling sheet music although there is probably more to it than just that..

There are still shops where you can buy sheet music (for amateur musicians etc) but I can't see that side of it being very lucrative. Or is their role to collect fees for composers whose music is recorded, broadcast or performed live?
Mike_1101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2011, 11:48
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,036
Just what do "music publishers" actually do these days?

Maybe I am showing my age but I thought "music publishing" is selling sheet music although there is probably more to it than just that..

There are still shops where you can buy sheet music (for amateur musicians etc) but I can't see that side of it being very lucrative. Or is their role to collect fees for composers whose music is recorded, broadcast or performed live?
publishing rights are the rights to the written music, so the money you make from cover versions on record, tv shows, adverts, movies, etc, and in song books

performance rights are when someone actually performs the music. so you still get some royalties when you cover a song and it's played on radio/tv/etc or a disc is bought
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2011, 12:08
thedarrenxshow
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 126
SO very excited for this! Cannot wait to see what happens! Music is OWNED by Music essentially.

Very interesting times ahead
No! You are missing the point completely universal is the record company who is bitching music. It only has profit on its mind and not music. Which means are half decent EMI indie artist that doesn't get a top 10 album (because lets face it - the people who control the charts now are school girls) gets dropped.

This isn't a good thing. The music industry was already a catal market enough now it's going to be solely dependant and reliant on commercial success.

The death of music.

Mark my word.
thedarrenxshow is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2011, 12:19
Mike_1101
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Lancs
Posts: 7,928
No! You are missing the point completely universal is the record company who is bitching music. It only has profit on its mind and not music. Which means are half decent EMI indie artist that doesn't get a top 10 album (because lets face it - the people who control the charts now are school girls) gets dropped.

This isn't a good thing. The music industry was already a catal market enough now it's going to be solely dependant and reliant on commercial success.

The death of music.


Mark my word.
Cheer up - people were saying that in 1976 and then punk came along.
Mike_1101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2011, 18:13
Maccles
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 335
Music publishing is a completely separate thing to having a record contract. It covers many things but for people not familiar in the business it can simply be music in commercials you see on TV. When you watch a TV something like a home makeover show or X Factor and they play instrumental tracks in the background of the show that is to do with music publishing. If your song gets played on radio, you get money for that, the people that wrote the song gets money for that, if you sell a CD or vinyl record, you and the people that wrote that album and made the music on that album get money for it. If you don't have a publishing deal then you don't get a penny and if someone else made the music other than you they will still get paid. That's why you get a lot of producers making more money than the actual artists.

Music publishing is big business. If someone wants to cover one of your songs they need your permission and they need to pay you whatever your fee is. That's why a lot of big name artists out there do not allow nothing to get released without their say so. Artist like Abba for instance. Never will their instrumentals or acapellas or master tracks leak. When you have a publishing contract (and the big money is in the actual writing so if you can actually write your own songs even better) then you pretty much control your back catalogue. You wont own any of it infact very few artists actually OWN their music but you will have a say on how it is released, who gets access to it, who can play it and who can't, if someone wants to cover your song then how much they need to pay, all that good stuff.

If Universal don't own those publishing contracts then they really can't do much. They can release it on CD and vinyl by all means but that's all EMI was doing anyway. Look at the money Harmonix pay for each song on those Rock Band video games, those artists are raking it in just by allowing their songs on that game. No one buys music now anyway. If Universal don't have those publishing contracts then nothing will change. All they can do is issue it and hope people actually buy the physical copies or the downloads.
Maccles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2011, 23:09
unique
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,036
Music publishing is big business. If someone wants to cover one of your songs they need your permission and they need to pay you whatever your fee is. That's why a lot of big name artists out there do not allow nothing to get released without their say so. Artist like Abba for instance. Never will their instrumentals or acapellas or master tracks leak. When you have a publishing contract (and the big money is in the actual writing so if you can actually write your own songs even better) then you pretty much control your back catalogue. You wont own any of it infact very few artists actually OWN their music but you will have a say on how it is released, who gets access to it, who can play it and who can't, if someone wants to cover your song then how much they need to pay, all that good stuff.
.
actually, you don't need to ask the writers permission to cover a song, which is why anyone can cover almost any song and release it, and why at times, mostly in the past, you will have more than one version of the same song in the charts at the same time

think about it, how could you cover a john lennon song if you needed to ask his permission? pray?

you only need to ask for permission if you wish to make a material change to the song. you can change a songs gender, so sing "she loves me" instead of "he loves me", but you can't add your own extra verse without permission (as you would then be entitled to a cut of the royalties of that new version). so if you want to murder tiny dancer by john lennon and shout crap all over the top, you need to ask permission, but if an x factor reject wanted to cover rocket man, then they could if they don't change the lyrics or music. similarly if you wanted to change the tune/melody/chords so the track sounds notably different, you need to ask permission

some artists don't mind covers as it can give them a good additional source of income, but others don't like people murdering their songs and some will go to extremes to prevent cover versions where possible (even if they themselves cover other peoples songs - prince didn't like the foo fighters covering some of his songs, but he covered them at the superbowl)

the issue of backing tracks, acapellas and mastertapes is an entirely different thing. that falls under mechanical rights
unique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-11-2011, 14:57
goldielox
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: North East
Posts: 4,311
Sony has bought the publishing rights, they seem to have the more profitable part of EMI
EMI Group sold as two separate pieces to Universal Music and Sony

'In addition, the recording business is not the crown jewel of EMI. It's the publishing business, which holds the rights to 1.4 million songs, including those by David Bowie, Stevie Wonder and many others.

Though smaller in size than its recorded music division, EMI's publishing group punched above its weight when it came to earnings. The group accounted for 29% of the company's revenue in 2010, the last year for which financial results were made available, but it made up 45% of EMI's operating profit'.
Sony/ATV to be precise, of which the Michael Jackson estate owns a 50% share in.
goldielox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-11-2011, 19:04
CABLEDUDE
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,127
Sony/ATV to be precise, of which the Michael Jackson estate owns a 50% share in.
I'd rather the corporations have it all than half it go to that bunch of back-stabbers, freaks and weirdos.
CABLEDUDE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-09-2012, 01:36
CLL Dodge
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Green Hills of Earth
Posts: 80,454
This merger has been approved in the US & EU though bits of EMI must be sold off seperately (including Parlophone and the Beatles back cataolgue):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19672277

(Pink Floyd were never on Parlophone, they were on Columbia & Harvest).
CLL Dodge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-09-2012, 07:00
Mike_1101
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Lancs
Posts: 7,928
According to the same article:-
"The Commission's demand for assets sales also includes disposal of EMI's Chrysalis, Mute, and Classics labels, as well as Universal's Sanctuary and Co-op Music labels".
So they also lose labels such as Pye and Bronze although I wonder why they haven't sold Virgin back to Branson. I thought he was interested in buying it back.

I suppose these labels will go to Sony-BMG or WEA or are other people out there interested?
Mike_1101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-09-2012, 09:35
nokadota
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dromore, Co Tyrone
Posts: 265
These companies are dinosaurs, gatekeepers of content from an era when gatekeepers had a purpose. The sooner they are made obsolete, the better for musicians and fans.

The Internet has made it easier than ever for people to discover new and exciting music independent of the major labels. Of course, there are a few artists from the majors whose music I buy but that is mostly from older musicians who still make the odd album. The overwhelming majority of the music I buy is from independent musicians.
nokadota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-09-2012, 09:40
Electroflower
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: London
Posts: 309
I'm interested in knowing what's going to happen to the parts they're having to sell off, particularly the Parlophone label and all the artists on there (which include Kylie and Coldplay as well as Pet Shop Boys, who are my favourite band). Is it likely that it'll be bought by another major or independent label?
Electroflower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-09-2012, 13:26
cnbcwatcher
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: At college, in L.A.'s office
Posts: 54,221
I don't think this is good for the music industry really. It's only creating what could eventually end up as a monopoly. I think both the artists and consumers will suffer. Isn't it important to have competition in the market? I'm surprised both the EU and US approved it. I'm writing an essay on Competition Law at the moment and I'm going to mention this story in it.
cnbcwatcher is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 15:38.