[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] FW: [ARSCLIST] w(h)ither Decca?
Here's how the ownership works nowadays. Way back in the days USA Decca was different from UK Decca,
but perhaps someone else can clarify if they were ever connected in one corporate entity. Anyway,
USA Decca was eventually part of MCA, which eventually became MCA-Universal, I think after
Matsushita sold it after a brief ownership period. British Decca was acquired by Polygram in, I
think, the 1970's. At that time, Polygram was jointly owned by Philips and Seimens, but I think
Philips eventually owned the whole thing more or less. Universal merged with Polygram in the late
90's. The Universal movie operations were sold to GE and are now NBC/Universal. Universal Music
Group now owns everything that was under MCA (MCA, ABC/Paramount, American Decca, Command, Kapp,
Westminster, Chess, Duke/Peacock, etc) and what was under Polygram (Philips, Decca, DGG, Mercury,
Verve, etc). This is kept purposely generalized because I might have one or more merger points
inexact. So, yes, anything branded "Decca" is owned by Universal. The Decca classical label seems to
be semi-active and is run by Universal Classics out of London. DGG, also owned by Universal
Classics, is still run out of Germany as far as I know.
BTW, the two other major conglomerates are Sony, which owns what used to be Columbia and RCA, and
Warner Music Group (Warner Brothers, Atlantic, Elektra/Asylum, etc). EMI/Capitol/Blue Note is the
other "Big Music" company, and it's now owned by a private equity group. I'm not sure if Concord
Music Group (also privately owned -- Concord, Fantasy Group [Fantasy, Prestige, Riverside, Pablo,
etc] and Telarc) is big enough to be "Big Music." Maybe.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Breneman" <david_breneman@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] FW: [ARSCLIST] w(h)ither Decca?
--- On Fri, 2/27/09, Thomas Stern <sternth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
just noticed that this reply did NOT go to the list - anyone
why 'reply' was directed to the personal id rather
than to the list?
I'm getting that behavior more and more with Yahoo(! -sic)
mail. It doesn't parse the headers correctly. Who knows
why - Maybe they've adopted the "Standards are for Saps"
mentality of Microsoft. I'm starting to use "Reply All"
to mailing list replies and just cutting out the addresses
that are superfluous.
SO - is the DECCA label and other historic labels being
in favor of a comprehensive brand???
The Decca label disappeared in the US about the time
Universal's parent, MCA, bought it. That was some time
in the late 60s if I remember correctly. All the record
labels MCA bought were subsumed under the "MCA Records"
label. I was surprised to hear the Decca label had made
a comeback in the US. Did this have something to do with
British Decca (released as "London" here since some time in
the 1950s) changing hands?