what is a "major"
lemmy lemmy
what is a "major" or not, i now must jump in to clarify.
1. major record companies are commonly defined by two things: 1) they
are multinational corporations; and 2) distribute their own and others'
product through their own distribution systems.
2. a canadian major record company does exist: universal music canada,
whose parent seagram is canadian.
3. the others (bmg, emi, warner, sony) are "canadian" corporations,
insomuch as they are registered federally in canada and do their
business in canada. they are however, subsidiaries of foreign
multinational companies, and exist only because canadian laws state that
they must manufacture and distribute their titles domestically so as not
to be subject to tarriffs and penalties (which is why imported records
are more expensive than others).
4. it is also mandatory that in order to distribute the world's titles
in canada, that they also must help sign and promote canadian artists as
well. unfortunately, it is only recently that canada has been seen
internationally as a bonafide repertoire source thanks to the success of
morrissette, dion, adams, twain, etc. btw, not one of those is signed
directly in canada anymore.
5. that being said, with nafta and now talk of further import/export
freedom including common currency, these laws are becoming more and more
archaic. it won't be long before these "majors" roll up, put a lot of
people out of work and move their distribution centres to cleveland,
rochester, or chicago.
now, who the fuck is david lashmar??? and really, who the fuck
cares???? can we please put a moratorium on discussions of this fucking
lame-ass publicity campaign? craig, stop fanning those flames,
please!!!!!!!!!
SawDust
lemmy lemmy <lem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3776F0DD...@hotmail.com...
> after seeing the "lashmar" debate rage forth to include the debate of
> what is a "major" or not, i now must jump in to clarify.
>
> 1. major record companies are commonly defined by two things: 1) they
> are multinational corporations; and 2) distribute their own and others'
> product through their own distribution systems.
> 2. a canadian major record company does exist: universal music canada,
> whose parent seagram is canadian.
This is true and I understand why in this case it would be easier to label
universal as a Canadian concern. However, if Seagram were to sell its
universal shares, to let say BMG (Germany), I think that we could still call
universal (Toronto) a Canadian major. I believe that the issue of ownership
is irrelevant, the important factor being the geographic location and how
business is conducted (i.e. does the entity merely distribute product or are
they also involved in A&R activities?).
> 3. the others (bmg, emi, warner, sony) are "canadian" corporations,
> insomuch as they are registered federally in canada and do their
> business in canada. they are however, subsidiaries of foreign
> multinational companies, and exist only because canadian laws state that
> they must manufacture and distribute their titles domestically so as not
> to be subject to tarriffs and penalties (which is why imported records
> are more expensive than others).
> 4. it is also mandatory that in order to distribute the world's titles
> in canada, that they also must help sign and promote canadian artists as
> well. unfortunately, it is only recently that canada has been seen
> internationally as a bonafide repertoire source thanks to the success of
> morrissette, dion, adams, twain, etc. btw, not one of those is signed
> directly in canada anymore.
Celine's albums are still produced by Sony Canada (Montreal).
> 5. that being said, with nafta and now talk of further import/export
> freedom including common currency, these laws are becoming more and more
> archaic. it won't be long before these "majors" roll up, put a lot of
> people out of work and move their distribution centres to cleveland,
> rochester, or chicago.
I imagine that in this event, they would manage to keep a small A/R office
open. As well promotion still has to be handled regionally, no matter what
the market.
lemmy...@my-deja.com
<3xCd3.634$G7.2...@weber.videotron.net>,
> This is true and I understand why in this case
it would be easier to label
> universal as a Canadian concern. However, if
Seagram were to sell its
> universal shares, to let say BMG (Germany), I
think that we could still call
> universal (Toronto) a Canadian major. I believe
that the issue of ownership
> is irrelevant, the important factor being the
geographic location and how
> business is conducted (i.e. does the entity
merely distribute product or are
> they also involved in A&R activities?).
you are wrong, sorry. here's why;
if the entity is a foreign-owned, multinational
company that distributes its own labels' product
in canada, it is legally required to have A&R
activities here as well. if it is a foreign-owned
company, the profit from those sales leave the
country and goes into the pockets of
the foreigner shareholder. thus, there is no net
benefit for canada or canadians. the money that
could be used to build industry and wealth for
canadians are now assets in another country. not
so for universal/seagram, whose shares are traded
in canada and banks here in canada as well. any
net benefit stays here in canada, and profits from
its worldwide sales, end here in canada. if bmg
bought uni from seagram, uni would cease to be
"canadian".
> Celine's albums are still produced by Sony
Canada (Montreal).
i think you are wrong again. altough i am
not certain, i'm fairly sure celine is now signed
directly to sony's 550 label (usa).
> I imagine that in this event, they would manage
to keep a small A/R office
> open. As well promotion still has to be handled
regionally, no matter what
> the market.
marketing and promo maybe, but why A&R when the
goal of virtually every canadian artist is to be
signed directly to a u.s. label anyway?
respectfully, i think you're wrong yet again...
lemmy
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
SawDust
<lemmy...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7lb5c0$oj5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Not so. A controlling interest in the Seagram corporation is actually held
by three American holding corporations. Just because the Seagram stock
trades here does not mean that there are not substantial American interests
involved. By your definition then, Universal (Canada) should be labeled an
American major... which we know indeed it isn't.
> if bmg
> bought uni from seagram, uni would cease to be
> "canadian".
>
> > Celine's albums are still produced by Sony
> Canada (Montreal).
>
> i think you are wrong again. altough i am
> not certain, i'm fairly sure celine is now signed
> directly to sony's 550 label (usa).
Well you can rest assured that she still has a contract with Sony Canada
(Montreal).
>
> > I imagine that in this event, they would manage
> to keep a small A/R office
> > open. As well promotion still has to be handled
> regionally, no matter what
> > the market.
>
> marketing and promo maybe, but why A&R when the
> goal of virtually every canadian artist is to be
> signed directly to a u.s. label anyway?
> respectfully, i think you're wrong yet again...
Yes, but we were discussing the scenario whereby it would no longer be
necessary to have a distinct Canadian entity manufacture and distribute cds.
In that event the artist would be signed directly to the American label... I
never alluded otherwise.