Talk:Sony Music Publishing

Notes

Way too much personal opinion. Can someone with the detail clean this up to be neutral. Otherwise I would suggest we just delete the section straight off. Steve hill4 (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sony Music Publishing/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am quick-failing this. It has a lot of potential, but the writing is far cry from NPOV and encyclopedic tone. There are too many one-sided opinions (people loosing jobs, McCarney being "cheap"). The article reads to much like a tabloidish newspaper article. This excerpt is a pure novel (even with dialogues!):

Jackson stayed at the home of McCartney and his wife Linda during the recording sessions, becoming friendly with both. One evening whilst at the dining table, McCartney brought out a booklet displaying all the songs he owned the publishing rights to.[7] "This is the way to make big money", the musician told Jackson. "Every time someone records one of these songs, I get paid. Every time someone plays these songs on the radio, or in live performances, I get paid". Fascinated, Jackson told McCartney that he would buy The Beatles' songs one day. "Great. Good joke", McCartney laughed.[7]

Shortly afterward, Jackson's attorney, John Branca, revealed that the Northern Songs catalogue was up for sale. Unable to contain his enthusiasm, Jackson skipped around the room. When warned of the competition he would face in buying such popular songs, Jackson remained vehement in his decision to purchase them. "I don't care. I want those songs. Get me those songs, Branca", the singer demanded.

I hope somebody can comb-out that kind of opinions, dialogues, and details, leaving just the encyclopedic facts. Right now the article is mainly about Jackson-McCartney relationship, when it should really focus more on the company itself. My guess is that the effect of using tabloidish sources exploiting Jackson's life and image. They need thorough vetting before they become acceptable on Wikipedia. Therefore, I fail this, but I do hope this will inspire to re-write and improve the article (the data is already there!). Renata (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sony Music Publishing/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Staring review. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • 

I have no concerns when checking against quickfail criteria. Proceeding to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • I have made copy-edits throughout to improve grammar and sense.
   • History

   • Founding

   The UK rights to rock 'n' roll music from the US were also bought by ATV. All rock 'n' roll music? A slightly surprising statement to me.

• Changed.  DoneJezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

1. • Early history

   and the now-knighted Sir Lew Grade A clumsy phrase, consider re-wording.  DoneJezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

   Len Beadle, the company's head, Head what? Chief executive, chairman, managing director? Please clarify.  DoneJezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

   The catalogue also contained Little Richard's greatest hits. Which one, is this Lieber-Stoller?  DoneJezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

   The ventures, along with the continuing royalties from Lennon and McCartney, ensured that large amounts of money were frequently rolling in for ATV Music Publishing. Which ventures? clarify.  DoneJezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

   rolling in is unencyclopaediac, as is was failing to bring in big money.  DoneJezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• All done.

1. • Acquisition

   The companies were bought by Australian businessman Robert Holmes à Court, who disposed of them quickly and to his great profit. Hundreds of people lost their jobs in the process. This needs a little explanation and expansion. OK, I have fixed this section myself with citations. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

   Shortly afterward, Jackson's attorney, John Branca, revealed that the Northern Songs catalogue was up for sale Revealed implies that this was a secret. Might be better to reword, perhaps ..John Branca advised Jackson....  DoneJezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

   The attorney stated he wasn't; it was too pricey. is the phrase it was too pricey a quote? - if so place in quote marks - if not reword in a more neutral way.  DoneJezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

   Ono was pleased that Jackson had acquired ATV Music Publishing Two paragraphs before it was stated that Jackson had bought Northern Songs. Clarify.  DoneJezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• All done.

1. • Merger

   After Jackson's acquisition of ATV Music Publishing, his record label, CBS, were negotiating the sale of their record division. Implies a connection between to two deals. If so please explain.  DoneJezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

   Upon seeing the success of the sale, Sony sought to break away from its core business of hardware manufacturing and into music, films and games. Sudden introduction of new company Sony, may need rewording to explain.  DoneJezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

   Jackson was the company's director and attended board meetings religiously. Presume you mean Jackson was a company director...  DoneJezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

   The flaw in the arrangement was that each party had to agree on a decision before it could be made. Both sides held the power of veto and if neither party agreed on a matter, it wouldn't happen. The flaw implies a point of view. Reword in a more neutral manner.  DoneJezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• All done.

1. • Recent history

   In 1998, Jackson announced plans to sell the royalties generated by the Beatles, Bob Dylan and other musicians whose work is controlled by Sony/ATV. The company, who also publish the music of Oasis, Willie Nelson, Cyndi Lauper, Pearl Jam and Leonard Cohen, stated that the royalties generated would be collected and used as collateral for a bond offering in excess of $100 million.[12] "If such a deal is cut, it would be done to expand his own investment portfolio", stated Bob Jones, head of media relations at MJJ Productions. So what happened? - that wss eleven years ago!

• Removed. I can't find anything stating the deal went through.  DoneJezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Jackson's company purchased the business for $370 million. Earlier it was described as a joint venture with Sony. Clarify.

• Done.  DoneJezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

1. This whole section (Recent history) is very bitty and incoherent. Consider completely rewriting and condensing.  DoneJezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Removed and reworded some parts. And I have done some more copy-editing and pruning of redundacies. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

1. • Value

   Industry experts valued the catalog at.... In earlier usage the British spelling was used. Spelling needs to be consistent throughout.

• Done.  DoneJezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

1. The company's song catalogue is believed to generate up to $80 million a year, and The Beatles' hits bring in $30 million to $45 million a year. So is the beatles income additional to the $80 million or part of it? Please clarify.

• Done.  DoneJezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Jackson's other publishing firm, Mijac, is valued to be worth at least $75 million. perhaps this company should have been mentioned earlier. What is its relationship to Sony/ATV? Which artists are on its roster?

• Done. It only publishes Jackson's music.  DoneJezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

1. • Infobox

   Is the company headquarters still in London?

• I think so. Shall I remove it? No not neccessary, I couldn't find out on the web. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

1. • Timeline

   OK, with exception of the clumsy now-knighted. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Done.  DoneJezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

1. • Lead

   OK, with exception of the clumsy now-knighted. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Pyrrhus16 19:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)  DoneJezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

OK the article is now fairly well written, there is still room for improvemnet throughout but it does meet GA criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

1. b (MoS):

   • Complies with sufficient elements of MoS. I moved the see also section to the appropriate place. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • Ref #2 does not support the preceding statement, just mentions ATV in passing. All other online sources check. Assume good faith for print sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Removed. Pyrrhus16 19:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)  DoneJezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

1. b (citations to reliable sources):

   • All sources appear reliable. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

   c (OR):

   • No OR

2. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   • The article is fairly broad. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

   b (focused):

   • The article is fairly well focussed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   • Appears to be a fair representation. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   • The article is stable. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   • Images are correctly tagged and licensed.

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • Images have appropriate captions

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • I shall place the article on hold whilst editors address the concerns raised in the prose section. Please place comments below here or after the detailed comments above. I shall be watching this page. This is very near to good article status, but the prose does need attention as cited above. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

   OK The prose is now much better, still room for improvement, but it does meet the "fairly well written" criteria. I am happy to pass this. Congratulations. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for your helpful review, comments and fixes. :) Pyrrhus16 22:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hickory Records

Hickory Records is not a catalogue acquisition, as previously stated. Hickory was not a publishing company; it was a defunct record label. By Sony/ATV acquiring this defunct label, this means acquisition of the masters that the label released (and whatever else was in their archive). The songs in those masters can be published by any company, and therefore it is not a music catalogue- in industry terms music catalogue relates to music publishing. Hickory was then revived in 2007 as the in-house record label of Sony/ATV. More information on masters and their relationship to labels can be found here.Imperatore (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hickory Records, Inc. defunct as of 12-31-1987 currently an "assumed name" of this LLC in State of Tennessee Tillywilly17 (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Video that confirms Sony/ATV is co-owned by The Michael Jackson Estate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwKn3d-vo-Q --ADKIc3mAnX (talk) 05:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sony/ATV Music Publishing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130609115042/http://www.musicweek.com:80/news/read/bmg-concludes-virgin-and-famous-uk-songs-deal/054723 to http://www.musicweek.com/news/read/bmg-concludes-virgin-and-famous-uk-songs-deal/054723

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

History on Sony Music Publishing?

Recently, I've been trying to look up sources on Sony Music Publishing before it was merged with ATV Music Publishing. Are there any around? King Shadeed 20:40, December 19, 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Sony ATV Music Publishing logo.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Delaware Corporate Record

https://icis.corp.delaware.gov/Ecorp/EntitySearch/EntitySearchStatus.aspx?i=2558200&d=y

Entity Details

File Number: 2558200

Incorporation Date / Formation Date: 11/2/1995

Entity Name: SONY MUSIC PUBLISHING (US) LLC

Entity Kind: Limited Liability Company

Entity Type: General

Residency: Domestic

State: Delaware

Status: Good Standing

Status Date: 8/16/2021

REGISTERED AGENT INFORMATION

Name: THE PRENTICE-HALL CORPORATION SYSTEM, INC.

Address: 251 LITTLE FALLS DRIVE

City: WILMINGTON County: New Castle

State: DE Postal Code: 19808

Phone: 302-636-5400

FILING HISTORY (Last 5 Filings)

Seq Description No. of pages Filing Date Filing Time Effective Date (mm/dd/yyyy)

1 Amendment Name SONY/ATV MUSIC PUBLISHING LLC 1 12/28/2020 1:44 PM 1/1/2021

2 Merger [Survivor] 3 3/31/2020 11:03 AM 3/31/2020

3 Merger [Survivor] 2 1/31/2020 7:26 PM 1/31/2020

4 Merger [Survivor] 2 1/31/2020 6:12 PM 1/31/2020

5 Blnkt Address - LLC 1 5/30/2017 8:13 AM 6/19/2017

Tillywilly17 (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Sony Music Publishing.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

SMP or Beatles?

The majority of this article is about the drama surrounding the rights to The Beatles' catalog. Should that be a separate article? I came here looking for a section on criticism - they own THE HOKEY POKEY! I can't believe that's even possible - who did they buy it from? 2600:6C50:427F:EAE5:CC2A:7116:87D1:B56 (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)