Talk:Universal Music Group/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

The correct name for the company is Universal Music Group, but this redirects to the name of the current article, Universal Music. The article should be located at Universal Music Group, to comply with naming conventions, and Universal Music should redirect to the article. -- Guybrush 04:45, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To clarify further, while Universal Music is perhaps more common usage, no record label of this name now exists. In the US, a more specific Universal label would be used; in other countries, the local equivalent (e.g. Universal Australia). While I'm proposing a redirect for Universal Music, there may be scope for a future historical article about the previous record label of that name (just as there are still articles for other labels which are now defunct, noting that they have been bought by Universal Music Group). -- Guybrush 05:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. Stick with the popular name, it's what people will use to find the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:44, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This is the actual name of the company, and I'd like to see an article about the defunct label. ADH (t&m) 18:05, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Support Proper names as titles of articles and redirect to it. Cburnett 23:19, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)q
• Merge - Correct name please Tony. G1ggy ^(t|c|p) 06:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

An an historical note, there is a Universal Records article which was created in 2004. Steelbeard1 02:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge

I am unconvinced of the need & appopriateness of the proposed merge of the articles on Music Corporation of America and Universal Music Group. There is litte overlap in the articles, and the subjects have significant seperate history. -- Infrogmation 8 July 2005 13:34 (UTC)

I agree They shouldn't be merged warpozio 9 July 2005 11:10 (UTC)

I agree MCA began as a talent agency and was a powerful one by the 1950s with the Revue Studios TV production company/syndication subsidiary. Their acquisition of the American Decca Records with its Universal Pictures unit was so big, they were forced by the U.S. government to get out of the talent agency business in order to complete the acquisition. As the Music Corporation of America and MCA Records articles state, MCA wasn't in the recorded music business until 1962! So I oppose merging the articles.Steelbeard1 02:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

As I argued on the talk page for MCA, if it wasn't for MCA, there would be no UMG. Before it became UMG, it was MCA. 24.7.217.221 19:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

...and before it was MCA Records, it was American Decca. So what? As I mentioned already, MCA was a talent agency originally long before it entered the recorded music business. Steelbeard1 19:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Should Decca and Universal Music Group be merged?70.125.147.150 (talk) 11:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The answer is a firm NO. Decca Records is still an active label within Universal Music Group. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Family of labels

Does the Universal labels family tree really has to include indie labels such as Myspace records, Cherrytree records or Vagrant records... to name a few ? They are not Universal subsidiary labels but indie labels that have signed a distribution deal with a Universal label. They can change distributor as they want and are not Universal companies. User:Chris_j 8 July 2006 12:34 (Paris)

The right thing to do would be to move distribution deals to a separate section from captive labels, They should not be removed altogether, though, because those arrangements are typically a lot more involved than merely shipping product, --iMeowbot~Meow 09:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Should also add that some "independent" labels are really subsidiaries set up for particular producers or A&R critters. Cherrytree is one of those. UMG owns 49% of Vagrant too. --iMeowbot~Meow 11:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I Deleted Decaydance Records from the list, it isn't a subsidary of Island-Def Jam but an imprint of indie label Fueled By Ramen..There are no ties to Island or UMG aside from Decaydance being The creation of Pete Wentz(fall out boy).

Currency Question

Since Universal Music Group is an American company and reports its earnings numbers in US dollars, why is this information in Euros in the infobox? Just wondering if this is some sort of convention Wikipedia has adopted, or if it was just written this way by the original editor. I'm not trying to start a US-versus-the-world argument, just assumed that companies' earnings would be reported in terms of the countries they're based in (e.g. Diageo's figures would be reported in Pounds, Sony's would be reported in Yen, etc.). -Rhrad 21:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I forgot that UMG is owned by Vivendi...so clearly Euros are the correct way to go.

-Rhrad 21:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

yeah, so the company's french. --80.33.141.53 12:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it's not that Vivendi or Universal are French as such. Its more that the only publicly available figures (AFAIK) are those in Vivendi's annual reports (which have to be in euro). So its an extension of them being French, but it wouldn't really matter where UMG was registered, cause it being private, means the only public figures would almost definitly be its parent's. - ^Рэд_хот^{(t • c • e)} 20:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Year incorrect

UMG wasn't founded in 1997 or 1998. MCA was formed in either 1924. The company was bought and the name was changed to Universal Music Group in 1996. — The Real One Returns 03:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

In 1924, MCA was not in the recorded music business, it was in the talent agency business. If you want to give the earliest year that the UMG organization was founded, that was 1934 when the American Decca Records was founded. As stated above, MCA bought American Decca in 1962. Steelbeard1 20:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

MCA Music Entertainment Group

I created a redirect to this article at MCA Music Entertainment Group, a few days ago. I am not sure if the history of that division of MCA should be in the Music Corporation of America article, this article, or a seperate article. Discuss here. FMAFan1990 02:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The material is covered in the MCA Records article. I think the redirect should go to MCA Records instead. Steelbeard1 03:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Added Universal Music Australia

I have added the Universal Music Australia site. Kathleen.wright5 00:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Universal Music Group v. Augusto

Universal Music Group v. Augusto: UMG is suing a guy because he resells promo CDs they mail out. The EFF is defending the reseller on the grounds of the first sale doctrine. See http://www.eff.org/cases/umg-v-augusto Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

This section should be cleaned up. Each subsection is just a short little blurb. If someone with more knowledge could fix this up, it would be great. Whiffle Ball Tony (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"Artists signed to Universal Music Group"

I think this section should simply be a link to a category page called "Artists signed to Universal Music Group" or something like that...It would be easier to find other artists like that from an artist's page. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the listing is more appropriate for record labels as opposed to parent companies like UMG. A link to the UMG labels past and present would be appropriate. Topping the list would be List of artists under the Decca Records label as UMG, as a company, traces its origins to the American Decca Records. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Youtube Citation

The first paragraph of the Youtube section I believe does not need any citation. Here is why: whenever a video is made with a song belonging to the record company regardless of it's content (as mentioned on the page) it is removed claiming copyright to Universal Music Group. This is mainly because the record company are making no profit from their song being used, which is basically against their beliefs hence they demand royalties for its use. This is pretty much in line with the recent Writers Strike in America, arguing that they do not get money for online downloads of their films or TV shows.

Still, I see it would be nice for a citation, but I think one could be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Okli (talk • contribs) 20:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't really seen proof of these as of yet, maybe for newer iTunes only pre-releases sure, but I think all record deals do that. Tibbydibby (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

UMG doesn't have 31 million channel views, it has over 4 billion. I should know, I look at the awards that they have (the number was reduced for some reason). I also know this cause I'm a YouTuber myself (SOHilariousOfficial). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.213.2 (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

UMG market share

Can someone provide a reference for the 25.5% market share mentioned in the article? The entry should probably also be dated, since market share in the music industry is a fluid thing.Rruitenberg (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

YouTube

The videos on the universalmusicgroup channel is also available in Canada, since I'm able to watch like ALL of the music videos at the moment. Can you verify why it only states that the music videos are available in the US, when in fact I was able to watch virtually all the music videos from Canada as well? Tibbydibby (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It is funny that this is mentioned, since they are now forcefully restricting the countries that are allowed to view their content (from the official channel and from Video ID positives). The list of authorized countries is: American Samoa, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Cuba, Fiji, France, Germany, Guam, Heard Island and McDonald Islands, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kiribati, Mexico, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niue, Norfolk Island, Northern Mariana Islands, Papua New Guinea, Puerto Rico, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Spain, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, United Kingdom, United States, United States Virgin Islands, Vanuatu. Notice how China is absent from the list. This info should be on the page. --Jack Zhang (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Headquarters

On the UMG FAQ page it says that their corporate headquarters are in Santa Monica and New York. However, their CEO has his office in Santa Monica. Should both be listed on the page as its headquarters? --MusicGeek101 (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Universalheadquarters.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Universalheadquarters.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 18 March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Universalheadquarters.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

EMI merger

The article previously listed EMI as a division of Universal. While this is quite likely to happen, it hasn't happened yet. Universal still needs approval from regulators. see: "Vivendi to Compromise for EMI Deal". We should wait until the merger actually occurs to add EMI.Forbes72 (talk) 05:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Does the first sentence of the lead "Universal Music Group (UMG) is the largest American music corporation in the world." contradict itself? It seems kind of confusing, as I has to re-read it a couple times to understand. Should it be re-worded, for example "Universal Music Group (UMG) is the largest music corporation in the world, based in Santa Monica, California, United States."? -- LuK3 (Talk) 04:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

That changes the sense of it doesn't it? Is it the largest music corporation in the world or the largest American music corporation? 2001:470:1F09:42F:F457:6A22:7555:DC01 (talk) 12:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It's even funnier when you read the next: (loosely) It's owned by the Paris-based Vivendi. That means it's really French, for all intents and purposes. I suggest dropping "American" if the statement will remain true, or, if not, something along the lines of "largest music corporation operating in the US". 89.102.133.166 (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivendi states "Universal Music Group is the world's number one music producer with more than 30% of the global market." Doesn't give a source though. 89.102.133.166 (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)