Has Sony aquired the RCA Classical Label?

[Cristofori]

I was at the music store today (one of the few that are left) and I noticed that there were a few CD's that had once been classic RCA "Living Stereo" recordings (some of which had been issued on SACD) now issued on a budget priced Sony Classics label. Also, the wording on these CD's made it sound like these had always been classic Sony recordings, even though they had their original RCA cover photos.

Does this mean that we can now expect to see the SACD versions of these disappear? These must have been just very recently released, because I've never seen them before in any advertisements and I'm usually on top of this sort of thing. I always thought that RCA/BMG wasn't a part of Sony.

Also on a side note...  I understand that the Philips name had been recently swallowed up by Decca, but why??? Philips has always been a major player on the classical scene and is instantly recognizable, so of what benefit is it to Decca as far as the customers are concerned by wiping their name out of existence? What is to become of all the Philips recordings that are (were) currently available? Are they all destined to become a confusing mish-mosh of reissues on a label which historically never had any relation to it?

What is going on here?

[Todd]

What is going on here?

Sony bought BMG, which owned RCA, in 2008.  Philips was phased out as a label a year or two ago with recordings rolled into the Decca label.  The majors are consolidating because it is unprofitable for so many to exist.  SACD is only noteworthy in classical music, but appears to be destined to be for specialty labels only.  Outside classical no one cares about SACD, especially since high resolution downloads are the here and now, let alone the future.

[Mirror Image]

I'm usually on top of this sort of thing. I always thought that RCA/BMG wasn't a part of Sony.

Apparently, you're not. This boat has sailed several years ago.

[Cristofori]

Sony bought BMG, which owned RCA, in 2008.  Philips was phased out as a label a year or two ago with recordings rolled into the Decca label.  The majors are consolidating because it is unprofitable for so many to exist.  SACD is only noteworthy in classical music, but appears to be destined to be for specialty labels only.  Outside classical no one cares about SACD, especially since high resolution downloads are the here and now, let alone the future.

Hmm... thanks for the info. I wonder why it took Sony so long to start releasing the RCA stuff under their own name? Also, they shouldn't try to pretend that these are "classic Sony recordings" which the CD labels indicated. Those of us who may be buying these recordings aren't fooled.

As far as SACD is concerned, it isn't a huge issue with me. I get them when I can at the right price but I don't go out of my way. There are still some non-classical titles being released, more than you might think, on special import labels and Japanese CD issues. Of course, these only appeal to Audiophiles and collectors, but isn't this the way it has always been? Since when did the masses at large ever care about quality or really good sound?

I agree with you that high-res downloads will become more and more common in the future, but I have yet to find any of the more common rock/pop stuff in anything but MP3 quality (not that I've been looking to hard).  A future where most music won't even sound as good as CD (or even LP in some cases) on average, minus getting the cover art, liner notes, etc., and listening to it all through an ear bud is a no future I wan't any part of.  But for now, the types of music I'm listening to is thankfully still being physically made well. When it no longer is, then I guess I will just have to start listening to the lifetime worth of music I already have.

Sorry for the rant, but this whole thing is all very depressing to me.

[Cristofori]

Apparently, you're not. This boat has sailed several years ago.

What I meant was I'm usually on top of this stuff as far as actual product being released is concerned, and not the actual business decisions leading up to the merger or the gossip that goes on in this forum.

Until now, I've never seen any RCA titles released under Sony's name, and I always pay close attention to advertisements in the classical magazines that I read regularly.

If I somehow missed them... then shame on me! 

[Daverz]

Here's a listing of the new Sony Masters boxes:

http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/promo.php?promo=261&blurb=261

which is a mix of RCA and CBS recordings.

[Cristofori]

Here's a listing of the new Sony Masters boxes:

http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/promo.php?promo=261&blurb=261

Wow! This is awesome! You have succeeded in making me drool all over my keyboard! Thank you! Now I am no longer depressed (for the moment).    But are these available in the USA at these prices? Do I have to order from the UK? I've never done business with Presto before.

Seriously, I've been busy buying up everything I can at the few independent record stores that exist and at liquidation prices at the (once great) Borders stores that used to exist in my area and are now being closed. Except for ArchivMusic.com, I haven't been buying hardly anything online, and I haven't seen these advertised there yet.

[Daverz]

But are these available in the USA at these prices?

You should be able to find these on Amazon.  I've heard good things about Presto, but apparently they do charge your card immediately (well, so does Amazon), unlike MDT, who won't charge your card until they ship.

[Scarpia]

Also on a side note...  I understand that the Philips name had been recently swallowed up by Decca, but why??? Philips has always been a major player on the classical scene and is instantly recognizable, so of what benefit is it to Decca as far as the customers are concerned by wiping their name out of existence? What is to become of all the Philips recordings that are (were) currently available? Are they all destined to become a confusing mish-mosh of reissues on a label which historically never had any relation to it?

In this case you are about 30 years behind the curve.  Philips ceased to be an independent label in about 1978, when Deutsche Grammophon (actually their parent company, Polygram) took over Philips and Decca.  DG maintained the pretense that the labels were independent, although they were allowned by the same company.  For the last 10 years or so neither Decca nor Philips have had their own offices or production teams  (the Philips production staff ended up forming Pentatone).  Polygram also ended up getting taken over several times, and now no longer has the right to use the name Philips, so they issue Philips under the Decca label now.  But other than the use of the trademark there has been no substantial change in status recently.

[Opus106]

But are these available in the USA at these prices? Do I have to order from the UK?

The thread for the series is here: http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,17920.new.html

You should expect Amazon's prices to fluctuate at any moment.

I've never done business with Presto before.

My experience with them has been very good so far.

For the last 10 years or so neither Decca nor Philips have had their own offices or production teams  (the Philips production staff ended up forming Pentatone).

Didn't Decca move into a new office in London a few months ago? I read it somewhere -- Gramophone, perhaps?

[Scarpia]

Didn't Decca move into a new office in London a few months ago? I read it somewhere -- Gramophone, perhaps?

I don't know of that.  I recall they closed their London offices years ago, they could be opening a London Office again.  But the independence of Decca seemed to evaporate when their Decca Legends series vanished and became part of the DG "Originals" series.  New Decca releases also seem to be mastered at "Emile Berliner Studios," DG's production center.

[Opus106]

I don't know of that.  I recall they closed their London offices years ago, they could be opening a London Office again.  But the independence of Decca seemed to evaporate when their Decca Legends series vanished and became part of the DG "Originals" series.  New Decca releases also seem to be mastered at "Emile Berliner Studios," DG's production center.

I had this in mind, actually: http://www.gramophone.co.uk/classical-music-news/decca-label-relaunches-as-decca-classics . I'm not sure if it's just a case of renaming and getting Barenboim to sign a contract.

[Scarpia]

I had this in mind, actually: http://www.gramophone.co.uk/classical-music-news/decca-label-relaunches-as-decca-classics . I'm not sure if it's just a case of renaming and getting Barenboim to sign a contract.

Interesting, they must have lost business when they consolidated Decca with DG some years ago.

[Cristofori]

In this case you are about 30 years behind the curve.  Philips ceased to be an independent label in about 1978, when Deutsche Grammophon (actually their parent company, Polygram) took over Philips and Decca.  DG maintained the pretense that the labels were independent, although they were allowned by the same company.  For the last 10 years or so neither Decca nor Philips have had their own offices or production teams  (the Philips production staff ended up forming Pentatone).  Polygram also ended up getting taken over several times, and now no longer has the right to use the name Philips, so they issue Philips under the Decca label now.  But other than the use of the trademark there has been no substantial change in status recently.

I'm not interested as much in the politics and business decisions as I am in the finished artwork and product itself. I'm looking at these kind of things with a collectors mentality. Even though Philips ceased to be independent in 1978 as you say, and was taken over by DG, their LP's were still pressed on different vinyl in a different factory, recorded in different venues, with different artists, etc. In that way the brand was still distinctive. It seemed to remain that way up to the late 1980's if not longer.

I understand that business decisions have to be made, but I don't see why whoever it is that owns the Philips name would rather see it disappear altogether then allow it to be used for what it is best known to classical connoisseurs.  When I see artists that were so strongly associated with the label, say Alfred Brendel for example, appear on new recordings with a Decca logo on it it just seems strange and out of place.

On a side note... I just got the new Archiv Box with the Bach Brandenburg Ctos., Harpsichord Ctos,. Overtures, etc. with Trevor Pinnock & crew. One might think that the Archiv label would be even less recognizable and profitable for Universal Music Group then the Philips label???

[Scarpia]

I understand that business decisions have to be made, but I don't see why whoever it is that owns the Philips name would rather see it disappear altogether then allow it to be used for what it is best known to classical connoisseurs.  When I see artists that were so strongly associated with the label, say Alfred Brendel for example, appear on new recordings with a Decca logo on it it just seems strange and out of place.

Philips owns the Philips name.  They are alive and well and presumably don't see any advantage in having another company use their trade mark on products that they have nothing to do with.   I'm sure Universal Classics would be happy to brand those recordings as "Philips" if the real Philips would allow them.

I agree it is a shame that Decca and Philips lost their artistic identity and became divisions of a big corporation that has no particular interest in classical music (i.e., Vivendi, which owns Universal).  Similar sentiments apply for Teldec, Erato and Finlandia, which got absorbed by Warner.

On a side note... I just got the new Archiv Box with the Bach Brandenburg Ctos., Harpsichord Ctos,. Overtures, etc. with Trevor Pinnock & crew. One might think that the Archiv label would be even less recognizable and profitable for Universal Music Group then the Philips label???

Archiv was always a division of DG, at least going back to the 50's, so Universal can use that brand to its heart's content.

[Coopmv]

Sony bought BMG, which owned RCA, in 2008.  Philips was phased out as a label a year or two ago with recordings rolled into the Decca label.  The majors are consolidating because it is unprofitable for so many to exist.  SACD is only noteworthy in classical music, but appears to be destined to be for specialty labels only.  Outside classical no one cares about SACD, especially since high resolution downloads are the here and now, let alone the future.

I think Philips' disappearance as a classical music label was due to some kind of trademark agreement.  Back in the early 90's, DG-Philips-London and a few smaller labels such as Argo and L'oiseau Lyre were all owned by Polygram, a onetime wholly owned subsidiary of Philips, the giant Dutch electronics company.  When Polygram was acquired by Vivendi and then Universal, some agreement was struck that the name Philips could no longer be used as a music label at some point.  Our Dutch forum members are probably much more knowledgeable than I on these Dutch corporate matters ...

[Scarpia]

The DG web site has a "history" which describes some of the business details.  Apparently Philips and DG had been under the same parent company since 1962 when Siemens and Philips entered a joint venture.  Decca was acquired in 1980.   In 1987 Siemens sold its interest to Philips, making it the sole owner, but in 1998 Philips sold its interest to Seagram, which merged all of its record labels as Universal, then in 2001 Universal Music group was bought by Vivendi.   I believe that when Philips sold its music business to Seagram it only ceded rights to use the Philips trademark for a finite time, which has recently expired.

There are more complications, such as the fact that Deutsche Grammophon and EMI were one company until the first world war, and EMI had a stake in Columbia until it would bought out by Sony in 1990.  Very incestuous.