Talk:List of EMI labels

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Record Labels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of record labels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Record LabelsWikipedia:WikiProject Record LabelsTemplate:WikiProject Record Labelsrecord labels articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wha?[edit]

Moved from the main EMI article. --Cyhatch 06:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wha? 2[edit]

Wha? about Zapple whilst it was still there --77.99.231.37 (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it wasn't? Rich Farmbrough, 15:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Some to check[edit]

Rich Farmbrough, 15:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Also

EMI Denmark (http://emi.dk), may have owned and closed FLEX Records

77.215.46.17 (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Divested EMI labels[edit]

We should verify what specific EMI labels are being sold by UMG. We all know that Parlophone is one of them. But we need verifiable citations for other labels. I can't believe Liberty Records is being divested as the American catalogue is firmly in the hands of Capitol Records. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to [1], these are the EMI labels being divested: Parlophone Records, EMI Classics, Chrysalis Records and Mute Records among other assets. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia Graphophone Company[edit]

Why is the Columbia label being re-written this way here. The label was called Columbia outside the USA and was owned by EMI. America-centric and absolutely inaccurate revisionism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.188.63 (talk) 09:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... Where? EMI's Columbia label's article is Columbia Graphophone Company. The default Columbia Records is the one owned by Sony Music Entertainment world wide except in Japan where Nippon Columbia has the rights to the Columbia Records name. Can't you read the hatnotes on top of the Columbia Records article? Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uh...you seem to have missed the point but that's okay because it requires some knowledge of the history which you seem to lack. The label was derived from a *company* called Columbia Graphophone Company. The label itself was never called that under the ownership of EMI. It was simply called Columbia Records. We have a non-existent label listed on the EMI labels page in order to fudge this reality. In this case Wiki has reworked fact to ease data entry and it is now inaccurate as a result. 122.62.188.63 (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, YOU are missing the point. The Columbia Phonograph Company, based in the USA, had subsidiaries around the world. The UK unit was called Columbia Graphophone Company which was sold by the American company in 1922 which is why the founding year for Columbia UK was set at 1922. It merged with the Gramophone Company (His Master's Voice) in 1931 to form EMI with the labels maintaining their identities. The Columbia UK article is called Columbia Graphophone Company to avoid confusion with the American Columbia Records. Remember the hatnote on top of the Columbia Records article which you chose to ignore? EMI eventually sold the rights to the Columbia name and trade marks to Sony Music Entertainment allowing the revival of the Columbia label to replace the CBS label. As the hatnote states, Columbia is a global record company operating around the world except in Japan where, AS I ALREADY STATED, Nippon Columbia owns the rights to the Columbia Records name and trade marks. And one more thing. If you look at the EMI Columbia sleeve at [2] on the lower left corner, you will see that below the trade mark are the words TRADE MARK OF COLUMBIA GRAPHOPHONE COMPANY LTD. So the Columbia Graphophone Company was still a legal entity and subsidiary of EMI into the 1960s. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing. Look at the 1957 EMI Columbia catalog entry which states that it was published by the COLUMBIA GRAPHOPHONE COMPANY. I'll repeat this in your talk page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Here is further proof. This early 1960s label of a record by Mr. Acker Bilk at [3]. Read the very top of the label. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Former EMI units sold to Warner Music Group[edit]

We need to serious update this article to include former EMI units which were sold to Warner Music Group. According to [4] and [5], the labels sold were Parlophone, Chrysalis, Ensign, EMI Classics, Virgin Classics and EMI's recorded music operations in Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Slovakia and Sweden. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]