Does A&M Records still make sense?
- Thread starter Steven J. Gross
- Start date
- Status
dostros
Member
Yeah, yer right. Its place in history is already made. Is there an example of a label finding itself again, bought by someone who cares about its past reputation and wishes to restore it to its former glory?
Is the Reprise label an example of a label that still has a certain "cachet", despite all the buyouts and re-orgs?
David O (who knows little about records labels)
Is the Reprise label an example of a label that still has a certain "cachet", despite all the buyouts and re-orgs?
David O (who knows little about records labels)
Well, apart from Warner Brothers Records (a relative newcomer to the industry), almost no label is under the same ownership or represents the same philosophy as when it began. And, given that Warners has itself gone through ownership changes while maintaining the Warner name, it doesn't really count, either.
RCA was the Radio Corporation of America. It's now owned by BMG...a German company that made its bucks in the printed word.
Columbia? That was the record arm of the Columbia Broadcasting System...but Japan's Sony owns it now.
And...Sony and BMG are merging.
Atlantic stopped being the haven for R&B and Jazz that Ahmet Ertegun founded in the 40s long ago...after it was bought by Warners.
Capitol was a West Coast indie focused on the highest-quality recording and pressing standards until EMI swallowed them decades ago.
Island was a small British label that was virtually entirely reggae until Chris Blackwell went rock in 1967.
Geffen? Dave's not here (with apologies to Cheech and Chong). Try Dreamworks.
So why shouldn't A&M continue?
---Michael Hagerty
RCA was the Radio Corporation of America. It's now owned by BMG...a German company that made its bucks in the printed word.
Columbia? That was the record arm of the Columbia Broadcasting System...but Japan's Sony owns it now.
And...Sony and BMG are merging.
Atlantic stopped being the haven for R&B and Jazz that Ahmet Ertegun founded in the 40s long ago...after it was bought by Warners.
Capitol was a West Coast indie focused on the highest-quality recording and pressing standards until EMI swallowed them decades ago.
Island was a small British label that was virtually entirely reggae until Chris Blackwell went rock in 1967.
Geffen? Dave's not here (with apologies to Cheech and Chong). Try Dreamworks.
So why shouldn't A&M continue?
---Michael Hagerty
jfiedler17
Well-Known Member
Steven J. Gross said:
It'd be nice to let the longstanding veterans of the label, like Sting and Bryan Adams and Amy Grant, finish out on A&M [I always hate to see veteran performers have to move over to really obscure independent labels], but I don't know that there's any real point in keeping the label alive. [Most - not all, but most - of the newest artists on the roster I'm not that impressed with, anyway, personally.] The small handful of veteran artists aside, what's really distinguishing A&M anymore from the other labels? I don't see A&M circa 2004 having all that much of an identity, and - as we discussed on another recent thread - it's not like they seem to have any real interest in the company's history.
I hate to see the logo put to a permananent rest, but the label's so completely removed from what it used to be, that it seems almost flat-out exploitive for them to keep using it.
I can think of one label, incidentally, that actually re-emerged with a semblance of its old self. Capitol/EMI recently resurrected its Manhattan Records imprint and re-signed its most famous alum, Richard Marx, to it. [How often do you see an artist on a major label squeezed out and forced over to indie labels and then actually brought BACK? I gotta give kudos to 'em for doing that!]
Jeff F.
Steven J. Gross
Well-Known Member
Steven J. Gross
Well-Known Member
Does A&M Records still make sense?
Maybe this is a good sign:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...=sr_1_10/104-6673381-6867924?v=glance&s=music
Maybe this is a good sign:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...=sr_1_10/104-6673381-6867924?v=glance&s=music
jimac51
New Member
One label with a deep catalog,rich history and eternal importance to the history of recorded music is the BlueNote label,which reinvented itself almost twenty years ago. Founded in 1939 by Alfred Lion(and soon partnered with fellow German immigrant jazz fan Francis Wolff),Alfred gave people like Thelonius Monk,Jimmy Smith,Art Blakey and Horace Silver the space and time to create music still being explored 50+ years after its creation. Interesting to note that most of it was recorded by one person,Rudy VanGelder,in two places,Hackensack and Englewood Cliffs,N.J. and most of the album covers were designed by one person,Reid Miles,with Wolff's session photography. In the late '60s,Alfred sold to Liberty Records,which was gobbled up by United Artists,whcih became part of TransAmerica and eventually fell into EMI. From the mid-70s,the label was pretty much running on the fumes of its past glory and by the late 1970s,was off the map. Bruce Lundvall,after successes with jazz at Columbia and Elektra/Musician,was given the keys to the BlueNote future in 1985 and with producer Michael Cuscuna,brought about a mixture of reissuing the past masterpieces while trying to bring new material in the same "hands off" approach that Lion & Wolff gave their artists. Not everything worked,but the legacy of the label in the last 20 years is great enough that both the deceased Lion & Wolff are probably looking down from above and smiling. Sure,having a Norah Jones on your roster(BTW, Jones is a major reason why Richard Marx and Manhattan Records exist today-thanks to Lundvall) helps keep a lot of bean counters away,but the aim of Lundvall & Co. to sell quality music to as large an audience as possible is noteworthy. Mac
You know, with all this talk about A&M being just an imprint or dying or whatever... A&M is still an imprint with its own A&R staff serving under the subcorporate umbrella of the "IGA label" which (in turn) is under Uni. So there is some degree of "independence" for A&M though it is a far cry from the heady Alpert/Moss era...
--Mr Bill
--Mr Bill
Vinylalbumcovers
Ah am so steel een luv weeth yoo
jfiedler17
Well-Known Member
Captain Bacardi
Well-Known Member
To me A&M "ended" in '92 or '93 when Herb & Jerry left the company. Of course, they sold it so the new owners are within their own rights to keep the logo and company as they see fit. The A&M that we all grew up with is long gone and will never return, so it's really pointless to keep pining for its return.
For me I'm happy that I grew up with A&M and the artists on the label, and will forever cherish the music of that time, regardless of whatever label(s) the music ends up on in the future.
Capt. Bacardi
For me I'm happy that I grew up with A&M and the artists on the label, and will forever cherish the music of that time, regardless of whatever label(s) the music ends up on in the future.
Capt. Bacardi
Dave
Well-Known Member
Whether it's the A&M Records, as in the company under the direction and ownership of Herb Alpert and Jerry Moss, which always made good Business Decisions and with the LISTENER in mind, or "A&M Records", as the faceless imprint, belonging to the faceless Universal or UNI corporate conglomeration, it stands for the record company it always stood for, depending on what acts are on it.
I look at the new stuff as a "reinvention" of the company, in the sense that, once the Herb Alpert & TjB reissues come out, the "original heritage" of the label will HOPEFULLY exist, though along-side the "newer" artists that are on it; that MIGHT be something the New Buyers MIGHT acknowledge, or look into, or maybe not...
Only time will tell, whether A&M returns to the label it once existed as, offering most of us a comprehensive variety of artists, which for almost 40 years, it once did... If you DON'T like the newer stuff, fine...but if you do, then the COMPLETIST will just have a "larger" collection of stuff from "that" label...
Dave
I look at the new stuff as a "reinvention" of the company, in the sense that, once the Herb Alpert & TjB reissues come out, the "original heritage" of the label will HOPEFULLY exist, though along-side the "newer" artists that are on it; that MIGHT be something the New Buyers MIGHT acknowledge, or look into, or maybe not...
Only time will tell, whether A&M returns to the label it once existed as, offering most of us a comprehensive variety of artists, which for almost 40 years, it once did... If you DON'T like the newer stuff, fine...but if you do, then the COMPLETIST will just have a "larger" collection of stuff from "that" label...
Dave
Steven J. Gross
Well-Known Member
lol
As I read my post to Mike I realize it comes off somewhat testy...that wasn't my intent. Also, my respect for Mike (whom I've never met) vastly exceeds my respect for CBS News (that was cold, Steve).
For clarification: While the company currently known as Time Warner has gone through ownership changes (which is why it "doesn't really count")...Warner Brothers Records is, as it was in the beginning, the record arm of Warner Brothers.
Columbia is no longer owned by the Columbia Broadcasting System, nor RCA by the Radio Corporation of America. Motown's not owned by Berry Gordy anymore nor is Universal Music Group still owned by the same folks who own Universal Studios. But Warner Brothers records is still a part of Warner Brothers. It's the closest thing to original ties that I can think of in the business today.
---Michael Hagerty
For clarification: While the company currently known as Time Warner has gone through ownership changes (which is why it "doesn't really count")...Warner Brothers Records is, as it was in the beginning, the record arm of Warner Brothers.
Columbia is no longer owned by the Columbia Broadcasting System, nor RCA by the Radio Corporation of America. Motown's not owned by Berry Gordy anymore nor is Universal Music Group still owned by the same folks who own Universal Studios. But Warner Brothers records is still a part of Warner Brothers. It's the closest thing to original ties that I can think of in the business today.
---Michael Hagerty
...in other words, while other entities have been sold off form their original founders/parent corporations, the Warner Conglomerate has simly changed as an entire entity but is still the same big entity, just under another corporate boss (often in name only).
--Mr Bill
who understood what both Mike H and Mike B meant...
--Mr Bill
who understood what both Mike H and Mike B meant...
Vinylalbumcovers
Ah am so steel een luv weeth yoo
Yes, I do remember that!
And, since we're also talking about the founding philosophy of the labels here, I read somewhere that the original reason Warner Brothers Records was launched was to provide for distribution of soundtrack albums for Warner Brothers Pictures. Apparently, music and comedy were an afterthought.
---Michael Hagerty
And, since we're also talking about the founding philosophy of the labels here, I read somewhere that the original reason Warner Brothers Records was launched was to provide for distribution of soundtrack albums for Warner Brothers Pictures. Apparently, music and comedy were an afterthought.
---Michael Hagerty
Vinylalbumcovers
Ah am so steel een luv weeth yoo
- Status
