Talk:Columbia Records

Sony Music restructuring

sony music has been restructuring under doug morris. The Columbia epic Label group has been split so that the Epic Label Group could form. epic label group includes epic records and the jive portion of the former rca/jive label group. Columbia clearly looks like it will continue to function as a stand alone label under SME. This article has some new info about the company changes:

http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/record-labels/l-a-reid-s-first-week-at-epic-has-some-staffers-1005272002.story — Preceding unsigned comment added by MusicGeek101 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

--MusicGeek101 (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Untitled

Shouldn't this page say something about the 30th Street Studio in New York City, which was used for recording most genres for several decades? Philip Cross 14:55, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

That is no doubt one of many points the article could be expanded on if you wish. -- Infrogmation 21:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Columbia / CBS ??

This page is all wrong. Columbia Records was a record label under the parent company CBS records. Sony didn't buy Columbia records but CBS records. I wouldn't know where to begin to do any corrections on this page. People should do some real research before writing false info like that. Mtl2la 15:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC) mtl2la

As far as the record label was concerned, Columbia in North America and CBS outside North America were one and the same. Until Sony acquired the rights to the Columbia name from EMI, EMI owned the rights to the Columbia name in most of the world except the USA, Canada and Japan (Nippon Columbia, a separate company). As the article mentioned, CBS, the parent company, only gave a temporary license on the CBS Records name. When CBS established its own international record company, it had to use the CBS name. In countries, such as Japan, where Sony Music does not own the Columbia name, the record label is Sony Records. Remember, this is a global encyclopedia. Bob Dylan in Europe was on CBS Records, not Columbia Records in the 1960s. Steelbeard1 03:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more chronologically correct to credit the Byrds with the Folk-Rock boom (along with Bob Dylan's emergence as a Songwriter and major icon) than to mention Simon and Garfunkle? The 1960s section just strikes me as weak. I think more should be added about Columbia Nashville as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timmyd4unme (talk • contribs) 04:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

EMI Phasing Out Columbia Label

Before Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. shortened its legal name to CBS Inc., The CBS Records "Walking Eye" logo was often accompanied by the words "trade mark of Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc." I wonder if that led to EMI replacing the Columbia label with the EMI label? Steelbeard1 03:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I would certainly like to know more about the history of the Columbia label in the UK (and other territories where EMI had the rights to the name). I'd particularly like to know what happened between the early 1970s (when EMI more or less phased out Columbia) and the early 1990s (when the CBS label was renamed Columbia under Sony ownership). Did EMI lose the right to use the Columbia brand name, or did they stop using it for other reasons?

Moreover, does EMI retain any right to use the Columbia name (or the 'Magic Notes' trademark) today? 217.155.20.163 20:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I found at [1] that Sony BMG now owns both the Columbia name and 'Magic Notes' trademark. Steelbeard1 23:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe when Sony bought Columbia records from CBS in 1988, Sony went to EMI and purchased the Columbia name outright so it could be used in all the markets (except for Japan) that Sony wanted to distribute their recordings.70.114.39.22 (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

COLUMBIA (CBS-COLUMBIA)

• Founded round 1885. Main musical director and artistic director during the Fifties was Mitch Miller.
• Black variety : Johnny Mathis
• Country and Western : Gene Autry, Marty Robbins
• Rock'n'roll: Sid King and The Five Strings, Ronnie Self
• White variety : Doris Day, Guy Mitchell, Frankie Laine, Johnnie Ray, The Four Lads, Rosemary Clooney, Jo Stafford...
• Subsidiaries :
• EPIC
• Black variety : Roy Hamilton...
• OKEH
• R'n'R/R'n'B singers : Screamin' Jay Hawkins, Billy LaMont, The Treniers, Chuck Willis, Larry Darnell, Paul Gayten, Titus Turner, Big Maybelle, Annie Laurie, Chris Powell...Stephan KŒNIG 21:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

1940s notes and mike logo

Does anyone have access to a good classic Columbia "notes and mike" logo? It has been revived by Columbia Jazz, but without the CBS logo on the microphone. If someone has the logo with the CBS mark on it, that's the first preference. Steelbeard1 18:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"Magic Notes" vs. "Walking Eye"

In the 1990s, after Sony bought EMI's interest in the Columbia trade marks, Columbia had no logo--Just the Columbia name in the familiar typeface used today from the CBS era. Eventually, the "walking eye" logo won out over the "magic notes". Anyone familiar with the trade mark issue wish to reply? Steelbeard1 13:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC) (Donhats (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC))I have an album with 4 records with the logo that has the notes and the CBS microphone. the album is called Columbia Presents Theme Songs number C-63.(Donhats (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)) Donhats

That's the pre-Walking Eye logo used on 78 rpm records. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the reason for the "logoless" period was that right after buying EMI's rights, Sony was unsure as to which logo to use worldwide. In most of Europe, people still associated the "magic notes" with EMI's Columbia (even after it became EMI Records in 1973); the "walking eye" was for CBS Records. In the U.S. & Canada, however, the "magic notes" had mostly fallen into disuse; Columbia was associated with the "walking eye". I also wouldn't be surprised if Sony considered the Columbia Pictures torch lady for corporate branding consistency, though it was probably rejected as destroying the separate histories of Columbia Records & Columbia Pictures. (The "CBS mike" logo was out of the question due to the "CBS" on top; modern-day retro versions have just the mike.) I suspect the "walking eye" won because (a) it was far more familiar in the U.S., (b) it had at least some familiarity worldwide via CBS Records, and (c) Sony owned that logo worldwide, even in Japan (where Nippon Columbia still uses the name and "magic notes") and Spain (where BMG owned the name and "magic notes" until Sony BMG). --RBBrittain (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This page is confusing

This page treats/implies that Columbia Records and CBS Records were one and the same. That may have been the case earlier on in the companies history, but eventually CBS evolved into the parent in which Columbia (and Epic) operated under. The line: "In 1982, CBS Records (through Epic) manufactured Michael Jackson's Thriller, the biggest-selling album ever" seems very misleading and illplaced. While CBS oversaw Epic, Columbia Records had nothing to do with Michael Jackson. —The Real One Returns 05:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That was fixed and material more appropriate for the parent company was moved to Sony Music Entertainment. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Timeline Needs Updating

There appears to be lots of interesting changes (albiet, negative ones) happening at Columbia in the past few years. This ongoing history should be at least alluded to or better yet explained. DanMcScience (talk) 05:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

First pop LP

If the LP format wasn't introduced until 1948, how could Sinatra's "The Voice", released in 1946, be the first pop LP? ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wis2fan (talk • contribs) 13:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Because that album, The Voice of Frank Sinatra, was originally released as an album of 78s and was reissued as an LP as explained in that album's article. Because of the misleading text in this article, I rewrote the passage in question.Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Date Records

"In 1966, another Columbia subsidiary label, Date, was created mainly for the soul music outlet"

This line can not be correct, the Date label was around as early as 1957. Izzy007 Talk 02:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

But was this the CBS-owned Date label in 1957? If not, then it was a different Date Records. Please provide the proof. Steelbeard1 (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I found the proof myself which dates the CBS-owned Date label's origins to 1958 at [2]. So the article was revised accordingly. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This material was moved to the Sony Music Entertainment article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Canada 1980s

The section called "The 1980s" only mentions changes in 1988, and implies that the Columbia name was used in the USA and Canada (and the unrelated company in Japan) while the CBS name was used in other countries. This is not accurate; the Columbia name disappeared in Canada in 1981, and from that time onward, Columbia USA records were issued in Canada on the CBS label name, putting it in sync with the company name used outside the USA. The label had "CBS" printed multiple times around the edge, similar to the 1970s Columbia label, and Columbia Masterworks became CBS Masterworks.

However, CBS (and later Sony Entertainment) also had a practice (late 1980s, early 1990s) of distributing American-manufactured records, declaring them as "official imports" (to prevent independent importers from trying to compete with distributing them in Canada), and of course these were on the Columbia label. In that sense, the Columbia name did continue to exist in Canada, and CBS / Sony Canada must have retained the rights to the name so they didn't need to cover up the Columbia logos with stickers showing other logos, as they did in the past when importing Columbia/EMI UK records into North America. But on Canadian manufactured records from 1981, only the CBS name was used.

Does anyone have another take on this, before I change the article?

Oh by the way, I have also commented on another CBS problem here, which could also use your help. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

After a few days and no reply, I made the change, and was reverted by another editor who says it does not match information in cited sources. As you can see, he did this without responding to the proposal above. He has now changed the opening paragraph to emphasize the incorrect information that the Colubmia name, and not CBS, was used in Canada all the way up to 1990. First, I doubt he has found any source quoting this end date explicitly; more likely his source mentions the Columbia name was used in Canada for a longer time than most countries outside the USA, and neglected to mention 1981 as the year it changed to CBS in Canada. By putting an exact date in the intro, he is making a presumption. Second, I believe there is a policy that we don't cite information we know to be incorrect. (I do see he inserted a note that the CBS name was used in Canada for Francophone or French language records, but this does not appear to be related to the complete change to CBS in English-speaking Canada in 1981.) I've had a recent run-in with this editor (not over an edit, but a proposal for a change, which he strenuously objected to), and I suspect this revert is a spin-off from that. I'm done trying to fix this, with nobody coming in to support this proposed correction. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

As the earlier entry was not supported by a supporting citation, it was changed to the entry supported by citation in which Columbia of Canada was renamed CBS Canada in the late 1970s. While no citations have been found to support the use of the CBS label in Canada, CBS Canada recordings found on eBay support the fact that that CBS Canada recordings were issued on the Columbia label for Anglophone recordings (sister labels such as Epic notwithstanding) and the CBS label for Francophone recordings. A 1987 Columbia Canada 45 is found on eBay at [3] as an example. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to accept that the Columbia name was still used after 1981. The proposed change had nothing to do with the corporate name change from Columbia to CBS in 1976 (which I completely agree with). But I have seen the CBS label used in Canada, and not just for the Francophone market. A couple of examples are shown below (click to see full size). These are dated 1982 and 1983, and they are not re-issues, but were purchased at the time of release. Just letting you know the proposed change was not made without research. How do we resolve the existence of these records, with the article?

--A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It was already stated that in 1980, the Columbia Masterworks label was renamed CBS Masterworks. The CBS label name was also used on other non-pop releases, even in the USA, by artists such as Philip Glass. What I am referring to are CBS Canada releases on the CBS label by Francophone recording artists such as the most famous one, after she began recording songs in English, Celine Dion at [4] Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, and I accept it. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

In Concert... on Vinyl

This is one of the first albums I bought, I must have the original vinyl as it originally came out on Columbia records: BL 31161; C2X31160 C 3116124.68.45.25 (talk) 04:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:FORUM, Obamafan70 (talk) 07:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

columbia recording studio Los Angeles 1965 (studio log)

Is there anyway to view the Columbia recording studio Los Angeles studio log in 1965 when The Byrds recorded the L.P. " Mr. Tambourine Man" for Columbia records? The question is: Studio musicians were hired but for which songs?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.149.246 (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC) 

Fair use rationale for Image:Emicolumbiamagicnotes.jpg

Image:Emicolumbiamagicnotes.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.