Talk:CBS Records International

Or CBS Records (1962)? The lead is inaccurate. In 1962 Philips created its own CBS label in the UK and presumably elsewhere (and it's the Philips version of the logo that is shown). Rothorpe (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who actually worked in the recorded music industry and also worked for CBS Records International at that time, I can say that CBS Records International is the best name to be used to try a prevent the confusion around the name of CBS Records. The 'CBS Records International' that I worked for in Australia were a global power outside the USA and up until the time of change over to the name and ownership of Sony Music Entertainment we had 44 affiliate nations known as CBS Records International to then become Sony Music Entertainment, and outside of the USA we were considered as being one of the big 5 global record companies (along with Polygram, W.E.A./Warners, RCA (Until it became BMG)and EMI. Also the logo represented is correct, we used that logo in Australia where I worked at CBS Records and we also adapted it to Sony Music when we changed ownership in 1991. Can you please tell us more about the Phillips use of the CBS logo, I've never heard of this use. Most of the music industry of the world during the 70's and 80's in particular would recognize the name of 'CBS Records International' as being the separate major international record company affiliate owned by CBS corporation but under the management wing of the head of Columbia Records USA.Simon Rashleigh 02:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC) User:Simon.rashleigh

The version of the logo used by UK Philips is the one with the thick border, as shown here. Rothorpe (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia, CBS entered the recorded music business before CBS Records International was launched when the Australian Record Company was acquired by CBS as shown at [1] in 1960 whose flagship label was Coronet Records. The label was renamed CBS Coronet Records until it was replaced by the CBS label. But the company in Australia continued to be called ARC until the late 1970s. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, the CBS Records label was launched in 1962 by the CBS Records International unit of the Columbia Records subsidiary of CBS. The CBS Records name for the parent record company did not exist until 1966. Prior to that, the parent record company was Columbia Records. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CBS Records International Presidents - Talk

I have just been going through my CBS Records archives and found a mention in an internal newsletter of CBS Records Australia of Bob Summer touring Australia in 1988 with

Walter Yetnikoff

and some other international execs from CBS Records International. From this information it does indicate that Bob Summer was still in the role as 'President of CBS Records International Division' in 1988. Also Yetnikoff was officially titled as 'The President and Chief Executive Officer of CBS'. I am scanning the page from that newsletter and will post a link of it to this thread soon.Simon Rashleigh 03:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

As promised here is the evidence of Bob Summer's role as President of CBS Records International in 1988: http://www.scribd.com/doc/104145994/CBS-Records-Newsletter-Australia-1988-1st-2-Pages Simon Rashleigh 07:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon.rashleigh (talk • contribs)

Formation section

I started the formation section of the article. How is it? Feel free to expand upon it. We should also talk about CBS' acquisition of Oriole Records in a new section which gave the label its own distribution. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The new 'Formation' section looks good, I will soon add in a reference to CBS starting their international operation in Australia as evidence. Also, this Coronet Records being the flagship label for ARC is over emphasized, no one talks about Coronet as being significant amongst former employees in Australia when the history of the ARC is discussed, Coronet is too overblown in its importance. However ARC itself is important and I have enough reference evidence to create its own page, so I'll be doing that soon. I think the reason that Coronet got so much attention is because some record collector got in early and created a page on it, when really a page should have been created for ARC instead. I am not saying that Coronet shouldn't have a page, but its a bit like creating a page for a sub label of Motown (like Morocco records), but not for Motown itself. Simon Rashleigh 13:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)User:Simon.rashleigh

We need a disambig page for the two ARCs record companies in Sony Music's History. The American Record Corporation which CBS bought in 1938 and therefore entered the record business and the Australian Record Company which CBS also bought to distribute American Columbia Records in Australia. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but rather than calling the Australia one "ARC" maybe we should name the page by it's official company name at the time as the Australian Record Company. User:Simon.rashleighSimon Rashleigh 14:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Content

So lets talk about what should be here...Looks like any info before Sony time when CBS Records had business joint venture should be here. All info before Sony would go here I would think.Moxy (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the CBS/Sony Records joint venture in Japan, that could be talked about in the CBS Records International article as well as the establishment of other CBS Records units around the world. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree all before Sony even had its name incorporated should be here.Moxy (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

oppose I personally disapprove of the merger - the company did not evolve into..but rather was purchased. So we have 2 different companies. Would be best to try not to inflate the Sony article with history that is not related. The Sony article is already to heavily weighted towards pre history. Moxy (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oppose Agreed per above. Topic deserves separate article. 78.26 (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support/oppose. My argument is consistency. If we have a dedicated article

(talk) 18:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Your assessment is correct - the current problem is that our readers have to read 3 different articles to find serviceable information about CBS records. Moxy (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, our reader have to read three articles to track pretty simple history of SME. Keeping separate article on CBS Records International implies that there was something under such name, which is not CBS Records International mentioned in SME. Just misleading. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why the "CBS Records" page is a DAB page to direct readers and editors to the correct article and to aid editors to fix misdirected links. The current CBS Records (2006) is not related to any entity previously called CBS Records. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep you got it - not the same company at all so we have different articles. or as you say it "not related to any entity previously called CBS Records." PS this should be called CBS Records Group Moxy (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the "CBS Records Group" did not exist until 1966. The record company was called Columbia Records up until then. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So again you agree they were not the same-thing - so why are they presented in this way?. Looks like Sony evolved from CBS - when in fact they have different beginnings.Moxy (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One correction based on a new citation at [2] in which the "CBS Records Group" entity began in 1971. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - more evidence of the companies notability and non affiliation with Sony before 1988. Moxy (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of the big four record companies evolved. EMI was founded in 1931 using its original full name which it stopped using many years ago. Sony Music in 1929 as ARC, Universal Music Group as the American Decca Records in 1934 and Warner Music Group as Warner Bros. Records in 1958. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's the point - we dont have only 4 articles - each one of the companies listed above have articles that disgusts the different names and time periods before mergers etc.Moxy (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: the notable element here is not a legal entity (whatever number of such involved), but a record label, which simply changed name. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I know this has been said many times - but it was a takeover - then it was renamed. The companies were not affiliated in anyway before 1988 - CBS did not evolve into ...but rather was purchased by Sony then later renamed. Sony was not even a company when CBS was formed - in fact they are form 2 different countries and time periods. REF After 13 months of frustration, Sony's quest to acquire CBS Records, the largest record company in the world - so why dont we have an article on one of the biggest record companies? Or is the New York times a bad ref?Moxy (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose--This was the start of Columbia/CBS Records' international operations. Before this unit of Columbia Records was founded, the record company had to rely on unrelated record companies to distribute their recordings outside North America. Yes, it is today part of Sony Music. But this was the start of Sony Music's global operations. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question why did you ask for a merger when you dont even want one...are you playing around with us - is this some sort of game for you?Moxy (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was brought up by someone else in the now closed dispute resolutions noticeboard. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Separate entities. Rothorpe (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]