Talk:Pye Records

Pye Golden Guinea Records was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 11 April 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Pye Records. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Slightly inaccurate entry relating to PRT and Bond’s acquisition of Bell.

The disposals by Bell of ATV music and PRT were completely unconnected with Bond’s acquisition of Bell -which was triggered by the events of October 1987. The financial hiatus in 1987/88 caused Bell to breach its Banking covenants and this ultimately led to its collapse and sale to Bond.

By then Bell, led by Robert Holmes à Court, had already decided to focus on core international activities and both ATV and PRT were ill fitted for its corporate objectives.

PRT was actually sold to a private investor Ray Richards in March 1987 - 6 months before the financial crash of October that year . Bell was not acquired by Bond until 1988/89.

It was Ray Richard’s who sold PRT to Carlton some time later.

PRT’s pressing plant had already been closed by Bell in about 1984 or 1985 and it’s A&R department was closed in 1986.

So by the time it was sold to Richards, PRT comprised only a recording studio in Marble Arch, London, a back catalogue run from Marble Arch and a distribution operation in Mitcham, London.

There was no symbiotic relationship between PRT and ATV music. They were run as completely separate and unconnected business units… and indeed there was reasonable professional jealousy and hostility between the two divisions.

ATV music was sold to Michael Jackson in 1985 and this had no impact on PRT which, by then, was struggling to attract major new talent.

The Marble Arch recording studios however were extremely well regarded. The manager and recording engineer , Malcolm Davies, had worked extensively with George Martin and The Beatles and was a draw card for people wanting to use the studios.

The studios also put a lot of effort into digitally remastering PRT’s valuable back catalogue of classical music and putting this out on Compact Disc as “The Virtuoso Collection” to quite considerable critical acclaim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.126.105.101 (talk) 00:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone knowledgeable disambiguate the

Now done. Derek R Bullamore 08:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone knows the lineage of Target in the Republic of Ireland, there should probably be a descriptive link. I'm aware Target was a PYE "company" but have no detail beyond that.--Ear1grey 15:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was this removed by mistake? It is part of the Pye story, and should be in the article. Rothorpe (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081119145448/http://www.capitol6000.com/protected/PyeList.htm to http://www.capitol6000.com/protected/PyeList.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

I'd like to see more about Pye's recording studios at Marble Arch. All I've found in a casual Google search is that they had mono, two-track and four-track tape machines, and their larger studio was comparable to Abbey Road's Studio One. Zephyrad (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC) Zephyrad (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that Nixa Records be merged into Pye because Pye bought Nixa and became Pye Nixa. There's information about Pye available but little to nothing about Nixa. The two are often combined when discussed.
Vmavanti (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am completing an archive for Cambridge University Marlowe Society, which includes papers to do with the Society's recording between 1957 and 1964 of the Complete Works of Shakespeare for the British Council. A letter from the Council in 1954 indicates that the Nixa Company was to be contracted with for the recordings; their association with distribution to countries of the British Commonwealth made them a natural partner for the Council. When Nixa was bought by Pye, the Council switched to Argo, (later bought by Decca), which became the company with which the recordings were made. See the article by Tony Wakeford in Magna, the Magazine of the Friends of the National Archives, vol.27, no.1 (May 2016). This history shows that Nixa had a distinct character that makes it a factor in the histories of other entities, so I suggest it would be better to keep Nixa Records as an independent presence on Wikipedia.

Tim Cribb 2A00:23C4:7300:D700:FD71:2C63:201F:8A00 (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC) (Churchill College, Cambridge) 22/06/20[reply]

• Support merge; Nixa seems to have been a very short-lived label and a merger would not make the Pye article overlong. No information would be lost and Nixa would remain as a redirect; although some sourcing might be necessary. Eagleash (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge; Nixa as an entity was short-lived, and their present article does not give sufficient presence, coverage, nor valid reasons to remain separate from Pye. On a separate matter, these sort of merge discussions seem to hang on for months, with little input nor real conclusion. This one is 12 months and counting! - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait. There seems to be some evidence in the Nixa Records article (and in Tim Cribb's comments above) that the label had an interesting and possibly notable history, albeit fairly briefly, before it was taken over by Pye. The article is currently unsourced, but good unused sources may exist, and if they can be found there would seem to be a good basis for keeping it as a separate article. Retrospectively claiming that a record label is not notable because it later merged with another label is not a good determinant of notability. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, given the stale discussion with no consensus, in the presence of uncontested opposition. Klbrain (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]