|
Magic Marmalade 14th Jan 2017
| | I'm sure if asked anyone who actually works for one of the "current" record labels who it is that they actually work for... they would themselves either shrug, or have to check their calendar to work out who it might be this particular week :)
-This entry is correct though -
(When company and label ownership trees get as complicated as they now are, it does smack of moving the furniture around for "tax purposes" to me). |
|
|
|
JJcollector 13th Jan 2017
| | What have I done? :-) |
|
|
|
ppint. 13th Jan 2017
| | philmh: :-))
(edit: tablettything's decided the above is in german, and insists on translating it into english)
- "only live logo present" - as in, if for some obscure - or even deducible historical - reason wmg splashed a dead label design over a disc, e.g. top rank, but stated that it was a warner music group release, with warner logo, copyright & distribution info, barcode no, it'd be of decidedly questionable sanity to insist that it was a top rank release. . .
|
|
|
|
PhilMH 13th Jan 2017
| | Alright then - Warner Music Group is only a label if it is the only logo present! Same logic applies to the other majors, too. Have I saved face sufficiently? |
|
|
|
Magic Marmalade 12th Jan 2017
| | Ha ha ha!...
...That'll Learn ya! :)
Here's something for you to write on a post-it note, and stick on your monitor:
"There are no experts"
(I'm sure they just do it to piss us all off). |
|
|
|
ppint. 12th Jan 2017
| | arggghh!
just when you have their new looks, divisions and "labels" sorted, and know beyond peradventure there's no actual "warner music group" "label" - suddenly there is!
- grrrrrrrr...°
° - transl: yr hmbl srppnt. hates musuckmegacorpses! |
|
|