Hi Phil,
Not exactly what I meant by "choice of A & M label" but never mind. What I was expecting was an A & M label with this design not the black early 80's design. Rhino usually does this well and reproduce a facsimile of the label as it was on the original release not just any old version of the label from ten years later. Apologies for any other misconceptions I've caused with my shonky grasp of the English language. Trainspotter's "Impenetrable Joke" badge earned and now worn with pride.
Hi Lee, unless I'm missing something, the MAD DOGS & ENGLISHMEN album always was on A & M everywhere, even in England where he was usually on Regal Zonophone (up to and including "The Letter" single) and then on Fly, which became Cube ("Cry Me A River" single onwards, until 1976) due to his contractual arrangements; in Australia he was initially on Festival and later on Interfusion or A & M - I remember that the COCKER HAPPY! compilation was on Interfusion, but reissues of his first two albums were on A & M, probably after 1976 when he seems to have gone to A & M worldwide, UK included (presumably he got shot of Denny Cordell & Straight Ahead Productions a/k/a Tarantula Productions at that point). Maybe A & M had worldwide rights to "Mad Dogs" because (I'm guessing) they financed the film?
Then there's companies like Music On Vinyl that seem to be able to produce facsimiles of any label at all. Like Rhino sometimes does, the only way you can really tell what the label is in the cat# and fine print. The choice of A & M label for Joe Cocker's "Mad Dogs....." is a bit of a laugh though.
It would be a lot less confusing if Universal had (and eventually does) buy the Parlophone name, as they keep using it on Beatles reissues anyway, and it isn't fully used as a label in the USA, with some current artists being assigned to Atlantic and others to Warner Bros, with back catalogue reissues appearing on Rhino. It would make sense to adopt that approach in the UK, by fully absorbing Parlophone Records Limited into Warner Music UK Limited, and divvying up the current roster between Atlantic and WB for worldwide consistency of labeliing. For the moment, they are saying that Parlophone is successful as a standalone label, but I wouldn't be surprised if it gets folded and merged at some stage, citing "economies of scale" or some such.
Added scans (2 sleeve variants) to show that the Warner Music Group 2015 reissue has the same label, cat# and barcode. The original 2001 release was produced by EMI but EMI was sold to Warner Music Group in 2013 so subsequent versions such as mine have a slightly different sleeves.
Oh, ppint - I've sent a correction to add the re-issue details to the notes.
yes; submit the new information as "a correction to notes:" saying it's an additional line, so it's data rather than opinion, comment or review.
(- and let's hope no-one not owning the rights to "parlophone", and the "fanciful L", picks up the rights to any parlophone material and starts confusing things. . .)
Re-issued 15 Mar 2015 by Warners Music Group on the Parlophone with same cat# and barcode. There are slight differences in the artwork in regard to ownership rights but that's about it. Other than that there is a "locked groove" that separates the last two tracks on the album but that was the case on the original release too I think.
we don't yet know: the concept of a label is becoming increasingly bendy with the combined effects of so few multinationaltentacledmegamusiccorpses controlling so many formerly separately-run labels that used to have distinct a&r policies, but are now mostly mere badges, with their habit of reproducing once important labels - that may no longer exist as live new music-releasing or even re-releasing entities - as mere decorative artwork designed primarily as eye candy to increase the vinyl & cd discs' appeal to nostalgic potential customers, even when they mayn't've bought or licenced the rights to use the relevant (former) record companies' labels, or likenesses thereunto. . .
- but unless warner music group officially "move" gorillaz to another of their live (active) music-releasing divisions' labels, or sell, licence or otherwise allow the rights to release it to be picked up by a separate recorded music company, it remains on parlophone, produced for distribution in whichever of the groupings of the world's markets that wmg find it most convenient (? - or most cost-effective - ?) to have distinguishable editions manufactured for.
- if & when they sell the rights to use the "parlophone" trademark name, symbol(s), etc. to someone else (umg perhaps?), without this particular bit of the music catalogue, the wmg-parlophone-marked disc & package (if they get around to producing one or more such editions) will then become a strange breed of orphan.
- cf. the wmg kevin ayers, roy harper and other artists' cd albums produced on an otherwise inactive harvest label by emi, who had the rights to the label, after the back catalogue (or most of it) went to warners, but the label name, logo, etc. went to universal. warners replaced the rubric & indica, but didn't immediately cease using the label name, logo, distinctive colours & design.
- these can't be on the harvest label as wmg don't own, and don't have the rights to the harvest label, nor are they orderable from universal who distribute the harvest label - but they do still look like they are°, until examined closely.
(° - i'd guess this is covered by payments made by agreement with universal, who are running a reactivated harvest as a live label - with new signings - but i do not know this.)
This has been in print since its release (I think?) but has maintained the same cat#, label and barcode throughout that time. This is unusual, especially since the EMI catalogue has changed hands several times since the release of this album and is now in the hands of the Warner Music Group.
So, now to my copy which has a Warner Music Group sleeve yet identical (EMI) labels (a lot darker than those on display but the same nevertherless). I'll upload scans of the variant gatefold sleeve when I get a chance but a bit of an odd one with Warners not being bothered to update their details on the label or is that just old stock they need to get rid of? Or was it just the cheapest way to "Re-Hash" the product in Warner Music Group colours.