To discuss article changes, please use:


If you see comments on this page, they remain for archive purposes.


Calling all English majors!

The section about the two companies who formed Sony BMG reads funny to me. It sounds like BMG had already owned the other labels before they combined. I know that there's a set of commas setting off the middle phrase, but it seems confusing to say it that way. Any other thoughts? -- Ken (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That phrase is indeed awkward, and is repeated on several labels currently owned by Sony BMG. Personally, I'd just mention Sony BMG briefly, and create an overall Sony page to discuss the merger specifics of the music division, subdivisions in general (including video concerns), labels, and so forth. That's what we do with most other companies anyway. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I had chopped it into 2 sentences, and then MuzikJunky changed it back. Check the edit history, and see how it reads to you. -- Ken (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Both ways feel out of place here. Like I said, I don't think merger details belong on every label page, just on the parent company page, and since there isn't one yet, that would be the best solution. Especially since the fact is being repeated all over. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, but I don't even know why we should bother with covering past and present owners of any given record company. I mean, I love to track stuff like that, but I think it's beyond the scope of the wiki. There were a few record label pages when I got here, so I thought it would be fun to say a couple of sentences about them, and then just list all Muppet-related releases. So if a person finds a copy of The Sesame Street Book & Record in a rare record store, and says, "Hmmm. I wonder if Columbia made any other Sesame Street albums," they're right there. The only place I feel that we should be as detailed as is the actual Sesame Street Records label, and we've got all we know there right now. My gut feeling is to just say that Columbia is owned by Sony BMG, leave the link to their offical site on the page, and let them read about the whole history there. -- Ken (talk) 01:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm gonna playa-hate by hugging my copy of The Chicago Manual of Style and say it's fine the way it is. ;) Peace. —MuzikJunky 19:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, there's no clear consensus, and just because something is accurate according to the Chicago Style doesn't mean it reads well. So I'm going to be arbitrary and yank that sentence wherever it appears, since the ownership change isn't relevant to the earlier Sesame or Muppet records put out by these labels anyway, and it gets into an awkward level of detail which just isn't necessary here. We have Wikipedia links where those curious about the company in general, and not its Muppet relevance, can read all about the full history and mergers and all that stuff. If it's vital to have merger info on the Wiki, then go ahead and create a larger Sony page to discuss it, as I suggested. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, as a matter of fact, I'm going through and putting Wikipedia links for all the record companies right now, and it looks like they all have their own official site links, too. So I think that will satisfy those who want to read about that stuff, but it won't be in the way for those who don't. -- Ken (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


I'm confused by the statement that Sony BMG is a 50-50 joint venture between Sony and BMG. Everything I read at the time said that it was an actual merger. I remember articles in Billboard even saying things such as "and then there were 4," referring to the 4 remaining major labels: Sony BMG, WEA, EMI, and Universal. Can anybody clarify this? -- Ken (talk) 05:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If you look at Sony BMG’s Web site, you’ll see, in fact, that it is a joint venture between the two companies. As the Web site says,

Shareholders: Sony (50%), Bertelsmann AG (50%).

Rumors were surfacing that Sony might take control of the entire thing, but they’ve never come to fruition. The merger between MCA and PolyGram that created Universal was, in fact, a purchase of PolyGram by Seagram, which already owned the MCA family of labels; then Seagram’s entertainment assets were sold to Vivendi and the film library was sold to MGM. The name PolyGram ceased to exist in 1999, but the names of the two companies involved in Sony BMG are prominently present. Peace. —MuzikJunky 00:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Japan Columbia?

I'm confused by the statement that Columbia is a different company in Japan. When Sony bought US Columbia from CBS in 1990, I thought that they merged all of the worldwide Columbias together, and now they're all called Sony Music Entertainment. Does anybody have any more information about this? -- Ken (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In Japan, there is a record company called Nippon Columbia (日本コロムビア株式会社) that is part of the Denon corporation, which has nothing to do with Sony BMG Music Entertainment. SBMG is not allowed to use the name Columbia there. CBS Records was sold to Sony in 1988, it became Sony Music Entertainment in 1991, and it merged with Bertelsmann Music Group in 2004. However, Japan is the only country in which the two companies did not merge, but Nippon Columbia’s history is completely different than that of Columbia Records. Peace. —MuzikJunky 03:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks! I never knew that! -- Ken (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and take that sentence out now. It's neat to know, and I'm glad it's documented on the talk page, but in the article itself, it's confusing and misleading as worded, and doesn't relate to any of the records on the page (or any of the relevant Japanese records either). I suppose it could work as a trivia note, but the way the page is formatted right now, it doesn't really fit (no doubt there's several instances, I imagine, where a distinctly different company might bear the same name in another nation, even in the same line, but unless both released Muppet stuff, it doesn't quite fit). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 04:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Columbia Music Entertainment
I’ve posted the logo of Nippon Columbia so it can be seen here. Peace. —MuzikJunky 07:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)