http://www.slyck.com/story1474.html

May 21, 2007
Drew Wilson

EMI Group, one of the "Big Four" record labels, has accepted a takeover offer from a newly formed corporation known as Terra Firma. Regulatory laws may have had something to say about previous takeover offers from Warner and Sony BMG (two other "Big Four" record labels.)

The deal was reached when Terra Firma offered the money upfront and promised no problems with European Union regulators. Rumours say that Terra will eventually sell the record company to Warner as time goes on as regulators are still examining the Warner and EMI deal.

EMI has been seen as a forward-thinking record company lately. At first, it was the launch of DRM-free music. Another announcement that had brought smiles to many faces was the deal between Amazon.com and EMI to sell DRM-free music.

Now it seems the ownership is going to change hands. The deal is valued at 3.2 Billion pounds (4.7 billion USD). Warner has said that it may not need to propose a counter-offer. While EMI's shareholders must approve the deal, reports indicate that if EMI pulls out of the deal at this point, EMI would be penalized 24 million pounds.

TonyVanDam said:

Apparently! But it ain't like this will reverse the ever-declining sales...

CandaceS said:

A few years back when a ton of "smaller" major labels like Def Jam, Island, etc mergered into one, it certaintly didn't help a lot of artists and/or albums. Hell, when Virgin was bought by somebody (not sure who) two specfic incidents that occured was Janet's AFY stopped the release of singles (it had two number ones, another Top ten and the last single peaked at 20 somehting...it wasn't excatly dead!) and Kelis second album was not released in the US at all, but was a huge hit overseas.

What this really means is not too much, in the end its all gonna be owned by one parent company. I remember back in the late 80's when Rupert Murdoch who owned Fox tried to buy the New York Post and the court said it was illegal to own that many "media" outlets. However that doesnt seem to be the case anymore, the more mergers you see the less "artists" you are gonna see, case closed. You wonder why Sony is pimping out so much BEYONCE product, its called money, they will pimp out anything that is gonna move at this point, and if tired of Beyonce get ready because there is a LIVE dvd and Cd on the way from the current tour. And also get ready for a huge PR campaign this summer for Rihanna , rumour is that Universal has sunk 20 million into promotion alone on this album, SHIT, you wonder why you pay 15 bucks a cd, its not stores being greedy, its labels who do these crazy marketing campaigns. Wanna know why Van Hunt has to pay out of his pocket to make a video and tour, while 20-50 million is being wasted on shamelss and worthless promotion, well next time u go to magazine stand and see ciara and riahnna on every magazine thats a hint. EMI is a done deal at this point, had it not been for Beatles Catalog and Norah Jones this label would have folded already, due to insane contracts it gave to Janet Jackson and Mariah Carey.

CandaceS said:

True, true.

lastdecember said:

Exactly. The major labels can control the music of "eye candies with microphones" and still make money. But they can't (or won't?!?) try to make some money off of an artist that will refuse to give up control over how his/her music is created, as in the case of Van Hunt.

TonyVanDam said:

Well it all comes down to this. Labels wanna make money, by doing less. Its that simple, investing in an ARTIST takes time and 90% of the time there is no PAYDAY. This is true in everything right now, this is why u have 5001 reality shows, not because they are good, because they cost nothing to make in terms of cash or brainpower, and the thing is anyone can make them. Its the soundbyte generation, make the buck, next, make the buck, next. Thats just how it is now, because of consolidation everything is under ONE umbrella. A label will invest in someone like Rihanna or Ciara because they can put them on any cover of any magazine, and have them dance to their tune, because in a few years there will be another one just like them. In terms of music its the same way, it costs NOTHING to produce it, so labels can cry all they want but inreality they are only crying over their own paychecks. Shit back in the day Artists like Elton and Marvin and Stevie were big sellers but they were just pulling in gold albums. Labels got greedy, when soundscan came in this whole crazy of Platnum and 1st week sales took over, everyone wanted to debut number one, well it was cool when no one could, but now anyone can, its meaningless, just like music is in majority, and just like labels will be.

lastdecember said:

That crap is supposed to be real (but is of course staged and scripted), so it sure doesn't require tremendous acting talent to play roles in those shows.

CandaceS said:

Ms. New York is a hell of a character, for all the wrong reasons. BTW, Tiffany Patterson is a lot more "normal" off camera.