Presto's Black Friday

[hafod]

It's really VERY unwelcome, isn't it? Can't they leave it in the small print as to who actually owns the catalogue, without wrecking the cover with an (historically) anomalous logo?

This is the most brazen and insulting example of Warner's claims I have seen:
Adolf Busch & The Busch Quartet - Complete Warner Recordings

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B014YN0ME2/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=AZFAVK42ANC5&coliid=I1TF7I7NN34ZH2

[Bryn]

This is the most brazen and insulting example of Warner's claims I have seen:
Adolf Busch & The Busch Quartet - Complete Warner Recordings

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B014YN0ME...I1TF7I7NN34ZH2

What is it you find brazen and insulting? Warner own the recordings. They are indeed their recordings. Do they not indicate their provenance somewhere in the booklet?

[underthecountertenor]

This is the most brazen and insulting example of Warner's claims I have seen:
Adolf Busch & The Busch Quartet - Complete Warner Recordings

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B014YN0ME...I1TF7I7NN34ZH2

I haven't clicked the link, but I think this is in fact a collection of the hilarious (and unjustly overlooked) films the Busch Quartet made for Warner Brothers, who were at the time looking for a comedy act to rival the Marx Brothers.

[cloughie]

What is it you find brazen and insulting? Warner own the recordings. They are indeed their recordings. Do they not indicate their provenance somewhere in the booklet?

I don't think anyone is disputing this. Just a bit of Ned Ludd and tradition, Bryn. There are actually some benefits from these new mergers and takeovers. Some of the sony boxes combine RCA and CBS stuff and the recent Martinon ICON includes both EMI and Erato recordings.

[hafod]

What is it you find brazen and insulting? Warner own the recordings. They are indeed their recordings. Do they not indicate their provenance somewhere in the booklet?

Of course they own the recordings - a blinding statement of the obvious. What I object to is the marketing deliberately creating the strong impression that Warner were responsible for the production of the recordings in the first place which, imv, is both brazen and insulting.

[Barbirollians]

Of course they own the recordings - a blinding statement of the obvious. What I object to is the marketing deliberately creating the strong impression that Warner were responsible for the production of the recordings in the first place which, imv, is both brazen and insulting.

I agree - I assume it is something to do with the sale that prevents them using the EMI trademark but they should still be referred to as EMI recordings as it is misleading to suggest otherwise

[Bryn]

I agree - I assume it is something to do with the sale that prevents them using the EMI trademark but they should still be referred to as EMI recordings as it is misleading to suggest otherwise

The Sony Group generally follow the same approach as Warner and Universal/Decca. However, when they perceive a potential marketing advantage, they now draw attention to the labels under which their recordings were originally released. EMI followed the same tack re. Pre-EMI HMV recordings, I think you will find.

[Cockney Sparrow]

I agree - I assume it is something to do with the sale that prevents them using the EMI trademark but they should still be referred to as EMI recordings as it is misleading to suggest otherwise

Yes, I recall reading at the time that the sale did not include the EMI name (nor His Masters Voice)......

[teamsaint]

I'd suspect that the confusion in branding of these sets is probably as much to do with poor communication as deliberate misleading of the public.
If book publishing is anything to go by, the buttons may be being pushed by fairly junior staff , just following a house style template.
There is probably a default to the current corporate branding/logo.
Of course it makes sense to use the original label as a sales point ( and reference) if that is of sales benefit, ( which it likely is in this sort of case), but that may rely on a more senior employee, or one with deeper product list knowledge to set a different set of branding rules for a series.

Proof reading ( including adherence to style rules) is often done at minimum cost , so mistakes can creep in at a number of stages. Also there are different markets, where different labels may be known , and so on, which might make the default to the current label/imprint sensible.

These less than perfect outcomes can happen pretty easily.

[HighlandDougie]

Plus ça change..... When EMI ruthlessly rebranded HMV et al as 'EMI Classics', I remember disapproval being expressed at the time at the disappearance of such individual labels (going further back, similar noises were made about Columbia being subsumed within HMV). Now it's poor old Warners turn. Warners at least acknowledge the provenance of the discs in the recent Jean Martinon Icon box as, "The Erato and HMV Recordings", whereas EMI, with, say, the Silvestri box, brand it as, "The EMI Recordings", rather than the Columbia and HMV recordings, which is how I remember them on LP. Surely what should be welcomed is the fact that the recordings are being made available at all. It all seems to me to be just a touch precious.