On 22 Feb 2002 at 20:18, Kakki wrote: > Not maybe - absolutely! But what about all us older music lovers who > are still crazy about hearing and buying music? Guess we need some > dynamos in our target market who can bring us the desired product, too > ;-) >
That and the older music lovers need to start buying more music and being active as consumers. Adults are passive. Because the mainstream business is generally geared toward "blockbuster opening" sales, the labels are focused on the reactive audience, 13-19 year olds because they will go buy that record the first week it's out (and they generally don't have to worry about mortgages and car notes!) > I was thinking more about the various owners of UMG over the past ten > years. I didn't think Bronfman was the only one coming from another > business. Plus UMG acquired a whole load of the other record > companies. It just seems that the constant > turnover/mergers/ownership/consolidation has to have an effect. Bottom > line - they are so run/driven by the numbers now that a lot of talent > gets spun out as a consequence. > UMG was separately Polygram and Universal before they merged. Polygram was pretty much always an entertainment company (with a related parent in Philips) and Universal was MCA which was owned by a Japanese company the name of which escapes me. However, they were not actively involved in trying to manage the music unit. Bronfman/Seagrams really did try to change the way the company was run. He is now, of course, out of the mix and the company is owned by Vivendi which makes it a part of a media conglomerate again. BTW - UMG is now the most successful major label group with the greatest market share - in no small part because of Interscope - a label run by a music guy. Brenda n.p.: Phoebe Snow - "No Regrets"
