|
|
Post by Dean McCarten on Feb 4, 2009 13:42:10 GMT
|
|
Dave
Administrator
HWI Admin
Posts: 7,700
|
Post by Dave on Feb 4, 2009 13:48:26 GMT
Hi Dean,
I read that blog article too but i've seen no mention of it anywhere else, including online Music Week, where I would expect to see such news first.
I'll check I checked Billboard online in a minute but - nothing there either, so for the moment, I think we have to take the line that the report is speculation.
Therefore, any further speculation about how this (if true) might affect Hayley isn't going to be very productive.
Cheers, Dave
|
|
Dave
Administrator
HWI Admin
Posts: 7,700
|
Post by Dave on Feb 5, 2009 14:45:25 GMT
Hi everyone, Universal Music has responded to the above speculation about Decca as follows (Music Week): It looks like Hayley's future UK albums (and possibly some other Countries) will be Universal Classics & Jazz (UCJ) releases rather than Decca but of course, we don't have confirmation of this. Billboard has the same story. I will amend the thread title accordingly.  Cheers, Dave |
|
|
|
Post by nicola on Feb 5, 2009 15:32:31 GMT
I hope UCJ do not treat Hayley differently to how Decca did, otherwise her albums are going to be as thoughtless as Katherine's.  I think they are a more interfering label - I hope they leave Hayley alone and trust her to do her own thing. That is if Hayley is going to UCJ. I can't interpret this as good news, either way. Decca has always been a much more open-minded label. UCJ is obsessed with marketing criteria. |
|
|
|
Post by grant on Feb 5, 2009 15:49:55 GMT
Hello everyone I know a lot of this is speculative at the moment, but has anyone any idea how this change might affect Hayley's contract with Decca? Would it automatically transfer? Or might she be able to change labels/stay with Decca if she had a mind to? In view of Nicola's comments, a move to UCJ may not necessarily be in Hayley's best interests.  Best wishes Grant |
|
|
|
Post by Dean McCarten on Feb 5, 2009 15:53:33 GMT
I hope UCJ do not treat Hayley differently to how Decca did, otherwise her albums are going to be as thoughtless as Katherine's. I think they are a more interfering label - I hope they leave Hayley alone and trust her to do her own thing. That is if Hayley is going to UCJ. I can't interpret this as good news, either way. Decca has always been a much more open-minded label. UCJ is obsessed with marketing criteria. Hi Nicola, Hayley is already a UCJ Signed artist, was originally signed by UCJ NZ then was partly signed over to Decca for her international career, which is why her Japanese albums are still done via UCJ, yet her UK albums are Decca. Also Decca have a thing with multiple version of the same album, but I'm not going to get into that. Cheers Dean |
|
Dave
Administrator
HWI Admin
Posts: 7,700
|
Post by Dave on Feb 5, 2009 16:26:10 GMT
Hi guys, just to clarify... it's complicated! Vivendi (HQ in France) owns Universal Music Group, who in turn own Decca UK and Universal NZ. Universal Classics & Jazz (UCJ) is another UK based record label set up (I think) roughly round about the time that Hayley was signed to Decca - and it is also owned by Universal Music Group. It seems to have been an amalgamation of several former smaller classical and jazz labels before it and it may have always been intended to eventually merge the rest of them (including Decca) with it. Mergers seems to be the way of the music world - Decca UK itself is a merger of several different labels! Decca will probably just assign the relevant contracts to UCJ, so they will probably continue as before until they run out - but the artists who "move" may have to deal with different people and there is of course a possibility of some re-negotiation. However, without knowing the contract details, we have no way of knowing. Cheers, Dave |
|
|
|
Post by stevemacdonald on Feb 5, 2009 16:44:25 GMT
... Decca has always been a much more open-minded label. .... Tell that to the Beatles.  (Decca famously rejected signing the Beatles in 1962 because --get this-- "guitar groups are on the way out".) |
|
|
|
Post by nicola on Feb 5, 2009 17:53:52 GMT
Aww! They were probably right, if the Beatles never came about! Goes to show how hard the music scene is to predict.  |
|
|
|
Post by nicola on Feb 5, 2009 18:00:41 GMT
Hi Nicola, Hayley is already a UCJ Signed artist, was originally signed by UCJ NZ then was partly signed over to Decca for her international career, which is why her Japanese albums are still done via UCJ, yet her UK albums are Decca. Also Decca have a thing with multiple version of the same album, but I'm not going to get into that. Cheers Dean Wow. I mean, wow. That would give me another reason why her NZ albums are... err... not very good. Unfortunately, Decca are far from the only culprits that do the whole multiple editions thing.  It's a world wide epidemic. Grant, do not worry yourself too much. My opinion of UCJ is just that. An opinion. It's my observations from the different albums I have. Just having a glance at my albums that are Decca releases and are UCJ releases tells me that UCJ make artificial albums. Decca are not saints, by any means, they just seem to give that little bit more power to their artists. |
|
|
|
Post by postscript on Feb 5, 2009 19:53:17 GMT
I hope UCJ do not treat Hayley differently to how Decca did, otherwise her albums are going to be as thoughtless as Katherine's. I think they are a more interfering label - I hope they leave Hayley alone and trust her to do her own thing. That is if Hayley is going to UCJ. I can't interpret this as good news, either way. Decca has always been a much more open-minded label. UCJ is obsessed with marketing criteria. I think, Nicola and everyone, that our amateurish ill-informed (I don't mean that unkindly, Nicola) speculation is not helpful without factual evidence. May I suggest two 'extreme' scenarios: Hayley might move to the States but Katherine has preempted her and her going as she did may have been in advance of this information now being made public. If they cause Hayley problems, I think she might re-assess her whole show and have the gumption and self-assurance to outface them. On the other hand--correct me please those who actually KNOW--isn't it UCJ rather than Decca that is behind her Japanese ventures? What ever outcome, I think Hayley will handle the situation with professional guile and great self-confidence. After all, if it is now public it is reasonable to expect she has been aware of this for some time? I have just picked up on Dean's post which to some extent corroborates my thinking about relationships with UCJ. No doubt Bedlam will inform us when it is proper for us to know but clearly cannot speak publicly until the matter is firmly resolved with Hayley. Peter S. |
|
|
|
Post by nicola on Feb 5, 2009 20:02:23 GMT
I think, Nicola and everyone, that our amateurish ill-informed (I don't mean that unkindly, Nicola) speculation is not helpful without factual evidence. May I suggest two 'extreme' scenarios: Peter S. Completely agree, Peter. Only, I guess I'm not trying to help, I'm just saying what I think of the situation. And that's what a forum is for.  I think somebody already said that UCJ do deal with her Japanese releases. So, I guess you must be correct. |
|
|
|
Post by martindn on Feb 5, 2009 20:08:24 GMT
I have kept out of this so far, as I have no idea what this will mean for Hayley,. As you say Peter, UCJ, not Decca, released my favourite Hayley album. It almost certainly depends on the personalities involved, and since we don't know who they are or anything about them, I can't really speculate about it. But I hope Hayley will continue to have as much influence on her future releases as she did on HSJS. I doubt she would put up with anything less for long!
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by gra7890 on Feb 5, 2009 20:13:54 GMT
Hi Martin,
I agree, I can't see Hayley suffering anything she feels would be detrimental to her.
Best Wishes,
Graham
|
|
Dave
Administrator
HWI Admin
Posts: 7,700
|
Post by Dave on Feb 5, 2009 21:38:55 GMT
Hi guys, Some further clarification (or unintentional obfuscation!  ). Hayley Sings Japanese Songs is copyright Decca Music Group Limited (for the sound recording and the accompanying printed material). The record label is Decca. Universal Classics and Jazz (UCJ) is also mentioned on the rear CD case cover but it is not clear what their involvement is as I can see no other mention of them on the cover, in the enclosed booklets or on the actual CD, while Decca is mentioned several times. The CD was produced and mastered in London; marketing and distribution is by Universal Music K.K. (Universal Japan), it looks like the actual CDs and printed material were 'made in Japan' and of course, there was close co-operation between all these UK and Japanese subsidiaries of the parent record company Universal Music Group. I suspect that for some time, there will have been close co-operation between Decca and UCJ in the UK, perhaps there has been a gradual transfer of staff and/or work from one to the other - but exactly who did what we may never know. So yes it's a Decca release, but apparently with some kind of UCJ involvement. It will be interesting to see how the label, copyright and credits are written on HSJS 2! Cheers, Dave |
|
I think they are a more interfering label - I hope they leave Hayley alone and trust her to do her own thing. That is if Hayley is going to UCJ.
It's a world wide epidemic. 
