Decca to be reorganised

[martindn]

Whoops, sorry to mislead you. I have just done what I should have done to start with, looked at my copy properly. And OCJ and Decca are indeed both mentioned, with the Decca logo only on the disc itself and the back of the booklet. Of course most of it is covered in Japanese characters, which I can't read, although I have learned to recognise Hayley's name, the only sequence of Japanese characters that I recognise (how sad is that?).

I'll probably get an "off topic" flag from Richard for this. I mentioned Decca but not reorganistaion.

Martin

[Libby]

Well, whatever is happening with Decca/UCJ, I hope it doesn't negatively affect Hayley in any way. I'm really hoping that whenever her contract with Decca runs out, she finds a new and better company. She doesn't have to stay with them forever.

Nicola, it's true, other record companies do multiple versions, too, but going by what they do with Hayley's albums, Decca takes the cake.

[nicola]

Hello Libby,

I'm not an expert of record companies, but I do experience the multiple album thing to the extreme away from Decca. Just an example, but I follow Sarah Brightman quite religiously (she's with EMI, mostly, some albums are released on branches of EMI), and her habits of multiple editions are just as atrocious. There are three different versions of her 'Symphony' album solely because she duets with three different male vocalists for 'I Will Be With You'. And that's just for that reason. She has other multiple versions of 'Symphony' because her tracklists are in a different order, or she has one bonus track. Then she always releases a DIGIPAK with an extra DVD, then a few years later she releases more editions with a bonus CD of some remixes. It gets *SO* ridiculous.

Me? I buy one copy, and one copy only.

I would like to say which companies are better than others, but at the end of the day, they are all businesses and all want to make as much money as possible. The better artists in my music collection are on indie labels, or just release the albums themselves from their own pocket. Sure, the bigger companies have more money to spend on your promotion, but at the cost of your artistic freedom. *shrug*

[Dave]

Hello everyone,

Well here's a turn up for the books! Universal Classics & Jazz (UCJ) has been re-named as Decca!

Clearly, they thought (as I hoped they would) that it would be madness not to use such a long standing and respected label as Decca, so well done to the re-branders of Universal. Here is part of their May 2009 Newsletter/press release:

Welcome to the newly re-branded newsletter! Universal Classics & Jazz (UCJ) has now become Decca Records. Each month we'll continue to bring you all the latest news on all of our great artists which includes everyone from Andrea Bocelli to Robert Plant & Alison Krauss, and Melody Gardot to Jamie Cullum with many more in between.

I think it is reasonable to assume that although Hayley is not mentioned specifically, her releases will continue to be on the Decca label in the UK and most of the World. Panic over. i.postimg.cc/9fYxy370/smilie-big-grin.gif

Cheers, Dave

[Dean McCarten]

Hi Dave,

This is great news! Yes, It's a shame Hayley wasn't mentioned.

Cheers
Dean

[larryhauck]

Hi Dave,
What does panic over mean? I have not been following this issue. Will the Universal Label be more world wide? Does this move ostensibly relegate Hayley to the European market in you're opinion.

Larry

[Jillian]

I remember some talk about the different tactics of Decca versus UCJ. For example, I read in a previous post that UCJ don't have the tendency to release about a million different versions of the same album in different countries with different tracklists. That's a blessing, I suppose.

[Dave]

Hi Larry,

What I meant by "panic over" was that it looks like Hayley will not be changing labels, the thought of which led to concerns among some members even though it would still have been Universal owned. It looks like she will stay with Decca... and of course, there is a US Decca label too so I wouldn't expect any change there either. The Management may change - but I think UCJ have for a few years now had an overall control over Decca in the UK (probably since Costa Pilavachi left).

Jillian, as far as I know, it has always been the policy of "Hayley's" Decca (UK) to let the record company subsidiaries in other Countries decide on the tracklistings for themselves, based on what they think will sell best there. They have always been free to choose the same track listing as the UK or NZ editions, but have decided to do something different if they thought it would increase sales.

The new Decca management may or may not make future Hayley releases conform to what UCJ policies have been, so we don't really know if anything will change - and even if it does, e.g. one version for the World, it might not be beneficial, except for the relatively few hardcore fans like us who want to buy everything!

Cheers, Dave

[Jillian]

What I'm wondering is does "UCJ is now Decca" mean that 'Decca' is merely the new title for UCJ and things will still be the same as if Hayley had transferred to UCJ -- but now the name on the label will still be the same? Is it merely a rebranding and the significance of 'Decca' begins and ends with simply the name?

Just wondering. I'm the one studying Corporations Law, so I should probably know the answer to that.... but I don't... whoops. .. :rollin

[larryhauck]

Hi Dave, Thanks for the reply. However it seems to me that Decca treats the U S as a red headed stepchild. They either don't know what sells in the U S or don't want to try the market for Hayley.
A single of Wuthering Heights properly promoted ,in my opinion ,would do well in the U S. I certainly don't profess to be an expert; however at age 70 I've learned a lot about the music industry in the U S. A recording company must make a commitment to an artist they have faith in. Then they must be willing to spend the money to properly promote the artist. In my opinion this has not been done with Hayley in the past. The previous attempts have been lukewarm at best an inept at worst.

Larry

[Dave]

May 30, 2009 2:08:45 GMT Jillian said:

What I'm wondering is does "UCJ is now Decca" mean that 'Decca' is merely the new title for UCJ and things will still be the same as if Hayley had transferred to UCJ -- but now the name on the label will still be the same? Is it merely a rebranding and the significance of 'Decca' begins and ends with simply the name?

Just wondering. I'm the one studying Corporations Law, so I should probably know the answer to that.... but I don't... whoops. ..

Hi Jillian,

I think it's basically a merger of the two labels and they've chosen the nice and short historical name Decca instead of the more clumsy UCJ name. As UCJ was selling more records, their management will be in charge although as i tried to explain before, I think Decca management has had to report to UCJ senior management for a few years now. I would be surprised to see any major changes affecting Hayley unless she wants to change direction herself and the new Decca agrees to it.

Larry, I don't know how much of the decision making in Hayley's US releases and promotion came from Decca UK and Decca US, only that Decca US would have chosen the actual track listings (from a larger list of tracks recorded by Hayley for each album), based on their local knowledge of the US market.

Cheers, Dave

[Richard]

Hello folks!

The really good news is the dropping of 'Jazz' from the company name, which could have been quite a turn-off for many people in my opinion. Decca Records have encompassed many different musical styles over the years, so long may the name continue.

Richard

[Dave]

Hi everyone,

I've now found a more complete story but unfortunately, it doesn't mention Hayley. It's in the subscriber section of Music Week magazine so I'll reproduce it in full here. It looks like the old Decca staff has been reduced substantially, and some of them are moving to Hamburg, due to the merger of their classical marketing with DG.

UCJ to be renamed under Decca brand

Tuesday April 14, 2009

Universal Classics and Jazz, the UK’s biggest classical record company, is being renamed Decca in an attempt to better reflect its widening repertoire.

The renamed company will be rebranded under the historic Decca “black” logo, which famously featured on records from artists such as The Rolling Stones and Tom Jones in the Sixties.

“Over a period of time, Universal Classics and Jazz has broadened its repertoire to be more than just about classical and jazz music,” says Dickon Stainer, who becomes managing director of Decca. “We are expanding into other areas of specialist music such as folk and blues, with artists like Teddy Thompson. It is better for us to have a label name that has a greater sense of the diversity than UCJ does.”

And Decca – which already operates as a dedicated classical label under the UCJ umbrella – was considered the perfect choice.

“Decca is a historic record brand where diversity was a key part of its appeal,” Stainer explains.

The new Decca will continue to maintain its own roster of artists and to market Universal Music labels that previously came under the UCJ banner.

These include the Hamburg-based classical label Deutsche Grammophon; New York jazz label Verve, home to artists including Herbie Hancock and Diana Krall; and the London-based Decca label, which will be distinguished from the Decca parent company by its use of the red and blue Decca logo.

It will also continue to market artists from the Rounder Label, including Grammy Award winners Robert Plant and Alison Krauss.

Universal Music UK chairman and CEO David Joseph says, “Decca is at the heart of classical and jazz. It’s an incredibly creative and healthy time for these genres, and I am confident that Dickon and his team will create more opportunity, break new artists and grow the business going forward.”

In 2008, UCJ had a 3.5% share of the overall albums market, the ninth greatest share of all record companies and by far the largest share for a classical label.

There is another angle (the classical one) on The Gramophone website here.

So now we know... or not! I'd imagine that Hayley will still be with the Decca label but there will have been considerable changes in personnel there by the time she next releases an album.

Cheers, Dave

[stevemacdonald]

I guess this all means it's a whole new Decca cards!

[Dave]

Moved from Decca Music Group by Dave

Sept 4, 2009 15:31:31 GMT BenCMitchell said:

Hi folks

There is probably a thread already focusing on the Decca Music Group somewhere on this forum, so this thread will probably get deleted if there is.

I was roaming around on the Decca Music Group website, and I had a look under their alphabetical listings of artists and singers, and I couldn't find Hayley anywhere! I looked under both 'H' and 'W' in the listings and no mention! The only artist under 'W' is Julian Lloyd Webber! I know there was some talk a while back about changes to do with Decca (I'm not at all sure what these changes were about, so please forgive my ignorance!), but being unable to find even a word on Hayley was quite puzzling!

Can anyone solve this for me?

Cheers

Ben