Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Is this to milk more money from the same old same Motown or to explore its vast catalogue?  Maybe they have seen what good the reissue labels like Kent etc have been doung?

Posted
10 minutes ago, Chalky said:

Is this to milk more money from the same old same Motown or to explore its vast catalogue?  Maybe they have seen what good the reissue labels like Kent etc have been doung?

Karl. Apparently its to sign the new talent thats is appearing on the streets here in the UK 

Posted (edited)

Motown isn't really a company now as we knew it. It's just a name as part of the huge Universal conglomerate and is used because people are familiar with it, not that it has any of the original characteristics. 

Edited by Daved
  • Up vote 2
Posted

Some would argue that Motown never recovered from relocating to LA from Detroit. But after a really weak 1980s the sale to MCA which was then absorbed by Universal has meant that it's been decades since the label had any clear reason for its continued existence. There was an effort in the early 90s to make it more distinct, led by Steve McKeever I believe, who revived the MoJazz label in 1992, and he was followed by Kedar Massenburg who signed Will Downing for a one-off album release, along with Erykah Badu. But since then ... :sleep3:

  • Up vote 1
Posted (edited)

 

5 hours ago, Daved said:

Motown isn't really a company now as we knew it. It's just a name as put of the huge Universal conglomerate and is used because people are familiar with it, not that it has any of the original characteristics. 

Are any labels how we knew them? I would think most are owned by conglomerates with no identity anymore.  Given the history  I’m surprised though it has taken UMG so long to make use of the name in the world of black music.  

Edited by Chalky
  • Up vote 1
Posted

Very good point. Considering all the highly credentialled MBAs walking the corridors of these firms you'd think someone would realise what a treasure trove they are sitting on. Motown in particular has been a victim of some of the worst and laziest repackaging of its back catalogue for many years, going all the way back to the late 80s when cheaply dashed off compilations and occasional album reissues with the barest of liner notes were being put out supposedly to cash in on the rising cd market. Only later and largely through the efforts of specialist non-employees of Motown or even Universal there have been some excellent repackagings of the back catalogue (e.g., from the now defunct Hip-o Select label, Kent, Soulmusic.com) and compilations of previously unreleased gems (e.g., Cellarful of Motown series). This is maybe what the article refers to when it says

"Through the years, Motown music was released on various UMG labels and as highly sought-after imports."

Doesn't say much for the people running the company during those years.

There was a time not so long ago when the UK and US branches of Universal were not even talking to each other, making the work of reissue and archive specialists even more difficult.

Altogether this doesn't sound like such a clever marketing idea, since Motown is still mainly known for its 60s heyday and the big stars associated with that, which is unlikely to interest many of those digging Stormzy. But if they are prepared to make the investment and are in it for the long haul, then good luck to them. They'll find that Tony Blackburn and Sharon Davis are still around to cheer them on.

  • Up vote 1
Posted (edited)

Pete would've had a few things to say about this! 

'Motown' never existed in Britain, TMG never recorded in Britain (unless there's some live stuff somewhere) - so there's no legitimacy to this at all - whilst it's nice to see the name alive, it's just a cynical cash in.

...A few years ago TMG was literally a phone on a desk with nobody even officially responsible for it... Until that 'evil' Mr King ruined everything for them by delivering an explosion in interest for all the unissued stuff they didn't even know they had.

Dx

Edited by Davenpete
  • Up vote 3
  • 3 weeks later...
Posted
On 16/09/2020 at 10:26, Chalky said:

But if you look at the info it is UMG on behalf of Motown, if you are going to promote a label leave the UMG out of it and push the brand. 
 

Yesterday my copy of Cellarful of Motown vol 5 arrived. In addition to the front cover where the art work of the series remains consistent, there's a new development on the back. UMG has gone except in the small print, but there is no logo associated with Motown. Instead there's this hippyish-designed "Caroline", which is UMG's reissue label covering all genres (not even just soul).

And in that small print, there's a typo in the middle of all the terribly important detail about who licensed what to whom (and all within the same company :facepalm:)

For a company supposedly making such a number out of reviving a classic brand, this is a textbook case study of how not to do it.

  • Up vote 1

Get involved with Soul Source

Add your comments now

Join Soul Source

A free & easy soul music affair!

Join Soul Source now!

Log in to Soul Source

Jump right back in!

Log in now!


×
×
  • Create New...