From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Other industries EMI were involved with[edit]

I have found that EMI were also involved with the manufacture of motorcycles (Cyclemaster in the 1950's being just one) so presumably they had fingers in a lot of other activities too. EMI website makes no mention of anything other than music, can anyone provide further information? (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)John Turnbull

List of artists[edit]

I have moved this here, since all Wikipedia links to this page refer to the record company group or one of its subsidiaries. The Anome 08:23 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

"Musicians signed, or previously signed, to EMI" is this really necessary? almost 2/3 of this page is made up of EMI artists. warpozio 14:12, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Of course, but it's better to put it in a separate page. I'll do that now. UPDATE: Done. --Cyhatch 06:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

When was the actual EMI record label established to replace the Columbia and HMV pop labels? I would think that it was around 1970. The Columbia label was dropped by EMI I believe to avoid confusion with the CBS label which was often mentioned as "trademark of Columbia Broadcasting System Inc." HMV from that point on was a classical music label. When Sony bought CBS Records from CBS, they acquired the rights to the Columbia name from EMI so Columbia became the successor label to CBS. Steelbeard1 00:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the link "DIY not EMI" (redirected to DIY punk ethic).--Terronez 02:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Lists moved[edit]

I have moved both lists in this article to separate pages. Sadly, I don't know where to see the list of wikipedians watching this article, so I can't inform the people who maintained the lists. If that's you, I'm sorry.

If you know where the "this article watched by" list is, drop a note on my talkpage. Thanks.

Cyhatch 07:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Create an EMI Records article?[edit]

I believe in 1972, EMI started an EMI label to replace the Columbia and HMV pop labels. Should a separate EMI Records article be created? Steelbeard1 10:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I created a separate EMI Records article myself. Steelbeard1 15:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What about Parlophone?[edit]

In 1972, EMI replaced the Columbia and HMV pop music labels with the EMI record label.

Was Parlophone not discontinued around this time as well, only to be resurrected in the 1980s?

The Parlophone label was of course still used for reissues and repressings of existing material (Beatles, etc.), but I don't think any new music was issued on the label for most of the 1970s.

Interestingly some 1970s releases used Parlophone catalogue numbers, but carried a different brand name on the label (Wings' "Mull of Kintyre", R 6018, was on Capitol). 20:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone no if the 1st press of pink floyds meddle(1971 on harvest) had an EMI box or not?

CAT Scanners[edit]

EMI invented and developed the CAT scanner (a world-changing medical imaging device). That story needs to be in the article.

They were also important manufacturers of radio and TV broadcast equipment, the familiarity with which enabled them to build the scanners. I worked for them in the 1970s, when it was said that they were "the RCA of Europe," because they combined technical manufacturing with recordings and entertainment. Lou Sander 14:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


Third line of the article says: EMI Music Publishing is one of the Big Five music publishers.

However in the EMI/Warner section it says: which would reduce the world's four largest record companies (Big Four) to three;

It should be either 4 or 5 (I don't know) but at least consistent! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 10:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Sources for Big 5 rankings[edit]

The first lines of the article state that EMI is the "largest music publisher in the world". Maybe the source used for this statement should be indicated ? In particular, one should explain how this squares with the data in the overview article at [[1]] Nberger 20:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles' miscellanea[edit]

Check The Beatles' miscellanea to see if there is anything in it you can use. A lot of 'miscellanea' needs to be trimmed (as linked articles are improved) so please feel free to use anything before certain sections get zapped into the ether... ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 16:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


How do you pronounce EMI? With the initials, E. M. I., or more like the U.S. TV award, Emmy? 15:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It's E.M.I. Steelbeard1 15:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Any source to substantiate? 02:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Look at the Apple label at [2] for the phrase "An E.M.I. Recording." Steelbeard1 06:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Or better, listen to the track "E.M.I." by the Sex Pistols. Pterre (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Miley Cyrus[edit]

Before you insert Miley Cyrus in this article, you should be informed that she records for Hollywood Records which is a unit of the Walt Disney Company's Disney Music Group. While they do use EMI as their distributor in parts of the world, the EMI artist list is only for EMI-owned labels, not EMI-distributed labels which EMI does not own. (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced material[edit]

The following is unsourced information:

  • The Sex Pistols were briefly signed to the label from October 8, 1976 to January 27, 1977 in a relationship that was fraught with controversy, and that had lasting repercussions for the history of the music industry. In a gesture of retaliation, the Sex Pistols added to their first album (released on Virgin Records), Never Mind the Bollocks, a song entitled "E.M.I.", insulting the company. Virgin was acquired by EMI in 1992, so now the company profits from sales of that album and song.
  • In 2001, pop diva Mariah Carey was signed to Virgin in a much hyped, multi-album deal reportedly worth a record-breaking $80-$100 million. After her first album in the deal, Glitter, performed poorly, she was reportedly paid $28 million to leave the label. Along with the estimated $20 million advance she received, this is the highest amount a record label has ever paid an artist for a single album.
  • One of the Dance Dance Revolution female characters and dancers, EMI, is named after the record label company as well. Additionally, a selection of songs on the said game was licensed from Toshiba-EMI, a company which resulted from the joint-venture of EMI and Toshiba in Japan. Indeed, Konami regularly licenses music from Toshiba-EMI for their Bemani series of games.

While this is interesting, we can't use it unless you provide a source. Also, none of this is really trivia, as trivia by its definition is "unimportant information" - it therefore shouldn't be in a trivia section but instead the information should be incorporated into the main article. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Music / Japan Ownership of "Columbia" name was confusing.[edit]

Original text:

However EMI retained the rights to the Columbia name in most other territories including the UK, Australia and New Zealand, and it continued to operate the label until 1972, when it was retired and replaced by the EMI Records imprint. In 1990, following a series of major takeovers that saw CBS Records acquired by the Sony Corporation of Japan, EMI sold its remaining rights to the Columbia name to Sony and the label is now operated exclusively throughout the world, except Japan where the trade mark is owned by Columbia Music Entertainment, by Sony Music Entertainment.

Is Columbia name owned in Japan by Columbia Music Entertainment or by Sony Music Entertainment? To clarify what I believe is meant, I moved the last part of that paragraph as follows:

However EMI retained the rights to the Columbia name in most other territories including the UK, Australia and New Zealand, and it continued to operate the label until 1972, when it was retired and replaced by the EMI Records imprint. In 1990, following a series of major takeovers that saw CBS Records acquired by the Sony Corporation of Japan, EMI sold its remaining rights to the Columbia name to Sony and the label is now operated exclusively throughout the world by Sony Music Entertainment, except in Japan where the trade mark is owned by Columbia Music Entertainment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryZ45RPM (talkcontribs) 15:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

good observation! Imperatore (talk) 23:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Early 20th Century record monopolies[edit]

Notice how the early twentieth century record company monopolies resemble the monopolies found at the end of the twentieth century and beginning of the twenty first? Soon there will be just one music company. Warner-EMI-Sony. (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

EMI (disambiguation)[edit]

I think that this page should be renamed to EMI Group, and the disambiguation page should be EMI. Many things are called EMI. --KDesk (talk) 03:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This is however. arguably the most notable of all the entities called EMI. E.G Interactive (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. This is the most notable EMI and this company has been known as EMI to the public since it was formed in 1931. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware of any of the other usages until I saw the disambig page. These seem to be of very limited interest. EMI the company is overwhelmingly the best known worldwide. Pterre (talk) 12:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The renaming of this article is screwing up the many articles linked to this article. Please rename this article back to EMI. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Article should be moved back; the company is the primary topic for "EMI". — John Cardinal (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, rename it back to EMI. Rothorpe (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sex Pistols[edit]

Shouldn't be the critical song about EMI by the Sex Pistols at least be mentioned? Anyway, the band was about to record for them and i really think it should be written in the article vD, (talk) 04:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

British vs. American[edit]

EMI is still a British label after its sale to Citigroup.

"I’d also like to quash one other suggestion. Regardless of the country of origin of our owner, EMI remains a British company – both legally and spiritually. The history, tradition and heritage of this company cannot, and will not, be erased by a change in shareholding. We are EMI not because of who owns us, but because of who we are - the home of the greatest artists and songwriters of the past, present and future." (CEO Roger Faxon) EMI "remains a British company" --z33k (talk) 13:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Musical Industries, Limited[edit]

I was editing another article, and looked up the 1933 patent by Alan Dower Blumlein (GB 394325 ). The assignee, other than Blumlein, is "Musical Industries, Limited", and not "Electric & Musical Industries Ltd.". When was "Electrical" added to the name? If somebody knows more about this then it should be added to the article. HairyWombat 20:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Parent Company[edit]

Doesn't UMG now own EMI completely? The infobox still says Citigroup. (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

They do now, I've updated the article to reflect the recent events (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 03:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

EMIEMI Group – The former EMI Group is not a sufficiently dominant main topic for the EMI name, vis a vis other entities such as the continuing EMI Records and EMI Music Publishing (each of which are also commonly known as simply "EMI"). Moving to EMI Group will also provide greater clarity for readers and editors that this article is about the defunct holding company Rangoon11 (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose--This has been dealt with before. See the above EMI (disambiguation) discussion from 2009/10. The record company EMI is clearly the primary topic and has been for several years. Besides, as stated above, there are many, many articles which link to this article which would be screwed up if the article's name was changed. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
The only "record company" now using the EMI name is EMI Records, which also has the common name "EMI". When people use the name EMI in the context of music they could be referring to the subject of this article, which is defunct, or to EMI Records or EMI Music Publishing.
The situation has clearly changed following the break up of the subject of this article, however even prior it is questionable whether the holding company was a sufficiently dominant main topic for the EMI name, not vis a vis subjects wholly unrelated to the subject of this article, but vis a vis the related EMI Records and EMI Music Publishing.
Incoming links may well need work, they probably do anyhow however. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
The subject of this article is the company that existed from 1931 to 2012 and was popularly known simply as "EMI." All companies past and present which have been connected to this company have their own articles which are listed in the existing EMI (disambiguation) pages. Most wikilinks which connect with this article refer to the company, not a subsidiary which include record labels. Of course, those wikilinks which refer to an EMI subsidiary should be corrected. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Incoming links can always be fixed. I suspect that at present there are a lot of links to this article which should either be to EMI Records or EMI Music Publishing anyhow.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Examples, please? Remember that there was no EMI Records label in existence prior to 1972. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment what are you proposing to do with "EMI" after the move? -- (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Likely oppose same question as But in advance of the answer can't see EMI (disambiguation) can rival EMI Group there's nothing noteworthy on the disamb list except EMI Records (i.e. the brand, now part of Universal/Deutsche Gramophon stable). Even with the company now being history, to be honest its difficult to see how a shell-brand can rival the company for primary. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment There seems to be some confusion above. The topic of this article was not a "record label", but a company which owned a number of record labels, one of which was EMI Records. EMI Records continues to exist, not as a "shell brand" but as a functioning record label under new ownership. EMI Music Publishing is also absolutely not a "shell brand". Both EMI Records and EMI Music Publishing are frequently commonly described as "EMI". (talk) 07:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
FYI, the EMI Music Publishing article exists. Right now, it is a redirect to the EMI Music Publishing section of the EMI page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.