Talk:London Recordings

Is London Records active or not?

I can't find any info as to if London Records is an active label issuing new material or offering reissues of old material today. The Warner Music Group web sites mentions nothing about the London Records label. If no one finds any evidence that material is being released nowadays on the London label, then it should not be treated in the infobox as an active label. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Artists added/moved

I've added Fine Young Cannibals and Blancmange to the first list and moved Bronski Beat and the Communards out of the 'London 90' list and moved Sugarbabes and Danni Minogue to '90' list. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

state of the art stereo?

At the time of the breakup (1947) stereo recordings did not exist. And at the time stereo LPs did start to appear, London was hardly the only company producing them. This is a classic example of bad writing -- the author inserts an "interesting fact" into material with which it has no direct connection. Rather than fixing this, I leave it as an exercise for the author to figure out what he really wanted to say, and correct it himself. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Charles and 'London Records artists'

What is the qualification for this section? Charles was on London in Britain via Atlantic (What'd I Say was originally issued on London), and then again via his own label, Crossover Records. Roy Orbison is also included here, and he is a similar case (Monument and a special agreement with MGM). Perhaps the list should be confined to those who were signed directly to London Records in the USA. Rothorpe (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. If you include the American artists that appeared on U.K. London's "American Recordings" imprint, you'd get a good share of artists appearing on 1950s mid-level labels such as Dot, Cadence, Atlantic, etc. and hits occurring on minor U.S. Labels. Perhaps only artists actually signed to London should be included? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that would in effect be to American London, as opposed to London American, unless we keep Orbison, with a note. It'd remove the Turtles as well. (Not including London 90, which has its own section.) Rothorpe (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed Orbison and the Turtles, added "U.S." to the heading, and also added dates to the London American section. Rothorpe (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

London American and Mimi Trepel

Given the particular significance of the London American label in the UK market, in releasing US pop and R&B recordings from independent labels that became highly successful, highly influential, and/or highly collectible, I'm wondering whether it would be best to start a separate (but, obviously, linked) article on the London American label. Various sources (like this) point to the significance of Mimi Trepel (1908-2006) in licensing recordings for the UK market in the 1950s and 60s, so another (or additional) option would be to start a biographical article on her. Do other editors have a view on this? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]