Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media Businesses

EC Approves Unconditionally Sony-BMG Merger 247

Posted by timothy from the smoosh dept.
Paul Slocum writes "Just when you thought the music industry couldn't get any worse, Sony and BMG are merging. Now there will only be 4 major labels, and they estimate that 2000 jobs (25% of combined workforce) will be cut." An anonymous reader points to Reuters' report on the planned merger, which points out that "Vivendi-owned Universal and Sony BMG, as the new company is to be called, account for about 46 percent of music sold worldwide."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EC Approves Unconditionally Sony-BMG Merger More

EC Approves Unconditionally Sony-BMG Merger

Comments Filter:

  • Sony, Bony. (Score:4, Funny)

    by mfh ( 56 ) on Wednesday July 21, 2004 @03:34PM (#9763449) Homepage Journal
    There's an obscure reference to something like this in an old eighties movie called Crazy People [imdb.com], where the genius crazy people decide to thwart Sony executives by making an ad that simply says: Sony, Bony (while the guy shows this a sketch of a really skinny old guy). I'm sorry but when else am I going to get to reference this funny/stupid movie quote, but when a company starting with the letter B is going to join forces with Sony.

    So say it with me;
    BMG + Sony...
    Sony, Bony

    • After seeing your Bony quote, I thought 'what about the m'?, now I have Boney M in my mind and the plethora of crap tunes now in my head... Rivers of bloody Babylon indeed.

      Heres one for you, and with any luck you'll get it stuck in your mind tonight:

      Brown girl in the ring, tra la la la la.

      Now I'm off to listen to some NIN at a nice loud volume to purge the scourge of 70's pop/disco/whatever. :-(

    • "Sony, Bony" makes me think of Sonny Bono [wikipedia.org], which gets me thinking: now that BMG is part of Sony Music, does this significantly change the major labels' lobbying power?

  • One step closer to "The Company".

  • music hegemony (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Kris Thalamus ( 555841 ) * <selectivepressur ... minus physicist> on Wednesday July 21, 2004 @03:35PM (#9763467)
    This looks like a good time to support open [opsound.org] source [gmaestro.org] music [rootrecords.org].
    • Personally, I don't care. It simply has nothing to do with the music I buy and listen to. When I hear a band I like, I buy the CD. I know there will only be two songs on it that I like, it's been that way for the past 20 - 30 years, and really, all I can say is "so what" because I really don't care who presses the CD.

    • some more good/free music... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by wibs ( 696528 ) on Wednesday July 21, 2004 @04:06PM (#9763832)
      I'm not affiliated with it, but I've found 3hive [3hive.com] to be a great site. Every single day they post download links for a few tracks being offered for free by artists under small labels. The site seems to mainly do emo rock and punk, which frankly is either good or really bad, but it also covers other things ranging from electronica to hip hop to folk. It's just a damn good site and hopefully someone will find this link to it and enjoy it.

    • And what happens when a major sheet music publisher such as Warner-Chappell cracks down on Free music, claiming (successfully, unlike SCO [columbia.edu]) that some of the Free songwriters lifted their melodies from copyrighted works? If you wrote Free songs, and you were accused of stealing melodies, what would you do to defend yourself in light of the evidence and precedents [slashdot.org]?

    • Re:music hegemony (Score:2, Interesting)

      by -kertrats- ( 718219 )
      Open source music? As in, you can see the source code of the song you're listening to? Isnt that called 'sheet music'? If it is, Ibelieve just about all music is available open source.
  • First Clearchannel takes over everything & plays the same 20 songs over & over. Now we get another merger that will control what music we get to hear. Thats it. I'm just going to get satellite radio.

    • Re:great (Score:2, Insightful)

      by black mariah ( 654971 )
      How about you put forth some effort and actually LOOK for bands instead of sitting on your ass expecting them to be shoved in your face? You obviously have an internet connection, I suggest you use it.
    • The interesting thing about radio and Clear Channel owning everything is that they're now realizing that it doesn't work. People are not listening to the radio anymore, and in an effort to lure listeners back, Clear Channel is cutting commerical time down. There's an interesting discussion of that, and it's rammifications here [typepad.com]. The bottom line being that while these megacorps may own everything they can't keep shoveling crap down the consumers throats forever, otherwise the market adapts and makes them

    • Re:great (Score:4, Interesting)

      by blinder ( 153117 ) <blinder.daveNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday July 21, 2004 @04:04PM (#9763815) Homepage Journal
      "As of March 2001, there were 10,983 commercial radio stations in the United States"

      according to the FCC [fcc.gov]

      Clear Channel currently owns 1,182 radio stations. Not exactly "everything" now is it?

      Oh yeah... you might want to consider looking other places for music. Believe it or not there is a HUGE independent music market that caters to just about every taste imaginable.
      • In my area CC owns all but 10 stations on the FM band. The also own all 10 of the top 10 stations with at least 1 in each genre. Even though they may own just over 10% of the stations nationwide, if they are strategiclly placed in urban areas (like they are) they can still dominate the majority of peoples choices.

  • So what? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ElForesto ( 763160 ) <.elforesto. .at. .gmail.com.> on Wednesday July 21, 2004 @03:36PM (#9763476) Homepage

    So what if they merge? I've noticed a lot of smaller labels starting to come into the market, and one of my favorite bands, Vast, switched to one of them. Let the big guys get bigger. This market is going to be dominated by little guys once again.

    Anyone remember their history? As I recall, it was a revolt against ASCAP that lead to the formation of RCA. Or do I have my names wrong?

    • Vast

      As a VAST fan myself, didn't Mr. Crosby put out all of his albums on Elektra (aka Atlantic, owned by AOL/TW)?

    • Re:So what? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Elwood P Dowd ( 16933 ) <judgmentalist@gmail.com> on Wednesday July 21, 2004 @03:58PM (#9763752) Journal
      It's BMI [intekom.com]:
      ASCAP and BMI
      In 1914 the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) was established to protect recording artists from unsanctioned use of their material. ASCAP used a blanket licensing agreement to collect a pre-set annual fee from anyone using its members' material for any commercial purpose. The money was divided among ASCAP artists. As major players in the radio industry became more interested in broadcasting recorded work, ASCAP reinforced its control over distribution. Artists who were not ASCAP members had little hope of exposing their work to wide audiences.

      During the recording boom of the late 30s and early 40s, ASCAP had doubled the fees they charged radio stations. In the midst of court battles and the dearth of music not protected by ASCAP, frustrated broadcasters formed their own blanket licensing system, Broadcast Music, Incorporated (BMI), in 1939. The BMI camp sought alternatives to ASCAP acts. In the process BMI would later become the dominant force in the discovery and marketing of a new sound that would breed a new culture.

  • 46% of music sold? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SirSlud ( 67381 ) on Wednesday July 21, 2004 @03:36PM (#9763477) Homepage
    That is a scary statistic. Even more so if you're a musician.

  • Good News for SACD Fans? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mr.henry ( 618818 ) * on Wednesday July 21, 2004 @03:37PM (#9763485) Journal
    If there are any.. this could mean more of BMG's catalog will come out on Sony's SACD format.
    • NO! Minidiscs for everyone!
    • SACD Fans?

      All eight of them, I guess...

      *ducks*
    • Sony is too busy making minidisc stuff that nobody (almost nobody, compared to how much they've spent on propping it up) is buying to put too much effort into making a lot of SACD stuff that no one will buy. DVD-Audio is the future of high-fidelity music. At least, the near future.
    • If there are any.. this could mean more of BMG's catalog will come out on Sony's SACD format.

      If so, I look forward to buying 12 SACD's for the price of 1, with an obligation to buy only 4 more at a low, low price!

      • If so, I look forward to buying 12 SACD's for the price of 1, with an obligation to buy only 4 more at a low, low price!
        Unfortunately, you'll still find that it costs them $25.99 to ship each one.
  • Sony CEO : "What shall we call it?"
    BMG CEO : "...."
    Marketing Guy : "How about Sony BMG".
    CEOs : "Mmm, it has a good ring to it ... "
    Marketing Guy : "I'll invoice you from my office"

    *marketing guy leaves, door shuts*
    • Marketing Guy 2: "Not very catchy. The great unwashed masses won't get it, what with their short attention spans. How about we shorten it to SBM?"
      CEOs: "Brilliant! That has the, er, synergistic prevalence we're looking for!"
      Marketing Guy 2: (thinks) "I hope they don't figure out I just named their company Solid Bowel Movement."
  • With 2000 fewer workers to pay, we consumers can expect to pay, what, $1-2 more per CD to account for all the money they saved?

    Favorite quote: "[Jean-Luka Monte]called the merger "very bad news not only for independents, but also for retailers and artists."

    You mean the recording industry isn't trying to protect and help artists?! Say it ain't so! ;-)
  • As long as they keep up the same high quality standards!

    The more near-monopolies try to push out the small artists, the more small artists there will be to unite against them.

    Its the same thing that happened to Microsoft... Microsoft's over-reaching control basically caused the Linux movement.

    So hopefully, our culture will no longer be held hostage to these corporate giants.

    • Re:I have no problem with this... (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      >Its the same thing that happened to Microsoft... Microsoft's over-reaching control basically caused the Linux movement.
      >So hopefully, our culture will no longer be held hostage to these corporate giants.

      I hope not. Hell, I don't want to download music sheets and lyrics and have to play/sing the music myself!

      Stupid open-source movement.... grumble grumble

  • When asked... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Gentoo Fan ( 643403 ) on Wednesday July 21, 2004 @03:38PM (#9763507) Homepage

    Sony artists include Aerosmith, George Michael and Barbra Streisand, while the BMG stable has Avril Lavigne and Elvis Presley.

    Elvis unavailable for comment regarding the merger.

    • Sony artists include Aerosmith, George Michael and Barbra Streisand, while the BMG stable has Avril Lavigne and Elvis Presley.

      That's about as well as one can summarize the decline of the music industry in a single sentence, isn't it?

  • There May Only Be One (Score:5, Funny)

    by Psymunn ( 778581 ) on Wednesday July 21, 2004 @03:38PM (#9763510)
    Just one step closer to CocaWarner McMicroSonySoft

  • Artists need to fight back (Score:4, Informative)

    by AnotherDreamer ( 799001 ) on Wednesday July 21, 2004 @03:39PM (#9763514) Homepage
    I recently released an album under a Creative Commons license simply because I would never want a situation in which my audience would be persecuted for listening to my music. The RIAA is must be taking out of the loop. Fans and artists must make an effort to do so. Anyway, my album is available for free at www.anotherdreamer.net
  • Let the market get even more monopolistic and less profitable for artists. Despite what's been said here on Slashdot, the industry is still clinging on to its old models for royalties. Perhaps the industry needs a revolution rather than a slow evolution?

  • I don't know if it really makes much difference (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nebaz ( 453974 ) on Wednesday July 21, 2004 @03:40PM (#9763542)
    There were what 4 and now 3 big companies? Still not a monopoly, and didn't they already get convicted of price fixing with just the 4 of them? What we have here is an oligopoly, before and after. I realize that this will be one big player, but can you think of any abuses that could be perpetuated now that couldn't have been (and weren't) done before? I think Anti Trust issues only come in when a true monopoly occurs.
    • What we have here is an oligopoly, before and after.
      Well, they prefer the term "triumvirate."
    • The reason the music market has dwindled so much in the past eight years is because, up until yesterday, only five big corporations (not four) had a bottom line to work with.

      Turning two companies into one means turning two bottom lines into one. Or, better put...

      "Why should we, SONY/BMG, release the same amount of material that competes against itself? We don't need to release that Avril Lavigne clone we'd been developing, since we actually have Avril Lavigne, and that means we can focus our teen advertis

  • I'm sorry... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Transcendent ( 204992 ) on Wednesday July 21, 2004 @03:41PM (#9763554)
    ...but just hearing "music" and "industry" in the same sentence kinda makes me think that I'm fed a mass-produced, scientifically designed, corporate controlled brain anesthetic instead of actual music.

    Now that the "industry" is controlled by fewer companies, closer to one conglomeration, the appreciation for what comes out of it is even smaller.

    I guess that's why I stopped buying CDs a long time ago and just listen to online radio of "underground" (progressive trance if you must know my tastes) and classical music.
    • You do know that Sony has an extensive classical catalogue [sonyclassical.com]?
  • With as bad as piracy is now, they just couldn't afford those workers anymore.

    </sarcasm>

  • Sony BMG? Bullshit Machine Gun? (Score:3, Funny)

    by JPelorat ( 5320 ) on Wednesday July 21, 2004 @03:43PM (#9763572)
    Load up the Sony BMGs! The DMZ (Downloaded Music Zone) is hot!

  • Question (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cubicledrone ( 681598 ) on Wednesday July 21, 2004 @03:43PM (#9763573)
    they estimate that 2000 jobs (25% of combined workforce) will be cut

    Am I correct in assuming that the only thing businesses will gladly spend substantial amounts of money on (other than catered, air-conditioned lunches) is firing people?
    • Am I correct in assuming that the only thing businesses will gladly spend substantial amounts of money on (other than catered, air-conditioned lunches) is firing people?

      You make it sound malicious. Mergers normally result in mass firings because several jobs become redundant, not because they like giving people the boot. (The possibility that they do like giving people the boot still exists, mind you.)
      • You make it sound malicious.

        Oh, so they benevolently fire people? Even if they are doing a good job? Even if they are providing "value to the enterprise" and bring "substantial short-term cash profits to the paradigm strategy?"

        It's all about the cash.

        • Even if they are providing "value to the enterprise" and bring "substantial short-term cash profits to the paradigm strategy?"

          If two people working similar jobs for forty hours a week are suddenly doing the same job, then they're each getting paid full-time for about twenty hours of work. That's not value to the enterprise, that's unnecessary redundancy.

          Of course it's about the cash. Why pay someone to do a job someone else is already doing? This is a business, not a co-op program.
          • If two people working similar jobs for forty hours a week are suddenly doing the same job, then they're each getting paid full-time for about twenty hours of work.

            Then perhaps one of those oh-so-brilliant middle managers could figure out a way to find something different for one of those people to do? Is the first choice always to take a huge shit all over someone's career?

            If it is the first choice, then why do businesses work so hard to disqualify people during the hiring process? Why do businesses i
            • Then perhaps one of those oh-so-brilliant middle managers could figure out a way to find something different for one of those people to do? Is the first choice always to take a huge shit all over someone's career?

              I understand your position, really I do, but you're either naive or socialist. Of course a company would rather relocate an existing employee than waste the time and money to fire and hire a new one. But you're talking about relocating 25,000 employees. That's one million man-hours every week tha

  • Oh, dear.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by mblase ( 200735 ) on Wednesday July 21, 2004 @03:43PM (#9763576)
    Now there will only be 4 major labels

    That's like complaining that there's only four different types of manure. Any way you buy it, it's still crap.
    • Now there will only be 4 major labels

      and...

      That's like complaining that there's only four different types of manure. Any way you buy it, it's still crap.

      Yes, but if there were enough types of manure, I could always find the right crap at the right price...

  • Real Effect? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Dibson ( 723948 )

    Obviously, this is not a 'good' thing for music listeners, but I feel the music industry has found it's niche at this point: take acts and push them like hell. Make them popular. At this point there's no reason to stop this (unless they actually decide they want to put out something for it's artistic merit rather than financial potential).

    With rare exceptions, I haven't been buying music released on the 5 or 4 major labels. I feel like this won't even really matter except to those who may lose jobs bec

    • Obviously, this is not a 'good' thing for music listeners

      I'm sorry, it's not obvious to me that it makes any difference either way. 4 huge mega-corps is better than 3? How so? What exactly will we see come out of this? The "music industry" is ALREADY fucked up, and this will have no effect what-so-ever.

  • Since the report also states EMI/Warner will merger, that leaves 3. Given the subjective opinion that music has gotten poorer in quality and has not (and now most likely will not) had the promised price-drop, I do not see good times for music connoisseurs. The corporations will still get their profit margins since less options for the artists means easier concessions for the business. What the artists should do is form 'co-ops', like a cluster of indie-labels. Offer a better ROI, broker deals w/radio, satt
    • I've been [surprised | ignorant | both] that no "major" artist with principles has initiated this yet.
      It worked for the original United Artists [wikipedia.org] principals, to get their work distributed. The sheer magnitude of the starpower involved was too great to ignore...

      I'm always hesitant to buy a new music CD now because of the DRM that might be lurking there. The upside, I guess, it that I'm motivated to tell anyone who'll listen of the possibility there's a hidden surprise on newer major-label releases. Go go word
  • In a way this is good, it means a consolidation of companies to boycott. I think the time to boycott is going to be soon.

    How much momentum could we get for boycotting RIAA labels? I think it could be a lot.

    Encourage people not to buy music from RIAA labels. Spread the word. Perhaps we can have some effect; if we succeeded in a large-scale boycott of Sony, the advantage to labels and artists that did not support RIAA would be immense.

    Boycott Sony. Boycott Clearchannel.

  • Piracy (Score:2, Interesting)

    by codepuke ( 737720 )
    "Just when you thought the music industry couldn't get any worse, Sony and BMG are merging. Now there will only be 4 major labels, and they estimate that 2000 jobs (25% of combined workforce) will be cut."

    I sure do love how Slashdot always wants it both ways. To all the people that download mp3s this is your fault. Now it will be harder for new artists to get signed and the variety of music will suffer. I hope you all like mainstreet crap that ClearChannel plays. Thanks!

    • The artists I like were not signed to begin with, or were on independant lables, this has no effect on me

    • Re:Piracy (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      To all the people that download mp3s this is your fault.

      Proof, please?

      Anyone who's actually done a study has found that there is a correlation between file sharing and increased music sales. (Which only makes sense - record labels have known for years that nobody will buy music without hearing it first... which is why they pay people to distribute it for free.)
    • But slashdot says that having an RIAA contract is bad for artists. So people who download mp3s (illegally, I presume) are acting to help the artists avoid getting conned. This hurts the variety of mainstreet crap, but means better artists go to the indies where they can play interesting music.

  • Awesome (Score:3, Funny)

    by realmolo ( 574068 ) * on Wednesday July 21, 2004 @03:47PM (#9763615)
    You know, these mergers are actually a good thing. If all the media companies keep merging, eventually they'll be one big monolithic company that everyone can actively hate, like Microsoft.

    It's hard to fight a battle on many fronts, but if there's ONE company to hate, it's easy to rile up the masses.

  • Stick it to the man (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Knights who say 'INT ( 708612 ) on Wednesday July 21, 2004 @03:50PM (#9763656) Journal
    I mean, sheesh, with the internet, this is much less of a problem. Just stop listening to major label music and support [www.weltherrschaft] independent [narbotic.com] artists [scene.org].

  • Look on the bright side! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Weaselmancer ( 533834 ) on Wednesday July 21, 2004 @03:53PM (#9763688)

    If all the huge music makers merge, the RIAA will become redundant. One hardly needs a Recording Industry Association of America if there's only one company to represent. They can do it themselves.

    Let's hope the 25% staff cut are RIAA morons.

    So, to sum up: I, for one, welcome our new trash pop overlords.

  • More slashdot consistency. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mumblestheclown ( 569987 ) on Wednesday July 21, 2004 @03:55PM (#9763711)
    First slashdot cries that RIAA members are fat middlemen then do nothing for the artists. Won't somebody please think of the artists!

    But when 2000 job cuts are imminent, suddenly those workers are just hardworkin' folk.

    Look, idiot submitters: consolidation and merger between relative equals happens in SHRINKING industries (makes hand gestures like Ben Affleck trying to explain basic economics to Jay and Silent bob from that "strike back movie"), not expanding ones. so maybe, just maybe you tinfoil hat crowd can see this as a *good* thing for your nevertheless ill-thought out anti-riaa crusade.

    note: i challenge anybody to suggest how apple selling music is fundamentally different than wal-mart doing it in the sense that neither wal-mart nor apple can really promote artists other than one can give britney an endcap and the other can give her some banner ad or other prominent website mention. at the end of the tune, itunes, the coca-cola music store, and every other digital music place that is popping up whack-a-mole fashion are just RETAILERS. there is a massive difference between this and actual promoters and distributors and the difference will continue to grow as there are more and more digital retail outlets out there and so the incentive for an individual retailer to be anything but a bottom feeder pricewise shrinks more and more.

  • I for one (Score:2, Funny)

    by vaderhelmet ( 591186 )
    welcome our new music overlords!!!

    If you need me, I'll be listening to Aerosmith's new remix of "Blue Suede Shoes" ....

    --- Please insert flaming below ---
  • Vivendi was on the side of digital music distribution. Sony wants to get more heavily into that arena. It made business sense for them to make this purchase if the company was for sale. There were few corporations/entities that could afford the pricetag.

    Apple was concerned that if Sony also had BMG that they would try to limit content to not only iTunes but to Napster, and Real, and the (insignifcant) others.

    I think as long as music is not limited to exclusive distribution just to push the lame ATRAC stan
  • Well, at least nothing I listen to comes from either of those 2 evil conglomerates. ( except for the MD player I put my music on.. - blah )
  • The cathederal of the media industry is falling as we speak. The onetime gatekeepers of content distribution, be it music, movies, television, radio, are no longer needed.

    Artists used to need these gatekeepers, for only the financial muscle of a large company could finance the widespread distribution of these types of media. No individual could afford the upfront expense of mastering and duplicating millions of DVD's, or negotiationg distibution deals with thousands of media outlets, or fiancing a license

  • Yeah, right (Score:2, Funny)

    by rodik ( 265319 )
    "The joint venture will create a recorded music business better able to serve artists and consumers in this rapidly changing marketplace," Bertelsmann chairman and CEO Gunter Thielen said in a statement late Monday.

    Real-world translation:
    We blow our noses at you, so-called consumers. We fart in your general direction!
    Now obey us, or we shall taunt you a second time!
  • If all geeks continue to say that 'the media that music travels is changing', then we shouldn't be mad or insulted that job losses are occouring. If less and less Shiny Discs are needed, less and less jobs are needed. Everyone who packages and distributes shiny discs will lose a job. everyone who manages or arranges to have discs produced and marketed loses a job. Don't take it to mean I think its a bad thing. Jobs are lost (or rather, shifted) when new technology arrives. Bowling pin setters are now automa
  • If the major labels reduce to 3 from 4, we get a 25% decrease in labels producing krap music, no?

    so this must be a good thing, right?

    well, at least CD prices can come down, with the 2000 former employees no longer requiring a cut...
  • So much talk about supporting indie musicians, how about we start right at "home." If your band has music online, email me the info ... I'll put together a simple list. There's got to be something for everyone.

    robertpaul AT gmail

  • One of the primary functions of the big music labels is to function as a filter between musicians and listeners, so that listeners can have at least some basic expectation of quality when they buy a CD. Though paying twenty bucks for a CD doesn't guarantee high quality, it at least usually guarantees that some people will at least consider it pretty good.

    This function could be automated by a recommender system (like movielens [movielens.org] does for movies). Does anyone know of a good site for public domain / creative

  • they estimate that 2000 jobs (25% of combined workforce) will be cut

    But, but, what about all those poor middlemen that I saved by buying DRM-crippled CDs? Do you mean the labels really don't give a damn about them at all?

Slashdot Top Deals

Whoever dies with the most toys wins.

Close