Talk:Decca Records/Archives/2013

guitars

I have a guitar that says Decca on the top but i can't find one anywhere else. can someone please give me some info on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.194.173.227 (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The name "Decca" and Beethoven

The article claims that 'The term "Decca" was never determined to signify a specific meaning or name, but some theories cite the opening musical notes of a Beethoven symphony: "D-E-C-C-A".' At the moment, though I'm a little tired, I can't recall any work of Beethoven which begins with these notes; does anyone have further specifics or a reference for this? DSatz 06:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The claim is probably not true, as the name predates the company. I'll fix. --Craig Stuntz 14:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merger

• Oppose--Decca Music Group is a long list thingy that will uglify this page, IMHO--keep 'em separate. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 05:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Its been a very long time since the merger was proposed. What little discussion has occured on either talk page has been generally (exclusivly since the movement) opposed . I'm thus going to move the tags. LukeSurl 13:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

FFRR and stereophonic recording

The article reads: "Decca’s emergence as a major classical label may be attributed to three concurrent events: the development of the FFRR technique, the introduction of the long-playing record, and the recruitment of John Culshaw to Decca’s London office."

Shouldn't Decca's pioneering stereo sound be added to this list? As far as I know, RCA started recording in stereo in 1954, Decca in 1955, while most other companies would not jump onto the bandwagon until 1957 at the best (a few EMI stereo tapes were cut in 1956), or even the late 1960s for rock. I think in the second half of the fifties, stereo was a major commercial and image asset for Decca and distinct from the FFRR concept. I think the FFRR section does not distinguish enough between FFRR and stereo. I may be mistaken, but I think the FFRR logo was used on the LP sleeves of mono recordings from the early fifties (I'm thinking of the Beethoven symphonies by the Concertgebouw Orchestra under Kleiber).--S.Camus 12:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sir Edward Lewis

The demise of Decca was down to the company concentrating more and more on state-of-the-art classical recordings, which often did not sell enough to repay the cost of making them, and ignoring the market for popular music, where they might have made enough money to keep the ship afloat. Sir Edward Lewis was widely seen as a buffoon with little appreciation of music (whether true or simply the view of jaundiced employees trying to sell records is a moot point). He was allegedly ignorant of pop music and is supposed to have made "who's Mick Jagger?" remarks, much like a High Court judge, on several occasions. I have heard it suggested that Sir Edward is the original model for the Patrick Macnee character in This is Spinal Tap. Guy 21:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Kapps?

Hello, who were the Kapps 1932, who ran Decca after Depression in USA, as I read in liner notes for Chick Webbs Rhythm Man Recordings for HEP records by Farnk Driggs?de:Benutzer:Roomsixhu —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.187.60.236 (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Jack Kapp was the founder of American Decca. After his death, his brother Dave Kapp took over. Dave founded Kapp Records which later became co-owned with American Decca. Steelbeard1 02:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Compo Company (Canada)

We need an article on the Compo Company of Canada which was founded by Herb Berliner (yes, that Berliner of Gramophone fame) and pressed American Decca recordings almost from American Decca's inception and was purchased by American Decca in 1951 whilst retaining its own identity and labels. Besides serving the Francophone and Anglophone Canadian music markets, it licenced recording from several small American labels. A nice article on Compo is at http://www.collectionscanada.ca/4/4/m2-3011-e.html]. Steelbeard1 17:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A Compo Company article has been written. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Phase Four?

Anything to say about this aspect of Decca's work in the late 60s and into the 70s? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 17:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a detailed web site about Decca/London Phase 4 Stereo at [1]. Steelbeard1 19:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Decca Broadway

When was Decca Broadway founded? The Decca Broadway catalogue became huge following Universal Music Group's acquisition of PolyGram which had the happy side effect of consolidating ownership of the Decca trade mark. Was Decca Broadway founded before or after the merger? Decca Broadway Records deserves its own article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Deccaarrow.gif

Image:Deccaarrow.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Added formal fair use rationale. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Split recommended

I really think it makes no sense to have one article dealing with both British Decca and US Decca. They were quite separate companies for most of their existence, and didn't even distribute each other's recordings (US Decca was distributed by Brunswick in the UK; UK Decca by London in the US!) -- BRG (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• No--British Decca distributed U.S. Brunswick which was owned until c. 1970 by American Decca. British Decca formed London Records because they were unhappy with American Decca's promotion of British Decca material. Yes, they were separate companies from the 1940s to the 1990s. But they are one company now since Universal Music Group (American Decca) absorbed PolyGram (British Decca). Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be no interest as to if this article is to be split or not so I'll remove the tag. Steelbeard1 (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Since they were separate companies from the 1940s through the 1990s, ie the bulk of their existence during the 20th century, better discrimination than this article currently indicates needs to be made between the two, as the companies had separate management and repertory during that time. For instance, the formation of Sony BMG brought the great American rivals of Columbia and RCA Victor under one roof in 2004, but did not make either company's individual 100+ year history somehow irrelevant. It would be irresponsible for an encyclopedia article to treat their respective histories as that of the same company now because of a corporate merger. Same with the two Deccas, although owing to the stronger links between the two, separate articles would probably not be the best course.PJtP (talk) 15:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. When HMV and English Columbia merged to form EMI and BMG (RCA) and Columbia parent Sony Music merged to form Sony BMG (now Sony Music after Sony bought BMG's half), the labels kept their separate identities. British and American Decca have common origins, but were separate companies from the 1940s through the 1990s with periods of domancy for American Decca from the 1970s through the 1990s. Both labels were still called Decca. Now that both Deccas are one again, there should be only one Decca Records article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Are there two Bayer entries in Wikipedia? Also my experience with Decca when reading about it in reference books, is that the two companies histories are treated as one even in sources from before the 1990s merger.70.125.147.150 (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

There is only one Bayer article in Wikipedia if you are referring to the German-based chemical and pharmaceutical company. That article mentions Bayer buying the American rights to Bayer. As already stated, American Decca's parent company bought British Decca's parent company so Decca is, today, one company. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mojos-Everythings-cover.jpg

The image Image:Mojos-Everythings-cover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Keith Richards 'i'd rather the mafia than decca'

i'v read an artical in which keith discusses decca's relationship with the us military (although all record companies were tied to the military due to the tecnological inovations in electronic equiptment) and his disgust that rolling stones profits were being used to make bombs for the vietnam war. i was wondering if it is worth posting and where it should go —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.200.98 (talk) 08:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Picture of "1934 label" is incorrect

The photo captioned a "US Decca label from 1934" is actually a label from 1938-41. Although the particular recording may have been made in 1934, it is a later issue. In 1934-37, Decca Records USA used the so-called "sunburst" logotype, and for the caption to be correct either the date or the image should be changed accordingly. Bobdeckerbob (talk) 07:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

unkown decca records to Me anyway

I have two 3 inch in deameter, recorded one side they say personality series on them, the number 25080 is the same on both, but the names of the records is diffrent, one is So long miisic in the Morgan Manner the other is Does Your Heart Beat For Me,

Both are by Russ Morgan. any information, any one may have would be much appreciated,

thanks. Ross"doc"Ellis 17927 park place Fontain, fl 32438 email is rellis2007@aol.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.134.63.223 (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

American Decca 20th Anniversary issue of Billboard

I found a great resource to cover American Decca's first 20 years which is a special 1954 issue of Billboard magazine to celbrate American Decca's 20th anniversary. It's at [2]. Feel free to utilise this resource in enhancing this article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Origin of "Decca"

This uncited section appeared on the main page:
Other theories of the origin of the name "Decca" are: (a) A misspelling of the city of Dacca (as it was then named, in what was then known as Bengal province, India, later known as East Pakistan, now spelled Dhaka, capital of the modern country of Bangladesh). The city was the major export source of shellac, theingredient from which then-popular 78-RPM phonograph records were made. (b) Phonograph records had been 10-inches in diameter, and the Greek root for the number 10 begins with "dek".

Varlaam (talk) 04:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

According to the official history, as stated in the article:

The name "Decca" dates back to a portable gramophone called the "Decca Dulcephone" patented in 1914 by musical instrument makers Barnett Samuel and Sons. That company was eventually renamed The Decca Gramophone Co. Ltd. and then sold to former stockbroker Edward Lewis in 1929. Within years Decca Records Ltd. was the second largest record label in the world, calling itself "The Supreme Record Company". The name "Decca" was coined by Wilfred S. Samuel by merging the word "Mecca" with the initial D of their logo "Dulcet" or their trademark "Dulcephone."

Wwwhatsup (talk) 04:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course. As the article clearly states.

But it's standard practice to move particular material over to the talk page.

It's interesting that Bangladeshis apparently feel the need to claim this honour.

Varlaam (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Jazz

Removed the following: "Decca jazz recordings from the twenties to the fifties are being reissued through Universal Music Group's Verve Music Group subsidiary._{<citation needed>}" This passage is not completely inaccurate, but was out of chronological sequence, so I removed it. Jazz should have a more substantial presence in the article, Decca had an involvement in recording the music on both sides of the Atlantic, but that is a task for another day. Philip Cross (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Studios?

Ok, but where were the studios located? who produced what, when for which artists--where? Y.woodman.brown (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Decca executives in article

I have to point out that Owen Bradley was a major figure in the history of the American Decca Records as he helped to create the Nashville sound. To take his name off the list of Decca exec is criminal so I restored his name. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

DECCA in the USA

I've found information on discogs.com, claiming that Decca Records released the K-Pax OST as well as several artists' albums. It was mentioned that the label is a sub-division of MCA. So i believe it's the same label still functioning.

slft

Indeed, it may no longer be an independent entity but it still exists as a label in Europe. Obviously, this was written from a US point of view. -- Viajero

Decca is a very active label in the USA releasing new recordings of classical music and original broadway cast albums. steelbeard1

DECCA AND THE BEATLES

Decca actually recorded The Beatles. What they didn't do was, that they never signed them.

Decca Special Products

Kelly of course designed the interesting Decca Kelly Ribbon speakers but does anyone know who designed the Decca London Cartridges?

TCooperDesigns (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)