User talk:SimRah11

CBS Records

If you read the top of the current CBS Records article, you will understand that this CBS Records has absolutely no connection with the more famous CBS Records whose catalogue is now owned by Sony BMG and of which the label name is now Columbia Records. The CBS name is owned by CBS Corporation. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Point taken about Columbia Records being the US Parent name, but in Australia (and possibly other territories) CBS Records was a legendary force in the music industry and came to represent both the Colombia and Epic labels for over two decades. Hence my comments SimRah11 (talk) 12:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The complication here is that when Sony bought the CBS Records Group, they only got a temporary licence on the CBS name. So Sony had to change the company name and label name (outside the US and Canada) to Sony Music and Columbia Records, respectively. I suggest improving on the existing Columbia Records article starting with the 1960s section which has a passage about CBS buying into the Australian market. You could also start a new article called Sony BMG Australia about the current company and/or start a new article called Australian Record Company about the company which evolved into Sony BMG Australia. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Historic record labels

I do have another idea. As for record companies and record labels which change their names, the current name should prevail and if the old name is not currently being used by another company, a redirect should be made from the old name to the new name. If the record company declares the old record label defunct as with Columbia Graphophone Company being replaced by EMI Records by EMI and Bell Records being replaced by Arista Records by Arista's then parent Columbia Pictures and the old name is not claimed by another company, then articles for the old company and/or record label can be created. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)