Sign in / up

back to article EMI 'goes indie'

A memo from EMI's new owner has got the music digerati very excited. In recent years they've been hoping some of the lovely lolly that's been lubricating the City of London would flow their way. Now their wish is coming true - and it might not be what they wanted after all. Guy Hands, whose private capital investment company …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Hywel Thomas

    YGTBFK!

    "Radiohead's bag of riffs and tropes varies little more than Status Quo's,"

    You've got to be fucking kidding !

    0 0
  2. Robert Ramsay

    I thought this article...

    was just an excuse to sneak a few group names into the text. I spotted A-Ha and "Dead or Alive" - I'm sure you could have got Neutral Milk Hotel in there if you'd tried a little harder...

    0 0
  3. heystoopid
    Happy

    Most Interesting!

    Most interesting , the last time I checked it appeared that one pound in five of EMI's profit is derived from music where their controlling copyright is set to expire as they failed to get the appropriate time extension despite the usual threats , hints of dire consequence or bribes to influence the outcome(perhaps the fact the bulk of the company was across the North Sea may have some bearing as to why they were ignored ?) !

    As with all new masters , the victim has to pay for the cost of the takeover , so let the asset stripping begin in earnest !

    Oh well what goes around comes around !

    0 0
  4. Andrew Orlowski (Written by Reg staff)

    Quo

    > "Radiohead's bag of riffs and tropes varies little more than Status Quo's <

    You've got to be fucking kidding !"

    No.

    Quo have fast ones and slow ones, too. Remember "In The Army Now" ?

    0 0
  5. Hywel Thomas

    Positively Dvorakian

    Ah yes. I forgot. Quo play both kinds of music too.

    0 0
  6. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    Finally an article that allows comments

    Dear Andrew, before you keep talking about Radiohead I think you should go back to the other article where you claim they are so stupid to rip 45p from people and give them to the credit card company.

    First this is just NOT TRUE but you seem to thrive in that kind of journalism where between facts and punch line the latter prevails.

    Secondly what do you think they should have done with credit card transaction fees? Should they let someone like you buy 1000 copies at 1p each and pay 450 pounds in fees for you? It seems they have done their homework better than you.

    0 0
This topic is closed for new posts.