Why are the 2 BMGs separate? I know there was a time gap of several years, but having 2 different labels which have the same origins seem unnecessary. So many editors select the wrong one. I believe it’d just be easier to combine these 2. Especially since it’s just the imprints.
1 Like
They are functionally not the same and don’t logically represent the same concept - and therefore have separate sets of relationships that won’t make sense on a merged entity. (Least importantly, their logos don’t visually look the same either.)
Other examples:
Editor error has never been a reason to merge things people can’t select correctly.
Okay. I thought it had become Sony BMG, and then became BMG again. I know editor error isn’t a reason. Just thought since it was an imprint mainly that we could show all the parent & other label relationships. I know they look different, but we have many imprints that are the same, but go through logo changes, i.e. Elektra, Mercury, etc.
- CBS (1991) became Columbia
- Sony BMG (excluding BMG Japan) became Sony Music Entertainment
- BMG Japan became Ariola Japan
Well, this is why I asked. I personally still see no issue with merging them, but obviously some do. BMG could just show it is an imprint of Bertelsmann AG until 2004 and then of BMG Rights Management from 2008-present. Imprints are logos.