Talk:Decca Records

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Classical music This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music Country music Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Country music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to country music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Country musicWikipedia:WikiProject Country musicTemplate:WikiProject Country musicCountry music Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. London Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Pop music Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. R&B and Soul Music Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Record Labels High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Record Labels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of record labels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Record LabelsWikipedia:WikiProject Record LabelsTemplate:WikiProject Record Labelsrecord labels High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives (Index)

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2019 2020

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

This article makes no mention of Argo Records (UK) or of their connection. I have made a note on their talk page as well. Viriditas (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the article, the term "ffrr" is used lowercase every time. However, the Wikipedia page for "Sound recording and reproduction" has FFRR as capitalized, and capitalized is the way I have always seen FFRR aswell. I think changing to uppercase would be better, as FFRR is an initialism for "Full Frequency Range Recording", and initialisms are conventionally capitalized on each letter. 64.253.17.148 (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Decca used lowercase styling for this on their record labels (e.g. [1], [2]). MOS:CAPSACRS seems to indicate we should go with the lower case then. ~Kvng (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification, that makes sense. 64.253.17.148 (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've overhauled the article and removed or replaced extensive uncited material. I have also removed some detail that seems to me inappropriate for a general interest encyclopedia article such as the list of matrix numbers, but I'm more than willing to discuss if anyone is unhappy about my deletions. Tim riley talk 17:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Well of course its a very good overhaul, as ever. One could perhaps add a sentence about "Phase 4" which people were very sniffy about... ; there is an interesting article in the Classical Recordings Quarterly by David Patmore (vol.79 p.42) or you may have other sources. I also think it could be expanded a bit about the link with radar - this might help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decca_Navigator_System#Origins ? in the Second World War section. At least in the 60s and 70s they were very close companies and if you worked at Racal you could get a third off Decca LPs! Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• PS where it says 'location', is that the current main office, after all it was in West Hampstead and on Albert Embankments... Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Phase 4 really worth mentioning? I'm open to argument, but to me it seems like a side show, almost an irrelevance. I've no idea about the "Kensington" in the info-box. I wondered about adding something about the radar and other applications, but the article is about Decca Records, rather than any other part of the Decca empire. Again, I'm open to conviction. Tim riley talk 14:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a once over. The 1950s through 1970s sections could probably be tightened up more. I like the discussions of technology innovations. The Lead probably needs some fleshing out, but my brain is too fried right now. Is there a quote somewhere by a music magazine along the lines of "Decca is much better than EMI"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need to restore cited entries regarding the history of American Decca from the 1950s to its absorption into MCA Records in the early 1970s. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific about the material you have in mind? I thought I'd covered US Decca in the 1950s in the text that's there now. Happy to restore anything relevant I've removed inadvertently. Tim riley talk 14:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please separate the US Decca acts that were issued in the UK on Brunswick and Coral with the UK Decca acts issued on London in North America. Also the 1960s and early 1970s American Decca acts that were issued in the UK on the MCA label as well as MCA forming Uni and acquiring Kapp plus their consolidation in the US as MCA Records and the consolidation of the three labels. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think most of that is to do with Decca Records, but perhaps you'd like to suggest a form of words we can consider here. Tim riley talk 20:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because for decades, British and American Decca were separate companies, we have to differentiate the two entities when they were separate companies from when they were separated prior to World War II to when American Decca's parent (Universal Music) bought British Decca's parent (PolyGram). Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. What wording would you suggest we add? Tim riley talk 21:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Text regarding Decca in the UK would be "British Decca" and the American company "American Decca." Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could suggest a form of words for the section(s) you want to add to? Tim riley talk 10:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]