Badge Music Blog

Behind the music: Universal's EMI buyout will be painful – I should know

When Universal gobbled up the label I was signed to, I lost out. How can we stop EMI's smaller artists suffering the same fate?
Musician Mick Jagger
Singing the changes ... controversially, Mick Jagger calls Universal's buyout a 'positive development'. Photograph: Jordan Strauss/WireImage

Speaking as someone who was directly affected the last time Universal gobbled up a major, the news that EMI Music would be bought by Universal (with EMI Publishing going to a consortium led by Sony) filled me with dread. In 2006, BMG was broken up just like EMI, though in that case the record label went to Sony while the publishing arm went to Universal. I woke up one day to find I was signed to a completely different label. Years earlier I'd refused an offer from Universal, deciding to go with BMG instead, and now I'd ended up there anyway. It seems all roads lead to Universal.

EMI boss Roger Faxon may say there aren't any redundancies planned, but many of us suspect the opposite. When BMG was bought, almost everyone I'd dealt with for the past four years (including the person who signed me) was sacked. I was given a new point person who didn't know me and who was overwhelmed by suddenly having a roster of songwriters twice as long as before. Now the same will be the case for EMI artists. A manager said the deal will only benefit EMI's biggest stars, who can now expect more powerful backing; smaller artists may get lost in the mix and eventually dropped.

A Universal executive once told me an anecdote about the former owner of EMI, Guy Hands. After Terra Firma (Hands's firm) had taken over the label had taken over the label, Guy went out to dinner with Mick Jagger to show him the spreadsheets. "Can you imagine?" the executive scoffed. "You don't show Jagger spreadsheets. You ask him to tell you rock'n'roll stories." It's well known that Hands was out of his depth when it came to dealing with artists' egos, but that doesn't make Universal any more artist friendly. In fact, the major labels' obsession with market share does nothing to foster artist development in the long run. (The fact that Adele, who is signed to independent label XL Recordings, has outsold every major-label artist this year and helped her label to a huge portion of the market, must be a sensitive topic for the majors.)

Any problems that arise will be nothing to do with Universal's staff in general – most of the employees have a true passion for music and devotion to the artists they work with. Problems will come from the pressure to get an instant result. Years ago, a Universal Publishing executive complained that ever since the company had been bought by Vivendi he had to send weekly reports to head office. "It's ridiculous," he said. "Music publishing is not like selling detergent. Nothing ever happens in a month, let alone a week." Yet the shareholders wanted to see an immediate return on their artist investment.

Independent labels are understandably up in arms over the Universal/Sony takeover of EMI, with their international organisation Impala registering a formal complaint with the European Commission and pledging to fight the merger to the bitter end. After all, the purchase would hand Universal more than 40% of the market and with it the power to dictate the terms of any deal with a new digital music platform. Personally, I would have preferred Warner to buy EMI, as that would reduce the major labels to three, and those three would have a similar share of the recorded music market. (Ironically, Impala successfully fought a Warner/EMI merger years ago.)

"Breathtaking corporate arrogance is the phrase that comes to mind," said Martin Mills, chairman of Beggars Group. "It's hard to imagine this acquisition being approved, given Universal's existing dominance in an over-concentrated market. Even greater dominance would be bad news for almost everyone involved in the art and business of music."

Lucian Grainge, chairman and CEO of Universal Music Group (UMG) issued this statement: "This is an historic acquisition for UMG and an important step in preserving the legacy of EMI Music. For me, as an Englishman, EMI was the preeminent music company that I grew up with. Its artists and their music provided the soundtrack to my teenage years. Therefore, UMG is committed to both preserving EMI's cultural heritage and artistic diversity and also investing in its artists and people to grow the company's assets for the future."

At a press conference, Grainge added: "(We will) replenish and rebuild the rosters that have lacked the level of investment that frankly a business like this should have had. EMI is not a utility company." (Surely a dig at Hands?) Mick Jagger praised the deal. "This is a very positive development and I particularly welcome the fact that EMI will once again be owned by people who really do have music in their blood."

One independent label boss I spoke to, who referred to Universal as an "evil force", isn't buying Grainge and Jagger's assurances. "Appointing Lucian Grainge as the guardian of the nation's musical treasures is as laughable as it's scary – you might as well entrust them to Attila the Hun. The mere fact that they found it necessary to roll out Mick Jagger and friends with supportive endorsements proves the point."

Another source tells me Universal has been asking independent labels what they would want in return for not opposing the merger. The indication from the independent community is that the answer will be "nothing". But maybe this is a chance to make serious changes to how Universal operates, and achieve more transparency and accountability. Universal could start by abolishing non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), which prevent artists from knowing what deals the label does with companies such as Google and Spotify.

Today's best video

Latest reviews

More from Behind the music
