This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
www.musicweek.com


17.01.14 MusicWeek 3


MARKET SHARES WEEK 2: TOP 75 SHARE BY CORPORATE GROUP


ARTIST SINGLES Universal 49.1% Sony 35.4% Warner 9.3% Others 6.2%


ARTIST ALBUMS Universal 55.4% Sony 27.4% Warner 10.4% Others 6.8%


ALL ALBUMS (Combined Artists & Compilation Albums) Univsersal Music 46.04% Sony Music 22.01% Warner Music 7.93% Sony /Universal 5.69% Sony/Warner (85/15) 0.46% Sony/Universal/Warner (65/25/10) 1.21% Universal /Warner (83/17) 0.94% Others (See breakdown to right) 15.72%


WEEK 2: TOP 75 SHARE BY RECORD COMPANY


ISLINGTON VENUE CELEBRATES FIVE YEARS


Lexington owner on new venue hunt


DOMINO RECORDINGS 2.15% MINISTRY OF SOUND GROUP 11.58% NETTWERK 0.68% NEW STATE 1.31%


ARTIST SINGLES Virgin/EMI 22.19% Polydor 13.26% RCA Label Group 30.19% Island 5.07% Atlantic 2.21% Columbia 2.28%


Others 24.81% Decca 1.29% Domino Recordings 0.45% Epic Label Group 2.89% Infectious Music 0.93% Macklemore 0.37% Metal & Dust Recordings 0.53% Ministry Of Sound 1.22% Nettwerk 0.64% Parlophone 1.85% Red Bull 1.42% Skint 0.65% Umc 1.85% Umtv 5.47% Warner Bros 4.88% Wm Norway 0.37%


ARTIST ALBUMS Virgin/EMI 17.77% Polydor 22.99% RCA Label Group 15.40% Island 10.95% Atlantic 5.44% Columbia 6.53%


Others 20.93% Big Brother 0.50% Decca 3.66% Domino Recordings 2.56% Epic Label Group 2.90% Macklemore 0.48% Metal & Dust Recordings 2.55% Nettwerk 0.81% Parlophone 1.40% Rhino (Warners) 1.51% Sony Music Cg 2.10% Warner Bros 2.04% Xl Recordings 0.42%


LIVE n BY TINA HART


T YEAR TO DATE: TOTAL MARKET SHARES BY CORPORATE GROUP


SINGLES Universal 41.9% Sony 25.0% Warner 13.8% Others 13.7% Ministry - 1.5% Macklemore - 0.3% XL Beggars - 0.9% BMG Rights - 0.5% Domino - 0.6% Red Bull - 0.4%


ALL ALBUMS  Universal Music 38.2% Sony Music 22.2% Warner Music 14.2% Minstry Of Sound 4.6% Demon Music Group 1.6%


ARTIST ALBUMS Universal 40.2% Sony 23.0% Warner 15.8% Others 14.7% XL Beggars 1.5% Domino Recordings 1.6% Demon Music Group 0.7% Union Square Music 0.4% BMG Rights 0.4% PIAS 0.7%


Domino Recordings 1.3% XL Beggars 1.2% Union Square Music 0.9% PIAS 0.6% Delta 0.6% Others 14.8%


YEAR TO DATE: TOTAL MARKET SHARES BY RECORD COMPANY


SINGLES RCA 18.2% Polydor 11.8% Island 8.8% Virgin/EMI 15.3%  Atlantic - 4.3% Columbia - 3.9% Warner Bros - 5.1% UMTV - 2.1% Parlophone - 3.1% Others - 25.9%


ARTIST ALBUMS RCA Label Group - 10.5% Columbia - 6.5% Polydor - 12.7% Warner Bros - 4.2%  Island - 7.6% Virgin/EMI - 12.5% Atlantic - 4.0%  Decca - 3.3% Rhino - 3.5% Sony Music CG - 3.8% Others - 31.3%


he owner of popular London venue The Lexington, which celebrates its fifth year in 2014, has told Music


Week that she is keen to add a new music and leisure space to her portfolio. Stacey Thomas currently owns the


250-capacity Lexington and the 150-capacity Buffalo Bar, also in Islington, London. Thomas was recently outbid by DHP


Family in the battle to buy just-opened East London venue Oslo. But she says she’s keeping her eyes on the capital while scouting for her new venture and drawing inspiration from her long-running success at The Lexington. “We’re looking for sites now in South


and East London,” she said. “I think the Lexington is a good business model. If the opportunity came up, we could operate a bigger venue - 500 or 1,000 capacity - we’ve got the capabilities to run it and book it, that’s not a problem. “If we can find a space we’ll run a


venue, if we find a pub we’ll run a Lexington-style place; it’s just a matter of what’s on the market and what’s out there.” In the five years of The Lexington’s


operating history it has been nominated in the Music Week Awards Venue of the Year category three times and hosted an abundance of acclaimed music acts, including Two Door Cinema Club, John Newman, Tame Impala, Kurt Vile, Dry The River, Yuck and Wire. Commenting on the factors contributing


to The Lexington’s business success and strong relationships with the music industry, Thomas noted the “tens of thousands” invested in sound equipment and a staunch commitment to running a more music- friendly venue than competitors. “It’s about making sure you do it better


“For the size of venue we’ve got there’s a serious level of investment [in sound equipment] - that’s part of looking after a band, to make sure they sound amazing” STACEY THOMAS, THE LEXINGTON


than anyone else - it’s really simple,” she said. “There are a lot of people out there who are actually not running venues very well. Especially with small-to-medium sized businesses, there’s not a lot of people out there who really care about what they’re doing or about the bands, and they’ll put a shitty PA in. “We’ve got a top-of-the-range PA


and desk, we experimented for a long period of time to get the right [equipment]. For the size of venue we’ve got there’s a serious level of investment - that’s part of looking after a band, to make sure they sound amazing. “It is about looking after the bands and


that’s really important to us, to make sure that they’re having a good experience and are able to showcase themselves as well as they can. It’s not just a money-making machine, that’s an awful way to look at it, and you find that a lot of operators are like that. “We’re always learning new things and


tweaking things as we get bigger and more popular. When we opened The Lexington, we hit the ground running and were booking in really great artists from day one. As soon as people found out what sort of system we had, we were there.” In addition to continuing the search


for a new venue, Team Lexington are gearing up for SXSW and they’re set to host their own stage for the third time at the renowned festival in Austin, Texas, in March.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56