Talk:Epitaph Records

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is "Chocking Victim " the correct spelling? -- Zoe

"Choking Victim" millerc 05:38, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Independent label? 2 Fat Possum Records 3 Fat? 4 "Nature of punk music" 5 Seeing Eye Gods 6 "The year that punk broke" 7 Bickering between Greg Graffin and Brett Gurewitz? No...

[edit] Independent label?

Just what is the definition of an independent label? Epitaph is a member of RIAA. In my book that's not independent. millerc 05:38, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken but if you can produce a citation I would be swayed. —Casey J. Morris 11:29, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

They appear on this list http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp Seems to me they are a member of the RIAA Jdufresne 04:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I removed all instanaces of the word independent for the reason above. Jdufresne 18:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Independent record labels have many defintions. Epitaph is not financially backed by any major recording companies as far as I know. Also artists have more creative freedom and aren't under as strict contracts as major labels. Jabso

I really disagree with this and think as long as the record affiliates with the RIAA they are not independent. To me independent means they are making it without using the mainstream organization as a statement against the way records are typically made. Just cause epitaph doesn't have funding from the big 5 doens't mean they are independent. Jdufresne 23:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Epitaph call themselves independent, all the magazines call them independent, and Itunes call them independent. Because they are a member of RIAA does not mean that they are not independent. So all foreign record labels are independent then? This is just silly, and the page should once again state that Epitaph is an independent company. Frode (Norway)

Great, lets let the corporations water down the idea of an independent label. They do it with all the other positive movements away from corporate control, might as well tack on another one. Also I never said not being a member of the RIAA is sufficient for being labeled independent, but I do consider it necessary. Jdufresne 20:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Huh? Foreign record labels as members of the Recording Industry Association of America?? I think you misunderstand. Some foreign indies may get their imports distributed through distributors with RIAA ties but many do not, and those that do are not necessarily dues-paying, sales-reporting RIAA members. If, however, a label reports to and pays RIAA and participates with their various labeling and anti-piracy programs they cannot be realistically considered independent. --Bk0 (Talk) 23:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

If you can find some sources that say that an independent record company is a record company not associated with the RIAA, then I agree. Otherwise, I think it`s wrong too remove any traces of Epitaph beeing independent. It looks like some personal opinion... Look at wikipedias definition at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_record_label. I think that is the correct one.. Frode

The criteria for being an independent label is quite clear. from our own article: "An independent record label is a record label operating without the funding of one of the major record labels." Im reverting the assertions that they are no longer independent. AKMask

That article was imprecise and somewhat inaccurate; I've edited it to be more accurate. Anyway, the assertion is that some consider them to not be independent, which is true. Since that is stated in an NPOV way there is no reason to censor it out of the article. I'm putting it back. --Bk0 (Talk) 16:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I was, and am, untill shown otherwise, of the opinion that if you are not a subsiderary of the big 4, you were an independent. I have no problem with the RIAA text being left in, but not the allegation that they are not independent. Id like you to either show a notable source that claims they are no longer independent, or consent to the removal of te allegation. AKMask 16:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[Note: Issue resolved over private user talk pages.] --Bk0 (Talk) 23:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

To Bk0. Then the article should state "some", not "many" as it states now. I feel that these small vocal personal opinions takes too much focus on the article. The article really should focus on the history of Epitaph, not som discussion over that "many (who??) feel that they are not independent". The signing of new kind of music also takes too much space in my opinion. Frode

Ahh, but this article is not about the history of Epitaph, it is about Epitaph in general, which includes others feelings on it. Start a History of Epitaph Records entry should you so desire. Also, I invite you to register an account with us here at the wiki, which helps you get attribution for your work. -AKMask 22:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

But I still think that some minor issues takes too much space, and maybe some more about the history would be good. That said, thanks for the invitation, I might start to contribute. But I try too see how Wikipedia functions before I make contributions. While I feel Wikipedia is great, I must see if I can write good articles... Not sure about that, as english is not my main language. Frode

[edit] Fat Possum Records

Are you sure they are affiliated?

[edit] Fat?

Fat Wreck Chords and Epitaph are not together. If you don't believe me, then go the NOFX offical website and read Fat Mike's interview with Flipside. You probably got Fat Wreck Chords mixed up with Fat Possum Records.

[edit] "Nature of punk music"

"Recently in 2003, Epitaph has sparked some controversy among its fans by signing noted alternative rap artists Atmosphere and Sage Francis and noise/grindcore band The Locust, leading to many heated debates about what constituted the true nature of "punk" music, but so far the new groups seem to feel at home on the label. Merle Haggard has also released material on the Epitaph label (If I Could Only Fly (2000) and Roots Vol. 1 (2001))."

I find this hilarious, because Noam Chomsky has released a lecture DVD on Epitaph Records (probably among other material). I guess Professor Chomsky is more punk than Sage Francis ;x. Purists are such dorks. Subversive 09:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Epitaph is just as bad as any major lable. Sticking "The Coup" on a cd entitled "Punk'o'rama 10" give me a break.

[edit] Seeing Eye Gods

Can we get some info on the Seeing Eye Gods album?

[edit] "The year that punk broke"

"1994 was the year that punk borke into the mainstream" what the hell does that mean?? What the were all the bands playing in the 70's and early 80's that were charting and doing sell out tours, the Ramones and Sex Pistols are just two exaples of bands that were "Punk" and were "mainstream". I understand that in 94 there was a resurgence, but I think this statment is a little ignorant, Punk was a huge mainstream culture in the 70's, and arguably it has never been as "mainstream" since, even with the sucess of many punk bands in recent years! Don't wanna be MR.newschool basher, but i think this needs to be changed.

---

hannay-------

[edit] Bickering between Greg Graffin and Brett Gurewitz? No...

"Intra-band drama occurred, mainly between Greg Graffin, the band's main vocalist and co-songwriter and Brett Gurewitz" I'm pretty sure the main drama was between Brett and Jay Bentley, not with Greg Graffin...