Talk:Epitaph Records

	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 articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

California

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Punk music (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Punk music, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Punk musicWikipedia:WikiProject Punk musicTemplate:WikiProject Punk musicPunk music articles

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Choking Victim

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

Fat Possum Records

Are you sure they are affiliated?

I was just wondering the same thing. From what I can tell they are no longer working together (found two articles online about a lawsuit filed by Possum against Epitaph). I am going to remove it for now until we find proof that they are. Mparker413 (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

"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)[reply]

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

Seeing Eye Gods

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

"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-------

Yes punk was spearheaded by the bands that you mentioned (Ramones, Sex Pistols, etc) however none of those bands had nowhere near the amount of commercial success that bands from the 1990s had. I think that you are severely understating the impact that bands such as The Offspring and Rancid had by stating “that in 94 there was a resurgence” Jacknife737 21:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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...

Signed Bands

"Throughout the 80s and 90s most of the bands on Epitaph were punk rock groups, while it is now primarily made up of emo and alternative bands. " I'm removing the statement about bands being emo, and changing it simply to "alternative" bands, much less controversial, and will agree with the pages of bands signed to epitaph. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.176.107.150 (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  I agree, because emo isnt descriptive of a single artist on epitaph. 75.202.27.238 18:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From First to Last

Someone took From First To Last off of the former artists list and put From Famous to Loser. I edited it, but come on people, grow up a little. If you dont like a band go complain to your friends about it, but dont be a little brat on wikipedia about it. 75.202.27.238 18:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major Cleaning

Apologies in (partial) advance for making so many little edits. I don’t really have the time to do it all at once, so I’m going to pick my way through. Please jump in and lend a hand, this could be a pretty good article. Mparker413 (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warner is the parent company?

How come Warner is listed as the parent company when their website[1] does not list Epitaph as one of its labels? --Sprintabm (talk) 06:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Epitaph not Epitaph Records.

Epitaph Records like Epitaph Europe are the regional offices of the label which is called Epitaph. Page need a major overhaul to correct this fact.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.170.227 (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Epitaph Records. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Epitaph Records. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://badreligion.com/titles/?id=6
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610051950/http://www.epitaph.com/artists/album/393/?notes=The to http://www.epitaph.com/artists/album/393/?notes=The

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]