Talk:Drive-Thru Records

Inclusion of Richard Reines' Pedophiliac Tendencies

A number of Drive-Thru interns and bands have reported on Absolutepunk.net and other message boards that Richard Reines asks the teenage boys who intern at the office to walk barefoot on his bare-back. This should be included on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.211.148.78 (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of release catalog

I reincorporated the release catalog that was moved to a seperate article, because I felt a subsection was more appropriate. Since this is a small record label with so far no more than 60 releases, rather than a major label such as EMI Records, a complete catalog does not necessarily make the article too long and therefore make the Drive-Thru Records Discography article superfluous. However, one might consider moving the list to a seperate document once this article gets too big... --HarryCane 20:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Major Label Debate

I know that the question of whether or not Drive-Thru can really be considered an independent label, given their very close ties to Geffen (which some argue amounts to ownership) is a common one. I was wondering if it would be worth at least mentioning this debate? I know that their old website FAQ acknowledged that they were no longer an indie (and justified it by listing off many other 'fake' indie labels), though that comment has since been removed with the last site update. Is there any solid informaton on exactly how closely related Drive-Thru are to Geffen now that the "Geffen can take whatever artists they want" deal has ended? I'll glady do more research later but I felt that it was at least worth mentioning. I do remember that in interviews people like Fat Mike (of Fat Wreck Chords) and Joe Escalante (Co-owner of Kung-Fu Records) have referred to Drive-Thru as not being an indie anymore.MagicBez 03:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be a section about the whole DTR/Geffen distribution agreement, which might include/answer the question of whether or not Drive-Thru should be considered an independent label. Even though the latter might be self-explanatory if the agreement is properly explained in the article. The current connection between Drive-Thru and Geffen is minimal: The Drive-Thru logo appears on the albums of the Geffen artists that used to be on Drive-Thru. That's about it. Drive-Thru has been 100% independent since the Geffen deal ended in mid-2004, though their CDs were ever since distributed by Sanctuary, the durability of which is currently also uncertain, as Sanctuary is being sued and their deal with DTR might run out. There is a very informative read about the Geffen situation at [1], for those interested. HarryCane 13:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping Ellis part

I removed this uncited part. If it can be verified, feel free to put it back in.

The band Keeping Ellis recorded a five song demo and a full length album for Drive Thru Records. However, the band never really got signed and both discs remain unreleased.

--HarryCane 12:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bands table

I took out the table as it included lots of "?"s and incorrect entries, and the alternating band/description structure made it really inconcise. Also, the genre labels get changed so often (because so many people think they are based on personal preference), we shouldn't carelessly create another hotbed for edit wars unless really necessary. If someone wants more info on an artist, he can simply click the link. It's not too much to ask, is it? --HarryCane 17:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Rushmore Records?

It appears that Rushmore Records is pretty much just an imprint of Drive-Thru records now - Do you think that it should be merged with this Drive-Thru article, or does it have enough information to stay its own page?

Tommyhaych 02:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think for now, it does. Let's wait and see what upcoming Rushmore artists have on the back of their CD cases. If it's the DTR logo, it maybe should be merged because then Rushmore would have definitely been a temporary thing that a sub-section within this article is enough for. If it's Rushmore, I think the imprint article should stay seperate.--HarryCane 14:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the self against city cd. What does it say on the back? Tommyhaych 14:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]