Matador Records is an RIAA member??

[assorted]

I just found out that Matador is a member of the RIAA. I dunno, i just figured that since they were an indie label they weren't a member. same for 4AD....

http://www.riaa.com/About-Members-1.cfm

subpops' not though :)

i made a conscious effort to stop buying cds by the major labels when they began suing navy cadets and college students for trading. unfortunately, i'm going to be following suit now with matador and 4ad now that i realize this.

if the riaa continues to behave the way they are, i hope matador will one day remove themselves from that above RIAA member list.

i'll still be going to concerts though; see y'all at the new pornographers at mercury lounge! :)

[Paul]

How long has this been the case? I could swear I remember checking before and finding no mention of Matador...

[maroonwalrus]

I remember checking this list as well, and I'm pretty sure I recall not seeing Matador there. Hmm.

[Paul]

I say we blame it on Beggars.

[tinobeat]

interesting, because that "RIAA Radar" you can download for use on Amazon.com (google it, I'm too lazy to link at this hour) gives the red flag to Sub Pop, but Matador releases are marked "safe."

but maybe its the recent Beggars thing, and maybe the RIAA radar hasn't been updated...

[Patrick]

We're not paying members of the RIAA, and we have asked them not to list us on their site.

That said, I don't think anyone should buy or not buy music depending on a label's membership of the RIAA. What matters is whether or not the label is doing a good job of promoting their artists and paying them according to contract... and nothing else.

Patrick

[assorted]

Originally posted by Patrick
We're not paying members of the RIAA, and we have asked them not to list us on their site.

That said, I don't think anyone should buy or not buy music depending on a label's membership of the RIAA. What matters is whether or not the label is doing a good job of promoting their artists and paying them according to contract... and nothing else.

Patrick

that's good for me to hear (the first part), thanks.

one minor quibble with the second part.... a lot of black artists from the fifties were royally screwed by their record labels. those labels did "a good job of promoting their artists and paying them according to contract" but regardless there actions were still quite immoral and deserving of some form of punishment. usually, the only way you can punish people in this country to show your disapproval is by boycotting their products and writing letters (like on forums; hehe).

if i want to protest the RIAA's actions, how else should I do it if not boycotting their products?

[chabysinisterra]

if i want to protest the RIAA's actions, how else should I do it if not boycotting their products?

have you tried sporting a sandwich board in public?

[Patrick]

assorted,

The policies and attitudes of major (and most indie - think King, Chess) labels toward all artists, but especially black artists, in the '50s through '70s were reprehensible and racist. Under no circumstances do I or Matador support what they did.

That said, the people who implemented those policies are mostly long-dead, and the companies long ago sold to multinational conglomerates. If one of those artists (some of whom are now, slowly, being paid at least token moneys) asked me to boycott the recordings they made for labels back in the day, I probably would. But I doubt any of them would want you not to buy their seminal recordings for this reason - I've never heard of any musician, from Ruth Brown to Janis Ian, say such a thing.

As for artists today who choose to sign to majors, they know very well what they're getting into. From the press to books (Donald Passman et. al.) to fanzines (Albini) to websites, from Courtney to Mariah to Michael Jackson to Wilco, the deal with the devil has been very clearly laid out.

Personally I buy nearly all my music on original vinyl anyway - it sounds so much nicer than seedees. And then you need have no moral qualms.

Patrick

[Funk]

Originally posted by Patrick
assorted,

The policies and attitudes of major (and most indie - think King, Chess) labels toward all artists, but especially black artists, in the '50s through '70s were reprehensible and racist. Under no circumstances do I or Matador support what they did.

...

Personally I buy nearly all my music on original vinyl anyway - it sounds so much nicer than seedees. And then you need have no moral qualms.

Patrick

Huh? This way yr buying the original recordings made under the the very conditions that Assorted is supposedly protesting (I think his attitude stems more from the crackdown on MP3s, myself, for the very reasons you stated in yr first two paragraphs. The people responsible for the mistreatment are long, looong gone) and you say you don't condone.

But at least nobody's making money but the re-seller when buying the original vinyl.

[Patrick]

Originally posted by Funk
But at least nobody's making money but the re-seller when buying the original vinyl.

Right. That was my point - if you think giving money to AOL Time Warner is a bad thing, then don't buy the crappy Legacy CD or whatever.

Patrick

[Squall91]

Originally posted by Patrick
That said, I don't think anyone should buy or not buy music depending on a label's membership of the RIAA. What matters is whether or not the label is doing a good job of promoting their artists and paying them according to contract... and nothing else.

Patrick I agree completely.

[Gerard]

we're not RIAA members. Whether or not we agree with each and every RIAA practice isn't really relevant because we're not part of that organization.

as far as what each person chooses to support, you're free to make up your mind and establish your own criteria. I personally think there's more to supporting a label than their accounting practices and RIAA affiliation --- if said label was actively involved in killing culture as we know it, I might think twice before buying the one good record they put out every 20 years. If I had a pretty good idea that a label's profits were being used to support organizations or pressure groups I had a problem with, I might have to think twice as well.

But whatever, there are no rules to any of this. In real life, people base these decisions on all kinds of factors and while I think music should be the primary factor, I'd be lying if I claimed I wasn't influenced by other factors sometimes.

GC

[bitterfruit]

Sony puts out the music as a label. Sony puts out the CDR drives as a manufacturer. Sony puts out the media as a slave laborer. Sony sues Ohio State students as a plaintiff. It's fucked up.

[t.d.]

I don't know who to boycott. Should it be the French or the RIAA? I'll wait and see what Bill O'Reilly tells me to do.

[mac m]

Personally I buy nearly all my music on original vinyl anyway - it sounds so much nicer than seedees. And then you need have no moral qualms.

yeah but those 6-LP changers are huge.

[mojo]

Originally posted by assorted
I just found out that Matador is a member of the RIAA. I dunno, i just figured that since they were an indie label they weren't a member. same for 4AD....

I think that probably dates back to when 4ad was distributed by Warners in the US - purely because no other Beggars Group label is listed there.... (like Mantra or Beggars itself, or Wiiija or Too Pure or XL....)

[bitterfruit]

What happens to any licensing deals that were in place with other US based labels before the Matador merger? For instance, what happens to the Cornershop deal with Merge?

[mac m]

'hold on it hurts' is officially out of print in the US as of 2000, ie no more copies are being manufactured (by merge at least) -- that's when the license from wiija expired -- though there are still a few copies extant for sale at the merge site for mailorder.

[bitterfruit]

By the way, I think that "The Length of Las Ramblas" is one of the prettiest pieces ever recorded. Makes me tear up a little. There you have it----my sensitive side.

Hope you don't mind, but I am including it as well as "Oh Come Down" on a compilation for a friend.

[William]

If a Record Company isn't on the RIAA then the company, and all their artists are black-listed from various things I heard...

[Patrick]

Odd. That we haven't experienced.

Patrick

[bitterfruit]

My sensitive side or being blacklisted?

[Patrick]

Being blacklisted, in fact. (Blacklisted from what? Long boring RIAA presentations? :-)

Patrick

[fievet]

I'm currently working with a not-for-profit group that will be broadcasting music over the Internet. This community based organization is staffed by volunteers. No one makes a dime.

To run a legitimate Internet broadcast our organization must obtain licenses.

Here's how those annual license fees breakdown:

1. ASCAP - $264.00
2. BMI - $264.00
3. SESAC - $158.00
4. SoundExchange (RIAA) - $10,936.00

Keep in mind that these figures are for not-for-profit organizations.

Because I am of the opinion that the RIAA supports unfair business practices, and am not alone in this opinion, I have decided to commence working on a website that will offer both for-profit and not-for-profit organizations a database of RIAA affiliated labels. So, organizations like the one I support in my community will have a reference guide to what music they will not play.

You tell me, why should we not boycott RIAA affiliated labels when they support the RIAA by their affiliation?

[Gerard]

very good point. Perhaps you can take it up with a label that _is_ a RIAA member.