Colonel Panic wrote:People have families to raise, they have medical bills, etc.

A couple of people have raised this point in defending Sonic Youth's decision to collaborate with Starbucks (which I still think is just a joke, but only time will tell.)

Let's be real, Sonic Youth have been extremely successful over the course of their career. They've not piled away fortunes like Madonna or Michael Jackson, but if they were careful with their financial planning, they could probably afford to retire now, and maybe just supplement their income with the occasional lecture at Berkley, producing of some up and coming artists record, and or reunion tour.

So this whole "Sonic Youth" need money argument is crap.

If this whole thing is not a hoax (which I think it is) then Sonic Youth can bite it for the following reasons:

(a) They're tying themselves into corporate greed. They already have enough money, but they want more, and so they're gonna get it from Starbucks.

(b) There's no need for them to make use of Starbuck's distribution or marketing capabilities. Everyone who needs to know about Sonic Youth already knows about them, or will find out about them through other channels. Eveyone who is going to find out about Sonic Youth via Starbucks is a fuckwit.

(c) The whole concept of the record is pretentious and stupid. A circle of "in" friends picking their favourite SY song and writing what it means to them so that SY can have another record to sell is fucking gae. This is just mutual masturbation of the lowest form. Do you really care what SY song Jeff Tweedy likes and that it's important to him because he lost his virginity to it or whatever? Fuck no. Just listen to the albums, pick the songs you like, and have your own reasons for liking them. (Unless you are a douche who first encountered SY via Starbucks and either bought it out of your adulation for someone who helped compiled the thing, or because it came with your latte.)

This concept would only be bearable if it was a compilation called "People who hate Sonic Youth pick the Sonic Youth songs they find least offensive and explain why they find it tolerable". Either that, or people who have never heard Sonic Youth (say, classical musicians, russian oil barons, and african tribesmen) are forced to listen to the entire canon over several weeks and pick one song and explain why they like it.

...and even then it's a dubious concept.

Anyway, it's probably a joke. If not, then fuck 'em. The word integrity used to mean something.

Sleepkid, that's the best anti-Sonic Youth/Starbucks rant I've read on this thread.

I doubt it's a hoax. Sonic Youth makes terrible artistic decisions (when I say artistic...it has to do with their business practices...because the two ARE tied intimately).

All this stuff though...about SY not making any good music for the last 20 years...(I've been reading that on this board ALL the time)...that's just bullshit. They made a lot of crap, but they also released some good albums...however, I don't think that most of the Sonic Youth albums from the last twenty years will have staying power.

I like their albums once they settled in with Jim O'Rourke. Murray Street and Sonic Nurse do "it" for me.

I don't get it. I still fail to see Starbucks as such an evil company. I think it gets a bad rap because of the association with yuppies and oversold, overpriced, mediocre coffee.

Personally, I prefer Dunkin' Donuts' coffee to Starbucks, and they're the world's largest vendor of single cups of coffee, selling 2.8 million cups per day... that's over 32 cups per second for every second in every day. Would it be as inappropriate for a band to partner with Dunkin' Donuts?

And as for the tribute album thing, I kind of agree with that. I mean, there have been an assload of tribute albums over the past 20 years or so, but how many of them were arranged by the band, comprised of hand-picked friends? It's kind of self-serving and pretentious, I agree.

Minotaur029 wrote:

DrAwkward wrote:

Minotaur029 wrote:My question has always been...what are the "ideal" jobs for a touring musician? How do you find a job with the appropriate level of flexibility?

What pays the bills in Chicago...and affords you an opportunity to get out on the road when need be?

Outside of basically owning your own business, i'm not sure this is possible anywhere. I'd love to hear some options, though. How many musicians on this forum have been able to go on tour for over a month straight on a regular basis and keep their job? Anyone?

Well, what do you do? It seems like you tour often enough.

I work for a bank in downtown Milwaukee that gives me the standard two weeks paid vacation, but they are also nice enough to have let me go over that allotment and take a few days of unpaid leave each year i've worked here. Every day of vacation i hve pretty much gets eaten up by touring, and i haven't been on any other kind of vacation since the '03/'04 New Year. (Edit Note: I'm pretty sure if i took a month or two of unpaid leave per year, i'd be fired.)

We tour roughly 2-3 weeks per year, and i've always regretted that there wasn't a time in my life where i lived in squalor in a run-down punk house in Riverwest for $100/mo rent (because of sharing the house with 8 other people) in order to tour for 5 months out of the year in my early 20s. Something about that seems sort of romantic in a really twisted sense.

this is no more of a sell out move than a million other things Sonic Youth have done over the years

Minotaur029 wrote:My "appropriate jobs for a touring musician" question...anyone? It's a question I often ask...and I have never received any kind of satisfactory answer...well more like...no one has ever really answered the question.

Maybe I'll start posting on the Sonic Youth board...the board can advise me on how to sell all of my music to Hardee's and Hyundai...then I can tour all the time!

right here.

Minotaur029 wrote:My "appropriate jobs for a touring musician" question...anyone? It's a question I often ask...and I have never received any kind of satisfactory answer...well more like...no one has ever really answered the question.

Choices available to you:

1) (best) Freelance employment of any kind.

2) Temporary contracts in a relatively flexible profession (education, administration, secretarial, etc) that can be terminated at any time, i.e. when you need to go on tour - find a new job when you get back.

3) Take anything you can get no matter how shitty, then do as as (2) when the need to tour comes up.

4) Just use your entire annual holidays to tour and limit all tours to a maximum of about 15 days. No time to spend with the family, partner, or actually relax - definitely the worst option.

I currently do a mixture of (2) and (4). I am planning train as a teacher next year, not only because I feel I will enjoy the work, but also because you get six - eight weeks annual holiday a year, meaning I'll be able to tour and hang out with my partner/family, visit friends, etc.

All of my friends in "serious"* bands do one of 1 through to 4. A few friends in bigger bands manage to make a living off only music; the only way they could get in that position was by quitting their jobs altogether so they could go on tour for three-six months solid.


* i.e. bands that are willing to make sacrifices (time, money, stability) to pursue their goals.

Colonel Panic wrote:Would it be as inappropriate for a band to partner with Dunkin' Donuts?

Yes. Why would you even have to ask this question? You're about this far <---> away from having me call you a douchebag or something again.

I don't see Starbucks as any more morally repugnant than any other large foodservice chain, in fact they seem to be far less destructive than most.

It seems to me that this is just of an unwise marketing move, because of the cultural associations people make with Starbucks. It ain't helping their image any.

sleepkid wrote:

Colonel Panic wrote:Would it be as inappropriate for a band to partner with Dunkin' Donuts?

Yes. Why would you even have to ask this question? You're about this far <---> away from having me call you a douchebag or something again.

I was trying to make a point, by making a joke. My point is that it's not really a moral issue, it's more just issue of taste. It looks bad, that's all. An unwise PR move.

Does this mean that they've lost touch with their fan base? Who is their fan base these days, anyway?