Marsupialized wrote:oh, you try that Vanilla Iced Coffee at McD's and you'll change your tune right quick, trust me.
They give you about a gallon of the shit for a buck and some change, lasts me a good 3 hours just sipping away

No wonder you're getting fat.

-A

Skronk wrote:I wasn't comparing the quality of Starbucks with McDonald's, but both are a fast-food type establishment. "Get in, get out" sort of mentality.

yeah, I know

alex maiolo wrote:

Marsupialized wrote:oh, you try that Vanilla Iced Coffee at McD's and you'll change your tune right quick, trust me.
They give you about a gallon of the shit for a buck and some change, lasts me a good 3 hours just sipping away

No wonder you're getting fat.

-A

yeah, I know

Marsupialized wrote:someone explain to me why Starbucks is a worse label to put out your record than Geffen.
It's all the same shit, whatever.

I'm going to point out that I don't disagree with this, at least not in broad terms. All the things I'm saying about this (probably fanciful) association with Starbucks are things I say and have said about their association with Geffen.

So, nothing new here.

scott wrote:And since we're on the record here... why on EARTH do any of you read Pitchfork, or even pay attention to them?

pitchfork's reviews can be quite entertaining, that's why i occasionally read their reviews. same goes for filmthreat.com. whether or not i agree with them they are sometimes funny.

Steve, what particular beef do you have with them signing to Geffen?

The fact that they ushered in many young bands that might have done better for themselves on an independent?

scott wrote:And since we're on the record here... why on EARTH do any of you read Pitchfork, or even pay attention to them? I'm coming from a place I come from now and again, a place of total ignorance, in that I've never read Pitchfork other than once or twice when people posted a link to something of theirs. I honestly don't remember one damn thing I've ever read on Pitchfork, except that they gave Travistan a zero out of 10, which was pretty funny. I think I've always had a sneaking suspicion that Pitchfork is really, really not for me. Kinda like how I never joined up on Friendster when everybody else was.

Seriously people. Pitchfork?!?! Get with the times, maaaaaann!!

To see if there are any new records out that I haven't heard about already and that I might be interested in. I don't care much for their reviews, but I can usually gather enough subjective information from them to determine if I might like to hear something - regardless of what the reviewer thought. Tour schedules, some band I like is recording. Random information. I don't read the any of the columns and barely skim the occasional review.

Habit. I read it ten years ago; I look at it for a minute or two every day now. I have loads of free computer time at work.

That said, they used to write hilarious bad reviews of Joan of Arc records that were still amusing after repeated reads.

Skronk wrote:But there's a definite distinction between working for them and having them release/sell your bands music. We all have to work in this world, and if you choose to work at Starbucks, fine. I doubt anyone would have a problem with that.

Isn't there's just as valid an argument saying that working for them serving coffee and working for them writing songs is essentially the same thing?

Let's say it's Bob Dylan, since we know for sure that he's released a record on Hearmusic and the Sonic Youth thing is up in the air. Like Marsupialized said before, working for one corporation is the same as working for another one. Dylan releasing records for Starbucks should be equally as distasteful as him releasing records for Columbia.

Colonel Panic wrote:Steve, what particular beef do you have with them signing to Geffen?

The fact that they ushered in many young bands that might have done better for themselves on an independent?

there's this problem with music, see...

tommydski wrote:

Skronk wrote:But there's a definite distinction between working for them and having them release/sell your bands music. We all have to work in this world, and if you choose to work at Starbucks, fine. I doubt anyone would have a problem with that.

Isn't there's just as valid an argument saying that working for them serving coffee and working for them writing songs is essentially the same thing?

Let's say it's Bob Dylan, since we know for sure that he's released a record on Hearmusic and the Sonic Youth thing is up in the air. Like Marsupialized said before, working for one corporation is the same as working for another one. Dylan releasing records for Starbucks should be equally as distasteful as him releasing records for Columbia.

I dunno, hasn't Columbia stood behind Dylan for some 47 years now? He must like the hours.

EDIT: Of course, I'm a minor Dylan-phile and I'm just speculatin'.

Are you saying they've been screwed by Geffen?