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?

That's about it, though it isn't just about them as figureheads. They were active in recruiting bands for the label, and vocal advocates for bands getting involved with the mainstream music business, where most of them were destroyed.

They generally accellerated (even championed) the process whereby the old-school music business paradigm, with its managers, lawyers, promotion men and other agencies encroached on what had been a thriving underground. It was ugly to watch, because all those people were sick fucks I wanted nothing to do with, and now all of a sudden they were holding our peers lives in their hands and blowing bullshit in everybody's ear.

Of course that wasn't Thurston Moore's intention, was it?

I mean, he took the job based on his own seemingly positive experience with Geffen, thinking that he was helping a lot of nice young people get a leg up in the industry, right?

Did he ever realize that he was ruining the very scene he was hoping to cultivate?

NerblyBear wrote:

El Protoolio wrote: I was getting kind tired of Clocker Bob vs The World all the time.

I think everyone is sick of him.

Speak for your fucking self, chief.

tommydski wrote: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 would drink coffee at starbucks if Bob Dylan would serve it.

tommydski wrote: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?

No.

One is menial dollars-an-hour slacker work of the sort everyone has to do once in a while, and the other is the definitive enterprise of a band, a band that could otherwise be part of (once was part of) a community of peers as an alternative to the commodified culture dispensed at corporate coffee shops.

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.

tommydski wrote: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?

You think helping them sell coffee by having them sell your music is the same as cleaning up a coffee machine, or sweeping the floors? Come on.

Coco's gotta go to college.

300 was a terrible movie.

kerble wrote:300 was a terrible movie.

I liked it

Well if we're talking art, let's talk art. What about the difference between designing a logo or corporate ID for them, or offering your paintings in their stores for sale.

Isn't that a more reasonable analogy than equating mopping a floor with creating art?