scott wrote:Marsupialized wrote:this is stupid, it's like bitching to Bush's tailor about Iraq.
He just made the suit, man. He has no say...or interest, really, in what the motherfucker wearing it does.
Well this is obviously nor true. For example, if he really has no interest in what the motherfucker wearing the suit does, then Steve wouldn't mind recording a band that put together their recording fund by kidnapping and selling children in some slavery ring. I'm fairly certain that a line would be drawn there, and the money considered to be in some way tainted, and the association with the band undesirable.
I think the difference that needs to be addressed here is that recording bands is Steve's day job, while Shellac is his hobby (for lack of better word), which one would argue is analogous to, say, working at a bank during the day and playing in a band in your spare time. The difference is that Steve is a well-known engineer whose name is attached to a very specific standard of ethics and doing business as evidenced by things he's written/said in the past. The question to be asked, i think is: do we separate Steve's artistic beliefs from his day job, or do those choices bleed over because of what he's decided to make a living doing?
Not to speak for the man, but based on past posts Steve has made here, my guess would be that there's a distinction to be made between engineer-for-hire-as-day-job and "artist."
I suppose i'd be annoyed if someone interviewed me about my band and said "DrAwkward, the bank you work for does business with banks that have committed predatory lending. Why should we support your music when you take a paycheck from such horrible people?"