tommydski wrote:Thanks a lot, sparky.

That's an excellent response that has given me a lot to think about.

Thanks tommy.

It was a good question, which I've been thinking about myself a little. I am writing a novel (along with 75% of British university-educated males of my age) and am wondering to what extent, if at all, I need to think of someone actually wanting to read the horrible thing.

Mandroid2.0 wrote:

John C3 wrote:If Ian Mackaye did a Starbucks advert would you still think he was cool? He's paid his dues, right?

Actually, my art school friend saw Ian in a D.C. Starbucks, and it broke his sweet, idealistic little straightedge heart. Poor guy.

oh God, too good...

I worked at Starbucks in the mid to late 1990s. It's not the most evil corporation in the world, that's for fucking sure. If they want to sell music, that's great. They have a giant distribution channel and a means to pump the air with Carly Simon, Sonic Youth and Paul McCartney. It's a great idea. Who fucking cares? Most of you don't listen to this stuff, right? I hope you could care less. Who "hangs out" in a Starbucks?

They also sell fair trade coffee, use recyclable plastic in their plastic cups, and are several thousand notches higher on the "responsible corporation" meter than Exxon, Wal-Mart, Ford, GM, Monsanto, ConAgra, Caribou Coffee, Dunkin Dognuts, Tim Horton, and yes, DGC. By no means am I saying they are moral and perfect, but what are you going to do?

You are all acting like SY is something sacred. They aren't and haven't been since the mid-eighties.

mr.arrison wrote:I worked at Starbucks in the mid to late 1990s. It's not the most evil corporation in the world, that's for fucking sure. If they want to sell music, that's great. They have a giant distribution channel and a means to pump the air with Carly Simon, Sonic Youth and Paul McCartney. It's a great idea. Who fucking cares? Most of you don't listen to this stuff, right? I hope you could care less. Who "hangs out" in a Starbucks?

Ding!

They also sell fair trade coffee, use recyclable plastic in their plastic cups, and are several thousand notches higher on the "responsible corporation" meter than Exxon, Wal-Mart, Ford, GM, Monsanto, ConAgra, Caribou Coffee, Dunkin Dognuts, Tim Horton, and yes, DGC. By no means am I saying they are moral and perfect, but what are you going to do?

Ding! Ding!

You are all acting like SY is something sacred. They aren't and haven't been since the mid-eighties.

DING!
We have a winner!

End of thread.

-A

sparky wrote:
However, it is certainly not akin to working as a dishwasher. There, you are selling a specific service. I think that most of us probably see art as aspiring to being something less material and more substantial than a product or service, a part of ourselves.

To be exact, the dishwasher is selling her labor power: her capacity to work. She is a wage-laborer working for the profit of whomever owns or manages the means of her work (the building, the machinery, etc.).

The "service industry" is, nearly exclusively, a wage-labor industry, in which goods are prepared and sold by wage laborers.

The musician selling a song is not a wage-laborer but a merchant: she sells her product. But her product does not act like the dish rags in the kitchen or other simple objects do.

Her song has a much more complicated "use-value" than a dish rag. This is, firstly, because a song - any song - does different work than a dish rag. A song is a kind of information - sound information that travels through the air and into ears, evoking feelings and setting moods. Some kinds of songs provide the appropriate information for Starbucks ("Body and Soul") and some don't ("Prayer to God"). The second difference in use-value is that few are likely to care who made the dish rag. Its authorship, so to speak, is not part of its use-value. Not so with a song, which often connotes its performer/composer - and whatever information accrues to her - inextricably from the physical affect of the sound information itself.

sparky wrote:If we are allowing this part of us - if you subscribe to this view - to be co-opted by a coffee-seller, a software manufacturer, or a political campaign, then we are allowing something to become attached to the creation that is not part of us.

I agree that this is what bothers people. We see what is ostensibly non-alienated labor and independent product (a song) not only becoming a commodity but having its use-value circumscribed in a way that subordinates (to corporate capitalists) the very sounds themselves.

The fact that this raises a nearly instinctual flag for people ("Oh fuck, Spoon sold that great song to a Jaguar car commercial") reveals the vestiges of a belief that there is a realm of work - of people making things - which shouldn't be tied to profit or be made to ride in on (behalf of) corporate capitalists in such an overt way.

Starbucks wants to be part of your life - it needs to be liked - in a much more intimate way than does a record company like Geffen. I think this is part of what chafes: it's the nearly viral insidiousness.

Your favorite bands will come to us and together we will all be friends.

mr.arrison wrote:You are all acting like SY is something sacred. They aren't and haven't been since the mid-eighties.

And y'all are acting like we shouldn't care if somebody is a creep or chooses to associate with creeps. Granted that definition of "creep" is subjective.

The interview with Yuta is strait is very similar to the fanzine stuff from the 80's when they adored Madonna just with the names changed to be more current.

Yuta is a interesting person she does rock interviews and teaches art history at Columbia, and makes crazy art and music herself.

As far as the Geffin contracts changing everything I would say that is pretty right. It seemed that up till then there were a lot of local scenes and things were small enough that a lot of folks knew each other or were 15 degrees from Steve Albini. So it was great, with a lot of different fresh ideas coming from different places. Since there was no big money to be made everyone did it to express themselves. So there was not a sub current of trying to get the manager or big contract cause there was nothing like that.

I knew things were fucked when I went to 48th street after Nirvana and all the guys who were dressed in spandex 6 months earler were now dressed in flannel and changing their metal band to grunge.

So the goal changed to trying express oneself (with little interest except from ones peers) to getting the big label deal and careerism. Soon as soon as there was money in it all the folks who two years before made fun of indie music took on the brand name to try to sell whatever would get them in front of a big crowd and on MTV. This I believe is due to the fact that a lot of people have nothing much to express and a big desire to be seen as cool and famous.

Due to this a lot of the structures that supported the DIY touring and distribution model got messed up as the larger companies wandering about like Godzilla bought up things (like entire indie labels like Shimmy Disk) with the artists not getting any of the money for the sale. At one point they were trying to get colleges to sell the college stations to be more commercial and play industry stuff (in some cases using internships and PA jobs as inducement). It was gross. The new music seminar went from a small DIY New York thing to a big industry extravaganza. The same with CMJ.

I remember a not much remembered Boston band that had been really good who signed to a major only to be sent to Rock Camp. I had done shows with them and after the signing before a fun punk rock act after they had expensive equipment and sounded like a grudge version of journey.

Other people like John Hall who had a kind of fun thing going with King Missile went to Atlantic only to put out records after getting signed that lacked the fun and charm of his earlier work. The same could be said of the Melvin's who did great albums before and after Atlantic. Th ease guys were also under a lot of pressure to gain a wider audience all the time. The sad descent of the Butthole Surfers.

So yea, I get Steve's point about how the corporate labels pretty much corrupted everything. It was a exhilarating time to basically do it yourself with small amounts of cash and build your own thing.

This did in no small part have to do with Sonic Youth getting signed but more about Nirvana breaking through the insipid crap of the time and becoming huge overnight.

On the Movie front went outside this afternoon aparently they are doing rehersals - the movie set is about a third of a block long on four different converging blocks. The teamster guys say they are going to be here for a couple of weeks. They have a ton of scaffolding built with balconies with railings on the top. The sidewalks have been covered with thick plywood planks and there are a lot of street props like wooden newstands, phone booths, parking meters, and fire hydrants all from like the 80's all this stuff have rubber bases and can be moved arround so it is kind of surreal.

I have seen the Dawson's creek gal a couple of times sitting out front of the house - my entrance is in the middle of the set.

LutherBlissett wrote:
The fact that this raises a nearly instinctual flag for people ("Oh fuck, Spoon sold that great song to a Jaguar car commercial") reveals the vestiges of a belief that there is a realm of work - of people making things - which shouldn't be tied to profit or be made to ride in on (behalf of) corporate capitalists in such an overt way.

So art shouldn't be tied to profit? Or, perhaps you'd prefer that the songs weren't implemented in corporate realms in such an "overt" way? You could have said this without all of the obfuscatory Marxist mumbo-jumbo.

Also, Sonic Youth would most definitely disagree with you. They have spent the lion's share of their lives working on their craft, and, if that justification for selling corporate art offends certain people, then why should they care? They deserve to make money from it. They may not deserve to make money from Starbucks specifically, but, in general, they still deserve to make money from their art.

Their music is a job like any other. They have families to raise. I wouldn't support their making an album for Starbucks, but as long as their intentions are good, they deserve every dollar they can suck from the corporate tit.

Besides, I really don't think you could make the case that Sonic Youth has watered down their music. Albums like WASHING MACHINE and A THOUSAND LEAVES are just as experimental and bent as their early stuff. I really think that they deserve their success because they have paid their dues and, before they reached their current stature, they had to deal with horrible record labels.

alex maiolo wrote:End of thread.

Yes please....moving on.....

steve wrote:

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. Starbucks is hoping to generate more money as a result of this art-marketing enterprise. I don't know the specifics of the deal between Sonic Youth and Starbucks but as far as I can tell-- Sonic Youth is not taking away from Starbucks. On the other hand, the baristas are. It's up to consumers not to drink there. One could argue that working for Starbucks, given a little sabotage, can be more detrimental than not being associated at all. That is another thing entirely, though.

Sonic Youth is grabbing as much cash as they can from whoever they can. I don't have a problem with them doing so. If you have enough money, you can do whatever you want. They seem very involved in New York and the money has to come from somewhere. May as well be soccer moms. Lord knows most of us (forum members) don't have any.

Either way. I see this benefiting Sonic Youth much more than Starbuck's. Starbuck's will probably lose money.