alex maiolo wrote:End of thread.

NerblyBear wrote: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.

Except that this is not what anybody is saying. Nobody thinks art should not be tied to profit. Nobody says that or anything like it anywhere in this discussion, except people trying to use that as a straw man argument to debunk in defense of Sonic Youth selling out. Aligning oneself with douchebags is what people are objecting to.

John George Peppers wrote:

alex maiolo wrote:End of thread.

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

I was just kidding.
I like this thread.

-A

El Protoolio wrote:

alex maiolo wrote:End of thread.

Wait! I'm not sure what this means yet, even though I'm a Slintler supporter like no other. It is an honor to be Slintlered.

Does it mean I'm right? Wrong? Shut up? Keep going? Nice shoes?
We never hashed this out...

-A

Slintler sounds like one of Santa's reindeer.

I'm going to Starbuck's... anybody want anything? This argument could go all night.

alex maiolo wrote:I was just kidding.
I like this thread.

-A

This thread has served to remind me of one of my favourite The Onion articles ever:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38780

I never saw that one! Nice.

steve wrote:Except that this is not what anybody is saying. Nobody thinks art should not be tied to profit. Nobody says that or anything like it anywhere in this discussion, except people trying to use that as a straw man argument to debunk in defense of Sonic Youth selling out. Aligning oneself with douchebags is what people are objecting to.

Well, I agree with you that aligning oneself with douchebags (i.e., Starbucks) is an unethical move. Like I said, though, I think that this is a hoax of Thurston's.

But how would you define "selling out"? Would signing with DGC constitute selling out? Making a video for MTV? Sonic Youth has done both of those things.

Can bands who don't sign to major labels survive on their music, though? I'm honestly asking this; I don't know if this is the case.

syntaxfree07 wrote:No. Starbucks is hoping to generate more money as a result of this art-marketing enterprise.

Art-marketing.????

Are we really such saps that we believe that the dreck that anyone (SY and Paul McCartney included) sells to Starbucks is ART? They are playing it in a fucking 7-11 coffeehouse for chrissakes. It's not an art museum.

You see, Starbucks has consistently tried to create this illusion of the "third-place" (third to home and work). They have to include Pitchforkers, Indie rockers and overly concerned EAF members in this marketing scheme it appears.

Sonic Youth sells a song to Starbucks.
Sonic Youth= Sell Outs circa 1989.

Starbucks already has more credibility than any of the "artists" they peddle. Rolling Stones? Har Har. Carly Simon? WTF?

Why do you guys really fucking care? Really? The SY song they are selling sucks giant SPAM dildos marinated in dog food gravy, cat piss and fart fragrance.

I know this for a fact and I haven't even heard it.

This Sonic Youth Starbucks song is going to be as harmless as a Norman Rockwell painting.

aside: At least the bux is a relatively responsible large corporation that sells consistently DECENT over-roasted coffee that tastes 100 times better than that quaker-bean laden sphincter-juice they sell at Dunkin' Dognuts. Last time I looked Dunkin Dognuts used styrofoam cups. Who would be on a Dunkin' Donuts compilation?

mr.arrison wrote:giant SPAM dildos marinated in dog food gravy, cat piss and fart fragrance.

Yes, but I asked for that with soy, please.