I'm quite perplexed as to why anyone gives a shit what these shallow turds are doing with themselves or their music these days.

Maybe because their music meant something important to us, at some point in our lives.

Maybe.

space junk wrote:I'm quite perplexed as to why anyone gives a shit what these shallow turds are doing with themselves or their music these days.

Exactly. Hence, the reason you don't hear anyone crying about U2 "selling out." Just like them, Sonic Youth has ceased being an underground band A LOOOONG time ago. Pitchfork Fest is well on it's way too. Anyone notice the corporate ads all over their website? Most noticably for Scion, which is a clear attempt to reach those "cooler than your average corporate job whore" people that attend the fest.

I'm sorry but this begs the question to me of what is and isn't "selling out" or as Steve put it, "being in a bed with corporate douchebags"? Am I in bed with the corporate douchebag because I buy an iPod? Are my friends corporate sell outs because they are going to the Pitchfork Fest because Pitchfork obtains money for advertisement from major corporations on their website.

I'm not trying to be a jerk here. I really just want someone to draw the line for me on what is selling out?

choppy wrote:Maybe because their music meant something important to us, at some point in our lives.

Maybe.

Again, is it an issue of integrity? Would it be different if they sold a song to say the American Cancer Society? I'm not being facetious. I'm asking with all seriousness.

And, for the record...I'm a librarian. I invested a lot of money into my education so I wouldn't have to be a corporate hag. I know all about making an honorable living.

sell out.

Jeremy wrote:

And, for the record...I'm a librarian. I invested a lot of money into my education so I wouldn't have to be a corporate hag. I know all about making an honorable living.

sell out.

As far as the whole "selling out" issue goes:

To me, selling out means consciously composing your music while keeping in mind a desire to appeal to a large section of the CD-buying public. It means tailoring your sound for the purpose of becoming more popular rather than for any aesthetic reason.

I don't think that Sonic Youth ever did that. If you listen to GOO and DIRTY, the production may be more polished than on DAYDREAM NATION and SISTER, but the basic thrust of the music never really changed after they signed to DGC. And then, of course, they made the decision to get even noisier and more experimental with WASHING MACHINE and later albums.

I'm an unabashed fan of the entire catalog because it's wonderful music, but it's also nice to know that I never get the sense that Sonic Youth changed their sound for the purpose of making more money.

Now, of course, if you want to define "selling out" instead as working for shady companies, then I think that that is also a legitimate undertaking. I won't make apologies for the decision to sign with Geffen, or for the decision to make a compilation for Starbucks. I'm no fan of the corporate music world, and I don't think that it's a good decision for bands to go that route.

But, ultimately, the band's business decisions are not really my concern as long as they still make great music. And I still love all of the albums. While it may make me uncomfortable that they're working for Starbucks, I also feel like pointing out that Sonic Youth has done more to foster fervency in the underground music world than most bands out there. They are also very hard-working musicians who care a great deal about creating intricate and compelling compositions. They're not perfect, but I still have an enormous amount of respect for them as both artists and people.

Starbucks left a bad taste in your mouth? It's understandable. It's also worth discovering (or remembering, if you're aware of it), however, just how amazing Sonic Youth can be. Check out this video:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Foc2KjNzIdc& ... ed&search=

Lee isn't just playing his guitar. He's playing his *amp* as an extra instrument. The notes twist and bend and fade together like the remnants of some exhilarating but forgotten dream sequence, sliding across the bottom of the deep ocean poured out by Kim's raga-like, two-note bass drone. The ending is the best: Lee molds his fluttering feedback groan back and forth, in complete control of what seems uncontrollable. This sounds like the archetype of Black Dice's BEACHES AND CANYONS.

And the performance sounds astonishingly similar to the song as laid down on BAD MOON RISING, which proves that the band doesn't just improvise stuff on the spot. These are intricate, condensed, carefully-crafted compositions.

hellyes!! wrote:

choppy wrote:Maybe because their music meant something important to us, at some point in our lives.

Maybe.

Again, is it an issue of integrity? Would it be different if they sold a song to say the American Cancer Society? I'm not being facetious. I'm asking with all seriousness.

I don't think this question goes with my answer. All I meant by it was that A Thousand Leaves really blew. But my life would be different if I'd never heard Evol.

This has nothing to do with selling out. But it is why I still care what the band is up to.

Ha, that Beck interview, I totally remember that. Thank you for posting that.

It just reminds me yet again how gimmicky the WHOLE professional rock scene is. You can put on your teenage-hormone nostalgia filter, but its the same stuff folks.

"So, were you christened Beck?"

(Throws shoe)

Wow, how badass. This guy just doesn't care about a thing. How cool.