this conversation is related to a page called
thurston moore interview
page 1 of 1
comment by rowan Sep 7, 2007They're not easy bed mates to get your head around are they?
comment by microclimate Sep 10, 2007"Going up against political correctness will always be a punk rock gesture."
Really? That's a pathetic excuse for money making.
Would he consider being racist "a punk rock gesture" too? And since when was siding with the corporate world ANYTHING to do with punk-rock?
He's obviously got too old.
comment by hasanjazzfinger Sep 11, 2007"And since when was siding with the corporate world ANYTHING to do with punk-rock?"
How about when the Sex Pistols received huge amounts of money from EMI, A&M and Virgin? Or when The Clash signed to CBS? Remember the 'sign the Banshees' graffiti campaign? They ended up on Polydor. Wire were on Harvest. Going even further back, radical early punks such as The Stooges & MC5 were gettin' busy with Elektra & Atlantic.....I could go forever here....
I think Thurston's comments are perfectly valid, and going against punk rock political correctness in this case is all to do with going against those who have an idea of what his band 'should' be doing, rather than opening the door for racists.
All the best!
comment by mattsaze Sep 14, 2007But that is more about getting published.
He didn't write great songs just to sell coffee did he? I think he's couched his points in these terms cos he knows he's selling out.
comment by mattsaze Sep 14, 2007Also, being politically correct has nothing to do with going against establishment (which is what it appears he is suggesting). It took fights by the working class to establish rights that political correctness seeks to defend (e.g anti racist, anti homophobia, against sexism, etc)and anti political correctness comments benefits the ruling class whow would seek to divide us. Why do you think the Daily Mail bangs on about it so much?
comment by Niall-W Sep 19, 2007"Political Correctness" - I'm reading it as him going against the "Received cultural standard" of Punk Rock by seeming to side with a commercial which is it's opposite, in being big & standardised & portion-controlled. But only because the giant commercial venture which previously marketed him has opted to stop.
Whether this is a "punk" gesture is debatable, just as throwing a brick through the window of a Starbucks as an anti-globalist action is debatable.
Still, man's got to earn a crust somehow.
comment by -kawada- Sep 19, 2007I care about the music. If Sonic Youth continue to make good albums, I'll continue to buy them and enjoy them regardless of how they're boosting their bank accounts.
Punk or not? Who cares? What makes 'punk' a good thing anyway? Musically speaking, it's one of the most formulaic genres and outside of the music, punk is merely a fashion, a way to fit in with the right crowd. 'Punk' does not describe any radical social vision, it's just a buzzword for dying your hair and alluding to some half-formed idea of anarchy. Isn't it about time that people stopped pissing their pants every time the word 'commercial' is uttered? Further to that, without the 'establishment' we'd still be living in caves, we're part of it, there's no 'us and them' situation. The idea that the 'establishment' is some board room of millionaires trying to keep the lower classes in the dirt is ridiculous. I know that such people have the ability to influence through media outlets but if they do have any influence, it's due to an unassertive mass of morons making up the public. Independant thinking is the easy and obvious solution to the Daily Mail controlling the world through snappy headlines!
I'm well aware of the distastefulness with which a price is slapped on everything pure and good but it's how our society works and the people who complain about it would be hard pressed to come up with a viable solution to the oppressive aspects of capitalism, whilst maintaining the basic liberties of the populace or going down some creepy 'new world order' route.
Back to music though... rock stars don't run the country [no matter what Bono may think], they've got nothing to do with my personal politics. Sure, they become idols to people but they're musicians first and foremost, they don't owe it to their fans to live in a way that gratifies their ideal of the rock star.
Sorry about the brevity of this post but I started work at 5.30 this morning and can't think straight enough to articulate what I'm trying to say. Anyway, my point is that it's the music that's important. The context of the music has little significance in relation to the actual experience of listening [though I'm not denying that the legal wrangling behind '...The Bollocks...' being passed as an album title, makes it slightly cooler - it's really just padding]. Second point is that I'm dismayed at how over the top people can be about this stuff - as if it really can make social changes outside of fashion. Seems very delusional. ['Bob Gandolf' doesn't count because he's a fictional character]
comment by fingerchimp Sep 20, 2007"It took fights by the working class to establish rights that political correctness seeks to defend"
nonsense. drivel. check your history books dude. the liberals were not working class warriors, they were educated middle class fops.
anyway, this puts me in mind of something steve albini said about the punk ethos when he was accused of everything under the sun due to the unsavoury lyrics on the big black albums. it went along the lines of "its more fun to outrage the hip community. outraging the squares is easy, but making the apparently hip community sh*t, now thats something."
starbucks is now more than a coffee shop. they have spotted the potential for introducing people to music while in a passive attentive state of consciousness. i think its cool to think that so many dicks will have to listen to sonic youth for a few weeks. personally id like to see starbucks working with leftover crack.
comment by amir Sep 23, 2007Punk, eh?
I like to think of Punk like this. It was about freedom of expression, whilst rejecting accepted norms and making statements without pretence.
Does Thurston Moore meet this criteria? Yes:
He's doing what he wants: Freedom of expression.
He's a supposed hip icon releasing alternative music on a multinational label: Rejecting accepted norms.
He hasn't tried to do this as some kind of stunt: A statement without pretence.
So, he's still Punk.
As for Punk being working class, well. Televison, The Ramones, Iggy Pop, Johnny Rotten, Joe Strummer, Ian Curtis and Malcolm McClaren were all good ol' middle class boys from the suburbs of big cities, well educated and in the case of Joe Strummer, not short of a bit of cash either.
It's like when Rage Against The Machine were in their pomp. Yes, they were signed to a massive label - but their message was right and they were able to publicise their beliefs on a much grander scale than being on a self-financed independent label would ever have let them.
comment by fingerchimp Sep 24, 2007word to yo momma!
i dont think sonic youth have ever been concerned about what they are percieved as or whether people will like what they do.
the bands you like dont owe you anything.
comment by alex_pirate Oct 18, 2007punk died with Sid.
You can be punk on a big label but must make life hell for your label and do as much as you can t get fired from it. The label is authority, the band is anarchy.
See the pistols EMI days.
Plus real punks steal music anyway
comment by fingerchimp Oct 18, 2007"punk died with Sid"
it didnt die at all with sid. it had nothing to do with sid. the sex pistols were about as relevant to punk as busted are to heavy metal. punk is not about being a steve jones style pin up and sid just stole his act from richard hell.
comment by Syd Oct 18, 2007Leave me out of it
comment by amir Oct 18, 2007Sid Vicious? Sid Vicious?
He was Malcolm McClaren's mannequin, complete with Richard Hell's clothes, Dee Dee Ramone's playing style and Johnny Thunders attitude.
The Pistols might as well have had a traffic cone on bass.
comment by fingerchimp Oct 19, 2007hear hear! and richard hells look. if we're going that far though we could say that richard hell stole it from patti smith who nicked it from arthur rimbaud.
comment by Spinky Oct 19, 2007What is this? Punk Top Trumps?
comment by fingerchimp Oct 19, 2007yes!
if it was though what criteria would you judge it on? would rollins' neck beat keith morris' madness? would ian mackayes righteousness defeat jonny thunders' wastedness?
would the uk subs beat anyone? at anything?
page 1 of 1
Watch artist interviews and see images from British exhibitions.