Just how admirable are Fugazi's famous 'ethics' anyway?

You've enumerated ways in which it's easier for people to take the independent route in the States. I think the UK also has advantages, being a much smaller place to cover in terms of touring, where "indie" stuff has charted high (i.e., $$ back in) for a long time. Also, having a music weekly with major influence on the buying public (52 covers a year, not counting endless column inches, to spotlight the latest buzzzz band).

on the one hand it is a bit silly to hold Ian & co. up as a godlike ideal since there are so many other people who are basically practicing the same 'ethics' and approach all over the place, but really, you can't underestimate just how much of an impact Dischord's influence has had on the 'scene' in this part of, and to a lesser extent, all over the country.

but the bottom line is it wouldn't matter if Fugazi made shit music, and they are a great fucking band. so if i'm going to idolize them, that's reason #1, before all that other stuff.

This:

England where they basically hate live music and try to eradicate it with DDR-type bureaucracy.

Is a very good point actually, and it's something I've read very, in fact shamefully little about in thee media.

Hi - you're probably (?)aware that the new licensing bill in its latest proposed form will make it even
harder for live music, so we need to try to put an end to this lot's bloody Gestapo tactics - it's bad
enough tolerating the Thought Police's interference in everything else in our lives without them
putting yet another nail in live music's coffin.

We'd be grateful if you could please forward this to anyone you know who cares and ask 'em to fill
in the online petition - it only takes a moment.

"You can't use tact with a Congressman! A Congressman is a hog! You must
take a stick and hit him on the snout!"
-- Henry Brooks Adams

I received the following in the mail today and promptly signed the petition, have a read and make
your own decision.

Unbelievably, the Government has just confirmed that the maximum penalty of a 20,000 fine and six
months in prison for an unlicensed performance of live music would continue to apply to carol
singers:

You can sign an E-petition here
http://www.petitiononline.com/2inabar/petition-sign.html

Sign the Licensing of Live Music in England and Wales Petition

"People singing carols in a supermarket or a railway station and so on would need to be covered by
a premises licence or a temporary event notice." [Lord McIntosh, government whip, 1st Committee
stage debate of the Licensing Bill, House of Lords, 12 December 2002]

PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION AGAINST THESE REFORMS AS THEY HAVE BEEN WORDED!

The UK government do recognise E Petitions Read their policy. It explains why you need to enter a
valid postal address. This petition will be submitted to 10 Downing Street on 15th March 2003

Perhaps those concerned but not eligible to sign this petition would like to express their views to Dr
Kim Howells who is the Minister at the Dept of Culture Media and Sport, who is responsible for this
Bill. She is also the Minister responsible for encouraging overseas tourists to visit England and
Wales. kim.howells@culture.gsi.gov.uk

Make your voice heard whilst you still can - legally!!!

Dave Q, you are like, SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO cool, I really really hope I can be as witty and insightful and on the ball as you when I'm older.

I hear other people bang on about Fugazi's "manifesto" far more than I hear Fugazi talk about it. Isn't part of MacKaye's schtick that "this is not a set of rules"? Anyway, what Fugazi's manifesto boils down to at the end of the day is essentially this: (a) We choose to sell our records cheaper than other people choose to sell their records. (b) We will not deal with organisations that we feel are out to exploit us, or other people like us. (c) Don't let the bastards get you down. It's not terribly unique, nor is it terribly brave. But it does seem largely honest and motivated by good intentions. Would Fugazi really be better off preaching "zen life balance" than "self-sufficient record industry dealings"? Looking at the gigantic kicking Moby has received over the last twelve months - physically, verbally, ideologically - I'd strike a resounding no. People *hate* that shit.

Jason J - Aye, people do hate hippie-type preaching a la Moby, I should've thought of that before I wrote it. Patrick Nicholls actually IS Thatcher spawn though, and completely evil. (And I admit my problems with Mr Martin jr are compunded by the fact that his dad my my dad redundant about 12 years ago.) But I didn't suggest that Chris Martins fair trade campaigning isn't admirable in itself (or certainly did not mean to), the thing about world hunger and PN was more an attempt at bad humour than anything else. Fugazi's much touted ethics much the same - I'd much rather people in the public eye in whatever sense were seen to be doing socially/culturally beneficial acts and encouraging others likewise than for them to be sitting in (cliché alert) the Met Bar blasting cocaine up their noses or whatever. But all the admiration in the world from a social/ethical p.o.v. isn't going to make me buy Coldplay (or whoever)'s record when I don't like the tunes much.

Isn't another problem with the (not necessarily self)righteous 'preaching' of people like Coldplay and Moby (and others) the fact that their music (and they as individuals as well on occasion) is simply a bit boring, therefore making their ideals seem boring by association, and therefore less valuable?

Would I think likewise for an inverse situation though? Would I be put off music I am otherwise drawn to if the person responsible was a reprehensibly heinous wanker? I can't think of an example o.t.t.o.m.h. of someone who's music I love but persona I hate, and I suspect I probably would be put off. Any ideas?

Note; This is just a question, not necessarily something I totally believe, as i am inclined to think that sitting quietly in a corner and glugging red wine/cocaine/LSD/your choice is less harmful than spreading good-intentions/bad-realisations by making big sweeping statements and positing oneself as a thoughtful and intelligenty and earnest nice guy rockStar.

Oh, and where does BONO fit in to all this?

And and and and and I likes Fugazi too, they're nice.

This question should boil down to 'How much of this is genuine political belief? And how much is poise?' Bono and Bobby Gillespie appear to be wrapped up in some shitty fantasyland where they're playing the role of a UN spokesman or a White Panther revolutionary. They're not interested in debate, they're interested as politics-as-style. I think often it's pretty easy to tell the difference.

Yeah, D.C. is right next to California. All these maps are wrong.

You'll notice I cut the bit about intelligence out, though. ;)

So, beyond the mere cachet of being Indie, indie artists tend have a much better chance of actually making money through their music than they would if they had to pay back big-ass labels. Also, many indie labels don't include the masters in their recording contracts, so the artists actually get to own their music, which never ever happens in the big leagues.

a friend lives in DC. he says it is K-rub that whenever Fugazi play a gig there it's always a super cheap all ages benefit show, so they always have a manky PA and the place is full of annoying high school students.

That is the weirdest, most circular argument I've ever seen on ILM.

I like your single. Yeah, uh, great.