the clash whoring for jaguar and alca-pop

"Selling out" is not a bad thing!

The Doors refuse to let their songs be used in advertising. A shame, because I'm sure McDonalds and Starbucks are queueing up for "The End" to blare other their ads.

'Fuck all the jerk-offs in the office insisting on wearing Hawaiian
shirts on Fridays and spending the weekends at Fire Island drinking Stoli Ice ... '

Hmmm, really not sure that Fifer Clash fans would have been drinking those.....

Alexander Blair to thread?

(and yeah, I was disturbed at first when I saw the jagyuwar ad.)

Why?

They would be acknowledging what their fanbase is really like (materialistic suburban kids who want to spend a few years pretending they're revolutionaries before interview-time at the big consulting firms rolls around). It would also be a constructive use of their music that they could leverage to subvert expectations about themselves and to push their political agenda underneath the public's radar, much like Chumbawumba did with "Tubthumping".

I think so. Allowing yourself to be pigeonholed = allowing yourself to be stereotyped = allowing yourself to be dismissed.

"Push[ing the] political agenda underneath the public radar" is good: why, exactly?

Because they attempted to ram their ideology down people's throats and, while it gained them som column inches in reviews and interviews, it didn't overthrow the evils they were railing against in the world. Also, I thought their take on the evils of the world was criminally simplistic and if they didn't want to spend the time to formulate a tenable solution (which I can understand; Lord knows I'm not going to), they should put some smokescreen around what they're saying in order to hide the rough spots/logical gaps.

If RATM acknowledged that most of their audience (to put a different spin on the same fact you cite above) will fail to make good on the promises they make to themselves when they are young and idealistic, would they somehow become more virtuous for having taken the air out of their own idealism?

Yes, because taking some of the air out of their idealism would force them to draft a message more suited towards the world we live in rather than the world they want to live in. The first thing you have to do if you want to convince someone that what you're saying has any merit is to ground your statements in terms and sentiments that the people you're trying to convince are sympathetic towards. Just to have my cards on the table: I obviously don't think so...I remain unconvinced that "idealistic," "impractical," and even "adolescent" are bad words referring to conditions that adults ought to shun like the plague.

I don't agree with that at all. If you want to get anything done, you need to consider practicality and realism along with your idealism or else you won't be able to effectively further your agenda.

I mean: your position seems to be that all real change takes place gradually: "practically" and "realistically." I don't think history bears this out at all; I think "practical" and "realistic" solutions tend to just reinforce the status quo. In music, I don't think that radical disjunctures are arrived at by a series of steps. That's what makes great music great: it comes along boldy & suddenly & is often very off-putting at first.

As far as whether RATM overthrew the evils against which they (rather dully, I must say) railed -- how many pennies are in five dollars? I think radical agitation (which I don't actually concede RATM to be, but they're sort of our poster-children here) is like one penny toward a ten-dollar goal. Again, gradual/practical wasn't the approach used by the French when it came time to oust the King. Gradual/practical would have meant the poor French would all still be wearing wigs.

They shall pry my wig however from my cold dead fingers :)

accursed infatuation with archaic language flotsam=errata like that cited above

this posting=pointless

There's actually a strand of thought that says that the French Revolution was actually a counterrevolution at its heart, at least at the beginning -- and certainly the French did not simply 'oust' the King with Bastille Day, the reduction of the position of the King from monarch to executed citizen was far from immediate. There's a greater complexity to be considered here, one that tempers the force of this example.

Isn't this what's at the core of all agit-prop? (Beautifully phrased, btw.) I do think that my greater point -- that all real change is seismic, not gradual -- is borne out historically: the emancipation of the slaves, the Russian revolution, and MLK -- who didn't exactly propose a whole system to replace the one in place: he just said "this one thing is wrong, it's got to stop."

To stay closer to the topic -- I'm one of those who flinches real hard when I hear a song I liked used to sell a cars/booze/life insurance. The MLK ads that his family approved are a letter-perfect example of what's distasteful about it: can you really argue that if people get to hear a coupla seconds' worth of "I Have a Dream," then its use to sell I.T. is cool? I think the question is ultimately whether placing things in new contexts does them damage, and the long-term answer is "no, of course it doesn't" but for some of us i.e. me there's just something icky about the most abstract of the art forms i.e. music being robbed of its abstraction in the service of a product-economy. I think those of us who whine about this are the same people who still think music video is generally speaking a lousy idea. I.e. total dinosaurs.

So the general point isn't wedded to the value of the changes in question: my argument is that gradual, practical change is usually less change than is needed to safeguard the rights of those most in need of change.

For example: "The Russian revolution certainly replaced a miserable autocracy, but was the autocracy that ended up in its place (after years of civil war and attempts to establish its own legitimacy) any more or less prone to failure?" This sidesteps John's point about the Russian Revolution - that it was a radical, seismic event that was by no means motivated by "realism" or "practicality". However, it WAS directly subverted (almost immediately, I might add) by calls for precisely those things. It was an appeal to realism that led to the Bolsheviks basically doing everything they could to subvert the will of the peasants, the soviets, etc. and consolidate their power. "Realism" and "practicality" quickly robbed the actual source of the revolution (a popular uprising) of its validity. That's why they ended up with people like Nestor Makhno leading the Greens in the Ukraine in open defiance of the Bolsheviks. Again, the point is not that MLK, the Russian Revolution, etc. failed in many ways, it was that the results that they *did* achieve - and the reasons they happened at all - were because of radical, idealistic, unrealistic goals.

I also agree about the ad thing - although we've gone over this before. I don't hold it against anyone who does it, because it's their work and they get to do whatever they want with it (if it's done against their will, that's a different story). But it just bums me out to have things robbed of their abstraction, as John says, and placed in a different, much more boring and distasteful context. I would prefer just to not know about it, that way the experience of seeing "Good Vibrations" in a Sunkist ad wouldn't impinge on my otherwise more personal reaction to the song.

I'm still amused, John, that you're saying MLK didn't have a vision of what should replace the system the Civil Rights Movement was fighting against; what do you think the "I have a dream" speech was about? (And at any rate, the work Civil Rights Movement spanned five decades and there are STILL vestiges of the issues that led to its creation that people need to deal with; I grew up in an upper middle-class household in the enlightened upper midwest and I still faced/witnessed my share of racial issues.)

As to your point Mr Raggett of whom I have been thinking for the last half hour as the wife & I listened to Isn't Anything (which is like mega-pertinent in this discussion, for realz): I'm not denying that a large number of things factor into any seismic change, nor that many of us favor the grand sweeping narrative over the messy little facts that resulted in the Great Big Change. However: the necessity of people identifying, out loud, exactly what's wrong with The Present -- that's part of the whole thing, and a big part, n'est-pas? The feeling I get from the anti-agitprop faction is that "what finally happened" was not in fact a radical shift, and that the promotion of radical shifts is somehow childish since it calls for immediate satisfaction of pressing complaints. But when has bargaining with dictators, say, softened the dictators' hearts or caused them to step down? Or: did Kevin Shields ease people into the idea of a record so drenched in reverb that it sounds like clouds look? No, there was nothing gradual or practical about it. He just made Loveless.

A fine soundtrack! Better than the library hum I've been hearing. ;-)

However: the necessity of people identifying, out loud, exactly what's wrong with The Present -- that's part of the whole thing, and a big part, n'est-pas?

Identifying what is wrong -- and hey, I thought we weren't talking about values! ;-) -- is surely different from the approaches taken to make it 'right,' though. Which is what I think you're saying anyway, admittedly.

But when has bargaining with dictators, say, softened the dictators' hearts or caused them to step down?

If you're going to deal in absolute terms, John, let me be absolute in turn -- are you or are you not saying that the only way to deal with 'what's wrong,' however defined, however considered, is with a gun, a weapon, the promise of chaos and disruption? Now maybe you're not saying that's the case at all, but it seems you're arguing specifically that no other approach is useful or can be useful, and I admit I find that more than a little curious, and unsettling.

I've been a member of Amnesty International for many years now -- 'bargaining,' as you put it, may only produce small results, may only relieve symptoms instead of providing full cures. But are those actions automatically invalid because of the way they were carried out, and do those results not matter, even if it means someone is released from jail, reunited with family, able to be heard again?

Or: did Kevin Shields ease people into the idea of a record so drenched in reverb that it sounds like clouds look? No, there was nothing gradual or practical about it. He just made Loveless.

He spend over a year [maybe two, even?] to do it (and released two EPs -- at the record company's insistence, to be sure -- beforehand), so while that might not be practical, it was definitely gradual. And he didn't wave a magic wand and will it into existence -- those EPs gave a sense of where he was going as well as what he was listening to and how he was using where he had come from. Loveless wasn't a bolt from the clear blue sky, much as I would romanticize it that way if I could.

"Jesus Christ! Where did you get that Cadillac!?" he cries!

"Balls to you, big daddy!"

Hm. Mind if I'm blunt? When are you going to be leading the rebel assault force against the White House?

btw, the rebel assault begins at dawn. The sharks are in the jacuzzi. All units deploy!

No; what I'm saying is that, as in the present case (Rage Against the Machine), extreme rhetoric shouldn't be dismissed strictly on the basis of its extremity. If everybody always took the practical approach precious little would ever get done. I think in the end my position is actually embarassingly moderate: I say that there's a place at the table for both Jimmy Carter and Gus Hall, say; and that "it's idealistic" is an even less constructive criticism than the critique of society generally offered up by the idealist; and that rifts do occur, historically and musically. Though I'll conceded that the "this is the moment when history changed" model is hopelessly romantic (and, to me, infinitely appealing).

The position, however, that since a person isn't offering any solutions of his own, his complaint is somehow invalid -- that's management's position. If my situation is dire and I don't know what to do about it, must I keep mum until I figure out how to fix it myself? Or am I justfied in, say, writing punk rock songs (let's say it's London in the mid-seventies) that just say "Oor, this is 'orrible, innit" and venting my frustration? And in such a case is my music to be dismissed for not offering solutions?

I would say finally that the truth about how great a disjuncture Loveless is probably lies somewhere between our positions.

And finally just because it's what happens to be on the stereo right now: what the hell is going on with the CD issue of the Cure's Pornography, anyhow? It sounds muddy and awful! This thing cries out to be remastered. I am going on hunger strike until somebody does something about it. ;)

I have the feeling that we're operating under wildly different definitions of the word "practical"; if no one stopped to get their hands dirty and spent all their time mooning about the perfect little world intheir heads, nothing would get done.

I'm still trying to see the lightning change that occurred with respect to the Civil Rgihts Movement, considering that it began back in the 1800s and still has goals that need to be accomplished today.

It's actually a radio commercial, but I don't think Ned listens to commercial radio either...

Well, not if we're talking about MLK and the Russian Revolution as equatable events. In which violence can and should be considered part of what's going on, or potentially what could happen -- indeed, it's intrinsic for a study of MLK precisely because he turned away from it, openly and specifically. That means both sides of the coin should be considered, and you can't look at the Russian Revolution without a full acknowledgment of the wartime crucible and violent action and reaction it came about in. It wasn't all propaganda posters.

If everybody always took the practical approach precious little would ever get done

Mmf. I'm with Dan -- John, this strikes me as incredibly limiting. Wouldn't it be more accurate to simply say this, surely something we all agree on: that we can be driven by ideals, but that to translate those ideals into some semblance of reality, or perhaps more to the point, to carry out any sort of complaint to start with, requires practical action? If you are equating practical as solely meaning a tool of the man, that to me strikes me as surrender -- it means that the *only* response is a straight-up 'ideal' one. To my mind, being practical means: 'This is the situation, these are the considerations, these are the factors, this is what those we are opposing want, desire and will work with. What can and should be done?' How is this surrender to management to think this way? How is this vision of practicality incompatible with ideals? No solution is being offered here, merely a question being asked. The framing of the complaint itself -- the knowledge of a complaint -- is eminently practical.

I would say finally that the truth about how great a disjuncture Loveless is probably lies somewhere between our positions.

Oh, doubtless. I might say this -- the creation of Loveless happened as a process, unplanned but requiring work and effort, but clearly Kevin S. was driven by a particular goal, an ideal if you like. But to dream it was one thing -- consider, John, that if he never 'offered any solution' to his problem of hearing something in his head and wanting to translate it into something that could be heard, then it would be an ideal never reached by him or its results heard by anyone else. He had to go into studio and, indeed, figure out how to fix it by himself. :-)

And finally just because it's what happens to be on the stereo right now: what the hell is going on with the CD issue of the Cure's Pornography, anyhow? It sounds muddy and awful! This thing cries out to be remastered. I am going on hunger strike until somebody does something about it. ;)

Most bold! ;-) Supposedly the Cure own all their own stuff worldwide but Elektra is being snotty vis-a-vis here. Might have to wait a while.

I'm still trying to see the lightning change that occurred with respect to the Civil Rgihts Movement, considering that it began back in the 1800s and still has goals that need to be accomplished today.

Indeed. Ida Wells had MLK's dream decades before he spoke those words, and acted on that dream, reporting on horrors -- and she is but one example of so many. Why speak of lightning bolts when there is instead a potential to consider a constant stream of light?

It's actually a radio commercial, but I don't think Ned listens to commercial radio either...

Won't have it in the house! ;-)

I also think that what we're essentially discussing here are TACTICS.

Then note this, Mo -- those tactics you described produced results. Is that not a practical solution? ;-) Seems to me that idealism means a dreamland where all is candy-colored floss and everything is solved with no effort. You're calling these actions impractical, but surely they succeeded precisely because they WERE practical. They involved sacrifice! They involved action! They involved doing something, being aware of the potential consequences of doing so. They were not mere wishes, not simple ideals. Refer to my discussion of Loveless (acknowledging the grotesque inadequacy of the comparison between the creation of an album and the changing of a country's vision of truth and justice) -- MLK could have simply dreamed and hoped that the vision in his head came true. Instead, he acted -- and THAT, to me, is practical, as practical as what you seem to think is mere 'whining' -- which is disturbing when you consider how you're implicitly belittling the fact that we can and do have the right to speak to those who represent us. Why resist a word that can mean so much?

2. The type of historical change described by Darnielle and Mo sounds like the political equivalent of Stephen J. Gould's theory of evolution as "punctuated equilibrium" -- that is, a species cannot mutate gradually. There is simply no evolutionary advantage to a partial mutation. Change must necessarily occur in abrupt fits and starts until one of those freak occurrences proves unusually advantageous to the survival of individual members of a species. I would say that the political equivalents of these sports of nature are ideals, radicalism, extremism -- actions and ideas so far out there that they're bound to fail but that can have unforeseen influences on history.

3. Although the irony of "London Calling" is grotesquely humorous/sad, I've never understood the "sell-out" complaint. It usually just sounds like an elitism consumption-end whine to me. One of the hallmarks of the modern era in the social history of art is that individual artists became less dependent on the patronage of an exclusive patron and more like other, indepedent tradesman, with the attendant relative increases in mobility and social autonomy. This seems good to me. Although the individual substantive choices may be poor, "selling" out seems to be a misnomer for the phenomenon people want to describe. Does it go without saying that we're all sellouts and we expect musical artist to be less so?

4. If somebody died and made me king, I would make a rule that for every "sell-out" accusation a person made, that person would have to congratulate an artist for a specific instance of not "selling out." Here, I'm going to make a deposit in my "sell-out" account by giving credit to RATM for refusing to play the big annual tobacco company-sponsored concerts even though the performance fees are preposterously high. Ah . . . who to pick on now?

Hm, interesting comparison...but it raises its own question with me: doesn't this mean to an extent relying on this to happen? In otherwards, it can't be that much of a freak occurence -- we might not expect an individual event in specific but we can expect in general something to occur and things to happen as a result. And maybe that means what happens when the individual flash is translated into the larger stream of things...and is made, dare I say, practical, by function and by action. Perhaps I extrapolate too much, but still...

We are using "practical" in different senses. MLK acted on conscience, not on what he thought of as the most effective way. MLK put principle before practicality, and I don't think there's any denying that, really. MLK's actions, which we'd all like to use to suit our own purposes, are slogans writ large: unrealistic goals which because of their moral necessity must be striven toward.

Women's suffrage in the US pertains here, too. I am not saying that the idealist response is in all situations the best one; only that idealism shouldn't be dismissed. To do so is itself more limiting than the purest idealism. All viewpoints are necessary for synthesis (see Hegel); there is no moderate position without extremism.

ObThread: I say appropriation of music for commercials is awful, and phooey on justifications thereof!

Oh yes there is! He was driven by his conscience and his morals, yes. He gave no thought to practicality? You've got to be kidding me!

Unquestionably -- and I think that's something of an object lesson here. If we can't take the time to even determine how we're using a single word, what hope for something further? And taking time means, like it or not, slowing down -- not stopping, not permanent halts, maybe even only a second or two! But that doesn't strike me as surrender to the powers that be.

MLK put principle before practicality, and I don't think there's any denying that, really.

Here, I admit, my specific knowledge of MLK -- or more to the point, what I don't know -- could trip me up. If you can show me exactly where he says that, I'll acknowledge it. But his actions strike me as that of a man who has the dream but has the drive to make the dream real -- not a prioritizing of one over the other, but an equation. It really seems to me that the 'most effective way' was what he was doing in terms of doing what he felt, as best as he could do, should be done -- calling attention to injustice, rallying others to fight its cause, not backing down to pressure, shining a light on what was happening and asking, pointedly, why it was not different. How else could he have done what he did do without doing that? He was not an elected leader able to propose or change national policy in the halls of government -- but as a citizen, as a civic leader, as Mo noted, he helped ensure those changes were brought about. If he acted solely on impulse -- those immediate, instant impulses we all feel -- and did not learn from what he had achieved in the past to think about what he could achieve more in the future, and never took the time to reflect on how his beliefs would drive his actions, then he truly would have acted on principle alone.

All viewpoints are necessary for synthesis (see Hegel); there is no moderate position without extremism.

More than fair and more than accurate. But as you say, it goes both ways -- if Jimmy Carter can acknowledge Gus Hall, Gus Hall must in turn acknowledge Jimmy Carter. The person who leaves no room for dreams and goals is lost to the world, but the person who only dreams demands that the world adjust for him or her, rather than engaging with that world -- and would be similarly lost to it.

The next ad I want to see is "White Riot" playing while a bunch of brokers are screaming with their arms in the air at the NY stock exchange, and then the picture freezes on some guys arm pit and it isn't wet. "Are you taking odors? Or are you taking over!"

from the creation book kevin et al seemed to be mucking around a lot of the time Ned?

On any other basis, not: it may be that a record company made the decision with no reference to the band; it may be that the band have given up pretending to believe in what they more or less said in their songs, which is only sensible; it may be that they just looked at the money and nodded without thinking. I don't really care what the reason is, and it doesn't matter to me. This isn't from a Mark S 'I hate them anyway' perspective - I love the Clash.