The PJ sell-out debate ends here

High Fidelity 2000

DewieCox wrote:

fox_mulderX wrote:

why is it so hard for people to understand what an independent release is?

It's not. An independent release is a release that is fully funded by the band. Promotion and production of the actual album is clearly under partial control.

My question... Why is it so hard for people to realize that places like Target, Walmart and Best Buy do what record companies did before. The only thing that's changed is the name.

I like the way DewieCox thinks too. I agree with him. Walk Hard, brother.

Yeah, obviously the band financed the RECORDING of the album themselves, so what? Isn't that what everyone knew they would do, being "free agents" and not on a "record label?" They can afford it. But to act like this album sold half a million copies at mom and pop stores and on the Ten Club site, give me a break. Most of those were bought at Target which is a "big box retailer." Fine, that's what it was all about.

And yes, of course I bought mine on Ten Club... I wanted the collectible hardback book case.

i shit and i stink

it's called the "music business" for a reason. The band are in the business of making music. Enjoy it and realise that without some level of self-promotion, the band would simply not survive.

And get real. You think that with all this Target "sell out" as you call it the band are raking it in and reaping the benefits? Backspacer is struggling to outsell Binaural, isn't it?! They are doing what they have to do in order to remain in the business. For who? For themselves and the fans.

If you no longer believe in the product, don't buy it. But don't claim that you are forced to buy records, pay to go to shows or be a fan. You choose to do it. End of.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

MrSmith wrote:

and they dont owe me personally, but they do owe their fans collectively.

WRONG they don't owe any of us shit.

over bends

i shit and i stink wrote:

And get real. You think that with all this Target "sell out" as you call it the band are raking it in and reaping the benefits? Backspacer is struggling to outsell Binaural, isn't it?!

It's a much tougher market these days with illegal downloads. Backspacer's doing very well I think for a 2010 release.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

and to the point of "well they are millionaires, they can afford to give the fans something back". That's BULLSHIT. It doesn't matter how much money they have. That's not our business, nor our right to judge.

To suggest that the band is a slave to its fans is utterly ludicrous, and to say again, bratty. They provide us with hours of enjoyment via their music. You choose to buy it. You choose to buy their merch. The idea that they owe us something for paying for their big houses is ridiculous.

Are you saying you get NOTHING out of buying their product? It's a mutually beneficial relationship, which means we have a claim to NOTHING.

If you are odd enough to buy their records and merch and go to shows for no other reason than to line their pockets, then I'd say you have validity to your claim, but you also belong in the nuthouse.

Black Diamond

I just want to be able to forget about what goes on with the rest of my life for 2 1/2 hours and enjoy a little dancing ...

That's all...

ComeToTX

Johnny Sitar wrote:

MrSmith wrote:

and they dont owe me personally, but they do owe their fans collectively.

WRONG they don't owe any of us shit.

I hope this isn't their attitude. They are rich, famous and able to do what they want because of us. The fact they can play shows only where they want is because of us. The fact that they can release a record on their own is because of us. They don't have to do anything to try to please any of us but it is because of us they get to live the way they do.

William Wallace

ComeToTX wrote:

I hope this isn't their attitude. They are rich, famous and able to do what they want because of us. The fact they can play shows only where they want is because of us. The fact that they can release a record on their own is because of us. They don't have to do anything to try to please any of us but it is because of us they get to live the way they do.

I agree 100%!

They don't owe me personally, but they can live the way they live because of us.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

William Wallace wrote:

ComeToTX wrote:

I hope this isn't their attitude. They are rich, famous and able to do what they want because of us. The fact they can play shows only where they want is because of us. The fact that they can release a record on their own is because of us. They don't have to do anything to try to please any of us but it is because of us they get to live the way they do.

I agree 100%!

They don't owe me personally, but they can live the way they live because of us.

that is the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard. So I work for a business. Does that mean I owe every single person who's ever bought one of my business's products because they allow me to live the way I do?

ComeToTX

Johnny Sitar wrote:

William Wallace wrote:

ComeToTX wrote:

I hope this isn't their attitude. They are rich, famous and able to do what they want because of us. The fact they can play shows only where they want is because of us. The fact that they can release a record on their own is because of us. They don't have to do anything to try to please any of us but it is because of us they get to live the way they do.

I agree 100%!

They don't owe me personally, but they can live the way they live because of us.

that is the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard. So I work for a business. Does that mean I owe every single person who's ever bought one of my business's products because they allow me to live the way I do?

That's up to you. I'm in sales and I thank my customers all the time because they basically pay my salary.

mikepegg44

high

sorry for the go fuck yourself deal, I just get fed up with people bitching . . . It just doesn't make sense. it has been 4 years since they played minneapolis, I decided I wanted to go see them so I drove 16 hours round trip same day to chicago last august. Would have rather waited but I know they don't come up here very much. I prefer to just buy the bootlegs anyway. Concerts are fun, but I just turn my boots up loud and for the price of 1 show I get about 15 boots

Better Dan

ComeToTX wrote:

That's up to you. I'm in sales and I thank my customers all the time because they basically pay my salary.

But by the logic some of the posters on here have used (I don't know who said I but I know I read it) since you've done okay selling products/services and your customers have paid your salary, you should now give them discounts on everything you sell.

William Wallace

Johnny Sitar wrote:

that is the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard. So I work for a business. Does that mean I owe every single person who's ever bought one of my business's products because they allow me to live the way I do?

They are popular and rich because of the fans.
If this is so ridiculous, you disagree with all of the band members who said numerous times that the reason they can live the life they have is the fans.
And I really appreciate that the band sees it this way. It shows that they care about the fans, and that they know where the success comes from.
If only they would act so more often...

DewieCox

DS114969 wrote:

ComeToTX wrote:

That's up to you. I'm in sales and I thank my customers all the time because they basically pay my salary.

But by the logic some of the posters on here have used (I don't know who said I but I know I read it) since you've done okay selling products/services and your customers have paid your salary, you should now give them discounts on everything you sell.

That happens.

krymsin

To the extent that this "debate" has devolved, it would be nice to hear a statement from the band.

We can sit on here and criticize or justify the band's decision to play a three-song set for the exclusive benefit of Target (or Oracle, or ...), but the reason we're even talking about this is because it's such a divergence from the origins of "no fuckin' sponsors."

This band prided itself on being beholden to no one. Corporate rock? Fuck off, bro -- this band wasn't gonna do it. Pandering to some suits for a big company party? Ain't gonna happen. And we knew it. We knew it because they told us they wouldn't. And that only served to endear more and more of us to them. It did for me, at least.

So when we get word of them (seemingly?) breaking from that philosophy, it would be nice to have a band spokesperson -- Kelly Curtis, a band member, Kat ... it makes no difference -- offer up a "hey guys, just so ya know ...," to those of us who long, long ago soared past casual listener and into full-fleged fanatic mode. I mean, how much time or effort could it take?

I'd venture to say that any kind of explanation would be met with a (mostly) collective: "Oh, okay ...," and that would be the end of it.

ComeToTX

exactly...the more you buy the better the price i give you. this is a pretty terrible comparison though. not really my point to begin with.

Digital Twilight

krymsin wrote:

To the extent that this "debate" has devolved, it would be nice to hear a statement from the band.

We can sit on here and criticize or justify the band's decision to play a three-song set for the exclusive benefit of Target (or Oracle, or ...), but the reason we're even talking about this is because it's such a divergence from the origins of "no fuckin' sponsors."

This band prided itself on being beholden to no one. Corporate rock? Fuck off, bro -- this band wasn't gonna do it. Pandering to some suits for a big company party? Ain't gonna happen. And we knew it. We knew it because they told us they wouldn't. And that only served to endear more and more of us to them. It did for me, at least.

So when we get word of them (seemingly?) breaking from that philosophy, it would be nice to have a band spokesperson -- Kelly Curtis, a band member, Kat ... it makes no difference -- offer up a "hey guys, just so ya know ...," to those of us who long, long ago soared past casual listener and into full-fleged fanatic mode. I mean, how much time or effort could it take?

I'd venture to say that any kind of explanation would be met with a (mostly) collective: "Oh, okay ...," and that would be the end of it.

They are free to do as they please. They don't owe me an explanation.

DPrival78

Digital Twilight wrote:

krymsin wrote:

To the extent that this "debate" has devolved, it would be nice to hear a statement from the band.

We can sit on here and criticize or justify the band's decision to play a three-song set for the exclusive benefit of Target (or Oracle, or ...), but the reason we're even talking about this is because it's such a divergence from the origins of "no fuckin' sponsors."

This band prided itself on being beholden to no one. Corporate rock? Fuck off, bro -- this band wasn't gonna do it. Pandering to some suits for a big company party? Ain't gonna happen. And we knew it. We knew it because they told us they wouldn't. And that only served to endear more and more of us to them. It did for me, at least.

So when we get word of them (seemingly?) breaking from that philosophy, it would be nice to have a band spokesperson -- Kelly Curtis, a band member, Kat ... it makes no difference -- offer up a "hey guys, just so ya know ...," to those of us who long, long ago soared past casual listener and into full-fleged fanatic mode. I mean, how much time or effort could it take?

I'd venture to say that any kind of explanation would be met with a (mostly) collective: "Oh, okay ...," and that would be the end of it.

They are free to do as they please. They don't owe me an explanation.

true, they don't have to explain anything to anyone. they're obviously free to do as they please.

but i do agree with what krymsin said about the "no fuckin sponsor" attitude that the band had for most of their career, and how that - in addition to the music - was what made them so appealing, and what earned them a ton of respect.

clearly, they've changed their views and their approach, and that's their prerogative. i wish they hadn't done some of the stuff they've done over the past few years, and i've cringed a few times, but i'm in too deep at this point to let it bother me too much. what they did the other day is truly lame, but i'm trying to pretend it didn't happen (hopefully, things like that don't become the norm).

the music and the shows are still unmatched in my eyes, and it will take a whole lot more of this type of corporate pandering to drive me away. i'm trying to put this target thing out of my head and focus on the tour coming up.

it could be a lot worse..

krymsin

It's not about what they have to do or what they owe anybody. I never said they should tell us what's up -- i just said it would be nice.

I may be going out on a limb here, but i doubt anyone of the group want to be labelled "sell outs" or any of the other derogatory terms that's been cast about in this 20-plus page thread. And, i dunno -- they may even want us to understand why they did it.

Or maybe they just don't care, but -- for some reason -- i highly doubt that.

angryyoungman

DPrival78 wrote:

Digital Twilight wrote:

krymsin wrote:

To the extent that this "debate" has devolved, it would be nice to hear a statement from the band.

We can sit on here and criticize or justify the band's decision to play a three-song set for the exclusive benefit of Target (or Oracle, or ...), but the reason we're even talking about this is because it's such a divergence from the origins of "no fuckin' sponsors."

This band prided itself on being beholden to no one. Corporate rock? Fuck off, bro -- this band wasn't gonna do it. Pandering to some suits for a big company party? Ain't gonna happen. And we knew it. We knew it because they told us they wouldn't. And that only served to endear more and more of us to them. It did for me, at least.

So when we get word of them (seemingly?) breaking from that philosophy, it would be nice to have a band spokesperson -- Kelly Curtis, a band member, Kat ... it makes no difference -- offer up a "hey guys, just so ya know ...," to those of us who long, long ago soared past casual listener and into full-fleged fanatic mode. I mean, how much time or effort could it take?

I'd venture to say that any kind of explanation would be met with a (mostly) collective: "Oh, okay ...," and that would be the end of it.

They are free to do as they please. They don't owe me an explanation.

true, they don't have to explain anything to anyone. they're obviously free to do as they please.

but i do agree with what krymsin said about the "no fuckin sponsor" attitude that the band had for most of their career, and how that - in addition to the music - was what made them so appealing, and what earned them a ton of respect.

clearly, they've changed their views and their approach, and that's their prerogative. i wish they hadn't done some of the stuff they've done over the past few years, and i've cringed a few times, but i'm in too deep at this point to let it bother me too much. what they did the other day is truly lame, but i'm trying to pretend it didn't happen (hopefully, things like that don't become the norm).

the music and the shows are still unmatched in my eyes, and it will take a whole lot more of this type of corporate pandering to drive me away. i'm trying to put this target thing out of my head and focus on the tour coming up.

it could be a lot worse..

well said