I was all set to take Robin Pecknold of CSNoozY Seattle outfit Fleet Foxes to task for getting his stream-washed knickers in a twist and somewhat erroneously declaring on his band’s blog that “Fleet Foxes will never, ever, under no circumstances, from now until the world chokes on gas fumes, sign to a major label. This includes all subsidiaries or permutations thereunder. Till we die.” (Alas, no pinky swear.) But I guess a member of his drum circle who appreciates technology that was birthed after the 1970s tipped him off to Google, which could tell him that his current benefactor Sub Pop is 49% owned by Warner Music Group at present, as The Peck has since taken MySpace’s “you can delete whatever you post” suggestion to heart. (So let’s not even mention that his little band of brothers benefited greatly last week from exposure on Saturday Night Live, which airs on NBC, which just so happens to be owned by the big, bad behemoth known as General Electric! But I guess 30 Rock is funny enough for it to be OK?)
Anyway, I was all set to go off on a rant about how it’s not necessarily bad to have ideals—even the most grizzled blogger-type has them, even if her heart is as hardened as a skipping-stone—but it’s probably a good idea to check your own balance sheet, and the sources of the numbers in said sheet’s plus column, before you go off spouting absolutist rhetoric lifted wholesale from one of those special The Nation issues about the media oligopoly on your personal Internet Web site; after all, even if the harmonies accompanying your bluster are pretty enough to lull some people into a “you’re so anti-corporately dreamy” reverie, there’s something to be said for actually, y’know, getting your facts straight. But then I got kinda tired, and started wondering when The Nation last put out one of those issues (I had a poster from the 1996 edition on my wall when I was in college!) since my subscription lapsed years ago. 2006, it looks like! My, how things have changed since then.
Fleet Foxes Hate Major Labels [Pitchfork]
Young musicians are so dopey about the real world.
@K-Rex: Is everyone finally willing to admit that hippies and punks are the exact same thing?
Hunks?
Robin actually updated his blog acknowledging Warner’s share in Sub Pop before it was deleted – mentioning that he isn’t against distribution by major labels, which he considers fairly straightforward – “we load your truck with records and pay you for gas” or something like that.
Mermee mermee merm…just come right out and call him a dumb fuck! What’s with the pansy-ass, passive-aggressive tippy-toeing?
Sorry. I’ll calm down.
Fuck that guy though.
@Ned Raggett: Puppies!!!
So, after that self-righteous rant from Pecknold, what’s the Vegas line on the amount of time before Fleet Foxes signs with a major? My money is on by mid-year. Granola prices aren’t going down any time soon.
I sense some very bad calendar ideas.
@K-Rex: I liked FFs better when they were called Bread.
This guy annoys the shit out of me. His “Faux modesty” is cringe worthy, and shut up about the blue ridge mountains, you never were there!
Zing!
It really bums me out when bands I enjoy (sorry Maura) take on such juvenile ideals (“Down with the corporations!”) Give him a few years, he’ll own up. Remember when Pearl Jam got annoyed at Ticketmaster tacking on that $1 fee on top of their ticket (btw, how awesome would it be if that fee was still only $1 total?) I think their shows were around $20/25 around the time of their superstardom. Nowadays? They just played MSG with a $77 face value (before charges) last June. And, no way inflation means $77 = $22 back in ’94.
You guys are dating yourselves in old age in response to a young idealistic dude. Since perspective and wisdom can often not be mutually exclusive, perhaps some of the same medicine for those over 30? thx
@K-Rex: Around here they definitely are the same thing.
And I don’t really think that they are that hippie-ish. I think they might just be laid back and sorta lazy with grooming. How many honest-to-God hippies do y’all really encounter in the indie scene?
@owenmeany: “Stream-washed knickers” was more of a “fuck you” than an actual “fuck you” would have been. Maura, you’re the queen.
@2ironic4u:
“Remember when Pearl Jam got annoyed at Ticketmaster tacking on that $1 fee on top of their ticket (btw, how awesome would it be if that fee was still only $1 total?) I think their shows were around $20/25 around the time of their superstardom. Nowadays? They just played MSG with a $77 face value (before charges) last June. And, no way inflation means $77 = $22 back in ’94.”
I hear ya loud and clear.
But I recall Pearl Jam went on this crusade all by their lonesome, while the likes of REM’s Peter Buck voiced support but didn’t actually take a real stand. More importantly, I remember a close friend and die-hard PJ fan complaining at the time, that the band should just give up this cause and play the venues that were convenient for him and his fellow fans to attend.
If their fellow artists and their own fans weren’t willing to band together in getting rid of Ticketmaster’s usurious practice, why should they take the hit all by their lonesome? So they said fuck it. And we got fucked. Still are.
You gotta respect the man’s desire to live in the 1970s – if you’re going to rip the music off, why not take the facile opinions as well?
@Swankster: @AL: Um… he was still wrong. And on his high horse about it. There’s youthful idealism and then there’s being a self-righteous dumbass.
@Maura Johnston: His error aside, some of the above comments seem like they’re just ripping on him for being idealistic, period. Isn’t 2009 supposed to be a year for Hope and Change??? I also just think people are being WAY too quick to shit all over him for making a mistake. I don’t even like the dude’s music, but come on. Isn’t he like 20? Why do we even care what this kid says?
@Swankster: Yes! thank you!
@AL: Because it’s the internet and everyone’s opinion is the most important one out there. Plus, we need justification and positive reinforcement from people that we’ll never meet.
Except for me.
However, the fact remains that he is not signed onto a major label. Sub Pop may be partly owned by Warner Brothers but it is still a independent label, and the royalties his band makes from Sub Pop is undoubtedly higher than they would be making on any major label that would try to suck every dollar out of them.
Did you stop to think that maybe the reason he doesn't want to sign to a major label is for selfish reasons like being reimbursed for his music, rather than being hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to the very people that are supposedly working for you? I agree with Robin, I don't know why anyone who isn't already making millions of dollars would want to sign to a major label.
Oh and you really did some great research here with this article Maura, congratulations on basically copy and pasting the pitchfork article and adding some sarcastic side notes. It pisses me off when people think that they are the end all gods of music knowledge because they check up on what pitchfork thinks about any given situation three times a day.