sward wrote:I tried reading through each the arguments but man, I didnt realize how bad my attention span was until I tried. Probably should go back and re-read it before I offer ANY viewpoint. But I believe, truly believe that the band has altered the way it 'sells' things in order to compensate for the decrease in album sales/royalties and to allow themselves to maintain whatever lifestyle they earned from the beginning.evenslow wrote:This invalidates the rest of your argument.IlluminEddie wrote:Anyway, The Ten Club could’ve handled digital sales.
That said. There is zero wrong with that. I can't walk out the door today and decide I can take a job that pays me 40% of what it used to. Can't do it. I'll take whatever job allows me to maintain my lifestyle and hopefully one that gives back to me as well somehow.
I also believe that the band allocates number of dollars from said earnings towards various charities or foundations and would like to be able to do that as well as continue to live their lives as they have been for 20 years and with that, I am comfortable with whatever route they take to sell it. Its just as easy to see their partnership with Target as all greed since Target, on the surface is the sort of corporation they railed against early on. But you could also try to dig deeper and find out that aligning with Target allowed them to recoup their costs for the album, put some in the bank as well as have a portion go towards whatever philanthropic endeavor they choose.
All good in my books.
It's tough to track the discussion via quotes and whatnot, I get that. But, mainly it's been a discussion between myself and stip. So, I understand why you're having trouble following it. It's been ongoing and I dropped the quotes because it was a pain to use them last time.
Let me clarify a few things. I think it's fine that they did what they did with Target. I simply think they are a bit hypocritical for doing that given what they've said about corporations, commercial endorsements (Adam Duritz like comments) and greed. That's all. It's not solely Target affiliation which makes me believe they are hypocritical.
Target was one example. The primary discussion revolves around whether Ed (PJ) is a hypocrite. I think he is. I offered loads of alternative examples of him (PJ) being hypocritical in the thread if you don't like the Target one.
P.S. I think making money and putting it away is smart. I don't really have a problem with average corporations. I would never say I did. I just think rallying against haves and have nots and corporate interests when you're a "have" and your doing all these monetary ties to corporate entities when you don't have to to ensure you keep making more money ... seems... hypocritical. All he has to do is stop blabbing, really.
