I'm not growing up .... I'm just Selling Out

[One Eyed Cat]

This is not aimed at anyone here at all. Let it only reflect on my own attempt to come to terms with my own choices.

I am wondering if anyone has an operative definition of the term "selling out"?

The title of my post comes from the last Green Day show at 924 Gilman (under an assumed name after they signed) One of my roommates convinced Armstrong to use these lyrics. Obviously, this is the most common context the term "selling out" is used in. Such and such band was on our scene. They signed to a major. Thus, they sold out.

What is selling out though in substantive terms?
If I work for a corporation in any capacity I am thus selling out?
If I make x amount of money I have thus sold out?
If I gain a certain amount of fans I have thus sold out?
If I work within the adversarial legal sysem, I have sold out?

At what point does one even sell in? If I have concerns for the environment, social justice etc, I have sold in?

Finally, what precisely is it that people can sell out?
Their friends?
A scene?
A given philosophy?

I am generally critical of the media. I am much less certain when to call a given artist (or anyone) a sell-out. I have seen the alternatives. I do not believe it is as simple as some may think. Without an operative definition, I believe it comes down to personal preferences. It becomes hard to argue for or against. I can give a gut sense of selling out and outright malice to one's roots, but I do not believe the term "selling out" is always applied correctly.

Any thoughts?

OEC

[ForrestBlack]

How do you define it? Not by example, but in clear defining terms.
And if you don't think it's applied correctly, how would you specify it's
correct usage?

[One Eyed Cat]

How do you define it? Not by example, but in clear defining terms.
And if you don't think it's applied correctly, how would you specify it's
correct usage?

I can't define it. The best I've come up with, on a personal level, is being true to one's principles. If say I represented a factory farm in court for x dollars, I would be selling out my beliefs.

Where I think it is being misapplied is its usage regarding the system. What is the system? I do not believe most dissent even occurs outside the system. Say, for example, I am vegan ... I live in group environments ... I work towards social justice on some level. The country can accomodate my lifestyle just as easily as one who simply chases the buck.

Even the example I give: I do not see that as a clear example of selling-out. Aside from one liner note in one album, they had never sold in.

OEC

[Kidthorazine]

i consider selling out to be considerably changing your lifestyle/music/whatever in order to make more money and/or be more accepted by mainstream society. Of course there are other things that are selling out ie. selling your freinds out to the cops, bassically doing things that go against what you originally stood for, for the purpose of personal gain.

[One Eyed Cat]

i consider selling out to be considerably changing your lifestyle/music/whatever in order to make more money and/or be more accepted by mainstream society. Of course there are other things that are selling out ie. selling your freinds out to the cops, bassically doing things that go against what you originally stood for, for the purpose of personal gain.

So essentially, conforming to a norm to gain money. How do you know when this is being done? What would be your definition of mainstream society? I think, in many ways, dissent is incorporated de facto. Even when people are influenced by the media, I believe they seek out distinction as opposed to conformity. So where to draw the line? If a large number of consumers seek out distinction, will they not simply adopt what was once dissent?

OEC

[ForrestBlack]

I can't define it.

OEC

Give it a shot though. It doesn't have to be perfect, but try like a first draft definition.

Here is the number one definition from the 'Urban Dictionary':

One who betrays a cause for personal advancement.

The popular definition of sell out allows it to be used as an insult towards anyone in show business. On the contrary, there are many bands which are considered sellouts which are not.

For instance, Green Day. They are considered sell-outs because they are a punk band who was popular on MTV. Green Day never stated that they would never be on MTV, thus they are not sell-outs in that sense. They never changed their musical style for monetary reasons, thus they are are not sell-outs in the more literal sense of the word. If Fugazi were to sign up with Sony records, they would be selling out because they preach against major labels.

The number six one isn't too bad either:

Compromising your integrity, usually for money. Its that simple. This word is mostly used to describe bands that go mainstream.

Green Day aren't sellouts because despite their recent popularity, they never changed their sound. They were just never very good...

[One Eyed Cat]

That is a pretty good definition.

One who betrays a cause for personal advancement. I would say compromising your integrity and/or principles would apply also.

See the dilemma I have is that I know one can do both. Every mention of selling out that is implied seems to assume that one can *only* be true to principle or one can make money. Know what I mean?

For example, are Ben and Jerry sell-outs? They make money, yet they give to the causes they believe in. I think that is true of a lot of entrepreneurs out there. Where on earth do I draw the line?

Fugazi signing to Sony is an obvious one. Even there. however, one has to look at distribution. You can buy Fugazi in a mall. Has Fugazi thus sold out by default? Is there really an operative difference?

OEC

[Kidthorazine]

usually you can tell when its being done, when somone (this mostly applies to musicians, as this is when the term is most often used) completely changes what they are doing into whatever is popular. Of course they could be just doing it because they like whatever is currently popular, but rarely do people abruptly change to a large extent without a large motiviation (ie money) . In music/scene terms I dont consider band to have sold out just because they signed to a major label, i only consider them to have sold out if they drastically change the style they had to be more suited to whatever is currently marketable. Green Day is a perfect example of this, with thier last album, not only did thier music seem to reflect whats popular with the kids now, but si fif thier whole visual style, with the all black and the eyeliner the whole pseudo-goth pop-emo thing. That is changing pretty much just to sell more records. Mettalica did the same thing with the black album, but to a lesser extent, (a lot of people blame thier producer for that one, but it was thier decision to work with him and im pretty sure they knew what type of album would come out of it). Theres was also a big trend in the goth scene not too terribly long ago for some of the older bands to start doing a more EBM typoe thing top appeal to the masses (Clan of Xymox are a major example) that kind of thing IMO is selling out.

[ForrestBlack]

...See the dilemma I have is that I know one can do both. Every mention of selling out that is implied seems to assume that one can *only* be true to principle or one can make money. Know what I mean?

Oh, I totally agree. I like elements of the first one, since I kind of feel that one can betray a cause even if they claim they never championed it, and personal advancement isn't always financial. If they essentially wore the colors of that cause, enjoyed support from champions of that cause, but then did something that really undermined that cause for personal advancement. But, that may be an entirely different, yet related, term. The second (or sixth technically) is pretty good too, given that it may just be that only the individual can truely know in their heart of hearts that they did indeed violate their integrity for gain. One of the differences I see between the two is that someone who has no integrity to begin with kind of can't violate the second one.

[One Eyed Cat]

usually you can tell when its being done, when somone (this mostly applies to musicians, as this is when the term is most often used) completely changes what they are doing into whatever is popular. Of course they could be just doing it because they like whatever is currently popular, but rarely do people abruptly change to a large extent without a large motiviation (ie money) . In music/scene terms I dont consider band to have sold out just because they signed to a major label, i only consider them to have sold out if they drastically change the style they had to be more suited to whatever is currently marketable. Green Day is a perfect example of this, with thier last album, not only did thier music seem to reflect whats popular with the kids now, but si fif thier whole visual style, with the all black and the eyeliner the whole pseudo-goth pop-emo thing. That is changing pretty much just to sell more records. Mettalica did the same thing with the black album, but to a lesser extent, (a lot of people blame thier producer for that one, but it was thier decision to work with him and im pretty sure they knew what type of album would come out of it). Theres was also a big trend in the goth scene not too terribly long ago for some of the older bands to start doing a more EBM typoe thing top appeal to the masses (Clan of Xymox are a major example) that kind of thing IMO is selling out.

Metallica had already been on a major for years though. I think what you are getting at is when a band provides what they believe the consumer wants as opposed to maintaining musical integrity. I can buy that definition to a point. Given the ease of distribution these days, it is hard to say when the masses are not simply coopting them instead. Can they choose their fans? I'm not sure it is possible. Green Day had a mass appeal even before they signed.

OEC

[One Eyed Cat]

Oh, I totally agree. I like elements of the first one, since I kind of feel that one can betray a cause even if they claim they never championed it, and personal advancement isn't always financial. If they essentially wore the colors of that cause, enjoyed support from champions of that cause, but then did something that really undermined that cause for personal advancement. But, that may be an entirely different, yet related, term. The second (or sixth technically) is pretty good too, given that it may just be that only the individual can truely know in their heart of hearts that they did indeed violate their integrity for gain. One of the differences I see between the two is that someone who has no integrity to begin with kind of can't violate the second one.

I think that is the root of it. I mean, like it or not, every cause needs cash to advance. Let's say you build electric cars. Your business takes off. You become rich. You appear in the media. Your cars are distributed worldwide. You have advanced a cause in ways the critical mass bike folks can't.

What other definition of personal advancement do u mean? Fame? Even there, it becomes subjective.

OEC

[ForrestBlack]

Metallica had already been on a major for years though. I think what you are getting at is when a band provides what they believe the consumer wants as opposed to maintaining musical integrity. I can buy that definition to a point. Given the ease of distribution these days, it is hard to say when the masses are not simply coopting them instead. Can they choose their fans? I'm not sure it is possible. Green Day had a mass appeal even before they signed.

OEC

I feel that evolving your artistic output while continuing to create media that appeals to your audience in an environment where the styles, trends, and even technology change as rapidly as they do should not be enough to define you as a sell out. But, if you essentially take a shortcut, violate your stated ideals or beliefs, while alienating your former fans at the same time, in an effort to make an sizeable advancement, that starts to get into the realm of qualified for the 'sell out' label.

[Kidthorazine]

WEll yes thats my point, i dont think having mass appeal or signing to a major record label for doing what your doing in the first place is selling out at all, But whne you change what youre doing for the sake of having mass appeal, and thus gaining fame and money and whatnot, is selling out. Mettalica was on a major record labbel since thier second or third album, but they didnt sell out untill the black album because thats when they changed thier sound in order to be on the radio and sell a lot more albums, Green Day, when they first came out, where doing something realtively fresh and uheard of in the mainsteam and happened to be huge, they didnt sell out untill they released American Idiot which contained about every single modern MTV cliche possible, and seemed to be targeted primarilly at 13 year olds who buy thier records at shopping malls.

[ForrestBlack]

And Metallica cut their hair. That came accross as a pretty big violation in it's own right.

[One Eyed Cat]

I feel that evolving your artistic output while continuing to create media that appeals to your audience in an environment where the styles, trends, and even technology change as rapidly as they do should not be enough to define you as a sell out. But, if you essentially take a shortcut, violate your stated ideals or beliefs, while alienating your former fans at the same time, in an effort to make an sizeable advancement, that starts to get into the realm of qualified for the 'sell out' label.

I agree. It is not always easy to tell which is at play, though. In many cases, artists will alienate fans just by doing something different anyways.

OEC

[One Eyed Cat]

WEll yes thats my point, i dont think having mass appeal or signing to a major record label for doing what your doing in the first place is selling out at all, But whne you change what youre doing for the sake of having mass appeal, and thus gaining fame and money and whatnot, is selling out. Mettalica was on a major record labbel since thier second or third album, but they didnt sell out untill the black album because thats when they changed thier sound in order to be on the radio and sell a lot more albums, Green Day, when they first came out, where doing something realtively fresh and uheard of in the mainsteam and happened to be huge, they didnt sell out untill they released American Idiot which contained about every single modern MTV cliche possible, and seemed to be targeted primarilly at 13 year olds who buy thier records at shopping malls.

Yes and no. I still pick up a continuum from 1039 to American Idiot. At the same time, they clearly had toned down the show. With Green Day, I'm just not sure they ever sold in. You could date it to '94 or '04. They are more a media spectacle than sell-outs.

OEC

[One Eyed Cat]

And Metallica cut their hair. That came accross as a pretty big violation in it's own right.

OEC

[Kidthorazine]

And Metallica cut their hair. That came accross as a pretty big violation in it's own right.

hahaha yeah, but that didnt piss of fans as much as Load did.

[ForrestBlack]

Yes and no. I still pick up a continuum from 1039 to American Idiot. At the same time, they clearly had toned down the show. With Green Day, I'm just not sure they ever sold in. You could date it to '94 or '04. They are more a media spectacle than sell-outs.

OEC

Yeah, I don't feel that they ever did sell out. If anything, I feel like the Gilman scene sold them out more than anything. After all, they crucified one of their own just for doing well. They patted themselves on the back for being so 'real' while they totally attacked one of their own without really having a reasonable rational political reason other than envy and misplaced self-righteousness.

[One Eyed Cat]

Yeah, I don't feel that they ever did sell out. If anything, I feel like the Gilman scene sold them out more than anything. After all, they crucified one of their own just for doing well. They patted themselves on the back for being so 'real' while they totally attacked one of their own without really having a reasonable rational political reason other than envy and misplaced self-righteousness.

In many instances, I would agree. I mean there were/are principled socialists that came off that scene. It was an incredibly nauseous period of time, however. The scene was dead. Everyone knew it. Green Day served as a whipping boy.

I remember Green Day's last show at the Phoenix in Petaluma. People were handing out pamphlets demanding that folks not go to the show. I just thought to myself: You never liked them to begin with. How on earth can they sell you out? The arrogance was stunning.

Later that year, the "Punk Rock Police" (they really called themselves that) was formed. They essentially went around determining who was truly "punk" (I don't know how else to phrase it) or not. Luckily for me, I was at odds with them anyways. I had nothing to worry about. The more desperate they became, the more they lost the meaning of the East Bay scene.

Armstrong has www.adelinerecords.com. Also, he has a band called Pinhead Gunpowder with some old-timers. Are they also sell-outs for playing music with the man? Some say yes! I think you see why the whole scene imploded. You are asked to maintain a superhuman level of purity. That's why I tend to cringe now. I do not believe you can ask people to live in poverty and subscribe to your specific idea of utopia. It eliminates the possibility of free thinking.

The punchline: Invariably, the ones shouted the loudest were the ones who did make money off the scene. There are still many with integrity, but a lot of those folks are conspicuously absent in 2006.

OEC

[Mr Karl]

Selling out is when you take pride in your work because that's the only way you know how to be but working for a cause you hate cause that's where the money is

[TheDeathKnight]

It seems like everyone pretty much covered all the bases.

I guess in general selling out usually means that you make an informed decision to do something just to make money, even if you do not respect your own choices.

I have been friends with guys in reasonably successful bands. And they deliberately came up with a "commercial" sound. Simply to make money. They saw their friends getting signed, by doing pop-rock, so they decided to get a decent paycheck, and make pop-rock of their own. I don't see it as selling out. It's called making a living. If you truly love punk music, or alternative music of any type, that is not commercially viable, you can still play it, if you love it. I see it as two sides of life. One side is making a living. The other side is your art, your beliefs, your private life... If you can make money playing music, by all means, sell out... It's up to the audience to determine what people want to listen to. If they get tired of one thing, they will want something new. So I think that if you do something good, you will always have fans, and be able to play. But you may not be financially successful. So it's just a choice about making a living off of music or not. If you want to make a living at it, then you have to look at the market, and see what people want to hear. But if you want to be true to your vision, and your idea of what sounds cool, then do it. But don't be upset or pissed off if you are not a financial success. The general audience is a bunch of idiots. So don't be pissed if they don't like your sophisticated or strange sound.

I have a pretty narrow concept of selling out.
And to me, you have to know you are doing something *wrong*, or totally compromising who you are as an individual. If you pretend to be someone you are not, or sing about things you do not believe in, or respect, just to make money, then you are a sell-out. But just making a specific kind of music, to make some money, is not selling out. It's knowing the audience, making a living off of music, and doing a good job at it...

[Pull~My~Hair]

i think selling out entails , changing your moral, or religous, or political standings, for monetary or public gain.

[Amelia G]

I think DeathKnight makes a good point that part of selling out is pretense.

[ForrestBlack]

http://www.thatvideosite.com/view/3035.html

[One Eyed Cat]

It seems like everyone pretty much covered all the bases.

I guess in general selling out usually means that you make an informed decision to do something just to make money, even if you do not respect your own choices.

I have been friends with guys in reasonably successful bands. And they deliberately came up with a "commercial" sound. Simply to make money. They saw their friends getting signed, by doing pop-rock, so they decided to get a decent paycheck, and make pop-rock of their own. I don't see it as selling out. It's called making a living. If you truly love punk music, or alternative music of any type, that is not commercially viable, you can still play it, if you love it. I see it as two sides of life. One side is making a living. The other side is your art, your beliefs, your private life... If you can make money playing music, by all means, sell out... It's up to the audience to determine what people want to listen to. If they get tired of one thing, they will want something new. So I think that if you do something good, you will always have fans, and be able to play. But you may not be financially successful. So it's just a choice about making a living off of music or not. If you want to make a living at it, then you have to look at the market, and see what people want to hear. But if you want to be true to your vision, and your idea of what sounds cool, then do it. But don't be upset or pissed off if you are not a financial success. The general audience is a bunch of idiots. So don't be pissed if they don't like your sophisticated or strange sound.

I have a pretty narrow concept of selling out.
And to me, you have to know you are doing something *wrong*, or totally compromising who you are as an individual. If you pretend to be someone you are not, or sing about things you do not believe in, or respect, just to make money, then you are a sell-out. But just making a specific kind of music, to make some money, is not selling out. It's knowing the audience, making a living off of music, and doing a good job at it...

I think it would depend whether they had "sold-in" to something. You can't sell out a general audience of idiots, so yeah I see where you are coming from.

OEC

[One Eyed Cat]

I think DeathKnight makes a good point that part of selling out is pretense.

How would you define pretense though? In the sense of changing beliefs? Contriving an attitude? Another brick wall I find myself hitting: they are ultimately just entertainers. It is hard to draw a line where authenticity trumps the performance. (in terms of just artists as the conversation has developed). It is actually an easier call to make in a profession.

OEC

[malcolm]

I dunno, I always looked at seling out as giving up on a foundation that defined you as who you are and what you do to either please others or make profit. theres not always a financial gian but most of the time that is the plan.

[TheDeathKnight]

It is a lot easier to define outside the realm of entertainment.

If you are an environmentalist, and do an amazing website, that helps get people all motivated to stop clearcutting of the rainforest, and a lumber company sees what a good job you are doing, and asks you to work for them, for a lot of money, and you decide to do a website for them, just for the money, then you are selling out.

So translate that, into entertainment...

If you are a musician, who claims to be against corporate music, and against commercialized music, and then a record company sees your band, and asks you to sign with them for big bucks, but asks you to change your look, your message, etc, to make it more commercial, and you do it, to get the money, then you are selling out...

But if you are just a musician, and an entertainer, and you are willing to be commercial, or make money, and you are willing to change your sound, or your look, or your message, I have no problem with that. To me, that's just being a smart businessperson. It's really your choice how you want to live your life, what you want to sing about, etc... If you want to sing songs about cutting down trees, and patriotism, etc, then great for you. I won't be buying it, but if someone else wants it, and you can make a living selling it, then be my guest... Everyone has freedom to vote with their wallets. If you don't like commercial crap music, you don't have to buy it. You can buy new and interesting music from the internet, smaller labels, etc... But I have nothing against people who try to cash in on the idiots... As long as they don't claim that they are against doing so to begin with... If you want to make music for the sake of making music, then I will see you at the drum circle at the beach. There will always be an outlet to be musical. But if you want to make money at it, there are compromises that need to happen to be successful.

[One Eyed Cat]

On a personal level, I am fairly indifferent to it. It is interesting how many different lines in the sand are drawn when the term "selling out" comes up. You do have to wonder at what point the crap music, tv, movies etc succeed in further dumbing folks down, however. It can't possibly bode well for the future.

OEC

[ForrestBlack]

On a personal level, I am fairly indifferent to it. It is interesting how many different lines in the sand are drawn when the term "selling out" comes up. You do have to wonder at what point the crap music, tv, movies etc succeed in further dumbing folks down, however. It can't possibly bode well for the future.

OEC

I'm not so sure about so many lines in the sand. I mean, I think most of us here at least are in near agreement. There is some minor semantic polishing, but it's not like there are fifty radically divergent proposals. And yeah, the term does tend to get thrown at people who don't deserve it and it doesn't tend to get thrown at some folks who genuinely do, but that's not so much a line in the sand. It's more like people spouting kneejerk buzzwords instead of accurately voicing their true objections.

[One Eyed Cat]

I'm not so sure about so many lines in the sand. I mean, I think most of us here at least are in near agreement. There is some minor semantic polishing, but it's not like there are fifty radically divergent proposals. And yeah, the term does tend to get thrown at people who don't deserve it and it doesn't tend to get thrown at some folks who genuinely do, but that's not so much a line in the sand. It's more like people spouting kneejerk buzzwords instead of accurately voicing their true objections.

Not here per se. I have known people to call it "selling out" if a band is distributed by Mordam, signs to a label, changes their sound, opens for the wrong band etc. Some folks out there are pretty loose with the term. Not the folks posting here, it's more balanced.

OEC

[ForrestBlack]

Not here per se. I have known people to call it "selling out" if a band is distributed by Mordam, signs to a label, changes their sound, opens for the wrong band etc. Some folks out there are pretty loose with the term. Not the folks posting here, it's more balanced.

OEC

Yeah, I certainly agree that the term tends to be misused. That's why I appreciate you sharing your interest in exploring the proper definition and meaning. People should know what they are saying when they say it.

[TheDeathKnight]

In addition to it being misused, I just don't see why people have such a problem with it.

Especially when it comes to entertainment.

I understand that people get mad when people make the choice to work for an evil company, and actively participate in something you see as wrong, or damaging to the planet...

But music?

Come on!

It's entertainment.

I don't think bands like Rage Against The Machine inspire people to change their lives. I think people who are already into that kind of thing will respond well to a band that supports the same things they do. People who like dropping acid will respond well to the Grateful Dead. But listening to them won't make you suddenly get into halucenogens. And listening to country music won't turn me into a redneck. But if I am already a redneck, that music will appeal to me. That's the way the music business works. Bands make music for their kind of people. Record companies sign bands that make music that people like. The more people like your music, the more the record companies will pay you. So it makes perfect financial sense to make your music entertaining to a large group of people. Sure, I can make white-supremacist music, but it will have a very small market. Selling out in the music world, is really about deciding if you want to make music for your small group of friends and peers, or if you want to make music that appeals to a larger audience. Regardless of a musician's choice, I don't think it's a big deal one way or the other. You can sell a few hardcore homemade CDs to a few punk rockers, or you can pop your songs up a bit, and be the next Blink-182, selling millions. To me, it is no big deal. If you want to be pure, and stick to an unpopular style, fine. It will sell to a few hardcore fans. If you want to make a living with music, you probably need to sell out a bit, and make it more appealing.

[Wickedanima]

Green Day aren't sellouts because despite their recent popularity, they never changed their sound. They were just never very good...[/I]

Hahah...That's funny. On the subject of Green Day, I think the reason that they are said to be 'sell outs' is not so much for them not changing what was already an awful, watered down sound that was made solely to appeal to the rebellious spirits of mall walking youths, but that they were one of the main forces in mainstreaming/selling out/misrepresenting 'the scene'. I think that Green Day is to Punk what Emo has been for Goths. Then again, nowadays, they called Ashlee Simpson and Avril Lavinge "Punk Princesses". Everything gets the relative tag. We throw the language around like nobody's business in this day and age, leaving vagueries, flatteries, and big gaping holes.

In terms of selling out personally, I don't think anyone can define it for you, because what you will and will not do for money all comes down to something inside you. If it won't break you to do music you don't really care for in exchange for success and a video on MTV, then go for it. You really can't sell anything out if you really don't believe in it to begin with.

If you feel like your integrity would break, then take another road. I'm not sure that everyone should be so worried about selling out, success is defined by many different things, and all the bands that I always admired had a much different environment to produce music in than in our sort of driven-to-MTV kindof world.

It boils down to A) How you define Success, and B) Weather that Success is really important to you. Seriously contemplate it, and move beyond what you think you should think.

[ForrestBlack]

Green Day aren't sellouts because despite their recent popularity, they never changed their sound. They were just never very good...[/I]

For the record, I didn't say that, I was quoting an entry in the urban dictionary.

[Mr Karl]

of course the only reason people sell out is cause they want to buy something

[Morning Glory]

Well, I really can't think of anything to say on this subject...
Ha! You didn't think you'd get off that easily, did you? No, Instead i'm going to make you listen to what someone else has to say! oh yeah, and a word on translation. this is dealing mostly with punk bands, cuz the guy whos talking about it happens to be in one, but just substitute the word "punk" for the word "independant", and it's pretty universal to any musician.

"Is it wrong to buy or deal with major labels? What about labels that use
major-owned (or partly major-owned) distributors like ADA, RED, Caroline, Fontana, etc?

A: in my opinion, yes. they are companies. they have one goal, making money and i would say they are exploiting something beautiful. music is magic to me. i love the music i release and it means a lot more to me than the 5$. i really want people to hear the music i release. i don't think the people at warner brothers give a shit. i don't think any DIY or PUNK "business" should ever deal with any of these people. even the smallest dealing is a slip in the wrong direction. we don't need them.

Is a punk band still punk if they sign to a major label? Is there ever a
good excuse to sign to a major label?

A: no, and no. some people would argue this point. but i really don't think, at least not by my personal ideal of what punk means, that a band can be punk if they are on a major label. maybe they have a punk sound but to me a band should have a lot more than a sound to be punk. my house mate, matty pop chart, plays cute songs on his classical guitar and he is punk as fuck. much more punk than blink 182. of course this is just my opinion. i don't think there is ever a good reason to sign to a major. never. some bands try to say that they want their message to reach more people. but there is not one example of that working. i always say, your message gets lost at the mall. the connection can not be formed in a big business setting. a basement show can save your life. buying a 15$ cd in a corporate shop will never make that impact.

What makes a "punk" business different than any other business? Can we agree on what the ethics of punk business are?

A: i think everyone would have a different opinion on this. i would say it's a matter of being ethical. i call it ethical capitalism. no matter how much i would love to claim to be a workers collective anarco business, i am, in fact, a capitalist business. however, i think there can be such a thing as ethical capitalism. obviously a record label works on a capitalist principal since you need a sum of cash to release a record and you want to sell it for more than that so you can release more records. that is capitalism and it doesn't have to be evil. it's really a matter of how much you sell you records for. i's a matter of not trying to make a lot of money. an ethical capitalist business should sell their product for enough to cover it's cost and set back some for future products and help out the bands. since CDs cost 95 cents to 1.60 to make, 5$ is a pretty big profit.

What is the definition of DIY?

A: another highly debated definition. i would say DIY means (to me), being socially and politically aware. DIY means not dealing with larger businesses. DIY means not having a booking agent. DIY means not playing shows that cost more than 5$ at the door unless there are 6+ touring bands or something and not playing 21+ shows or clear channel venues or even venues that have bad politics, like shitty clubs that let racist bands play etc. i would say DIY still retains a little of the core meaning. such as, making your own records, shirts and patches. DIY means not being afraid to take chances and go on tour to lands unknown with no money and no idea of what is out there. DIY means not having 30$ hooded sweatshirts. DIY means no barcodes on your records. DIY means inviting kids to stay at your house and cooking them food and having the same thing done for you when you get to their town. i would like to think that most people who call themselves DIY believe the things i do. i doubt it. the term is used too widely and by anyone with a fucking ******* account. i would like to think all DIY punks have an interest in making the world a better place. community building is the key. it's not the punks vs. the people. it's the poor people and the oppressed peoples, the animals and women and minorities and "weirdos", "crazies", and "criminals" vs. the powerful and rich 5% of people the rule the world with greedy intent."

-chris clavin

[ForrestBlack]

Where did that interview run?

[Morning Glory]

I don't think that it's a real interview. I think that it's just him using the format to get accross what he's trying to say. anyway, I'm not trying to promote anything, so i'm not going to post the site (it's a record label run by the guy I qouted) but it didn't credit it to anyone or a magazine.