Quote:
|
Originally Posted by skatch
if you disagree with the way i went about marketing this tour...
|
I think this is the problem people have, the fact that you come across far more like a corporate henchmen than someone actively involved in punk rock. Punk rock is an instrically revolutionary art form, not necessarily in that it seeks to bring down governments (although that's always a bonus!), but more in it's similarities to Dadaism's commitment to being anti-art - if an art establishment ever comes to fruition, then punk must work in any number of opposite directions.
An example from the Dadaist era might be the work of Marcel Duchamp, perhaps
Fountain, which was basically a two-fingered fuck you to established notions of art at the time. Punk reacted in the same way to the bloated prog rock establishment that was sucking the soul out of music; in turn, Crass reacted in an even more extreme way to this when they believed that the punks were in fact becoming an establishment in themselves (hence why bands like The Exploited etc. are not punk, merely "amphetamine rock" to steal the phrase from Joe Strummer).
All these things considered, talking about punk rock/hardcore bands and things like "marketing" in the same breath is a complete contradiction, because you're using the language of the major labels who put profit before everything. The process that major labels are involved in when dealing with challenging new artists is known as recuperation, something which was first identified by the Situationists in the 1950s and 60s (these guys were also hugely influential to the original punk movement).
Recuperation is the process by which the society of the spectacle, an environment in which reality has been replaced by viewing, takes a radical or revolutionary idea and repackages it as a saleable commodity. The spectacle basically arises from the pollution brought about by marketing and PR, which is central to all businesses these days - an obvious example of recuperation would be Top Shop et all selling "punk rock" clothing. Major labels pretty much do the same thing, although sometimes on a much more sureptitious level (EMI's holdings in international arms dealers).
I'm getting a bit bogged down in social theory here, but it's important nonetheless. Anyway, the issue is pretty much with the language you've been using - "guarantee", "rider", "marketing" and anything else generally associated with the music industry. The words you use and the way you use them are very important because they're a way of communicating ideas and feelings to other people, an indication of your mindset. George Orwell's
1984 or Ray Bradbury's
Fahrenheit 451 are two well-known books which deal with this kind of thing.
So it's come down to this - whose side are you on? Will you continue to espouse the clarion calls of guarantees and riders, now in the knowledge that they're part of the recuperation process that acts to destroy the meaning of punk rock, or will you ditch it and realise that profit margins are nothing compared to the creation/realisation and sharing of radical ideas and music?
PS Sorry about the length and the polemical nature of the post, but it's necessary to explain why people are a bit uptight with you. I'd also like to point out that I understand that you don't want to lose money, but plenty of bands articulate this without descending into corporate rock jargon. Best of luck getting the gigs at any rate
