Somewhat tangential to the discussion about burning disco records: I watched a documentary about the Bee Gees and Barry Gibb believes that the reason the *Saturday Night Fever* soundtrack did so well is because the disco music was done by white guys. He believes racism was a key factor in the "disco sucks" movement, and it's hard to argue, particularly when you've already stated here that only "white guys with guitars" in rock music count as authentic. It's essentially the same argument black people have made about Elvis Presley stealing black music and making it palatable to a white audience. Both rocketed to stardom (or in the case of the Bee Gees, had a major comeback) with music originated by black/latino artists.
Historical revisionism. People are applying a modern political lens on history and reinterpreting events without having any connection to the place, people, and time involved.
Chicago was (and parts still are) full of racists. They were there for the 1976 Sox Shorts day. But framing Disco Demolition Night as a cultural war rooted in race and homophobia is laughable.
I've been in mosh pits at Bad Brains shows: you cannot tell me that H.R. was a self-hating racist.
Was he at Comiskey Park getting in the general admission entrance with one of his records for $0.98 though? :)
He certainly is entitled to his opinion. But he's also entitled.
I had more sympathy for the BeeGees given their deeper musical roots over the 70s. (I even owned some of their records.) But the perspective of someone making and profiting from music is very different from a perspective on the ground. That's like asking Eric Schmidt why people were booing his commencement speech when he talked about AI.
Dude, there was an actual coordinated social engineering campaign behind this "white guys with guitars" psychobabble. I had written it off as perhaps just an artifact of being in an echo chamber, but now it clicked, coming on here and seeing the same exact, patently ridiculous claim being referenced 4 or 5 months after the initial deluge. Originally, it was happening over on X, which I ran some experiments and determined is being used as a biochemical Skinner box. Holy shit, what a fucking goofball thing to say. I know several, actual racists in real life and they'd never even say some dunce cap laden shit like that! A rudimentary historical journey through jazz and blues would shush anyone who's being honest.
I am simply reporting what Barry Gibb said in a documentary, as someone who benefitted from a white wash of disco. Why is this so triggering to the "disco sucks" crowd?
As a general rule, celebrity endorsements tend to turn me off a product. Tie in packaging, you’d have to pay me (and well) to use it even if I liked the celebrity’s work. No, not giving YOU money for that. Dunno if it’s because I was around for the nineties. Think I always kinda felt that way.
I think it’s just annoyance with the noise and commercialism. Not so much a reasoned boycott as a twitch. I can maybe excuse it if there is possibly relevant domain knowledge—a musician I like or an athlete performing well saying hey I like the instruments or equipment or sporting gear X company makes for Y reasons, I might pay some attention if it looks like they’re really saying it because that’s really their experience, and okay maybe that’s not unreasonable of them to do. Even then tho I’m probably more thinking, yeah, okay, taking note of your opinion and maybe I’ll give them a try but I do want to try them myself first. And always a little suspicious they were more looking at the endorsement money than the actual quality.
And generally, if you’re paying someone to endorse your cookies, or to let you print their name on them, you’re paying them to chase me away from them.
Even a product I already like enough to use, you don’t want to film a pop star saying I love those. It’s likely to make me less enthusiastic. I might look elsewhere. I think a part of me is thinking wait what’s wrong with those you feel you need to do this? Or more likely: I really am just a bit annoyed again.
It just seems cheesy, a little too manipulative. Granted, I get advertising is meant to be the latter: the message is always buy this. But while I get promotion is just part of commerce, and fine fair play saying we make a thing we think is good and we want you to buy, I find it, I dunno, kinda especially insulting to the intelligence a pop star saying hey now you can have Oreos with my name on them. Thanks, no. I think I’d be a little embarrassed having those in my kitchen. Don’t care if it’s trendy. I can live with being untrendy.
I do own a few Ralph Lauren things with the little polo pony, some athletic gear with visible logos. A lot of it this is pretty difficult to avoid. Not generally against people saying we made this and we’re proud of it. Not really anti label. More just annoyed by pointless, unrelated endorsements.
I wear stuff with logos. Right now I am happily wearing a Jimmy Buffet's Margaritaville T-Shirt that I bought at a - well, guess where. But he earned that with all of his beautiful music and support of other artists.
Mindless consumerism is not mindless, though. It matters to people, it's a way for people to express themselves. Some may complain that it is a mindless or sad way to express yourself but isn't that what being more wealthy than ever by historic standards is about? Fulfilling yourself by choosing to consume certain things, and abstaining to consume from other things? Status will always matter, as it always has. And the culture is so great, there's better film and music made than there has ever been, especially in the past two years. All-time classics being created right in front of our eyes.
That’s true. And I have reasons for wearing the brands that I wear. I mean, when I most recently had to wear suits, I was buying Canali and stuff like that, but I keep hoping I’ll never have to wear a suit ever again. What I’ve always preferred to wear, even though I’m older is the surfer/skateboarder brands like quicksilver, Billabong, element, reef, Volcom, and such. Especially Fox. Because I neither surf nor skateboarded, but was really into the jet skis, even owning a very powerful sports model, the best available at the time myself. And I could do tricks on it and everything. So the fox I came by legitimately, because Fox actually made the compression racing shocks in my jet ski. I felt wearing these was kind of an expression of who I am.
Yes. And overt brand references come and go. In the 2010s, hyper-brand fixation peaked. It's much less pervasive in the culture now. Maybe in the 2030s it'll shift again
Who knows? I just know what brands I like, and even that I used to like buying them at a specific store that carried all of them. It was in the beach town (seasonal, because this is Canada) where we had our summer cottage.
The picture of me that you see on my Substack is a terrible shot, but I used it because I like the bandana and the fact that is Barbadian sky behind me!
I think a more interesting question is what human needs does the current consumer economy fulfill? Mostly because I believe incentives are more effective than telling people not to eat Lady Gaga Oreos.
For example, making anti-consumerism cool again. Meaning if you're not buying celebrity-endorsed crap you get extra status points by your peers.
Challenge is, of course, there's no financial incentive for corporations. And they would be working very hard and fast on ways to monetize anti-consumerism. (that will make your head explode a little).
I'm all for reducing consumerism and mindless consumption. It's way better for the planet and for us humans in the long run. How to make it "cool" is the fun and interesting challenge. I think it's possible but it requires creativity, will, and influence.
I did a paper in my marketing class in college about the effect of the counterculture on the clothing industry. It got me a job offer from Squire Shops. That tells you how old I am now.
Incentives are definitely better than telling people not to eat Oreos. Because who cares, it's just an Oreo. And it's fun to eat the Gaga Oreos. And there is incentive in saving them, keeping them mint, and then reselling for a profit.
Put me down as a 78-year-old who thinks billionaires are a bad thing. I do't begrudge them their baubles; I begrudge them their political power and their bewildering tendency to use it in ways that degrade the culture as a whole.
Rick Beato on YouTube explained how bands died out while pop singers started flourishing. It was more expensive for studios to pay 4-5 guys as opposed to 1 person. Plus, with the improvements in computer technology, studios could create any instrumental sound digitally, as well as improve the singing quality of the singer with auto-tune.
The poll about views on billionaires is from 2020/21. I'd love to see updated data on that subject.
Beato is so wrong about so many things. The past 20 years of music has been much more interesting than the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s combined from an artistic integrity standpoint, if you know where to look. And that is coming from someone who can play every Beatles song on the guitar and whose favorite band of all time is the Smashing Pumpkins.
1st, good essay. The only reason I'm writing this screed is because it is one of the few pieces on Substack I've found that didn't make me want to blow my brains out. Now, on to the "criticism"
WTF, "there’s nothing noble about the act of consumption itself", that's not "the most potent part of that 90s counterculture". The most potent part of the 90s counterculture, the underlying idea behind the concept of "selling out", is what you highlighted in the beginning. That "commercial success and artistic integrity are so obviously at odds with one another".
If there's nothing "noble" about consumption, then why is there anything "ignoble" about it. No, you are trying to argue that we need to be more noble about our consumption, that we shouldn't reward the pop stars who only stand for capital. That's fine, but you see, the problem isn't that we view consumption as moral, the point of this piece is that we've done that since the 90s, only the valence has flipped.
Look, nobody believes in the concept of selling out anymore, partially because they don't think commercial success and artistic integrity are that much at odds (obviously you don't, you've got this newsletter!). But also, because most people don't believe much in artistic integrity. Why is artistic integrity a good thing? Your tagline is, "Find what's true and make it useful". You can argue artistic integrity is about finding truth. But making it useful? That's where you dip into commercial success. Art isn't about use, and thinking in this manner can degrade it.
But let alone artistic integrity, most people don't believe much in integrity full stop. The underlying ethos of "getting the bag", I think you're wrong, that the riches of the famous are "incidental" to their fame. The whole point of being famous, is that you can convert this into dollars. That's the idea. If you couldn't do this, being famous would be much less appealing. We are still a money-obsessed culture, there's a reason Mr. Beast's videos so often have a dollar amount in the title.
The other thing, is that most of pop culture, most of culture, is geared towards children and teens, since that is where the most attention is available. Where you complain about our awful culture, are you sure it's not just you getting old? But more importantly, this means that instead of convincing sober older "readers" to change our culture, where you're more often than not preaching to the choir, you have to convince younger "watchers" to change the culture.
Anyways, good piece, I don't see selling out coming back, because there is no real way to implement it, those who sell out will spread further, and even if we reintegrate the culture, I think Pearl Jam was selling out, so there's really no winning. If you make your music available to be heard, for a price, are you not selling out? Or is it only selling out if you're making "too much" money. I think the world will be much richer in the future than it is right now, and so it is impossible to sell out in our present age, after all, Jeff Bezos is a miser compared to the average person in 2100. One can dream
gen alpha grew up on tiktok, where the original skit/dance gets thousands of views, and the attractive/famous person copying the video gets millions. plagiarism being bad is something their guidance counselor earning 30k/yr tells them, and they see the exact opposite in the real world. of course integrity is dead
The first point is the big one. The business model for musicians used to be "record an album, then go on tour to promote the album". It didn't matter if the tour itself didn't make any money – you could even run it at a loss – so long as the album sold well. Nowadays the economics of the industry have shifted such that musicians generate almost all of their revenue from touring and merchandise. Musicians don't mind telling you that they hate touring, and it certainly sounds exhausting being on the road away from your loved ones for one- to two-thirds of the year. Hard to blame them for looking for alternate ways to make ends meet.
There's this clip that keeps popping up on my Instagram (https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/comments/1lypr9p/kurt_cobain_in_1993_surprised_that_madonna/) in which all three members of Nirvana are appalled to learn that Madonna charges $50 for tickets to her shows, while they keep theirs at the low, low price of $17. Every time I see this clip, my first thought is that that works out at about $39 in 2026 dollars – still pretty good by modern standards, but hardly the steal that the people sharing the clip are implying. But the less obvious point is that the low price they're charging is not in any way of indicative of Nirvana's much-vaunted artistic integrity and commitment to their fans. Nirvana could afford to charge that little for tickets, because touring was a loss-leader: they were making their money from selling albums, not tickets (and Cobain made a LOT of money from selling albums: his net worth is estimated to have been around $50 million at the time of his death https://medium.com/the-riff/5-legendary-musicians-who-continue-to-make-millions-after-their-deaths-a4d0bfbc710c). In 2026, that business model simply isn't viable anymore; sure enough, one of the men featured in the clip is charging obscene amounts of money for tickets to his new band's shows (https://www.ticketmaster.co.uk/foo-fighters-hospitality-liverpool-25-06-2026/event/3E00636CA0224ACF), sums which dwarf the "obscene" amounts charged by Madonna in 1993.
Right, Pearl Jam could afford to avoid not release their popular songs or refuse to play stadiums because they were still making enough from the sales of their albums.
I always think that when a contemporary artist does something like have an Oreo variety or is a brand ambassador for a fashion house, they're partly doing it to subsidise their music career, so they can take the sort of risks that Pearl Jam did but don't end up having to play the Jingle Bell Ball
Great quote: "I listen, I read, and I watch because I want to inhabit, even if just for a moment, the mind of another human. I want to feel what it’s like to be them, and in so doing, I want to better understand what it’s like to be me. **But if I journey to the center of someone’s psyche and all I find there is a billboard for Pizza Hut, I’m turning around.** If your art is just one node in your business empire, if your albums are merely commercials for your cologne, if you’re trying to turn your first billion into your second billion, you are no longer an artist at all. **You are a credit default swap with a discography attached.**"
I keep loving and bowing to this Mark Fisher aura of yours. The doom and gloom balanced and your solar-punk inspired though. Your voice counts. Expands.
> John Steinbeck’s famous explanation was that, in the United States at least, poor people see themselves as “temporarily embarrassed millionaires”.
This is a famous misquote, which you acknowledge, but you keep the misinterpretation attached to the misquote.
The actual comment Steinbeck made suggested quite the opposite: that all of the communists in the United States literally were temporarily embarassed millionaires, not actual proletarians.
Somewhat tangential to the discussion about burning disco records: I watched a documentary about the Bee Gees and Barry Gibb believes that the reason the *Saturday Night Fever* soundtrack did so well is because the disco music was done by white guys. He believes racism was a key factor in the "disco sucks" movement, and it's hard to argue, particularly when you've already stated here that only "white guys with guitars" in rock music count as authentic. It's essentially the same argument black people have made about Elvis Presley stealing black music and making it palatable to a white audience. Both rocketed to stardom (or in the case of the Bee Gees, had a major comeback) with music originated by black/latino artists.
I was there. It wasn't. This is gaslighting.
So was I. And how was it "gaslighting"?
Historical revisionism. People are applying a modern political lens on history and reinterpreting events without having any connection to the place, people, and time involved.
Chicago was (and parts still are) full of racists. They were there for the 1976 Sox Shorts day. But framing Disco Demolition Night as a cultural war rooted in race and homophobia is laughable.
I've been in mosh pits at Bad Brains shows: you cannot tell me that H.R. was a self-hating racist.
Barry Gibb, who was in the thick of it, is not entitled to his opinion? I’d say he had a very insider perspective.
Was he at Comiskey Park getting in the general admission entrance with one of his records for $0.98 though? :)
He certainly is entitled to his opinion. But he's also entitled.
I had more sympathy for the BeeGees given their deeper musical roots over the 70s. (I even owned some of their records.) But the perspective of someone making and profiting from music is very different from a perspective on the ground. That's like asking Eric Schmidt why people were booing his commencement speech when he talked about AI.
If you say so. 🙄
Dude, there was an actual coordinated social engineering campaign behind this "white guys with guitars" psychobabble. I had written it off as perhaps just an artifact of being in an echo chamber, but now it clicked, coming on here and seeing the same exact, patently ridiculous claim being referenced 4 or 5 months after the initial deluge. Originally, it was happening over on X, which I ran some experiments and determined is being used as a biochemical Skinner box. Holy shit, what a fucking goofball thing to say. I know several, actual racists in real life and they'd never even say some dunce cap laden shit like that! A rudimentary historical journey through jazz and blues would shush anyone who's being honest.
I am simply reporting what Barry Gibb said in a documentary, as someone who benefitted from a white wash of disco. Why is this so triggering to the "disco sucks" crowd?
As a general rule, celebrity endorsements tend to turn me off a product. Tie in packaging, you’d have to pay me (and well) to use it even if I liked the celebrity’s work. No, not giving YOU money for that. Dunno if it’s because I was around for the nineties. Think I always kinda felt that way.
I think it’s just annoyance with the noise and commercialism. Not so much a reasoned boycott as a twitch. I can maybe excuse it if there is possibly relevant domain knowledge—a musician I like or an athlete performing well saying hey I like the instruments or equipment or sporting gear X company makes for Y reasons, I might pay some attention if it looks like they’re really saying it because that’s really their experience, and okay maybe that’s not unreasonable of them to do. Even then tho I’m probably more thinking, yeah, okay, taking note of your opinion and maybe I’ll give them a try but I do want to try them myself first. And always a little suspicious they were more looking at the endorsement money than the actual quality.
And generally, if you’re paying someone to endorse your cookies, or to let you print their name on them, you’re paying them to chase me away from them.
Even a product I already like enough to use, you don’t want to film a pop star saying I love those. It’s likely to make me less enthusiastic. I might look elsewhere. I think a part of me is thinking wait what’s wrong with those you feel you need to do this? Or more likely: I really am just a bit annoyed again.
It just seems cheesy, a little too manipulative. Granted, I get advertising is meant to be the latter: the message is always buy this. But while I get promotion is just part of commerce, and fine fair play saying we make a thing we think is good and we want you to buy, I find it, I dunno, kinda especially insulting to the intelligence a pop star saying hey now you can have Oreos with my name on them. Thanks, no. I think I’d be a little embarrassed having those in my kitchen. Don’t care if it’s trendy. I can live with being untrendy.
I take it you do not wear a tee-shirt that says "Prada" on it. I don't wear logo anything.
I do own a few Ralph Lauren things with the little polo pony, some athletic gear with visible logos. A lot of it this is pretty difficult to avoid. Not generally against people saying we made this and we’re proud of it. Not really anti label. More just annoyed by pointless, unrelated endorsements.
I wear stuff with logos. Right now I am happily wearing a Jimmy Buffet's Margaritaville T-Shirt that I bought at a - well, guess where. But he earned that with all of his beautiful music and support of other artists.
Mindless consumerism is not mindless, though. It matters to people, it's a way for people to express themselves. Some may complain that it is a mindless or sad way to express yourself but isn't that what being more wealthy than ever by historic standards is about? Fulfilling yourself by choosing to consume certain things, and abstaining to consume from other things? Status will always matter, as it always has. And the culture is so great, there's better film and music made than there has ever been, especially in the past two years. All-time classics being created right in front of our eyes.
That’s true. And I have reasons for wearing the brands that I wear. I mean, when I most recently had to wear suits, I was buying Canali and stuff like that, but I keep hoping I’ll never have to wear a suit ever again. What I’ve always preferred to wear, even though I’m older is the surfer/skateboarder brands like quicksilver, Billabong, element, reef, Volcom, and such. Especially Fox. Because I neither surf nor skateboarded, but was really into the jet skis, even owning a very powerful sports model, the best available at the time myself. And I could do tricks on it and everything. So the fox I came by legitimately, because Fox actually made the compression racing shocks in my jet ski. I felt wearing these was kind of an expression of who I am.
Yes. And overt brand references come and go. In the 2010s, hyper-brand fixation peaked. It's much less pervasive in the culture now. Maybe in the 2030s it'll shift again
It works because the ultimate deliverer of a message from a stranger is a human you are familiar with.
Who knows? I just know what brands I like, and even that I used to like buying them at a specific store that carried all of them. It was in the beach town (seasonal, because this is Canada) where we had our summer cottage.
The picture of me that you see on my Substack is a terrible shot, but I used it because I like the bandana and the fact that is Barbadian sky behind me!
I think a more interesting question is what human needs does the current consumer economy fulfill? Mostly because I believe incentives are more effective than telling people not to eat Lady Gaga Oreos.
For example, making anti-consumerism cool again. Meaning if you're not buying celebrity-endorsed crap you get extra status points by your peers.
Challenge is, of course, there's no financial incentive for corporations. And they would be working very hard and fast on ways to monetize anti-consumerism. (that will make your head explode a little).
I'm all for reducing consumerism and mindless consumption. It's way better for the planet and for us humans in the long run. How to make it "cool" is the fun and interesting challenge. I think it's possible but it requires creativity, will, and influence.
I did a paper in my marketing class in college about the effect of the counterculture on the clothing industry. It got me a job offer from Squire Shops. That tells you how old I am now.
LOL there were dinosaurs on the planet when I was doing consumer marketing.
Incentives are definitely better than telling people not to eat Oreos. Because who cares, it's just an Oreo. And it's fun to eat the Gaga Oreos. And there is incentive in saving them, keeping them mint, and then reselling for a profit.
i like some of the gaga songs.. the fuck does she know about oreos
Put me down as a 78-year-old who thinks billionaires are a bad thing. I do't begrudge them their baubles; I begrudge them their political power and their bewildering tendency to use it in ways that degrade the culture as a whole.
Rick Beato on YouTube explained how bands died out while pop singers started flourishing. It was more expensive for studios to pay 4-5 guys as opposed to 1 person. Plus, with the improvements in computer technology, studios could create any instrumental sound digitally, as well as improve the singing quality of the singer with auto-tune.
The poll about views on billionaires is from 2020/21. I'd love to see updated data on that subject.
Beato is so wrong about so many things. The past 20 years of music has been much more interesting than the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s combined from an artistic integrity standpoint, if you know where to look. And that is coming from someone who can play every Beatles song on the guitar and whose favorite band of all time is the Smashing Pumpkins.
1st, good essay. The only reason I'm writing this screed is because it is one of the few pieces on Substack I've found that didn't make me want to blow my brains out. Now, on to the "criticism"
WTF, "there’s nothing noble about the act of consumption itself", that's not "the most potent part of that 90s counterculture". The most potent part of the 90s counterculture, the underlying idea behind the concept of "selling out", is what you highlighted in the beginning. That "commercial success and artistic integrity are so obviously at odds with one another".
If there's nothing "noble" about consumption, then why is there anything "ignoble" about it. No, you are trying to argue that we need to be more noble about our consumption, that we shouldn't reward the pop stars who only stand for capital. That's fine, but you see, the problem isn't that we view consumption as moral, the point of this piece is that we've done that since the 90s, only the valence has flipped.
Look, nobody believes in the concept of selling out anymore, partially because they don't think commercial success and artistic integrity are that much at odds (obviously you don't, you've got this newsletter!). But also, because most people don't believe much in artistic integrity. Why is artistic integrity a good thing? Your tagline is, "Find what's true and make it useful". You can argue artistic integrity is about finding truth. But making it useful? That's where you dip into commercial success. Art isn't about use, and thinking in this manner can degrade it.
But let alone artistic integrity, most people don't believe much in integrity full stop. The underlying ethos of "getting the bag", I think you're wrong, that the riches of the famous are "incidental" to their fame. The whole point of being famous, is that you can convert this into dollars. That's the idea. If you couldn't do this, being famous would be much less appealing. We are still a money-obsessed culture, there's a reason Mr. Beast's videos so often have a dollar amount in the title.
The other thing, is that most of pop culture, most of culture, is geared towards children and teens, since that is where the most attention is available. Where you complain about our awful culture, are you sure it's not just you getting old? But more importantly, this means that instead of convincing sober older "readers" to change our culture, where you're more often than not preaching to the choir, you have to convince younger "watchers" to change the culture.
Anyways, good piece, I don't see selling out coming back, because there is no real way to implement it, those who sell out will spread further, and even if we reintegrate the culture, I think Pearl Jam was selling out, so there's really no winning. If you make your music available to be heard, for a price, are you not selling out? Or is it only selling out if you're making "too much" money. I think the world will be much richer in the future than it is right now, and so it is impossible to sell out in our present age, after all, Jeff Bezos is a miser compared to the average person in 2100. One can dream
"most people don't believe much in integrity full stop." Ain't it the truth, ain't it the truth....
gen alpha grew up on tiktok, where the original skit/dance gets thousands of views, and the attractive/famous person copying the video gets millions. plagiarism being bad is something their guidance counselor earning 30k/yr tells them, and they see the exact opposite in the real world. of course integrity is dead
Disagree on the only value of fame being money. Fame is attractive in itself
If the Selena Gomez oreos weren't so damn good, I'd be with you on this
Oh yes. Thanks. Another masterpiece.
Make it a manifesto, and I'll follow
A few relevant points:
• Since the death of physical media, you can’t really make money selling music anymore
• With streaming making everything available, people are viewing and listening to way less new stuff
• Advertisers have fewer places to get seen so they’ll offer more money for partnerships
• The cost of living has increased a ton in artsy places — can you imagine Pearl Jam living cheaply before they got popular in modern Seattle?
All combine to make it more likely artists will try to get paid.
The first point is the big one. The business model for musicians used to be "record an album, then go on tour to promote the album". It didn't matter if the tour itself didn't make any money – you could even run it at a loss – so long as the album sold well. Nowadays the economics of the industry have shifted such that musicians generate almost all of their revenue from touring and merchandise. Musicians don't mind telling you that they hate touring, and it certainly sounds exhausting being on the road away from your loved ones for one- to two-thirds of the year. Hard to blame them for looking for alternate ways to make ends meet.
There's this clip that keeps popping up on my Instagram (https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/comments/1lypr9p/kurt_cobain_in_1993_surprised_that_madonna/) in which all three members of Nirvana are appalled to learn that Madonna charges $50 for tickets to her shows, while they keep theirs at the low, low price of $17. Every time I see this clip, my first thought is that that works out at about $39 in 2026 dollars – still pretty good by modern standards, but hardly the steal that the people sharing the clip are implying. But the less obvious point is that the low price they're charging is not in any way of indicative of Nirvana's much-vaunted artistic integrity and commitment to their fans. Nirvana could afford to charge that little for tickets, because touring was a loss-leader: they were making their money from selling albums, not tickets (and Cobain made a LOT of money from selling albums: his net worth is estimated to have been around $50 million at the time of his death https://medium.com/the-riff/5-legendary-musicians-who-continue-to-make-millions-after-their-deaths-a4d0bfbc710c). In 2026, that business model simply isn't viable anymore; sure enough, one of the men featured in the clip is charging obscene amounts of money for tickets to his new band's shows (https://www.ticketmaster.co.uk/foo-fighters-hospitality-liverpool-25-06-2026/event/3E00636CA0224ACF), sums which dwarf the "obscene" amounts charged by Madonna in 1993.
Right, Pearl Jam could afford to avoid not release their popular songs or refuse to play stadiums because they were still making enough from the sales of their albums.
I always think that when a contemporary artist does something like have an Oreo variety or is a brand ambassador for a fashion house, they're partly doing it to subsidise their music career, so they can take the sort of risks that Pearl Jam did but don't end up having to play the Jingle Bell Ball
This article is unfairly mean to credit default swaps, an important hedging tool! Otherwise, great stuff. Bring back the snobs.
really funny that you used post malone as the oreo example because he literally just did do something with dude wipes for his tour https://shop.postmalone.com/products/posty-co-dude-wipes-3-pack?srsltid=AfmBOopBIdU6KHFvpEIGJMEUsCQgvPfgubwv4jAHFsBtblQb7pBpmIQ_
Yeah... this might inspire me to start a literary magazine or something. Bravo. You are quickly becoming my writing role model.
Great quote: "I listen, I read, and I watch because I want to inhabit, even if just for a moment, the mind of another human. I want to feel what it’s like to be them, and in so doing, I want to better understand what it’s like to be me. **But if I journey to the center of someone’s psyche and all I find there is a billboard for Pizza Hut, I’m turning around.** If your art is just one node in your business empire, if your albums are merely commercials for your cologne, if you’re trying to turn your first billion into your second billion, you are no longer an artist at all. **You are a credit default swap with a discography attached.**"
I keep loving and bowing to this Mark Fisher aura of yours. The doom and gloom balanced and your solar-punk inspired though. Your voice counts. Expands.
> John Steinbeck’s famous explanation was that, in the United States at least, poor people see themselves as “temporarily embarrassed millionaires”.
This is a famous misquote, which you acknowledge, but you keep the misinterpretation attached to the misquote.
The actual comment Steinbeck made suggested quite the opposite: that all of the communists in the United States literally were temporarily embarassed millionaires, not actual proletarians.