develop, yes,
be a fashion-chasing whore, no.
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 16:03, 1 reply, 16 years ago)

What's your take on 'The Clash'?
Although I quite like them, I would consider them to be a band of the fashion-chasing whore variety
( SpikeyPickle wishes he was mabazaritchie, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 16:07, Reply)

As in...
...earnest socialists jump on bandwagons and chase the almighty dollar with major label help?
(Tugnut Ex of this parish, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 16:11, Reply)

There is that
and also the continual changing styles. Although they produced some brilliant stuff I can't help but think they were confused as to what genre they were aiming for. Maybe that was their intention - not to be defined and labelled as a punk/ska/reggae/rock band but I always feel a little confused. Sandinista is a prime example of this.

However, using a major label to increase awareness of ones music is not always a bad thing yet in many cases it does tend to clash with a musicians/band own ethos and cause friction. The case that springs to minds immediately is New Model Armys flirtation with EMI. They never (and I may be biased here as I'm a massive NMA fan) compromised their artistic integrity. EMI saw some brief success yet the level of success the label never fully materialised as the band were not willing to conform.

Chumbawamba are another prime example. They used to be good. Again, I was quite a fan. They release one 'major' single, get signed to a major label and fast become shit and they sell all their values and morals for a quick buck.

Would Nirvana have been so big if they stuck with Sub-Pop and not signed with Geffen? Again, I don't think the relationship betwen band and label would have lasted long. Geffen want the money, Nirvana wanted the creative freedom and exposure. The two conflict.

*end of waffle*
( SpikeyPickle wishes he was mabazaritchie, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 16:48, Reply)