In a classic example of a dog-bites-man non-story, the Associated Press is dutifully furthering the "censorship" whine of a rock band that laments that Wal-Mart won't stock its new album, "21st Century Breakdown."
Today, Associated Press music writer Nekesa Mumbi Moody hacked out 13 paragraphs to relay how "Green Day lashes out at Wal-Mart policy."
Of course the discount retailer's standards for music fit for its shelves are hardly new nor are they being applied out of the blue to the rockers. Nonetheless, Moody stacked the deck by quoting two of the band's three members against one Wal-Mart executive.
What's more, that a band like Green Day thrives off the publicity from Wal-Mart "censoring" their music -- there's no doubt the band hopes this development spurs interest in their album and hence more sales -- was not considered by Moody, nor the fact that the band's music is readily available online and in numerous other brick-and-mortar outlets like Target.
Instead Moody closed her article with lead singer Billie Armstrong lecturing, no doubt selflessly, about would-be rockers in basements and garages all over the fruited plain who would have to "censor" themselves:
While Armstrong, Dirnt and drummer Tre Cool are still top-sellers without Wal-Mart, Armstrong said the store's policy is disappointing, considering it has become the dominant seller of CDs with the decline of traditional music stores.
"If you think about bands that are struggling or smaller than Green Day ... to think that to get your record out in places like that, but they won't carry it because of the content and you have to censor yourself," he said. "I mean, what does that say to a young kid who's trying to speak his mind making a record for the first time? It's like a game that you have to play. You have to refuse to play it."
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Wal-mart can't censor Green Day
May 21, 2009 - 17:15 ET by nkviking75Wal-mart is incapable of censoring any album. Why? Because anyone who wants it can find it from any number of other sources, usually without much difficulty. No one who wants the album will be deprived of it.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Walmart spends money.
May 21, 2009 - 17:23 ET by sevenWalmart can reject the purchase of contaminated food. There is no law cover what Walmart has to buy and from whom. Walmart is in a lot of towns. This band needs Walmart. Walmart doesn't need them.
Walmart can censor a song from a CD and also ask an artist to add one of their songs to make the walmart CD different.
Just a little perspective. Proctor and Gamble doesn't bully walmart either.
To be clear,
May 22, 2009 - 08:42 ET by WhoIsJohnGalt"Walmart can censor a song from a CD and also ask an artist to add one of their songs to make the walmart CD different."
In no way is that censorship. If WalMart or any other retailer or outlet asks an artist to remove a song for any reason before they will stock it on their shelves, that is not censorship. That is a mutual agreement between WalMart and the artist. Censorship is actions taken by an authority figure, regardless of the wishes of the censored.
These petulant little children who believe that their "art" entitles them to run amok with morals and permit no one the choice of not participating in their tantrums should get a job in the real world for a while. Everyone has a boss, and everyone has limits on what they can do in order to earn their paycheck. Sometimes the boss is yur customer and sometimes the customer is represented by the retailer to whom you sell your "art".
"Walmart can censor a
May 22, 2009 - 08:51 ET by JasonC"Walmart can censor a song from a CD and also ask an artist to add one of their songs to make the walmart CD different."
In no way is that censorship.
No, it's not. And the band didn't say that it is. That is being falsely inferred by various posters here. But the band very clearly said that in order to contract with walmart, they had to censor themselves. Which is accurate.
Yes, thwy did.
May 22, 2009 - 10:11 ET by CobraManThe band said that Walmart want's Green Day to censer themselves befor they'll carry their music. You may be a little confused about this, but asking a band to censor "themselves" is STILL censoring. But that's not what is happinging here. Green Day is LYING to people about Walmart. Wallmart didn't single out Green Day for some type of censoring policy and insist that they change the content of their CD.
Here's the truth, Walmart didn't ask the band to censer itself, it just isn't going to carry the CD. it's Walmart policy not to carry any music that contains a Parental Warning sticker. How is that asking the band to censor itself, as Green Day is claiming?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
WalMart told the band that
May 22, 2009 - 11:09 ET by JasonCWalMart told the band that in order to have a sales contract with them, they would have to produce a neutered version of the album. That is a textbook definition of self-censorship.
If WalMart accepted the original version and then hired a team of sound recording engineers to alter it themselves, WalMart would be doing the censoring. That's not the case.
In this case, the terms of agreement involved Green Day voluntarily censoring their product.
Problem:
May 22, 2009 - 13:31 ET by mbuel<i>You may be a little confused about this, but asking a band to censor "themselves" is STILL censoring.</i>
BIG difference:
* The government FORCES you to comply in order to release your product EVERYWHERE.
* Walmart, only has control of it's OWN STORES. Green Day doesn't HAVE to sell it's albums at Walmart if it doesn't like the contractual obligation that Walmart is asking for.
* As far as Green Day is concerned? I'm sick of their anti-american anti-capitalist screed. I'm sick of idiots like them making money on the very ideals and values they trash daily.
The free market works, Government controls always fail.
Careful. You're have to
May 22, 2009 - 14:19 ET by Another Dead KennedyCareful. You're have to actually provide some sort of proof of their anti-Americanism before you start shouting about it.
When it comes to their greedy capitalism, keep in mind that this band still sells their CDs for 11.99, and charges around $50 for concert tickets. Compare that to U2, Madonna, The Stones...who's the greedy capitalist now?
RREALLY?
June 6, 2009 - 01:24 ET by mbuel"http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/greenday/americanidiot.html"
"Well maybe I'm the faggot America.
I'm not a part of a redneck agenda.
Now everybody do the propaganda.
And sing along to the age of paranoia."
MY POINT with calling them "greedy capitalist's" was IRONY. That they DECRY capitalism any chance they get, yet they are making MILLIONS from the idiots who listen to their music.
HOLIDAY:
""The representative from California has the floor"
Sieg Heil to the president Gasman
Bombs away is your punishment
Pulverize the Eiffel towers
Who criticize your government
Bang bang goes the broken glass and
Kill all the fags that don't agree
Trials by fire, setting fire
Is not a way that's meant for me
Just cause, just cause, because we're outlaws yeah!
I beg to dream and differ from the hollow lies
This is the dawning of the rest of our lives
I beg to dream and differ from the hollow lies
This is the dawning of the rest of our lives
This is our lives on holiday"
THIS IS Green Day's perception of Conservative America.
It's disgusting, and it's not isolated to music media. There are a TON of video games spreading this propagandic anti-american disease in video games.
The free market works, Government controls always fail.
There are a TON of video
June 7, 2009 - 18:53 ET by JasonCThere are a TON of video games spreading this propagandic anti-american disease in video games.
Hehe, ya don't say...
In 2 weeks this is the best
June 8, 2009 - 12:08 ET by Another Dead KennedyIn 2 weeks this is the best argument you could come up with? There isn't a single anti-American sentiment in your entire post. Anti-Bush, perhaps, but does that make one anti-American? If that's the case NB should be shut down, because most of what goes on here is bitching about the president.
And what do video games have to do with Green Day being anti-American, anti-capitalist? I think you're mixing up your pop-culture.
MY POINT with calling them "greedy capitalist's" was IRONY. That they DECRY capitalism any chance they get, yet they are making MILLIONS from the idiots who listen to their music.
Once again I'll state the case whereas Green Day charges a fraction of what the competition charges. See, some bands don't require world domination to be considered successful. I saw Green Day perform last Thursday for $47.50. We got over 2 1/2 hours of music. Call them capitalistic - fine. Now go spend $200 on the Stones again and then ask yourself who the greedy party is.
OMG
June 12, 2009 - 13:26 ET by mbuel1) You seriously don't see the anti-american sentiment in their lyrics? I can only lead you to the fountain of truth, I cannot force you to drink from it.
2) THEY still charge you for something that they DECRY. IF they really REALLY hate capitalism, they should let their fans in for free.
And the reason they can't charge 200 dollars like the stones, is the law of supply and demand. More people want to listen to the rolling stones than the generic punk band green day.
CONCLUSION:
Green Day espouses anti-american and anti-capitalist views, not only in their music but in interviews, and stupidity like this where they say "Walmart is censoring us".
Like all idiots who espouse hatred for capitalism, they are like the pigs in animal farm... the luxury is TOO GOOD for you, but not for them. They will sit on the high hog, enjoying the good life, while telling you consumption is evil.
And as for the Rolling Stones charging 200 dollars? GOOD FOR THEM. That's capitalism and I LOVE IT.
The free market works, Government controls always fail.
THEY still charge you for
June 14, 2009 - 23:05 ET by JasonCTHEY still charge you for something that they DECRY.
When did they start decrying their own music?
And as for the Rolling Stones charging 200 dollars? GOOD FOR THEM. That's capitalism and I LOVE IT.
That shows that capitalism allows people to have what they want if they're willing to pay enough for it. It also shows that what a lot of people want is to witness a really sad spectacle (and pay $8 for bottled water while they're at it). If there's one thing capitalism can do, it's showcase the kind of junk people will shell out money for if they're told to desire it.
Hell, I saw the Stones on the Voodoo Lounge tour in 95, and that was enough to make you want to cry. They should have called it a day after Exile on Main Street.
This guy is silly
June 15, 2009 - 11:50 ET by Another Dead KennedyHe proclaims this band to be anti-American and can't find one single lyric to prove his case, nor link us to one single interview (ever hear of youtube, dude???). Jason, this guy isn't worth responding to anymore. He makes ridiculous statements that he thinks make him wise (I can only lead you to the fountain of truth, I cannot force you to drink from it.). We're wasting our time here. We must move on.
Mbuel - 21st Century Breakdown will sell more copies than any album of new original material by the Stones of the last 10 years. Deal with it.
Societies ills
June 17, 2009 - 11:14 ET by mbuel"Mbuel - 21st Century Breakdown will sell more copies than any album of
new original material by the Stones of the last 10 years. Deal with
it. "
And you wonder why Obama won?
We have strayed from what has made this country great and what from God.
We no longer thank God, therefore we are being punished.
As for SEARCHING FOR you, why? The dude's comments are all over the place, and if NEITHER of you can see his anti-patriotic sentiments in those two songs, there isn't anything I can do for you.
SORRY.
The free market works, Government controls always fail.
Have you ever considered
June 6, 2009 - 11:54 ET by fitzfongHave you ever considered the possibility that Green Day's albums and tickets are sold for those prices because that's what they're perceived to be worth? Perhaps if their CDs and concert tickets were priced at the level of U2, Madonna and the Stones' CDs and concert tickets, Green Day would actually make less money than they are making now.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
Obviously that's a
June 8, 2009 - 12:42 ET by Another Dead KennedyObviously that's a consideration. But then again, they don't have a problem selling out any clubs/amphitheaters/stadiums, so it's probably not the case. But CD prices don't fluctuate that much, and given that they've sold 10s of millions of records, it's safe to say pricing probably isn't an issue.
I'm sure that Green Day
June 8, 2009 - 17:38 ET by fitzfongI'm sure that Green Day sells out most, if not all, of its concert dates. But do you believe that if, based on your Stones comparison, Green Day charged $200 instead of $47.50 a pop, they would ever come close to selling out their concerts? Unless they were playing in some exclusive "Unplugged"-type setting, I sincerely doubt it. The fact that the Stones, U2 and Madonna can all charge four times as much for their concerts as Green Day can (not to mention that their albums might retail at 133% of Green Day's CDs) is a function of market demand. In addition, the production costs associated with a U2/Rolling Stones/Madonna concert may be much higher than those associated with a Green Day concert. In other words, Billy Joe and Company may not be as selfless as suggested nor may Mick/Bono/Madonna be as greedy as implied. But it certainly gives Green Day a plausible, if highly self-serving (and potentially dishonest) narrative to portray their ticket/CD prices as intentionally priced below market.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
You makes some good points,
June 8, 2009 - 18:36 ET by Another Dead KennedyYou makes some good points, most of which are valid arguments. I still think you have to give credit where credit is due, and it's difficult to argue that one of the biggest bands in the world is nothing more than an anti-American, greedy capitalist band while their prices are obviously lower than some of the other long-term performers (who have made more money than they know what to do with, yet still overcharge their audiences).
I'm not making a case to push anyone to like the band, but I think they're getting the short end here.
I hear you, KDW. They're
June 9, 2009 - 20:00 ET by fitzfongI hear you, KDW. They're not usually my cup of tea, but I think it's more than a bit hyperbolic to claim that Green Day are "anti-American". After all, being a market capitalist requires me to defend Madonna. Besides, if Green Day could make more money with seats going at $200 and CDs going at $15.99, I wouldn't have a problem with them charging more. They'd have earned the right.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
The fact that people would
June 9, 2009 - 17:10 ET by JasonCThe fact that people would pay $200 USD to watch Mick Jagger and Keith Richards stumble around a stage mangling some of the best 1960s rock songs ever (which I guess is their right since they wrote them) just makes me sad.
Yeah, especially since they
June 9, 2009 - 19:40 ET by fitzfongYeah, especially since they were mocking The Who for doing that 20 years ago. I was never much of a Stones fan to begin with...especially when Rolling Stone readers rated Charlie Watts...Charlie Watts!?!?!?!?!?....as the best drummer going.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
Haha, seriously?! I mean
June 15, 2009 - 12:31 ET by JasonCHaha, seriously?! I mean he can keep a beat and all, but it's not like Stones songs require anything all that complicated. Maybe 6/8 here and there. And I bet Gene Krupa and Art Blakey didn't even make the list...
No Gene Krupa. No Art
June 15, 2009 - 23:19 ET by fitzfongNo Gene Krupa. No Art Blakey. No Buddy Rich. No Keith Moon. No John Bonham. No Stuart Copeland. No Nicko McBrain. I don't even think Neil Peart made the list. Just Tommy Lee, Charlie Watts, Rick Allen (fair enough), Ringo (I think) and a couple of hair band flavors of the month (Riki Rockett? Lars Ullrich? Steven Adler? Matt Sorum?).
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
So this was in the 80s?
June 16, 2009 - 07:32 ET by JasonCSo this was in the 80s? Still....
Ever watch Freaks and Geeks? This is a scene where the father shows his daughter's boyfriend what real drumming sounds like. It also includes the line "Neil Peart couldn't drum his way out of a paper bag"....which is a bit dismissive since the only Rush song we hear in this clip is the opening to Tom Sawyer which is indeed not very impressive. Anyway, check it out (just skip ahead to 1:55).
Yeah, it was around the
June 16, 2009 - 10:49 ET by fitzfongYeah, it was around the time when the Stones were promoting Steel Wheels and mocking The Who for going on a reunion tour...probably '89.
My wife and I caught up on Freaks and Geeks through Netflix. Great show. Joe Flaherty's line about Peart not being able drum his way out of a paper bag was, I believe, a bit of an inside joke. He used to introduce "The Weapon" from the Signals album as Floyd the Vampire from SCTV. I presume he's pretty good friends with Rush. We're actually watching UnDeclared these days...which is Freaks and Geeks gone to college. And Jason Segel brings back his psycho-obsessive boyfriend bit back.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
Green Day! Who dat?
May 22, 2009 - 12:36 ET by Joe BlogsHave you seen the kind of people who shop in Wal-mart? I don't think they're inclined to listen to Green Day.
I hardly think Green Day is
May 21, 2009 - 17:26 ET by Another Dead KennedyI hardly think Green Day is thriving off of this publicity. The band has been around for 20 years now, and have had consistent success with each release. If you don't buy it at Walmart, you'll buy it somewhere else. It's not like this is an exclusive distribution deal. I downloaded my copy.
How about this, Walmart - Censor the band's name. It specifically refers to a day of sitting around getting stoned.
Well I learn something new
May 21, 2009 - 19:42 ET by Radical1979Well I learn something new here everyday (the meaning behind the band's name). It's making me feel so ooolllldddd....
Rad79... You're not
May 21, 2009 - 19:45 ET by bigtimerRad79...
You're not alone. ;-)
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Sure Wal-Mart can do
May 21, 2009 - 17:41 ET by balboaSure Wal-Mart can do whatever they want. But I can see how a music artist just starting out would be annoyed that to get their record in the largest chain in America, they have to edit their music. That's a huge amount of exposure they're missing.
But then again, who buys CDs in a store anymore?
But then again, who buys CDs
May 21, 2009 - 17:49 ET by Another Dead KennedyBut then again, who buys CDs in a store anymore?
Good point. Coincidentally, Apple's iTunes store has surpassed Walmart as the largest retailer in the US.
Green Day
May 21, 2009 - 17:58 ET by jefflebowskiIsn't Green Day the American band whose singer tries to sound like he's from England? Yaaawwnnn. Give me Texas honky tonk any day!
Angry White Dude
www.angrywhitedude.c...
I've always wondered why so
May 21, 2009 - 18:29 ET by Another Dead KennedyI've always wondered why so many British singers tend to sound American. Billie Joe (honky tonk name for ya!) just sounds congested.
Side note: It's a pretty good album. I personally haven't heard any cursing, but I haven't read the lyrics either.
But then again, who
May 21, 2009 - 21:48 ET by eaglescout1998I am anal about having a physical product. I only download as a last resort. Most of the time, however, I have to order the CD from online vendors because the actual store does not carry it. I wanted to get the new CD by the Oak Ridge Boys . . . and none of the stores in town (Best Buy, Borders, FYE, Target, Wal-Mart) had it in stock.
Does walmart carry Playboy?
May 22, 2009 - 10:17 ET by CobraManWalmart isn't asking anyone to edit their music, they just won't carry products that contains adult material. It's that pesky little Parental Warning sticker that's the problem here. If anyone's "censoring" the music, it's the industry itself.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
sorry to disagree Bal
May 22, 2009 - 10:47 ET by candanceYou know I am usually all for artistic property rights and free speech, but Armstrong is making a mountain out of a molehill here. Tons of musicians get rejected by Wal Mart and they never whine about how much it hinders their career. Wal Mart has no power to censor Green Day beyond their own product shelves, and as a company it is their right to sell whatever products they like.
How about next we start demanding that vegan restaurants put meat on their menus. How many farmers are losing money because of these people?
meat on their menus
May 22, 2009 - 11:03 ET by SickofLibsOr how about taking a job at a meat packing plant and then suing because you have to handle pork? Or being a taxi driver and refusing to pick up passengers because they're carrying a bottle of wine or who are blind and have a guide dog?
All in the good ole USA.
Or how about taking a job
May 22, 2009 - 11:22 ET by JasonCOr how about taking a job at a meat packing plant and then suing
because you have to handle pork? Or being a taxi driver and refusing to
pick up passengers because they're carrying a bottle of wine or who are
blind and have a guide dog?
Actually, that sounds more like the pharmacists who won't dispense legal birth control drugs. Indeed, the whole "morally objecting to one's own job description" phenomeon is slippery territory.
Bzzzzzt
May 22, 2009 - 12:20 ET by SpoonWrong on all counts. Notice how the first situation says "taking a job"? Someone else's plant, you work for them, you pack pork.
Few taxi drivers own their own cabs, so if the company rule says dogs and wine are ok, get a different job. Even if they do own their own cab, the issue sued over was at an airport which had a contract with certain cab companies. In that case, you follow the airport's rules, or, again, get a different job or don't pick up at the airport.
Your example involved pharmacy OWNERS who chose not to dispense birth control drugs. If they were under contract with Walgreens, then they should sell them. If the pharmacist is an employee of the owner, they should sell them. If they own it, they decide, not some whiney b*&%$ who won't be inconvenienced by having to drive down the road.
Indeed, the whole "morally objecting to one's own job description" phenomeon is slippery territory
Total bull*&%$. You take a job, you do the job. If the job description changes and you don't like it, quit. There's no slippery territory, just self-absorbed a-holes who think their feelings supercede the rights of the property owners.
Bzzzzt? Actually Spoon,
May 22, 2009 - 12:45 ET by JasonCBzzzzt?
Actually Spoon, we're in complete agreement. I was referring to employed pharmacists, not small business owners. I don't know why you automatically inferred that I was talking about owners.
As to the slippery territory statement, I was being facetious, in that I think the pharmacy employee example is comparable to the employee entitlement scenarios that SickofLibs was discussing.
*sigh*
May 22, 2009 - 14:04 ET by candanceThis has nothing to do with employment. It's about product lines.
The irony here (besides the
May 21, 2009 - 18:00 ET by TheConservativeChemistThe irony here (besides the fact that Greenday really, REALLY sucks!) is that, like all other liberal elitist jerks, they rail against Wal-Mart as "evil corporate America", yet bitch like little girls that it won't sell their (crappy) album...
And his argument is laughable...if you need to use a string of 4-letter words and disgusting subject matter to "express yourself", that tells me all I need to know...I mean, JUST HOW did the great rock bands of the 1960s and 70s do it when they *had* to "censor" themselves? Seems to me they expressed themselves much more eloquently (and with better music!) than Greenday and other crap bands of their ilk (and this is coming from a 29 yr old who enjoys loads of modern rock bands...just not this awful one!)
Am I missing something,
May 21, 2009 - 18:19 ET by JasonCAm I missing something, Ken? Green Day does not accuse Wal-Mart of censoring them. They note that in order to be stocked at Wal-Mart, they must censor themselves. This is a completely different concept, and the difference is made clear in the article, through both the band and the company:
"As with all music, it is up to the artist or label to decide if they
want to market different variations of an album to sell, including a
version that would remove a PA rating," Wal-Mart spokeswoman Melissa
O'Brien said.
Indeed, this is in line with censoring oneself, as the band has accurately (albeit inarticulately) characterized it. I don't see anyone actually accusing Wal-Mart of doing the censoring. I think it's stupid that they require bands to butcher their music in order to be sold there, but that's their business.
What's the difference?
May 22, 2009 - 10:24 ET by CobraManYes, you are missing something here. There's no censorship occurring at all. Walmart isn't demanding that Green Day CHANGE their CD, they're just not stocking it. Green Day, and all other bands, can put anything they want in their music and CD's. Walmart doesn't care, they just won't stock anything that contains a Parental Warning sticker, contains adult material. It's like the policy not to stock Playboy because of its adult content. Is that asking Playboy to censor itself like Green Day is accusing Walmart of doing to their music? No, of course not!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
I think we're on the same
May 22, 2009 - 11:11 ET by JasonCI think we're on the same page here Cobra. I agree that WalMart isn't censoring the band. However, Ken's article suggests that Green Day believes WalMart is censoring them. That is demonstrably not the case.
When a cutting edge so
May 21, 2009 - 18:47 ET by BlazerWhen a cutting edge so called punk band like Green day starts whining about not getting included in the Wal Mart record bin, can a best of/greatest hits cd be far behind ?
20 or 30 years ago this would have been a badge of honor for a punk band. Can you imagine The Sex Pistols or Black Flag crying cause Wally World wouldn't sell it's cd's?
What a bunch of wussies Green Day is/are.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Sex Pistols, yes. They
May 22, 2009 - 08:55 ET by JasonCSex Pistols, yes. They were nothing if not a fabricated brand name introduced to cynically capitalize (in every sense of the word) on a cultural trend. Johnny Rotten might have enjoyed sneering about it, but Malcom McLaren would have been pissed. That band was the punk version of the Monkees.
Anyone old enough to
May 22, 2009 - 11:29 ET by Another Dead KennedyAnyone old enough to remember the 70s (and paid attention to rock music) should know that the Sex Pistols records were not sold everywhere. Most stores, mainly in England, refused to sell the album. Even Billboard refused to print the title "God Save the Queen" as the number 1 song that week, leaving a blank spot in print. And the Sex Pistols spent most of their 2 years of existence in the 70s whining about it. Some things never change.
Green Day, like Midnight
May 21, 2009 - 18:57 ET by P. AaronGreen Day, like Midnight Oil, are bands that have heavy trip music: meaning, they're musically o.k. But their lyrical content is a downer. They're wrist slashing bands that sing about 'all that's wrong' with YOU and the rest of the world. If you'd only heed their word, you and the world would be a better place.
Why is AC/DC, or the Rolling Stones better? 'Cause those bands are a rockin' good time. They don't take themselves so seriously.
Rock 'n' Roll is better when the songs aren't about the band
Aw, cry me a river...
May 21, 2009 - 19:11 ET by KJ_sezSorry, but rich 30-nothings singing about how it sucks to be them just seems a bit ironic, doesn't it? They were never a punk band in the first place - just a pop band with bad haircuts.
"just a pop band with bad
May 21, 2009 - 19:18 ET by UpNorth"just a pop band with bad haircuts". KJ, ROFL, and bad "music". Maybe they can go out with Kanye and Jay-Z and cry in each other's beers.
Censorship is when someone
May 21, 2009 - 19:40 ET by Radical1979Censorship is when someone else controls what you can or cannot say. Walmart isn't doing this. Walmart is exerting it's right to sell or in this case not sell something it doesn't want to. Big deal.
There will be many places selling the cd for those who want to buy it. As a parent, when my kids were younger I could let them buy any cd from Walmart without worrying.
What they're talking about
May 21, 2009 - 19:51 ET by balboaWhat they're talking about -- despite the headline -- is Walmart demanding Green Day censor themselves by editing their album to fit Walmart's standards. And as they said, it really doesn't matter for them because they are very popular. But the struggling band might be screwed.
Yet it's OK for the federal
May 21, 2009 - 20:00 ET by fitzfongYet it's OK for the federal government to dictate to auto makers what kind of cars they can manufacture...to fit Obama's "standards"?
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
I didn't say it wasn't OK. I
May 21, 2009 - 20:05 ET by balboaI didn't say it wasn't OK. I was explaining the musician's side of it.
I understand, bal. I was
May 21, 2009 - 20:08 ET by fitzfongI understand, bal. I was explaining the car maker's side of it.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
I don't think Walmart
May 21, 2009 - 21:32 ET by Radical1979I don't think Walmart affects the struggling bands. They carry a pretty limited selection anyway. Also, there are so many ways to buy music, I don't know many people running to Walmart for the newest music.
Seriously. You'd have to
May 22, 2009 - 08:57 ET by JasonCSeriously. You'd have to have really generic, undiscerning taste to purchase CDs ar WalMart regularly.
Humm....
May 22, 2009 - 10:50 ET by CobraManSo I guess those CD's of Chopin, Mozart, Schumann, Verdi, and the like, available at Walmart (uncensored!) for a very reasonable price, is just generic pop music for those who have an undiscerning taste? Wow! Who knew?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
No, but it's still pretty
May 22, 2009 - 10:55 ET by balboaNo, but it's still pretty generic. It's not pop music, but it's generic.
I disagree with Bal that
May 22, 2009 - 11:13 ET by JasonCI disagree with Bal that the artists Cobra mentions are generic. Indeed, they were revolutionary in their time. However, it was my error not to specify that I was referring to new music. There are tons of great independent artists out there who are not of the MTV persuasion and who WalMart also is not stocking. Again, nothing against them, I just can't imagine shopping there to find new music.
I guess that's kinda what I
May 22, 2009 - 11:25 ET by balboaI guess that's kinda what I meant, not real far outside the mainstream.
Dream Theater plug
May 23, 2009 - 05:12 ET by UnsaneThere are tons of great independent artists out there who are not of the MTV persuasion and who WalMart also is not stocking. Like DREAM THEATER??? Black Clouds and Silver Linings is out June 23!!!!
Again, nothing against them, I just can't imagine shopping there to find new music. Websites like amazon.com have been my suppliers of music for years. I couldn't imagine going to ANY store for CDs.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
JasonC: Only we old farts
May 22, 2009 - 11:12 ET by QueenMumJasonC: Only we old farts buy CD's anymore anyway. ;) And then we download them onto our MP-3 players. So it's a moot point as to whether Wal-Mart is discriminating against anyone.
GO CAVS!!!!!
Why buy the CD in the first
May 22, 2009 - 11:18 ET by JasonCWhy buy the CD in the first place then? If you have an mp3 player you have iTunes, right? Albums are a whole lot cheaper there. Better yet, borrow and burn it from a friend.
Why buy the CD in the first
May 22, 2009 - 11:37 ET by QueenMumWhy buy the CD in the first place? Because I still use the CD player in my 2001 Chrysler. :)
GO CAVS!!!!!
I buy CDs because...
May 22, 2009 - 14:30 ET by KJ_sezMP3 sound quality sucks. CDs offer far better dynamic range and are a true representation of what the artist heard when the album was being mixed and mastered. While CDs still don't offer the same sound quality as LPs, they're getting close with some of the 5.1/DTS audio CDs on the market.
There's also a huge
May 22, 2009 - 14:46 ET by Another Dead KennedyThere's also a huge revitalization of vinyl releases. Not only new releases, but quite a few bands are re-releasing older material on vinyl. For those of you fortunate enough to have visited an Amoeba record store you know what I'm talking about. To go along with this, there are quite a few turntables on the market that connect to your computer via usb to convert records to digital formats.
KDW: I don't get the return
May 22, 2009 - 16:23 ET by QueenMumKDW: I don't get the return to vinyl phenomenon. But the RC has one of the turntables you speak of. It's become somewhat of a hobby for him. Of course, we have plenty of old vinyl laying around. Can't even give them away at a garage sale. He says it's a unique sound - different from CD's and digital downloads. That may be. But I still don't get it.
GO CAVS!!!!!
Well they say that an analog
May 22, 2009 - 16:36 ET by Another Dead KennedyWell they say that an analog recording delivers a warmer sound to it. I can't tell myself, but with a $15,000 system I might be able to tell a difference. But who has that kind of money when a $200 system works just fine.
One thing I can say about spinning the old records is that it gives you the chance to really sit down, take a break from everything, and just listen to the music. Since most records have between 4-6 songs per side, unlike a CD or computer, you are forced to be near the turntable for continuous music. It's just like being 15 again, lounging around, reading the liner notes and looking at the album artwork. With the right record it can be quite therapeutic.
LPs do have a "warmer"
May 22, 2009 - 23:13 ET by KJ_sezLPs do have a "warmer" sound, due to the source being a continuous signal. Digital audio samples the original signal, presenting what could be called an "audio graph" of the sound, which doesn't recreate the entirety of the original analog signal. When listening back, the digital recording sounds "thinner" because it's missing a number of transient frequencies "between the samples"; you lose the cound of a lot of the natural harmonics and overtones you'd normally hear from vinyl and/or (most) live performances.
Three guesses at what I do for a living. ;)
Thanks for the
May 23, 2009 - 08:58 ET by Another Dead KennedyThanks for the clarification. I'm betting you love your job too!
All struggling bands are screwed,
May 22, 2009 - 09:05 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltIF they don't create music that people want to listen to. It's called "the marketplace". Artists rarely get anywhere being so self-indulgent that they don't consider what their audiences want to hear, on some level. When you hear these whiny-ass dirtballs complaining about being "censored" (which is completely incorrect-but that's to be expected from these spoiled brats), what they're really saying is that they want a wider audience to conform to what THEY believe music should be, that more people should appreciate their music on THEIR terms, not the other way around. "The audience (as represented by WalMart in this case) has no right to demand that we change our music to please them!"
Well, isn't that what they are expecting of their audience? Guilty of exactly what they are whining about-expecting WalMart shoppers to change their listening habits to suit them.
But bassist Mike Dirnt said: "As the biggest record store in the America, they should probably have an obligation to sell people the correct art." What an ass. In other words no one should have any right to comment on our "art". And the irony is that this dim bulb doesn't even realize HOW WalMart got to be the largest retailer...by offering it's customers what they want, not what noisemakers like his band think you should want.
That's not true
May 22, 2009 - 10:30 ET by CobraMan"What they're talking about -- despite the headline -- is Walmart demanding Green Day censor themselves by editing their album to fit Walmart's standards."
That's not true. Walmart is making no such demands. Walmart simply won't carry any music that contains a Parental Warning sticker. How is that "demanding' someone to change the content? There's no "demand" to change the content, there's just a refusal to stock a with that type of content. The only "demand" going on here is the demand by Green Day that Walmart carry their CD in violation to it's policy.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Walmart WILL carry the album
May 22, 2009 - 10:54 ET by balboaWalmart WILL carry the album if Green Day changes it.
Walmart WILL carry the album if Green Day changes it.
May 22, 2009 - 11:06 ET by QueenMumWell then it's the artists' call, isn't it. If it's a matter of principle for Green Day as it is for Wal-Mart, Green Day should staunchly refuse to edit their artistic work and happily peddle their goods elsewhere.
GO CAVS!!!!!
Isn't it safe to say that if
May 22, 2009 - 11:24 ET by Another Dead KennedyIsn't it safe to say that if Walmart refuses to carry the album unless Green Day censor it, does the band not have the right to tell their fans why the album isn't sold there? I don't see this as whining in any way - just an explanation.
"does the band not have the
May 22, 2009 - 16:26 ET by QueenMum"does the band not have the right to tell their fans why the album isn't sold there?"
Sure they have the right. But for what purpose other than to stick it in the face of Wal-Mart. Just tell the fans where they can buy the album.
GO CAVS!!!!!
Historically punk rock was
May 22, 2009 - 16:48 ET by Another Dead KennedyHistorically punk rock was meant to stick it in the face of anyone close enough to hear it. I guess that same should be said about good ol' rock'n'roll. There's nothing exciting about bland. And very few bands got where they were without controversy.
In this case I think it's safe to say that neither the band nor Walmart need each other. Green Day has sold 10s of millions of albums, all of which have parental advisory stickers attached, and will continue to do so without the help of that particular store. Walmart is an empire and will continue their success even if they closed down their entire record department.
Ironically enough, I think both the band and the retailer will benefit from this.
I've been thinking for this
May 21, 2009 - 19:58 ET by WisdomI've been thinking for this for years and no one can answer it for me. Why does Wal-Mart censor its CDs yet doesn't censor its movies? I find it much more detrimental for "children" to SEE and HEAR violence, curse words, etc. than to just listen to it.
I'm not for censorship of either form of art but it's frustrating to not know why the same practice isn't applied to movies.
Walmart does not sell R rated DVD's to minors
May 21, 2009 - 21:01 ET by richb313Walmart does not sell R rated DVD's to minors. I do not buy CD's anymore so I do not know thier policy regarding CD Sales but I guess they sell CD's to all customers. I do not know. Music is the popular domain of the young and they have a policy regardin music content that they will sell, so what. Walmart is a business not a library they can sell what they want to and if you are lucky enough to sell your product at Walmart, one of the worlds largest retailers, you have a real good chance of making a lot of money. So this Band I have never heard of is upset that Walmart would sell thier product but only if they comply with thier business practices. Boy talk about stupid.
Artists are funny that way
May 21, 2009 - 21:20 ET by balboaArtists are funny that way about things they've created.
Fine. But they don't have
May 21, 2009 - 21:31 ET by fitzfongFine. But they don't have a divine right to have their CDs sold at Wal-Mart. Surely there are more enough retailers who will carry their music without forcing them to compromise their "artistic integrity". If only the car makers were given that freedom.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
fitz you've got a real car
May 21, 2009 - 21:52 ET by balboafitz you've got a real car thing going on tonight.
Feel free to substitute
May 21, 2009 - 22:01 ET by fitzfongFeel free to substitute "mortgage", "soda", "cigarette", "fast food" or "light bulb" for "car", if you like.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
I was starting to think we'd
May 21, 2009 - 22:11 ET by balboaI was starting to think we'd had a car regulation argument that I'd forgotten.
:-) "Socialism is a
May 21, 2009 - 22:16 ET by fitzfong:-)
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
And the businessman or the inventor
May 22, 2009 - 09:19 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltwho've labored for many years to create something are not? Only the "artist" has the right to be sensitive about outside influences changing his/her creation?
Honestly, I'm so sick of this notion that artists must be revered for their creation without criticism, no matter how trite and just plain bad it is. Sometimes it's crap, even though it sells. Just like a bad product. Getting someone to pay for it does not make it the next Mona Lisa.
Walmart's funny that way too
May 22, 2009 - 10:45 ET by CobraMan"Artists are funny that way about things they've created."
And Walmart's funny that way about the products they sell. Is Walmark demanding that Green Day change their music? No, they just won't carry it. Bummer for Green Day, eh?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
I am actually thankfull to
May 21, 2009 - 20:05 ET by SnappyI am actually thankfull to see articles like this. It lets me know that there are still some private enterprises out there. Whether you are a Walmart hater or not principle says they should be able to carry what they want. Unfortunatly its been a long time since the "We reserve the right.." sign meant anything (and really it still doesnt as the morning after pill and Walmart debacle proved) But I can still smile at this relishing the fact that Walmart chose not to carry an uncensored version of the album and the Irony that an establishment bashing band is crying about not being sold in one of the "Mans" last example of capitilism at its finest.
Its only censorship if the government is doing it
May 21, 2009 - 21:13 ET by R D HelmWal-Mart is a private entity (until the Obamanistas come after them, anyway) and has the right to sell, or not to sell, any product they chose.
Green Day sucks anyway.
-Dave
Only the Government
May 21, 2009 - 22:01 ET by BeanManWal-Mart can never ever censor anyone or anything. Only the Government can censor. When will doofuses like the Green Day crowd realize this? Never.
Repeat, only the Government can Censor!!!!!
Since government is coercion, politics is largely the exercise of deception regarding the intended use of coercion - George Orwell
One more time: Green Day
May 22, 2009 - 09:11 ET by JasonCOne more time: Green Day did not accuse WalMart of censorship. Let us look at the two statements from the band:
"They want artists to censor their records in order to be carried in there,"
"Wal-Mart's become the biggest retail outlet in the country, but they
won't carry our record because they wanted us to censor it,"
Now I realize that the second qotation is poorly worded. It should say "...but they won't carry our record because we refused to censor it according to their policy." Nonetheless, in both instances, the verb 'to censor' is aligned with the artist as the active subject. Not WalMart. And this corroborates with the WalMart spokeswoman's statement:
"As with all music, it is up to the artist or label to decide if they
want to market different variations of an album to sell, including a
version that would remove a PA rating,"
So yes, you are correct that WalMart is not doing the censoring. But it is a moot point, and one which renders this commentary moot as well, because Green Day never said otherwise.
Censoring is not censoring?
May 22, 2009 - 10:39 ET by CobraManWhy do you keep insisting the censoring isn't censoring? If Walmat insisted that Green Day censor "itself," (which is not what is happing) it's still censorship by Walmart! It exactly the same as the The New York Board of Motion Picture Censorship asking that certain material be removed for a movie prior to it';s release in New York back in the early 1900's. Even though the movie producer is technically censoring "themselves," it's STILL the government censoring that movie! Why is that so hard for you to understand?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
So you're saying WalMart IS
May 22, 2009 - 11:16 ET by JasonCSo you're saying WalMart IS guilty of censorship? That's sure what it sounds like. In my mind, WalMart would only be actively censoring if, as I wrote above, they took the original version and edited themselves. It's certainly within their rights to dictate the terms under which they will or will not sell the band's work. But it's also within the band's rights to lament that fact and say that they find it unfortunate or philistinistic, or whatever.
How fitting..
May 21, 2009 - 22:10 ET by dvdaughtryBasket Case
Do you have the time to listen to me whine
About nothing and everything all at once
I am one of those
Melodramatic fools
Neurotic to the bone
No doubt about it
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
Walmart is a private
May 21, 2009 - 22:19 ET by goldboughWalmart is a private business and they can sell what they want. Simple as that.
those crazy kids
May 22, 2009 - 07:49 ET by Scadsobeeswhy the #$@)(*# should we expect some little #@$@$%$!#@'ed little 13 year old kid to censor themselves? We all know that 13 yo kids have no @#$%!^$$# self control. Next thing you know they're going to #$)@(*&$#^% tell them not to have sex...whatever!!
Silly Walmart thinks that those $#@)(*$'s shouldn't hear this $(%&!!#$@.
What a bunch of $#*(&@!#$s!!!!
a point that I think is
May 22, 2009 - 08:53 ET by seaniepa point that I think is missing here - I think I heard it from someone like John Mellancamp, who politics aside is a great musician, new up and coming bands, musicians, actors whatever are not in it for the art of it all
if your first goal is to get a record contract, then you really don't care about the lyrics and your heart and soul being poured into it - if it was all about how much a song meant to you, you would not wonder how to get a music video made, you would treasure the song that you created
I hate the New York Times more than it hates the US Military
You're disregarding a whole
May 22, 2009 - 09:04 ET by JasonCYou're disregarding a whole lot of really interesting and creative indie bands that totally disdain MTV and its vicissitudes. Yes, mainstream, manufactured light pop groups will always be looking for the quickest way to make the big bucks. Are you really suggesting that this hasn't always been the case? This is not a new phenomenon, it's a perpetual phenomenon. If you don't think there were groups that valued flash, style, and money over substance and meaning (70s and 80s arena rock, anyone?) you're disregarding some pretty notable examples in modern music history.
I don't have stats to back
May 22, 2009 - 12:12 ET by seaniepI don't have stats to back it up, but I just remember an interview I heard where established musicians were saying that the only questions that they got from up and comers had to do with contracts, music videos, production etc etc, not a single question about inspiration, tone, lyrics etc
isnt there an old quote from BB King or something along the lines of as soon as you get successful in the blues that you have sold out, whether you wanted to or not . . . I just think that most "musical artists" today are not interested in the craft, just the career part of it all
I hate the New York Times more than it hates the US Military
Music
May 23, 2009 - 05:40 ET by UnsaneA friend of mine and I have repeated musical arguments...one of his favorite justifications for listening to various acts is "because they are popular", "A lot of people like them", etc. He isn't happy when I tell him he is letting the masses define him instead of developing his own tastes.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Yes, I've heard John Mellencamp
May 22, 2009 - 12:40 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltwhine about music as art and how up and comers don't seem to be in it for art's sake.
He conveniently forgets how when he started out, he whored himself around New York for a year, being rejected by every label there was, several times. How he changed his sound, his songs, even his name (Hello, Johhny Cougar?) all in the name of a big bucks contract. He did NOT spend years on the road in small, intimate clubs honing his craft.
It wasn't until later in life, after those bastard record companies marketed him in a way that allowed him to make millions, and THEN he had the luxury of sitting back and contemplating his navel about his "art". Only THEN could he demonize record companies and kids who only want a record contract.
Thanks for your insight, Johnny Cougar...