View Full Version : Rage against the Machine. Sell outs?
I mean they signed with a big record company and they have songs on GH 3
lmao
Hypocrites;
I don't hate them or anything I like their music but why would they do that?
CheGuevaraRage
25th May 2008, 23:43
Maybe they need money for something....
Plagueround
25th May 2008, 23:47
I see it like this: If they inspire one single person to look more into what they are talking about, then making their music well known is not a crime.
More Fire for the People
26th May 2008, 00:13
Plumbers, sell outs? I mean they do work for people in the suburbs and work for big corporations.
Dr Mindbender
26th May 2008, 00:26
means to an end i suppose. As long as they don't live like kings the meanswhile they remain men of principle (do or don't they, I would hate to think the word hypocrisy while listening to their brilliant songs).
If they hadnt used a big record label theres no way of getting their message accross, not in this day and age.
RHIZOMES
26th May 2008, 02:17
"When you live in a capitalistic society, the currency of the dissemination of information goes through capitalistic channels. Would Noam Chomsky object to his works being sold at Barnes & Noble? No, because that's where people buy their books. We're not interested in preaching to just the converted. It's great to play abandoned squats run by anarchists, but it's also great to be able to reach people with a revolutionary message, people from Granada Hills to Stuttgart."
--Tom Morello
Malakangga
26th May 2008, 15:10
idealist
Invader Zim
27th May 2008, 15:39
Maybe they need money for something....
Zack's rather impressive house?
Das war einmal
27th May 2008, 16:40
Man I really hate this bullcrap, people who call artists 'sell-outs' or 'commercial' when they start earning their first dime. But I suppose you give the money to your boss back, 'cause you're no sell-out
There is a difference between being professional and being commercial
Don't Change Your Name
28th May 2008, 17:00
"Selling out" is a stupid concept.
Let's get this straight: just because you live under capitalism it doesn't mean you support it. Why should this be different for artists? And don't give me all that "indie cred" crap because I'm not buying it since it has limits.
Pirate Utopian
28th May 2008, 22:33
"When you live in a capitalistic society, the currency of the dissemination of information goes through capitalistic channels. Would Noam Chomsky object to his works being sold at Barnes & Noble? No, because that's where people buy their books. We're not interested in preaching to just the converted. It's great to play abandoned squats run by anarchists, but it's also great to be able to reach people with a revolutionary message, people from Granada Hills to Stuttgart."
--Tom Morello
Truth.
Just because most mainstream bands are commercial doesnt mean that mainstream means commercial.
Jazzratt
29th May 2008, 14:56
Water. Wet?
KrazyRabidSheep
29th May 2008, 21:26
Are they hypocritical? Yeah.
Do I care? No.
Do I listen to them? Sometimes, but for the sound. I quit caring about what the "message" was after grunge. It gets so depressing after a while.
Death of a Nation
30th May 2008, 02:13
We all end up working for entities we rather not see around, but it is all the more reason why folks need to do more than march around in circles and scream at buildings. If you do not like what progressive people have to resort to, you have to create better stronger alternatives that produce what we want. That's not happening.
KrazyRabidSheep
30th May 2008, 06:42
We all end up working for entities we rather not see around, but it is all the more reason why folks need to do more than march around in circles and scream at buildings.
I prefer to not scream at buildings. . .people will think I'm touched. . .
jossfritz
30th May 2008, 12:00
The Clash, too, signed to a major label, as did the Redskins, Chumbawamba, and Phil Ochs. There may be a qualitative and quantitative difference, but small independent labels are just as capitalist as big corporate labels. Is there a non-capitalist choice on releasing cds? The only one I know of is giving music away in the hope of donations: tricky if you want to pay the rent on time.
Colonello Buendia
30th May 2008, 12:16
they'd be sell outs if they started simply making music to make money. they are trying to spread a message and unfortunately the best way to do that is sign up to the biggest fucking label out there. however, some bands make music for free and spread a message. this ISN't the way they support themselves
An archist
30th May 2008, 12:54
Those bastards decided to do a show right in the middle of the exams here in Belgium. Why god?(I mean Zack) Why?
The Clash, too, signed to a major label, as did the Redskins, Chumbawamba, and Phil Ochs. There may be a qualitative and quantitative difference, but small independent labels are just as capitalist as big corporate labels. Is there a non-capitalist choice on releasing cds? The only one I know of is giving music away in the hope of donations: tricky if you want to pay the rent on time.
The difference is that Chumbawamba gives away most of their earnings, and almost all the members work other jobs - like waiting tables - to get by. From what Invader Zim says, Zack dlR is using his earnings on himself in extravagent ways. If you talk the talk, I do expect you to "walk the walk" and RAtM appears to be content with half-assed tours and a laid back, recycled message. I don't know about all the members, but I'm not impressed at all with the band these days.
IcarusAngel
1st June 2008, 03:48
I think you should try and live on what you would likely receive in a communist society if you're a communist, and there is no way a musician would ever get that much in commmunism.
gla22
1st June 2008, 04:11
I think you should try and live on what you would likely receive in a communist society if you're a communist, and there is no way a musician would ever get that much in commmunism.
I think trying to be a lifestylist in a capitalist society is pointless. If you are truly dedicated pick up a gun and join an organization dedicated to overthrow of capitalism.
Invader Zim
1st June 2008, 14:46
The Clash, too, signed to a major label,
Yeah, but at least the Clash admitted they were sell outs; ever listened to the song 'Death or Glory'?
He who fucks nun will later join the church.
Its tried and tested by research, don't y'know?
I went to a rage Against the Machine concertas part of a three-day concert, I only went the last day cause that was the day Rage Against the machine played.
In the case of such grand festivals; if Rage decides to play for free or when their expenses are covered the ticketprice wouldn't be lower so that's even more profit for the organistation
I hoped they burned the money they made on the stage during a concert,
unfortunatly that didn't happen, nor any poltical or anti-kapitalist message or something expecpt for their songs.
Nevertheless their music was great.
I also heard those dudes from Platina (metalicca) and the Poo fighters received at least a million Euros, but of course nobody seems to bother
Mindtoaster
14th June 2008, 08:21
I had a link set to a google earth image of Zack De La Rocha's house, but I can't post it because of that stupid post-count rule. However, if you want to see it just go to google and type "zack de la rocha's house", its the first link that pops up. I'm not *quite* sure of the size or extravagance of it, just from looking at the photo from so high up.
Unfortunetley I'm kinda getting the impression that it is really big. I've heard before that a ton of their profits go to charities in places such as Oaxaca, and that they live pretty proletarian lifestyles, but honestly, I'm not that sure.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2020 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.