Stevie did a Bat Mitzvah

[Serrart]

Originally Posted by Rickypt

Yep I do, but I don't go around building a reputation as someone who only wears clothes that aren't made by exploited workers, yet suddenly turn around and sign a contract to be a Gap model.

My issue is with Tom Petty. Have a read at this interview with Tom Petty, who has been relentless about his views on greed. Note #2 and #8 in particular. It doesn't jive, it says something about his values, and it changes my esteem for him.

As for Stevie, I said I was embarrassed for her by playing this silly party and I would rather she put that energy into something special and intimate for her fans instead of for the fantasy of a guy who could simply afford it.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/5933643

I guess it's only a matter of point of view. The girl's parents wanted to give her an unforgettable day and bought it, hiring stars. We would have opted for colored balloons and a clown (I would have gone with a magician), but everyone has their own taste . About Petty, I don't see the difference in playing for a bunch of ultra rich people and a stadium full of rich and poor people, apart from the ticket's price. Maybe an evening like that could pay one year of his own projects and policy with fans. And they could have even donated what they earned we don't know.

Romy

[JazmenFlowers]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

Not really. I mean, how was your post different from anybody else's who was complaining that we find this kind of lavish spending abhorrent?

for one, I wasn't complaining - I could give a **** what you think

perhaps I didn't word it as eloquently as you are able to, but I was, in a way, agreeing with you

I was simply saying, yeah it is stupid to spend that amount of money, but that's the way of the world and it's retarded to attack Stevie, et al. for participating or the father for paying for it. I agree with the root of your thoughts, but I think it's just going too far. I don't think it cheapens or lessens the "art" at all - like someone said, money is money and if you think that Tom Petty or whoever else hasn't sold out, you're wrong...everyone sells out - look at Green Day.

bitch bitch bitch - that's what I get tired of; like you are somehow so in tune with what's moral or ethical or this or that (not necessarily you personally). I swear. Some of you are worse than the 80yr old ladies sitting on the front row of a Baptist church on Sunday morning criticizing one for wearing Gucci and one for wearing Prada. It just amazes me.

[JazmenFlowers]

Originally Posted by Rickypt

As for Stevie, I said I was embarrassed for her by playing this silly party and I would rather she put that energy into something special and intimate for her fans instead of for the fantasy of a guy who could simply afford it.

and why is this a silly party? yeah, I don't like it but I mean, so what...

I, like you, would love to see the same thing, but this doesn't make me upset IN THE LEAST.

why isn't this person's function any more special or intimate than the next?

[DashingDan]

Old man Nicks, may he rest in peace, and old man Mick taught the little lady well...always make sure you have cash coming in! Wise words, especially if you wear boots all summer long.

Stevie spends like a sailor, by her own admission. So, let's say she made 15 - 25K for a 20 minute set and 1 hour of schmoozing...nice work if you can get it. I'd sing Landslide for the 12,418th time with all the depth, humor and pathos I could friggin' muster for that scratch.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by DashingDan

sailor, by her own admission. So, let's say she made 15 - 25K for a 20 minute set and 1 hour of schmoozing...nice work if you can get it. I'd sing Landslide for the 12,418th time with all the depth, humor and pathos I could friggin' muster for that scratch.

Ha! Homegirl wouldn't get out of bed for less than $500,000 to play at something like that, I bet. Kenny G got a quarter of a million to play background music.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

It's not a huge deal to me, but I do find it a little disappointing, and I do have more respect on this front for someone like Bruce Springsteen, who once he became famous declared, "I don't play no private parties no more."

Is the moral there that it's only acceptable to be a sellout if you're broke?

Mind you, I'm not arguing with anything you said, so don't get me wrong... but I tend to think that all rock stars, Springsteen included, become "employees/puppets" the minute they sign a record contract to produce X amount of material in X amount of time for X amount of money.

Hopefully they'll be able to maintain as much artistic integrity as possible in the process, but they're still employees who must meet contractual obligations so they can earn the almighty dollar (which they obviously desired in the first place, or they never would have signed on the dotted line).

The only ones truly deserving of our respect for their values, are the artists who refuse to sign their creativity over to "the man."
Of course, they usually die poor and unknown... so you're damned if you do/damned if you don't.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by dissention

Kenny G got a quarter of a million to play background music.

Kind of like he did for 'The Other Side Of The Mirror'!

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Yes, but in that right is hypocrisy of some form (maybe that is not the right word) because somewhere someone would be sickened by the way you spend money no matter how wisely you do it.

Yeah, that ain't hypocrisy, I'm not sure if there's a proper word for that.

But as I said earlier, such comparisons (well, how dare some poor homeless Katrina victim be sickened that I'm so relatively well-off, when there are people in Africa who are even poorer, etc., etc.) miss the point somewhat. Because in real terms, the sums of money being thrown around here are so much vaster than those examples can even comprehend.

You want to claim that it's all relative, but it's not. This spectrum has an end point, and Mr. Brooks is right there at the top of it. Only an incredibly miniscule number of people are richer than he is. And in real terms, taking into account things like the amount of wealth that exists in the world, the amount that average people are able live on comfortably, etc., there's simply no possible way to claim that spending $10,000,000 on a small private party is not over-the-top obscene.

[Rickypt]

Originally Posted by JazmenFlowers

and why is this a silly party? yeah, I don't like it but I mean, so what...

I, like you, would love to see the same thing, but this doesn't make me upset IN THE LEAST.

why isn't this person's function any more special or intimate than the next?

Well, I'm not really very upset. At least not with Stevie--but definitely with Petty because I respect him for his consistent views and actions and this didn't jive.

I think the party is silly based on the reports--the dad getting on stage, having the nephew sit on the drums with Aerosmith, etc.

I'm sure the party was very special for the family, and you're right--who am I to judge what is special or not. I just think "okay, with the same energy, Stevie could have done something thrilling like play a surprise club show and instead she chooses this."

If she ever did things like the former, perhaps I wouldn't feel so strongly. I don't know what her reasons were for doing this show, but the message I get is that Stevie's only willing to do an intimate performance (by intimate, I mean a show where there aren't thousands of people in the audience) for a certain price or if the right person asks. It disappoints me, not upsets.

[Rickypt]

Originally Posted by Serrart

I guess it's only a matter of point of view.

Yeah, we just have different perspectives on this. And you're right, the money could have been donated. I'm hoping some more info comes out about this.

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by JazmenFlowers

for one, I wasn't complaining - I could give a **** what you think

perhaps I didn't word it as eloquently as you are able to, but I was, in a way, agreeing with you

Gotcha. That's what I thought, it just seemed as though you were being antagonistic towards the other complaining, but perhaps I misread what you wrote.

I was simply saying, yeah it is stupid to spend that amount of money, but that's the way of the world and it's retarded to attack Stevie, et al. for participating or the father for paying for it. I agree with the root of your thoughts, but I think it's just going too far. I don't think it cheapens or lessens the "art" at all - like someone said, money is money and if you think that Tom Petty or whoever else hasn't sold out, you're wrong...everyone sells out - look at Green Day.

This I disagree with. I think it's a horrible fallacy not to complain about something simply because "that's the way of the world."

And no, everyone does not "sell out," and those who do "sell out" do so to widely varying degrees - this type of private party generally being considered to be at the further end of that spectrum. So it's a worthwhile distinction to make.

bitch bitch bitch - that's what I get tired of; like you are somehow so in tune with what's moral or ethical or this or that (not necessarily you personally). I swear. Some of you are worse than the 80yr old ladies sitting on the front row of a Baptist church on Sunday morning criticizing one for wearing Gucci and one for wearing Prada. It just amazes me.

I have always enjoyed these types of discussions on message boards and newsgroups. I find them really interesting and stimulating, and I like debating these sorts of things with other people who enjoy doing so as well. (And I certainly hope everyone here feels that they are in tune with what they believe is moral and ethical.) So I think this is a great thread. If you don't care for it or you're tired of this type of thing, okay, well, don't read it. It's really that simple.

There are plenty of things on the Ledge that I don't really care for. The various "Survivor" threads, for example, or the "What's your favorite song?" type stuff, just seem stupid and pointless to me, but obviously other people enjoy them. No sweat of my ass, I just don't read those threads.

[UnwindedDreams]

What do we think leather and lace, dreams, stand back, landslide, Nightbird?

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

Is the moral there that it's only acceptable to be a sellout if you're broke?

Depends on what you're claiming about yourself and about your art.

Mind you, I'm not arguing with anything you said, so don't get me wrong... but I tend to think that all rock stars, Springsteen included, become "employees/puppets" the minute they sign a record contract to produce X amount of material in X amount of time for X amount of money.

To some extent, yes, you're right. That's generally the trade-off that one has to make: between maintaining artistic integrity, sustaining oneself financially, and having the means to get your art out to as many people as you hope to. And that's a complex and delicate balance, which is why I don't think it's as simple as saying, "Oh, well, everyone's a sell-out."

These days, though, things are getting very interesting. The widespread availability of the Internet coupled with the increasing affordability of recording equipment is leveling the playing field in a lot of ways, and bands are able to get their music heard on their own terms without joining a major label. And of course, there are a lot of small labels these days that work much harder to foster their artists' creativity as opposed to only looking at the bottom line.

Sidenote, since you mentioned the acceptability of selling out when you need the money: I'm sure you've heard the Cure's "Pictures of You" in those HP commercials, and I believe they sold another song of theirs a couple years ago as well. Robert Smith mentioned in a couple of interviews that the reason they did was because they needed the money to present up-front to their label to be able to afford recording their new album. His justification of the songs chosen was that he hoped they were from far enough in the past that people already had solid relationship with them, and the commercials wouldn't corrupt that. You can take or leave that justification, but I think that's fairly respectable, and not a terribly egregious example of "selling out." Robert admitted that it's not somethign they especially wanted to do, but they needed the money if they wanted to keep making their music the way they wanted to. That's the trade-off, and he was up-front about it, so I can respect something like that, even though I'm sure they could have found some other way to come up with the cash.

[wondergirl9847]

Originally Posted by Serrart

And they could have even donated what they earned we don't know.

Romy

I figure since most of the familiar (and familial sorta) names like Petty, Nicks, Henley, etc...went in on this, they donated their "earnings" to Henley's Walden Woods thingy or whatever.

But we have no idea.

[DashingDan]

Maybe she did this show so that her band could all fly business class to Australia in February, making her happy, her band very happy, her agent happy (15%) and getting Karen, her accountant and her business manager off her damn back for five ****ing minutes.