It was the first and only public debate that hardcore has ever seen. Is there anything left to discover from the Born Against versus Sick of it All clash of 1990?
As we all (hopefully!) have. Mutations was actually what I had in mind when I made that comment,it's an incredible read particularly having grown up as a fan of BA on the other side of the world and having several teenage illusions about what that scene must have been like shattered. His frankness and wit throughout are so engaging. Seems like an approachable enough guy too, some friends and I did a podcast discussing the book when it came out and he dropped us a line to thank us and say he'd enjoyed it
Born Against's discography is some of my favorite hardcore,, but even 20-year-old me would have thought their take was a shitty one. Labor deserves to be compensated and "we would like for people to be able to hear our music" is a reasonable position.
Oh, I was plenty idealistic in other ways, and had my own bad ideas about "selling out," but insisting a band make their music available for free? Yeah, that would have been a bit much even then.
I remember a lot of anti-major label rhetoric from that period, but no one seemed to call out the scumminess of many indie labels. (Henry Rollins has said that he had no idea royalty payments existed till the Rollins Band signed to Touch & Go!) That's the ghost in the room of this debate (which also seems like a product of a time when it was easier to make a living off recorded music, not that it was ever easy.)
This is definitely an issue we've never fully tackled head on. There has always been an indie vs. major argument, but without any acknowledgment that there are as many indie label horror stories as there are majors. On some level, I think that's because we have a tendency to rationalize or protect our own community. But maybe, in cases like these, that's a problem.
To cite several explicitly leftist bands, the Gang of Four said part of the reason they signed to EMI was that they sold 100,000 copies of the "Damaged Goods" single on Fast Product without getting paid. Chumbawamba claimed that One Little Indian was at least as guilty of pressuring the band to have hit singles and make money for the label as the majors. And of course, there's the hypocrisy of SST's anti-corporate rock sloganeering while Greg Ginn pocketed all the money.
And poor management at K and Lookout! alike resulting in a lot of their bands not getting paid either. On the one hand, I get wanting to reject a corporate, profit-first mindset, but knowing how a business should be run at a fundamental level isn't itself evil.
Great post! With hindsight, imo, it's so obvious that "selling out" was the archetypal 90s hot topic (pun intended) because - as this forum addresses - there was no roadmap for what the economy of hardcore looked like as it aged and therefore no clue whether it could sustain perennial, gainful, full-time employment. I think DJ Spermicide is right to align with history and really nails how myopic our vision was at the time - an ancient problem indeed.
I completely forgot about that debate! And what an important topic even today. Maybe even more so today with so many punk bands selling out arenas. Back then I'd probably have sided with the "sell-out" crowd. I've long since realized musicians make music for others to hear. Why not make it available to as many as possible. If the bands values change along the way I can decide to keep buying or move on. If a band can make more money and still be true to their craft then they should and it should be accepted. Fantastic article as always Norman. Thank you.
I never seem to be let down by the "narcissism of small differences" in every group I've participated in life. They should have been working together, not splitting hairs. Fascinating article though, thank you!
I'm lucky that I always came from a relatively comfortable place when it comes to money, but I worked for years with bands that had nothing to their names. It was always a battle to make sure that we could get from one venue to another, let alone have money left over after. I remember being the one they relied on to look at first contracts, and struggling because the terms were shit...but they werent so shit that there wasn't a chance a for money and reaching more fans ( the latter more important than the former most of the time).
I understand just how damn hard those choices can be, and I don't blame anyone on either side--never have, never will. It's always just about making peace with yourself in the end, however that comes.
Norman, I just have question regarding this whole major/independent label issue. Why did Texas is the reason break up? I was listening on a podcast that you did that capitol records offered to produce your next record, but instead of refusing you just broke up? Why? Just curious.
It's a really complicated answer. I wasn't morally opposed to signing, but I was confused—and that was a part of it. But the more honest answer is that the relationships in the band were deteriorating and I was in the middle of getting to a place where I wanted to come out and I didn't think I could do that in a band—much less in a band on a major label, making a go at it. That's a nutshell version, but as all things are, it's more complicated than that.
I apologize for putting you on the spot in a public forum. Someone once told me you should never have to justify your actions to anyone. (But on a personal note being that Texas is the reason was such a great band it would of been great to see you guys get the recognition that you deserved) I remember reading an interview with Ian Mackaye and he was explaining why Fugazi never signed to a major and he said, “our music isn’t oxygen it isn’t necessary for existence”
I would absolutely love to see a conversation between yourself and Sam McPheeters in Anti Matter. Just saying.
I would actually love that. I read his book and he really does seem to have evolved a lot (as I have!)
As we all (hopefully!) have. Mutations was actually what I had in mind when I made that comment,it's an incredible read particularly having grown up as a fan of BA on the other side of the world and having several teenage illusions about what that scene must have been like shattered. His frankness and wit throughout are so engaging. Seems like an approachable enough guy too, some friends and I did a podcast discussing the book when it came out and he dropped us a line to thank us and say he'd enjoyed it
SERIOUSLY. I’m glad to see Adam’s quote, but I’d love to see the someone like Sam (or Mark McCoy) on here.
Born Against's discography is some of my favorite hardcore,, but even 20-year-old me would have thought their take was a shitty one. Labor deserves to be compensated and "we would like for people to be able to hear our music" is a reasonable position.
42-year-old me really wishes 20-year-old me would have that perspective. Reality was unfortunately different.
Oh, I was plenty idealistic in other ways, and had my own bad ideas about "selling out," but insisting a band make their music available for free? Yeah, that would have been a bit much even then.
I remember a lot of anti-major label rhetoric from that period, but no one seemed to call out the scumminess of many indie labels. (Henry Rollins has said that he had no idea royalty payments existed till the Rollins Band signed to Touch & Go!) That's the ghost in the room of this debate (which also seems like a product of a time when it was easier to make a living off recorded music, not that it was ever easy.)
This is definitely an issue we've never fully tackled head on. There has always been an indie vs. major argument, but without any acknowledgment that there are as many indie label horror stories as there are majors. On some level, I think that's because we have a tendency to rationalize or protect our own community. But maybe, in cases like these, that's a problem.
To cite several explicitly leftist bands, the Gang of Four said part of the reason they signed to EMI was that they sold 100,000 copies of the "Damaged Goods" single on Fast Product without getting paid. Chumbawamba claimed that One Little Indian was at least as guilty of pressuring the band to have hit singles and make money for the label as the majors. And of course, there's the hypocrisy of SST's anti-corporate rock sloganeering while Greg Ginn pocketed all the money.
And poor management at K and Lookout! alike resulting in a lot of their bands not getting paid either. On the one hand, I get wanting to reject a corporate, profit-first mindset, but knowing how a business should be run at a fundamental level isn't itself evil.
Great post! With hindsight, imo, it's so obvious that "selling out" was the archetypal 90s hot topic (pun intended) because - as this forum addresses - there was no roadmap for what the economy of hardcore looked like as it aged and therefore no clue whether it could sustain perennial, gainful, full-time employment. I think DJ Spermicide is right to align with history and really nails how myopic our vision was at the time - an ancient problem indeed.
I completely forgot about that debate! And what an important topic even today. Maybe even more so today with so many punk bands selling out arenas. Back then I'd probably have sided with the "sell-out" crowd. I've long since realized musicians make music for others to hear. Why not make it available to as many as possible. If the bands values change along the way I can decide to keep buying or move on. If a band can make more money and still be true to their craft then they should and it should be accepted. Fantastic article as always Norman. Thank you.
I never seem to be let down by the "narcissism of small differences" in every group I've participated in life. They should have been working together, not splitting hairs. Fascinating article though, thank you!
I'm lucky that I always came from a relatively comfortable place when it comes to money, but I worked for years with bands that had nothing to their names. It was always a battle to make sure that we could get from one venue to another, let alone have money left over after. I remember being the one they relied on to look at first contracts, and struggling because the terms were shit...but they werent so shit that there wasn't a chance a for money and reaching more fans ( the latter more important than the former most of the time).
I understand just how damn hard those choices can be, and I don't blame anyone on either side--never have, never will. It's always just about making peace with yourself in the end, however that comes.
Norman, I just have question regarding this whole major/independent label issue. Why did Texas is the reason break up? I was listening on a podcast that you did that capitol records offered to produce your next record, but instead of refusing you just broke up? Why? Just curious.
It's a really complicated answer. I wasn't morally opposed to signing, but I was confused—and that was a part of it. But the more honest answer is that the relationships in the band were deteriorating and I was in the middle of getting to a place where I wanted to come out and I didn't think I could do that in a band—much less in a band on a major label, making a go at it. That's a nutshell version, but as all things are, it's more complicated than that.
I apologize for putting you on the spot in a public forum. Someone once told me you should never have to justify your actions to anyone. (But on a personal note being that Texas is the reason was such a great band it would of been great to see you guys get the recognition that you deserved) I remember reading an interview with Ian Mackaye and he was explaining why Fugazi never signed to a major and he said, “our music isn’t oxygen it isn’t necessary for existence”