It is a musician’s business to know who they are performing for and why - and the more famous they are, the more it starts to matter. Grohl knows this.
The people on here who is excusing this with “capitalism bad except when people I like is doing it” arguments is just demonstrating how empty “liberal values” get when push comes to shove.
That’s actually their manager’s business. Literally what they hire them for. And honestly, if you’re going to fault them for performing a private venue for an Amazon event, you should also fault every artist that’s ever performed in like, Vegas. Casinos have been bleeding people to death long before Amazon hit the scene.
I’m not going to fault a performer for literally doing their job and taking a fat payday. I’d probably do the same in their shoes, anybody who insists otherwise isn’t being honest with themselves.
It’s not like the rider said “play show at Amazon, these guys just laid a lot of people off and are screaming about budget cuts so they want you to play for the rest. Here’s 4 million dollars.”
It probably said “corporate event for 6-10k people. Here’s a check for 4 million dollars”
So you’re arguing that selling out any supposed values you might have is fine as long as the check is big enough.
Foo Fighters are a huge band. They aren’t at the whims of some all powerful manager. And Amazon’s crimes are not new, they’re not obscure information. They’re incredibly well known, frequently discussed, and go hand in hand with the mention of Amazon. They knew what they were doing, who they were doing it for.
Now, if you want to discuss the power that record labels and their business relationships hold and their contracts with the bands they produce, that’s a possible explanation for this. But we’re talking about aging millionaire white guys. Chances are, they had veto power, knew what they were doing and probably could’ve accepted a monetary fine from the record company for defying a contract obligation if that’s why they were being forced to do it. And, honestly, probably would’ve leaked that information, gotten a ton of great press, maybe gotten into a public dispute with the record label if they chose to speak out about it, and then cashed in on that.
But, like you said, they did it for a fat paycheck. They didn’t stick up for the well-documented abused workers of Amazon while cashing in on it — “virtue signaling,” as people say. They decided to do this. For money. From Amazon executives.
And that’s…not better.
The fact that this comes at the end of typical corporate purse string tightening at the expense of workers is really just the steaming shit nugget on top of this diarrhea sundae.
So we’re just skipping the part about the execs treating themselves to a concert after many years of union busting, horrid working conditions, innumerable other abuses, and excluding the workers. But we’re going to shit on the people they hired for a gig.
This is where you are wrong. You aren’t commenting on the article… You aren’t even commenting on the post about the article. Your responding to a comment left on the post about the article.
It’s you that’s arguing in bad faith here, or at least not recognising the context of what you’re saying, presumably because you’re too busy trying to get across your own point.
I don’t think your initial point about the criticism that should be levelled at Amazon is wrong (I think you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone on here that supports what Amazon have done), but that isn’t to say that the Foo Fighters shouldn’t be being criticised here.
Both things can be true.
But by responding to a comment that points out the band’s faults with whatabouttery you’re kind of coming across like you’re defending the band whilst also ignoring all the other people saying the same thing you are. Then on top of that having a go at the OP when he points out other people are talking about the Amazon issue by saying you’re clearly taking about the article… If you’re commenting on the article why are you replying to some other post?!
Sure but the biggest pushback I’ve really seen tbh was by a dude who eventually revealed he’s just ranting about cancel culture. He doesn’t even like Grohl. So certainly not a liberal lol
At the end of the day they’re people too though. And this is music, not war. There’s a pretty big gray area for “participating in capitalism does not equal approval of capitalism.”
It is a musician’s business to know who they are performing for and why - and the more famous they are, the more it starts to matter. Grohl knows this.
The people on here who is excusing this with “capitalism bad except when people I like is doing it” arguments is just demonstrating how empty “liberal values” get when push comes to shove.
That’s actually their manager’s business. Literally what they hire them for. And honestly, if you’re going to fault them for performing a private venue for an Amazon event, you should also fault every artist that’s ever performed in like, Vegas. Casinos have been bleeding people to death long before Amazon hit the scene.
I’m not going to fault a performer for literally doing their job and taking a fat payday. I’d probably do the same in their shoes, anybody who insists otherwise isn’t being honest with themselves.
It’s not like the rider said “play show at Amazon, these guys just laid a lot of people off and are screaming about budget cuts so they want you to play for the rest. Here’s 4 million dollars.”
It probably said “corporate event for 6-10k people. Here’s a check for 4 million dollars”
So you’re arguing that selling out any supposed values you might have is fine as long as the check is big enough.
Foo Fighters are a huge band. They aren’t at the whims of some all powerful manager. And Amazon’s crimes are not new, they’re not obscure information. They’re incredibly well known, frequently discussed, and go hand in hand with the mention of Amazon. They knew what they were doing, who they were doing it for.
Now, if you want to discuss the power that record labels and their business relationships hold and their contracts with the bands they produce, that’s a possible explanation for this. But we’re talking about aging millionaire white guys. Chances are, they had veto power, knew what they were doing and probably could’ve accepted a monetary fine from the record company for defying a contract obligation if that’s why they were being forced to do it. And, honestly, probably would’ve leaked that information, gotten a ton of great press, maybe gotten into a public dispute with the record label if they chose to speak out about it, and then cashed in on that.
But, like you said, they did it for a fat paycheck. They didn’t stick up for the well-documented abused workers of Amazon while cashing in on it — “virtue signaling,” as people say. They decided to do this. For money. From Amazon executives.
And that’s…not better.
The fact that this comes at the end of typical corporate purse string tightening at the expense of workers is really just the steaming shit nugget on top of this diarrhea sundae.
I’m arguing that you’re villainising the wrong people.
And that was me telling you your assumption of who’s at fault was way off the mark.
They’re rockstars. They knew what they were doing and made the choice themselves.
So we’re just skipping the part about the execs treating themselves to a concert after many years of union busting, horrid working conditions, innumerable other abuses, and excluding the workers. But we’re going to shit on the people they hired for a gig.
Coolcoolcoolcoolcool.
No… we actually talk about Amazon’s shitfuckery a lot. Where have you been?
I’m talking about the point of the article and you know it. Which is why I have you noted as “Bad Faith”
This is where you are wrong. You aren’t commenting on the article… You aren’t even commenting on the post about the article. Your responding to a comment left on the post about the article.
It’s you that’s arguing in bad faith here, or at least not recognising the context of what you’re saying, presumably because you’re too busy trying to get across your own point.
I don’t think your initial point about the criticism that should be levelled at Amazon is wrong (I think you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone on here that supports what Amazon have done), but that isn’t to say that the Foo Fighters shouldn’t be being criticised here.
Both things can be true.
But by responding to a comment that points out the band’s faults with whatabouttery you’re kind of coming across like you’re defending the band whilst also ignoring all the other people saying the same thing you are. Then on top of that having a go at the OP when he points out other people are talking about the Amazon issue by saying you’re clearly taking about the article… If you’re commenting on the article why are you replying to some other post?!
As all the liberals festering around here does. I’ll just throw this badge on the heap with the others, okay?
Sure but the biggest pushback I’ve really seen tbh was by a dude who eventually revealed he’s just ranting about cancel culture. He doesn’t even like Grohl. So certainly not a liberal lol
At the end of the day they’re people too though. And this is music, not war. There’s a pretty big gray area for “participating in capitalism does not equal approval of capitalism.”
That only goes for the working class - the people who are forced to participate in capitalism. Not for filthy rich musicians.
There is no aspect of our enforced existence under capitalism that is free from it’s insidious influence - and that includes music.
Not unlike all the excuses we’re seeing for genocide now that it’s Biden shipping the bombs over to Israel.