[Moshe]

Kim Gordon: Starbucks "Less Evil Than Universal"
Selling out just ain't what it used to be. The concept is as ambiguous and potentially moot as ever, but now it usually comes with handy explanatory quotes. Just ask Kim Gordon, who, along with the rest of Sonic Youth, has taken some flak for choosing to release the band's forthcoming celebrity-studded tribute compilation, Hits Are for Squares, via Starbucks.
Or rather, let videographer Liz Glover ask Gordon for you. During New York City's recent Fashion Week, Glover approached Gordon to ask exactly why the band chose to go with Starbucks. The result is the short clip below, featuring Gordon's pithy, pretty awesome reply:
"They're less evil than Universal."
(Universal being Universal Music Group, parent company of Sonic Youth's label, Geffen Records.)
Last we heard, the compilation's release was "technically a joint effort between Starbucks Entertainment and Universal Special Markets," so the logistics are still complex. Nonetheless, Kim Gordon: 1, Universal: 0. Just a reminder: Sonic Youth have a trio of Texas tour dates this fall starting with an October 5 appearance in Austin. And Kim's hubby is on the road now.

Also, Glover has a few other interesting musician interviews over at her Vimeo profile, including some typically scandalous stories from Deerhunter.
Sonic Youth:
10-05 Austin, TX - Stubb's BBQ $
10-06 Marfa, TX - Thunderbird Hotel
10-07 Dallas, TX - House of Blues $

$ with Meat Puppets

[Iain]

Hmmm odd. I don't know why this counts as Kim Gordon 1 Universal 0. Sounds like they are annoyed at the Universal deal or something. I wouldn't go as far as saying they sold out but I think it obvious that the Universal deal affects what they can put out through ecstatic peace. I don't think it's any coincidence that a lot of the bands (MV/EE, Wooden Wand, Magik Markers) are putting out more polished and commercial records. Not to say some of those bands wouldn't have gone down that road anyway but I think the Universal deal has pushed some of them down that road (cul-de-sac?)

[pbradley]

I would love a sarcastic Thurston rant about Starbucks being only the first step and that they have plans to have Rupert Murdock produce the next album and a bunch of other wild shit just to piss off the cred mongers.

[scott v]

Originally Posted by swa(y)

this is the sort of info i wish i didnt know due to fear of using up to much memory towards trivial crap.

reality:

sonic youth circa 1982 would have thought this a bad idea.

sonic youth circa '88 might have done it for the money.

sonic youth circa now are doing it most def. for the money.

who cares? i dont. im tired of hearing about the starbucks shit. only interest i have is the new song thats going to be on it, and maybe the liner notes.

that is all.

i couldn't agree with you more, because as most people in general "age" they become more aware of the basic things that they need to survive and live longer (maybe this is a bad generalization) the sad reality (at least if you live in the US) is that "money speaks"... the band members have hit or are coming close to hitting 50 years old and are approaching 60 years old, they must think about the obvious things like healthcare and those who have children their children's "continued education"... so there is a price, its a balance and comprimise for them to juggle the "indie cred" mentality and making money to support themselves for now and the future and their children, so if they feel that the starbucks venture will help them, so be it.

[screamingskull]

 

[SynthethicalY]

That one always makes me giggle like a little school-girl.

[Palmer Eldritch]

Originally Posted by swa(y)

this is the sort of info i wish i didnt know due to fear of using up to much memory towards trivial crap.

reality:

sonic youth circa 1982 would have thought this a bad idea.

sonic youth circa '88 might have done it for the money.

sonic youth circa now are doing it most def. for the money.

who cares? i dont. im tired of hearing about the starbucks shit. only interest i have is the new song thats going to be on it, and maybe the liner notes.

that is all.

I am in total agreement with you on that one.

[whorefrost]

Originally Posted by Moshe

Last we heard, the compilation's release was "technically a joint effort between Starbucks Entertainment and Universal Special Markets," so the logistics are still complex.

LAWL

Iain: interesting observation but it's nice that Ecstatic P are still putting out sick outre wax joints

[alyasa]

Choice, the problem is choice.

[pbradley]

You mean like between a macchiato or a cappuccino?

[alyasa]

Something like that.

[atsonicpark]

kim gordon's bra is evil.

[SynthethicalY]

Originally Posted by pbradley

You mean like between a macchiato or a cappuccino?

Or tall, or grande, or some name so outrages that it is super-big.

[clever name]

This is totally neither the time nor the place to discuss this, but time and space don't exist on the internet so fuck all.

Has anybody who really, really enjoys coffee (I mean like wine afficianado-level of snobbery) noticed that even many dedicated local roasters simply can't match the quality of a cup of even the most inexpensive Starbucks coffee?

Starbucks coffee has mastered the process of roasting coffee to the point where others simply can't compete. You see, about 99% of all coffee beans that get brewed on planet earth are roasted only until what's referred to as the "first pop". This occurs roughly seven to nine minutes into the roasting process when the beans start to release the air trapped inside and make a corresponding sound.

Typically this delivers coffee that, even when brewed strong, is virtually flavorless unless you drink it black (even then it's not so great). Dunkin' Donuts coffee is only roasted until the first pop. There's also the matter of beans from different nations and how dark they each can stand to be roasted, but let's not overcomplicate shit.

Starbucks, by contrast, roasts their coffee for 11 to 15 minutes, which is a much more difficult thing to pull off without rendering beans that brew coffee that tastes burnt and bitter (you taste too much roast and not enough of the bean's inherent characteristics). Starbucks, with the truckloads of money that they have and continue to throw into research and development, have even patented their 2nd-pop wizardry. If you ever see the words Starbucks Roast printed somewhere, notice the little "TM" accompanying.

So just as with AT&T in the 1950's, which was the only major phone company because only they had the techno-expertise, the gear, and the infrastructure to allow phone calls that didn't sound like adult characters in a Peanuts cartoon, the de-Starbucksification of the gourmet coffee market (and while Starbucks still doesn't sell as much coffee as Dunkin Donuts, they're ever on the rise, having doubled their number of stores since 2003!) will require the intervention of the government, everybody's favorite big brother. Only by democratizing the sophisticated "Starbucks Roast" which is the cornerstone of their success can little shops begin to compete in any significant way.

In short, don't blame the Noise Idols, it's not their fault that Starbucks coffee is so fucking good. Write your congressperson that the breakup of the Starbucks monopoly is entirely dependent on the revocation of their roasting patent and the dissemanation of its secrets. I don't think that's what Kim meant to say, but I like what she said too.

[k-krack]

Dude above me: are you fucking kidding? Starbucks coffee is fucking DIRT. It tastes like the inside of the sketchiest dude you know's asshole.
I HATE Starbucks coffee, and I work at a book store that has a Starbucks in it... so... I make my coffee at home, man. (And I'm a heavy coffee drinker... not a snob, though).

[alyasa]

Starbucks is less evil.

[alyasa]

Appetite For Destruction !$(!)$*%!+++----===:?><?>'"||{}[]

[clever name]

Another post on a Kim thread that has absolutely nothing to do with the Empress herself:

Well, as for those who Starbucks coffee strikes as "taint-ed", you can't argue about taste. To prove that, in a recent Consumer Reports survey of coffees, Starbucks ranked number 8 out of two dozen or so, well below Costco's "Kirkland" coffee.

However, the following data is strictly empirical:

1) Starbucks uses more of their coffee (two tablespoons per 6 oz. water versus 1 tablespoon for 4 oz.) than pretty much every other coffee shop.

2) Starbucks has spent more money on roasting and brewing innovations than every other gourmet coffee company combined.

3) If you take a small sample of coffee from almost any other coffee shop you'll notice how's it's transparent. You can see the bottom of the cup through the liquid. You cannot see the bottom of the cup through a small sample of properly-brewed Starbucks coffee (excepting Light Note and Breakfast blends, they're for the Dunkin' Donuts crowd).

As for my tastes, I have found a number of cafes that care more about coffee than the average bear and offer a cup that's as good as Starbucks. However, in all my dedicated searching in Montreal, Quebec; Burlington, Vermont; Los Angeles and Orange Counties in California; and Brooklyn, New York, I have yet to come across a cup of drip coffee that tastes better than Starbucks' Arabian Mocha Sanani, Organic Shade-Grown Mexico, or the Africa Kitamu Blend. Having said that, however, I'd much rather give my money to people who genuinely need it rather than feeding the Starbucks machine. If only there was a decent local coffee shop on both sides of every corner.

I hear you sharpening your knives, or maybe that's just the opening of "Having Never Written a Note for Percussion".

[pbradley]

Have we all forgotten about Starbucks' evil 'Phase Two'?

[alyasa]

Originally Posted by clever name

Another post on a Kim thread that has absolutely nothing to do with the Empress herself:

Well, as for those who Starbucks coffee strikes as "taint-ed", you can't argue about taste. To prove that, in a recent Consumer Reports survey of coffees, Starbucks ranked number 8 out of two dozen or so, well below Costco's "Kirkland" coffee.

However, the following data is strictly empirical:

1) Starbucks uses more of their coffee (two tablespoons per 6 oz. water versus 1 tablespoon for 4 oz.) than pretty much every other coffee shop.

2) Starbucks has spent more money on roasting and brewing innovations than every other gourmet coffee company combined.

3) If you take a small sample of coffee from almost any other coffee shop you'll notice how's it's transparent. You can see the bottom of the cup through the liquid. You cannot see the bottom of the cup through a small sample of properly-brewed Starbucks coffee (excepting Light Note and Breakfast blends, they're for the Dunkin' Donuts crowd).

As for my tastes, I have found a number of cafes that care more about coffee than the average bear and offer a cup that's as good as Starbucks. However, in all my dedicated searching in Montreal, Quebec; Burlington, Vermont; Los Angeles and Orange Counties in California; and Brooklyn, New York, I have yet to come across a cup of drip coffee that tastes better than Starbucks' Arabian Mocha Sanani, Organic Shade-Grown Mexico, or the Africa Kitamu Blend. Having said that, however, I'd much rather give my money to people who genuinely need it rather than feeding the Starbucks machine. If only there was a decent local coffee shop on both sides of every corner.

I hear you sharpening your knives, or maybe that's just the opening of "Having Never Written a Note for Percussion".

Kudos for having a brain...