Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The great Chumbawamba appreciation thread

poet said:
...
We need to attack sell-outs and part-timers because they undermine the work of the dedicated. I've got into stand-up fights with a number of high-profile environmentalists because they drive cars - who the fuck is going to listen to someone preaching environmental views if they don't care enough to ditch their fucking car? It undermines the way I live and the words I speak. When I talk to 'ordinary' people about environmentalism their first response is that of cynicism. They try and figure out my little flaws like they'd try and work out how a conjourer does tricks. The implicit assumption is that living a properly green life is impossible because so many high-profile environmentalists fail to do it right. People refuse to believe that I really am carbon-neutral, that my solar array really does pump out enough power for me and several others, that my EV isn't charged by a coal-firing power plant. It's because of all the half-arsed hypocrites who say one thing and do another that credibility as a radical is impossible.

I totally agree.
Selling a song to Ford is about as low as you can get for a bunch of self-proclaimed anarchists and squatters. A betrayal really.
 
aurora green said:
I totally agree.
Selling a song to Ford is about as low as you can get for a bunch of self-proclaimed anarchists and squatters. A betrayal really.
but they did it deliberately and used the money to slag off ford to a global audience! journalists wrote about it , in doing so exposing gm's less than savoury practices and general motors were reallly pissed off! It was a fab idea!
 
aurora green said:
I totally agree.
Selling a song to Ford is about as low as you can get for a bunch of self-proclaimed anarchists and squatters. A betrayal really.

well, how far do you go?

what about owning/using computers?

Manufacturing computers is materials intensive; the total fossil fuels used to make one desktop computer weigh over 240 kilograms, some 10 times the weight of the computer itself. This is very high compared to many other goods: For an automobile or refrigerator, for example, the weight of fossil fuels used for production is roughly equal to their weights. Also, substantial quantities of chemicals (22 kg), and water (1,500 kg) are also used. The environmental impacts associated with using fossil fuels (e.g. climate change), chemicals (e.g. possible health effects on microchip production workers) and water (e.g. scarcity in some areas) are significant and deserve attention.

from blurb on 'computers and the environment: understanding and managing their impacts', edited by ruediger kuehr & eric williams
 
reallyoldhippy said:
And how much money did Chumbas make out of it?
:rolleyes:
it's more subversive in my book. I get paid by the daily mail as a local mag i write the occasional music review for is owned by them. I didn't go 'oh no!' and run screaming to the hills to get some right winger to take my place. I just manage to get something in condoning class a drugs, asylum seekers etc, no matter how badly sledge horned into everything i write. It keeps me happy :) and everything i get paid goes straight to a local freehouse thus keeping money in the community ;)
 
cyberfairy said:
I just manage to get something in condoning class a drugs, asylum seekers etc, no matter how badly sledge horned into everything i write. It keeps me happy :)

you forgot to mention that they feed your pie habit ;)
 
bristle-krs said:
you forgot to mention that they feed your pie habit ;)
they're organic vegan seasonal locally sourced pies made by ecudorians in a organic mud hutlet deep inside a substainable wood owned by members of crass where fascists aren't allowed!
 
cyberfairy said:
they're organic vegan seasonal locally sourced pies made by ecudorians in a organic mud hutlet deep inside a substainable wood owned by members of crass where fascists aren't allowed!

CRASS--now they do have credibility...
 
Their record was used to sell cars, regardless that they made no money, or they managed to piss off Ford, Chumbawumba agreed to assosiate their unique sound and image with one the capitalisms most powerful corporation.
I just find it really dissapointing.
 
I was offered a shedload of cash by Nestle once. I contacted the baby Milk Action Group and considered doing something subversive with the cash, but after considering that:

(a) I couldn't bear to do the job in the first place and
(b) I'd never get a job in the industry again afterwards

I just turned then down.
 
bristle-krs said:
well, how far do you go?

what about owning/using computers?



from blurb on 'computers and the environment: understanding and managing their impacts', edited by ruediger kuehr & eric williams


Using a computer is hardly the same as using any talent I might be blessed with to sell cars, surely?
 
editor said:
I was offered a shedload of cash by Nestle once. I contacted the baby Milk Action Group and considered doing something subversive with the cash, but after considering that:

(a) I couldn't bear to do the job in the first place and
(b) I'd never get a job in the industry again afterwards

I just turned then down.


And that is the thinking that makes this site so great.
 
aurora green said:
Their record was used to sell cars, regardless that they made no money, or they managed to piss off Ford, Chumbawumba agreed to assosiate their unique sound and image with one the capitalisms most powerful corporation.
I just find it really dissapointing.

but my question remains - where do you draw the line?

we are all implicit in capitalism, because capitalism prevails. virtually all artistic and cultural expressions are recuperated. for the most part we are wage slaves or prisoners of of the system. it's how we organise ourselves within it and beyond it that's important, surely? not whether we have managed to completely escape its grasp... because nobody - nobody - on here has done that.
 
aurora green said:
Their record was used to sell cars, regardless that they made no money, or they managed to piss off Ford, Chumbawumba agreed to assosiate their unique sound and image with one the capitalisms most powerful corporation.
I just find it really dissapointing.
the money generated went on trying to raise awareness of the inherant evils of general motors. not many people would have watched the advert and gone, 'ooh, what a smashing song, i think i will buy one of these cars' but many people would have read all the press about chumbawamba giving the money away and why and maybe thought, 'oh, i didn't realise that, maybe i won't buy a car from this company'
 
aurora green said:
Using a computer is hardly the same as using any talent I might be blessed with to sell cars, surely?

if you think that your over-consumption is somehow less destructive than someone else's, then so be it; but the environmental destruction you (or anyone else) as a computer user are responsible for is no less real than that caused by cars and tarmac.
 
I hate Chumbawumba :) Dunno saw them loads in the late 80's but they made me cringe- I liked their politics and lyrics but...... nah they are shite!!!
 
aurora green said:
Using a computer is hardly the same as using any talent I might be blessed with to sell cars, surely?


The music doesn't sell the car (unless your a complete fuckwit) , so I don't see what your problem is , Ford would just have found someone elses music to lose and then the positives of the chumbas actions wouldn't have even happened !
 
aurora green said:
And that is the thinking that makes this site so great.
there is also the gadgets thread where people espouce the delights of very expensive mobiles so people with a old mobile will chuck theirs away and buy a new one as theres a few gimmicks in it. Too pissed to give links but mobiles are evil for the enviroment. So are computers etc. It's all relative.
 
Savage Henry said:
The music doesn't sell the car (unless your a complete fuckwit) , so I don't see what your problem is , Ford would just have found someone elses music to lose and then the positives of the chumbas actions wouldn't have even happened !
exactly the point i was badly trying to make. cheers :)
 
aurora green said:
And that is the thinking that makes this site so great.


did you miss point b :confused:

one of editors criteria for not doing the job was because he couldn't stand doing it , the other was because he would never work again* , it's not exactly the same because the chumba knew they could get away taking the money and using it for something they considered to be an opportunity too good to miss for conveying their message , and it would not affect their livliehood directly .



*obviously point A was the most important but I think my point still stands !
 
bristle-krs said:
but my question remains - where do you draw the line?

we are all implicit in capitalism, because capitalism prevails. virtually all artistic and cultural expressions are recuperated. for the most part we are wage slaves or prisoners of of the system. it's how we organise ourselves within it and beyond it that's important, surely? not whether we have managed to completely escape its grasp... because nobody - nobody - on here has done that.


I think a band that works its' anarchist ceredentials, should at the very least least refrain from advertsing capitalisms most offensive products.
There's recouperation - signing to EMI in the first place,
and recouperation - selling bloody cars. :mad:
I think Chumbawumba could of made much better and more empowering and inspiring choices.
 
cyberfairy said:
...not many people would have watched the advert and gone, 'ooh, what a smashing song, i think i will buy one of these cars' but many people would have read all the press about chumbawamba giving the money away and why and maybe thought, 'oh, i didn't realise that, maybe i won't buy a car from this company'


I believe the entire opposite to be true. Far more many people will have seen the advert and heard that great tune.
 
Back
Top Bottom