JAW ON THE FLOOR: Starbucks to Release Sonic Youth Celebrity Compilation (WTF)

http://www.nataliedee.com/050404/natural-hipster.jpg

Fair enough, Bob. You just seemed so invested in the statements in your first post (about how Starbucks is "soulless low-com-denom in a middle-aged, middle-class housewife sort of way" and Sonic Youth is a "timeless, all-weather coolness bastion that stands in opposition to zombie cow people who buy the wrong shoes") that I assumed those were your opinions, and not a composite of opinions of people you know or talked to about the subject.

Starbucks does charge a bit more for their coffee than most independent places, although I get riled sometimes when people complain about "FIVE DOLLAR coffees!!!" because they're only $5 if you get, like, a 32 oz. latte with soy milk and chocolate syrup and whipped cream. I haven't been in a Starbucks in a while, but I'd be surprised if a 12 oz. black coffee is over two bucks.

The monster fuck-off regular coffee (20 oz?) costs less than $2 in Boston. You only pay out the ass if you are buying cappucino/mocha/latte derivatives/extrapolations, which, if you are a REAL coffee drinker, you will scoff at or handle as a special treat.

Yeah I go to Starbucks for an occasional "dessert coffee" on weekends. In the morning I get a styrofoam cup of black coffee out of the machine in my office. They're about as similiar as lemonade and 7-Up.

Alex: yeh. I don't personally agree with either of the statements you quoted.

OK, thanks for clarifying.

FWIW, Alex, I think there's something spoiled about a lot of the anti-Starbuck's sentiment I encounter (anti-parental, even misogynist as I suggested in my 1st post). While I don't like the chain, my objections are more in line with what Nabisco described a while back. Starbucks makes me sad. I think it contributes only emptiness to the American landscape. I don't think it's wrong or evil, but something about it makes me feel awful inside. I have the sense that it's a kind of social failure colored up and packaged to resemble success, and that makes it even worse than plain old urban blight. But I'm getting off topic.

What would make Starbuck's a social success?

DOGTITS LATTE

Besides that.

I don't know that I can argue a serious case for that, HD, just given how contentious ILX is. What I'm talking about here is a matter of personal aesthetics that verges over in something vaguely spiritual (i.e., bullshit).

I just think that some spaces are life-defeating. Intrinsically empty. Made not to be experienced or inhabited, but merely constructed to house transactions - financial or otherwise. The perfection of these spaces exists in their invisibility, even their fundamental non-existence. Perfect examples are airport lounge areas, hotel hallways, mall courts. These spaces do not exist. Time spent in them is between time, meaningless.

Problem is that this kind of emptiness is conducive to certain kinds of financial transactions, too. And it's cheap. And it offends no one. So it grows. These spaces and their emptiness grow like cancer, taking the world away one structure at a time. Worse still, we grow accustomed to them, so that after a while we don't feel the chill. Hell, some of us even seem to like it.

There's something about vacant uniformity of manufactured culture/society/architecture/life that terrifies me. And I know that it makes sense. That the future is in high density and cheap mass manufacturing. So maybe I'm just a curmudgeon, getting ready to pine wistfully for "the good old days". I dunno.

Personally, my solution to the social failure I'm talking about is the imperfect work of imperfect human hands. Smallness. Distinctness. You know the drill.

anybody else keep reading the thread title like that bank advertisement where the manager robs all the customers? JAWW ON THE FLOOOOOOORRRRRR!!!!!

JARRRRRRRRRRRVIKKKKKKKK ON THE FLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRr

estoy lol

LET THE LATTES HIT THE FLOOR, LET THE LATTES HIT THE FLOOR

What I'm talking about here is a matter of personal aesthetics that verges over in something vaguely spiritual (i.e., bullshit).

^^i love this.

but really i think i get what your saying, bob.

Bob, I think you are incredibly self-aware because I am sitting here seething with mock-irritation because you pulled the "bullshit" card on yourself before I could.

This entire passage is completely nonsensical to me: The perfection of these spaces exists in their invisibility, even their fundamental non-existence. Perfect examples are airport lounge areas, hotel hallways, mall courts. These spaces do not exist. Time spent in them is between time, meaningless. This passage is nonsensical because, well, these spaces DO actually exist and they exist for a reason. Airport lounges give people a place to wait for their planes that is more comfortable than standing in line and in close enough proximity to the gate that you don't miss your flight when boarding starts. Mall courts exist so that patrons have a place to rest while they are shopping, increasing the overall comfort of the shopping experience. Hotel hallways exist because a hotel without hallways is either a motel, where every room has a door to the outside, or a really stupidly-designed hotel where you have to walk through other people's rooms to get to your own. You are rejecting things fundamentally aimed at increasing the comfort level of the people utilizing them as being uncomfortable wastes of space and time and offering in their place... what? From what I gather, you want to take these spaces that bring people together and break them up into isolated, segregated units because you feel that seperating people is more socially successful than putting them together. I don't think that makes any sense, so either I'm misconstruing you or the social failure is your reaction to these spaces, not the spaces themselves, which could also be extrapolated to this entire Starbuck's/Sonic Youth debate.

I think his argument hinges on the last sentence you quoted, that said spaces (and starbucks) have all the semiotic value of an ampersand

Guys, Bob already explained that he's merely expressing a bunch of ridiculous opinions that he himself doesn't really believe, I don't know why you're still trying to engage him in any kind of debate. He's having an out-of-argument experience, floating above us all.

Alex, I'm killing time before leaving work.

Tom, that last sentence scans if you buy the sentence before it, which I do not.

social success vs. social failure here I think really boils down to whether you share a particular sort of optimism with regards to other people (that if you get to know them they're all okay, everybody should talk more) or don't (fuck people wtf I want to deal with them for) or alternatively whether you lean more towards walker percy or, like, foucault (which I certainly prefer the former but am generally not that naive when I'm in, for example, a starbucks)

is there anyone here who genuinely believes this is a "sellout" move on SY's part? (besides maybe sara sara sara?)

I have been reading some percy and trow and shit like that can you tell

LET THE LATTES HIT THE FLOOR, LET THE LATTES HIT THE FLOOR

lol

Experimental Jet Set, Trash & No Starbucks

What you're talking about, HD, is functionality. I agree the spaces in question (hotel hallways, airport rest areas) are functional, practical, efficient. In that sense, even ideal. But I wasn't complaining about their functionality, or even calling them uncomfortable. I was talking about their vacancy on some level that I don't even have a word for. Spiritual? emotional? yes and no, less and more. Fact is, with regard to these spaces, that kind of vacancy is appropriate, even necessary. We want transitional spaces to be invisible, to simply facilitate the passage of thing one into another.

Problem, as I see it, is that this kind of emptiness is consuming more and more of the built landscape, and in turn, more and more of our lives. It's a kind of surrender. We give up actuality and human presence in the name of practicality, efficiency and comfort. In doing so we create a ghost world that superficially resembles something that people might inhabit, but is inimical to real human life. Best Buy, the Cheesecake Factory, Starbucks, Washington Mutual, The Gap, McDonald's, Ikea, malls, Irish-themed "pubs", most office suites and new-built condos. These places extend the lifeless, anaesthetic emptiness of transitional spaces into the non-transitional, supposedly meaningful parts of our lives. And they pith us, making us ghosts to match the decor.

I don't know what the alternative is. I mean, if you're living in an old-fashioned "failed city", a ton of shitty condos and a Niketown probably seem like a small price to pay for jobs, industry, culture and a reduction in crime. It's hard to argue with success, especially when you imagine that the only alternative is failure. But I don't think we have to look at this in either/or terms. I like to imagine that we can have functioning, healthy cities that don't depend on turning civic culture into a kind of outdoor shopping mall.

Guys, Bob already explained that he's merely expressing a bunch of ridiculous opinions that he himself doesn't really believe

Fuck, Alex, that's just childish. I wasn't doing that in the first place, and I'm certainly not doing it now.

I think his argument hinges on the last sentence you quoted, that said spaces (and starbucks) have all the semiotic value of an ampersand

Exactly, but also that they extend that semiotic emptiness into us, and in acclimating ourselves to it, we diminish ourselves.

Tombot: I am optimistic with regard to individuals, pessimistic with regard to people.

There are several Starbucks in the Boston area that are specifically targetted as being lounge-friendly; they have large floor plans with many couches and coffee tables and are staffed by people who exude friendliness. There is no practical difference between the Starbucks in Davis Square, for example, and the two independent coffee shop lounges within a block of it. In fact, even among the "get in/get out"-style Starbucks there is enough difference in terms of layout and staff disposition that each one feels like a unique store despite being part of the same monolithic chain with the same soundtrack and color palette. My experience doesn't jibe with the picture painted of Starbucks in this thread, which makes the whole thread read as reactionary and silly to me.

Also, I think that looking for spiritual enrichment in a hotel hallway is probably going to lead to disappointment 100 times out of 100. Is your life REALLY so devoid of meaning that you need for everything around you to feed you spirituality?

I would like to note for the benefit of J0hn D., Alfred, Cutty, and anyone else who's ever accused me of deliberately targeting them for mean-spirited rebuttals and zings, that that's what I'm doing to Bob Standard right now, not those other times.

I guess I shouldn't have said "specifically targetted"; my point is that there isn't a monolithic "this is what a Starbucks is" blueprint in terms of store size/layout/usage profile in the way that there is for MacDonald's/The Gap/(insert successful chain store with stronger layout controls here), so complaining that every Starbucks is the same makes me think either the ones outside of Boston must really suck or people like making lazy judgements.

My experience doesn't jibe with the picture painted of Starbucks in this thread, which makes the whole thread read as reactionary and silly to me.

Yeah, but see, my experiences don't jibe with yours. Doesn't make me think any less of you or your opinions.

Also, I think that looking for spiritual enrichment in a hotel hallway is probably going to lead to disappointment 100 times out of 100. Is your life REALLY so devoid of meaning that you need for everything around you to feed you spirituality?

Gah. Again, I think it's appropriate and GOOD that hotel hallways are spiritually empty. I think it's sad, on the other hand, that we seem to want to extend that emptiness into so many other parts of the world.

P.S. Lowering this to the level of "is your life so devoid of meaning that..." just totally sucks.

"no starbucks" could be the indie rock "no homo"

HD: I do think that all Starbucks feel more or less the same. Some more grubby, some immaculate. Some harried, some leisurely. Some expansive, some cramped. Yes, but all variations on a theme. And the variations don't make the corpse seem any more animate.

If you think it's good that hallways are spiritually empty, why did you use them as an example of a public space that is leeching the spirituality out of our society?

Arguments like this are exactly why people need religion.

(By which I mean, the absence of religion creates the need for people to look for meaning in all kinds of bizarre places, like for example airport lounges.)

CAN O WORMS RIGHT HERE

GETCHA LIVE BAIT

^_^

Ha, Dan, I find it hard to believe you're quite as mystified by "nonsensical" doubts about airport-like public space as you're claiming here

It's not so much that as much as it is the idea that an airport lounge is a space where people should be enriched spiritually. Or, for that matter, that a coffee shop is a place where people should be enriched spiritually; a coffee shop is a place where people should be able to buy some coffee.

I used hotels hallways as a template example of a kind of emptiness that is being exported into other parts of the built environment. When I first talked about this, I said, "Problem is that this kind of emptiness is conducive to certain kinds of financial transactions, too. And it's cheap. And it offends no one. So it grows."

So the roblem isn't that transitional spaces are themselves soulless, but that they're a kind of self-replicating machine that's growing to eclipse the rest of the world. Like JG Ballard's planet that consisted of an endless airport lounge.

"Spiritual enrichment" frames it in overreaching terms -- we could spend all day just figuring out what the spirit it, leave alone what enriches it. But point being there's a regimented and anti-social atmosphere that comes with these kinds of spaces, one in which massive amounts of industrial psychology are being deployed to make large groups of humans use the spaces profitably and efficiently and quietly, etc. -- it's not at all nonsensical to compare these kinds of environments to ones that have specific personal influences on them, spaces that are not somewhat industrial and impermanent and modular!

Starbucks is a bad example in that comparison, because most customers desire to use it in an efficient, industrial sense -- purchase coffee and move along. But as a greater issue, umm ... I don't think it's at all strange or bullshitty or mystical to worry that the atmosphere and social effects of spaces like the airport food court might expand farther than makes many people happy.

The thing is, the emptiness/meaninglessness isn't intrinsic to the built environment as much as it is the overpopulation of the built spaces and the need to supply as much service to as many people as possible with the highest margins. We could be having this same kind of discussion on ILE if we were a bunch of Londoners complaining about chain pubs. Or replace Dan with Laurel and the rest of us are beer enthusiasts who despise anheuser busch products.

I think the worst thing about starbucks is no different than the problems with all suburban shopping centers, and that's not starbucks' problem, it's an urban planning one. An urban planning problem caused by overpopulation that began two generations ago. *wrings hands, shakes head, etc*

Tombot OTM. Nabisco OTMOTM.

HD: It's not that I want all coffee shops to be pregnant with spiritual possibility, but that I am bothered the fact that the efficiency of our production (production of ideas, objects, values, spaces, etc.) often seems to be directly proportional to the essential vacancy of the things we produce. Meanwhile, population density, the profit motive and resource depletion all seem to demand ever greater efficiency. Nowhere to go but up, right?

Agree w/ Nabisco that Starbucks is often a transitional space, so it's emptiness isn't necessarily a failure. The failure, as I see it, is how how successful we've been in marketing transitional emptiness as desireable, fun, distinctive and meaningful.

it's != its

Agree w/ Nabisco that Starbucks is often a transitional space, so it's emptiness isn't necessarily a failure. The failure, as I see it, is how how successful we've been in marketing transitional emptiness as desireable, fun, distinctive and meaningful.

wtf are you talking about here? Pop music?

Pizza Hut

i like drinking coffee.

I want to know where transitional emptiness is being marketed as meaningful. From what I've seen of modern society, NOTHINg is being marketed as meaningful and that's kind of the point; "meaning" is practically a dirty word on par with "hypocrisy" and the resultant cognative dissonance is slowly turning everyone's minds to mush.

wtf are you talking about here? Pop music?

Not so much, though I guess an argument could be made (by somebody else). I'm talking primarily about the built environment, but also about how we construct corporate, civic and individual identity. I mean, the "emptiness" that I'm talking about isn't a physical absence.