Sunday, July 08, 2007

we can't work it out

So, I am on record as being not just not anti-Starbucks but anti-anti-Starbucks. That attitude began to change when Starbucks was singlehandedly responsible for selling a million copies of Mitch Albom's latest book. Now, I have submitted a comment on their site:

starbucks boycott!

You have my word about this. I am not going back in there until that stupid white-and-pink poster of Paul McCartney clutching his lapels is gone. Gone! Of all the things the Baby Boomers have crammed down my generation's throat as being better than it really is because it happened to be happening at the age when they were most aesthetically impressionable, Paul McCartney is among the worst.


Jude said...

Hear, hear.

Josh said...

Does this dislike of McCartney stem from his behavior in The Beatles, or his solo career? (Though the poster pose alone is enough to justify the boycott.)

I'm ambivalent about Starbucks. They're coffee is overpriced, but I think their part-time workers get health care, don't they? That's acceptable.

Health care aside, I do wish Ann Arbor had a Dunkin' Donuts. I'll take their unpretentious bucket-o'-coffee over Starbucks' any day of the week.

nina said...

My, you have a lot of anger in you. McCartney is quite a musician, whether or not you like his work or life style or choice of clothes or whatever else is irking you.
I don't recall anyone cramming the Beatles down anyone's throat. See, we don't really care if you like "our" music or not. We don't need the validation.
You should read some of the recent interviews with McCartney (eg New Yorker, but there are many at the moment) to get a sense of the person and the times before you turn pink with rage at the sight of him.
(N.b. I myself have not seen the poster so I don't have an opinion about the Starbucks campaign.)

jeremy said...

Nina: I fully agree that baby boomers do not care if others like "their" music or not. They have, however, dominated "us" with by the sheer force of numbers and with the belief that comes along with these numbers that the things they revere are intrinsic in those things rather than the interaction of those things with their youth.

Among the musical crimes of allowing McCartney more prominence for much longer than he has deserved is the way he fouls Michael Jackson's _Thriller_ with his participation on "The Girl is Mine." And that was 25 years ago! I'm supposed to believe he's done something great now and given it as insipid of a title as "Memory Almost Full"?

Lucy said...

You'll be happy to know I did my best to convince the guy who stopped me to ask directions to the nearest Starbucks that he should go to Darwin's instead.

dilettante said...

Despite your own feelings on the matter, I don't think that you can write off Paul McCartney's success as solely the result of fond memories for the music of Boomers' youth. The popularity of his work, especially with the Beatles, goes far beyond that demographic. By comparison, a lot of people were fans of the Spice Girls in the '90s, but I doubt their music will be similarly revered by future generations.

Ken Houghton said...

Comparing Spice World to Give My Regards to Broad Street would be interesting. You first, though.

I'm on record as saying that McCartney is a mistake. Then again, they were to only venue to offer Dylan at the Gaslight, 1962, which is eminently preferable to that Scorsese thing.