The Mountain Goats
The Mountain Goats' John Darnielle
E: I'm sure you're sick of talking about this -but could you explain your whole stance on why you're against signing to any ONE particular record label?
JD: See, I haven't talked about that in a long time, actually. And my feelings have changed about it. I'll tell you what my position was, and I'll tell you why its changed.
My position WAS -and remains- politically, if you want to be PURE, label exclusivity was not invented for artists. It was invented for labels, right? So that they could make the most money. And the argument that THEY would give is that they can make the most money for everyone concerned. For themselves, and for the artist. Audiences don't want that, though. Audiences want the most good stuff they can get, and reasonable pay for.
Now if I'm releasing four full-lenth import albums a year, and you happen to give 30 bucks-a-pop for them then you have a complaint. If I'm releasing a slew of singles its not putting any dent in your pocketbook, and they're all of uniformly good quality, there's no good reason why I shouldn't do that. If you like it, and you want it, and I canprovide it -at a reasonable cost to you, the consumer, why shouldn't I do that? Right?
Well, labels say I shouldn't because then I won't sell as many of the one. That's of less concern to me than that you, if you you really like my stuff, want more. 'Cause the people who REALLY like my stuff are the ones who are important to me, not the people who can be convinced to buy it if I make it less available; if I limit myself so that they can probably get exposed. I'm more concerned with people who want to hear stuff. Right? And they'll exhaust a new album in four months. Its not like in four months they'll still be trying to figure-out the puzzle and still enjoy it. Its gone its course, and its going the wide race -its not sitting next to the CD player anymore. They're ready for a new one. If you could sell 'em at cost.
So by not being label-exclusive, the marketing ickiness that Big Labels have made par-for-the-course, and have made many people BELIEVE IN, right? -that an album a year is CORRECT. Anybody who can't write ten songs in a year is not a songwriter! You know? And anyone who can't write 20 isn't working hard enough.
So that was why I felt that way about it.
Then I got complaints from people who WERE really into my stuff. That they couldn't keep up with me. And they were going to fall-off rather than try. They were just going to stop. Because they WANTED to have-it-all, but it was getting harder, and harder to find. Harder to keep up with, and that was taking the fun out of it for them. And they'd rather that there be less stuff.
So I slowed down. And you get comfortable working with a label-or-two. Like the idea of being devoted to one label -nobody should kid themself- this is not for the artist. It is because the labels don't want other labels to have money. In indie rock we are a COMMUNITY. I want ALL labels to have some money -even ones that I don't like! I want labels to have money, because money is what's going to keep the machine running. And at least keep it at some low level of conspicuousness, so that some kid in Herald's Park can maybe run-itno an indie record that he enjoys. And find himself exposed to a level of discourse that he otherwise wouldn't. And I think label exclusivity limits the possibility for that guy. And I ain't down with that! How do YOU feel about that?
Y: Have you really thought about it?
E: Well, actually, one comment I'll make is that its funny that you kept using the term "the artist", since that was THE ARTIST's major complaint with Warner Brothers. And that's all I'll say!
JD: Oh, that they wouldn't let him make records for other labels? Or that they wouldn't let him release enough? Oh, you see, I'm TOTALLY sympathetic to that, 'cause Prince (aka "The Artist") is one of those guys who -when he catches fire- he records three hours' worth of quality stuff! And then when he's NOT on fire, when he does two consecutively AWFUL albums in-a-row...
Y: Diamonds and Pearls?
JD: but who's got a problem with that? You know? I'm willing to follow somebody who I think has a good creative vision through valleys, you know? I'm willing to shell-out 30 bucks in my life to go through those valleys if they are providing me with really good art on occassion. 'Cause, really, their art is invaluable.So really, he SHOULD be able to release as many as he likes. And Warner Brothers is mad that they aren't all going PLATINUM?! WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS? Nobody is LOSING MONEY...so shut up! Release the man's records!
It pisses me off! Because when he catches fire, he's gonna release three. And when he's not on fire, he's gonna release three anyway. He could put out boxed sets of his mumblings in the shower, and that is fine with me! And he isn't even my favorite artist. But he's one I'm sympathetic to, because he wants a document of his stuff out there. And his document is a viable commercial product. And they want it to be MORE VIABLE. They want to MAXIMIZE. Well, if they were to do the math, I think they'll find that they're making as much off three golds as they are off one that sells 1.5 (million). So...that's some sillinesson their part. And I'm sure he was very unpleasant to deal with, in the whole thing -painting "SLAVE" on his face, changing his name to an unpronouncable icon -all that kind of stuff. But the idea that you should release THIS ONE, and let it run its course in the marketplace, art is NOT about the marketplace. The marketplace happens to support art. Because art needs some osrt of support. But the marketplace should always be subordinate to it.
Here's the marketplace. Alright, you tell me something about Roman economics. (Eveybody laughs) -Didn't survive! Name a Roman writer.
E: Virgil.
JD: Thank you! OK, so the art is important, and is probably eternal. And the marketplace is dumb, and transitory, and material, and secondary -and the only reason we concern ourselves with it at all is because we've gotta EAT. But what we eat is only of interest to a few very academic people. Wheareas what record we leave of what we THOUGHT and BELIEVED and DID -this is important. This is vital. Its the only thing that's left.
I get pretty passionate about that question!
I didn't realize that I still had it. Because I would sign an exclusive deal at this point because I'm HUNGRY and because I enjoy living as an artist. When I had to go back to work recently, I didn't like it! And I kicked, you know? It wasl ike "AHHH! Punching a TIME CLOCK?! Get me outta here!" And so, for the right amount of money, I'm gone! And I'll compromise my principles for that level of comfort. And if that makes what I say about this things less valuable for people then that's a shame. But I talked earlier in the interview about the complexity of an individual, and the complexity of an indivual's belief -they may never be comfotable with it. But, what I do to ensure the comfort of my family does not invalidate the things I say that have the ring-of-truth.
E: Real quick: what is the certain question that you've always wanted someone to ask you in a band interview, but no one ever does?
JD: Dear Mr. Darnielle, your campaign seems to have experienced the success of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?
Do you recognize that? Its from The Simpsons, from when Mr. Burns was running for mayor. He fed them questions...
But, what do I always want people to ask?
I want people to ask what my project is -like WHY I write songs. Now, you really don't want me to get into that now, because we all want to go to bed! But nobaody seems to ask artists what their motivation is. And -not what inspires you, not, you know, "Where did you get this idea?", but "Why are you BOTHERING? What do you feel you have to add to the discourse?" And like I said, I'm not going to do that, which is a horrible way to answer that question!
I think artists SHOULD be asked "What makes YOU qualified to do art? What do you have to contribute? And if you can't name what you have to contribute, why are you bothering?" -'Cause if the only answer is that "People seem to like it" -that ain't good enough! People will find something else to like. You should be providing them with something that you can SAY what it is thay YOU give them that other people CAN'T. And, I struggle to try and have that. And I think occassionally I hit it. And I think all GOOD ARTISTS do. All GREAT ARTIST, unquestionably do. But all good artists have something that makes you say "THAT's what I want!" not "Something LIKE that." And I would like to be asked about my motivation. I would probably get flustered, and balk at doing it. But I think that artists should be asked that.
I think that Will Oldham should be asked "Why have you assumed this Southern persona? Why this kind of music for you? Why do you write these songs that are laden with these profanities -which seem to insult people from an entire region of the country?" You know?
Y: The probablem is that when you ask him that, he's unintelligable.
JD: "Why do you seem to want to come off like you're from poor stock, when you're form a very moneyed family?" -People should ask him these questions! People should ask John Spencer about semiotics -because that's what he studied at Brown! And they should ask "How does that inform your songs?" -and John Spencer would probably have fascinating things to say, 'cause no one's going to ask him WHY he's writing the songs -because they rock so hard that it seems self-evident. But that isn't the purpose to what he's doing.
Y: I could discuss semiotics! (Laughs)
JD: I can't, I just throw the word around.
Y: It would be painful if I started talking.
(Yoonie and I spent two hours arguing about the implications of the Levis jeans soft sell / Soft Cell commercial. -Ed.)
JD: I'm gonna go to the bathroom, and then I'm gonna go to bed.
TO LEARN MORE ABOUT MOUNTAIN GOATS, >CLICK HERE!
END