selling out

[Dalya]

how exactly do you guys define selling out? do you even think bands can sell out or do you think its so hard to survive they should do whatever it takes for money and should not be judged for it? whats the difference between selling your song to a commercial and writing a song specifically for a commercial? which is worse? does it matter what label youre on? does it matter how much your concert tickets/cds cost?

etc.

[Phyllis]

i think if you have billions and billions of dollars there is no need to sell your songs or charge 200 dollars for a ticket to your concerts. that's just greedy.

[monet2u]

I think it's their art (the band) they should be able to do as they wish. I make no judgements. Doesn't mean I'll like everything or agree with their choices...but it's their music.

[Rebecca]

i think if you have billions and billions of dollars there is no need to sell your songs or charge 200 dollars for a ticket to your concerts. that's just greedy.

I agree. Take note of this, Paul McCartney.

[ree-ree]

i think if you have billions and billions of dollars there is no need to sell your songs or charge 200 dollars for a ticket to your concerts. that's just greedy.

I agree. Take note of this, Paul McCartney.

Yeah. This probably bothers me the most.

And I hate having songs by bands used in commercials. But that's me.
I guess I'd rather have the old-timey crappy jingles that were specific to a product.
I don't think I have a judgement about bands regarding the practice. I just find it sad that that's how it is.

[lennon]

i agree with diana. it is sad that mccartney, u2, and the stones all have average ticket prices in excess of $150. at least for those that cannot afford those prices. however, if this is what the market will bear then they have every right to charge the high prices. even with prices that high the scalpers still are able to take the ticket i bought for $160 for u2 and sell it for $750. so theoretically, those tickets are unvalued by the bands. they could be making much more money than they are. the real crooks in this world are the scalpers and the internet makes it worse. now sitting in my living room i can by tix for any mccartney concert in the world and sell for a profit. in the past i would have had to go to each city then stand in line which would be impossible. so now instead of having people only in the city in which the concert will be in trying to get tix, maybe 50,000, now i have people from all over the world standing in a virtual line. so now the total goes from 50,000 to 500,000. and ticketmasters security procedures are a joke.

and i dont believe a band can 'sell out'. be it through a commercial or changing their style of music. as a band they have the freedom to express themselves however they wish. whether you write specifically for a commercial or sell your song to a company for a commercial, whats the difference? the song is still in the commercial getting exposed to a broader audience. all artists that sell their art want their art seen and heard. there lying if they say otherwise.

enough for now.......

[Dalya]

I think it's their art (the band) they should be able to do as they wish. I make no judgements. Doesn't mean I'll like everything or agree with their choices...but it's their music.

i dont really get this. clearly the band can do whatever they want, as they hold the copyright to their music, but you can still decide whether or not you agree with their decisions. it sounds like youre pretending not to have an opinion when you do.

[Tracy]

I think that the concert ticket prices are based on supply and demand. If people are unwilling to pay exorbitant prices, the prices would go down. But people who attend concerts don't usually do it instead of putting food on their plates, they use discretionary funds so they pay what they must to see who they want.

My husband and son went to see Coldplay at Smirnoff last year. He bought "cheap" grass tickets at about $31 each plus the service fee (and had to pay for parking, of course). He said they couldn't hear Rilo Kiley at all and could barely hear Coldplay because the people around them were talking and carrying on. I can only guess that the price of tickets meant nothing to them since they didn't even pay attention to the headliner (and made it impossible for others to enjoy the show).

re: selling out - I subscribe to the Fred Krc (the Explosives) school of thought. Professional musicians make a living making music. I don't find fault with however they choose to do that as long as they don't hurt anyone.

[shen]

i think if you have billions and billions of dollars there is no need to sell your songs or charge 200 dollars for a ticket to your concerts. that's just greedy.

I agree. Take note of this, Paul McCartney.

i helped my dad's friend get some of those tickets, mcartney's, i mean, and i recall them being under 100 dollars. i doubt he had anything to do with the prices in the first place, but in ten minutes, all of those were sold out and, like george was saying, scalpers sold them for freaking exponential amounts.
i imagine that the managers, venue, and other-people-i-have-no-clue-about have more say in the ticket prices than he (or other musicians, not just dear paul!) did. can you imagine these bussinessmen owning a giant venue and saying 'paul mcartney? sure, 20 bucks or so sounds fine.'

-sh"i wish i could have gone!"en

[monet2u]

I think it's their art (the band) they should be able to do as they wish. I make no judgements. Doesn't mean I'll like everything or agree with their choices...but it's their music.

i dont really get this. clearly the band can do whatever they want, as they hold the copyright to their music, but you can still decide whether or not you agree with their decisions. it sounds like youre pretending not to have an opinion when you do.

Actually, no I don't care what they do with their music/art. It's theirs to do with as they will. I'm not put off by a song on a commercial at all. It's that simple for me, not sure why that isn't clear to you.

Example: about a year ago the Violent Femmes used a song on some phone ad, I quite liked hearing my fave band on tv (to be honest). Mind they're not as big or rich as some of the others mentioned, but why should I change my opinion of the band and their music just because they placed thier song in a commerical. I think people take it all way to seriously.

Now, if a band chooses NOT to that, fine with me too. It just really doesn't impact me at all one way or the other. I'm a fan of the music, I watch tv, and I buy things. I'm not really concerned either with the fact...someone who doesn't need to sell their songs, selling songs. Simple answer: it's theirs do what they will.

I guess I would ask, why does it offend you so?

[mr_j]

best quote:

'selling out is ME PERSONALLY doing something to/for MY BAND that I DO NOT choose to do, but I do for NO REASON EXCEPT FOR money." --- travis morrison, the dismemberment plan


that, my friends, is the best definition ever.

[mr_j]

that, or fucking winona ryder. whichever comes first.

[shen]

that, or fucking winona ryder. whichever comes first.

[Dalya]

it doesnt offend me so much as it takes away the meaning from whatevr the art is, be it music or film (see: great filmmakers making commercials.) most of The Greats were never appreciated in their lifetime. And the ones who did make a living off their art, Dickens and Robert Frost, off the top of my head... suck. To me it shows in their work that they were writing to their audience. And I thought this before I knew that Dickens was popular when he was alive.

(Before anyone butts in about how popular Shakespeare was-- i think he is different because he wrote plays and therefore the audience has to be considered. so i'd put him in the category with really great movies or tv shows which always have to bear in mind the viewer... but thats a whole nother discussion.)

in any case even if a song starts out great, i think it loses something when it is whored out to corporations. songs and art are not set in stone. they change and their rellevence changes. and i think a song loses its rellevence the second it is sold. on top of that, i think it is sort of pathetic and would embarass me personally if my art was referred to as "that mastercard song" or what have you. how is that art anymore? that is reducing art to a jingle. and i'd feel sort of like a hooker if people only liked me because they heard a 30 second clip of my song and though it was catchy. where is the satisfaction in that? a real artist has something to say not something to sell.

i know its their music and their decision what they want to do with it, but i think it shows a total lack of self respect as a musician when you put your song on a commercial. that is something you wrote and labored over to convey some thought that you needed to get out into the world. and now its being used to convince teenagers to buy ipods. even if you like ipods, and you think apple is a great company, youre diminishing yourself and your work by selling (read: whoring) your it.

[Devdog]

I think it depends on the situation. If you are a new band and someone comes to you and wants to use your song in a commercial, they would be crazy not to. They might be even get a lot of money but what they do get is exposure on a much grander scale. On the other hand, if you are a band who's songs have been played on the radio a million plus times and you have a wide fan base then I don't see the point. To me hearing a song I used to love back in the day is ruined by it being in a commercial. Now when I hear "Just what I needed", I think of Circuit City instead of The Cars as an example.

As far as ticket prices go the whole supply and demand thing has shifted from what it used to be. If a show was sold out (demand), the band would supply another date in that same town. Nowadays, only one show per town and they charge what they think you will pay. It's crap.

Devdog.