selling out

[Dalya]

dont you think it ruins your chance of making anything truly beautiful when youre concerning yourself with money and practical things that early on? i think you have a greater chance of self ruin in that case. i dont think bob dylan's whole career was altered when he was on the victorias secret commercial because he already had a good 40 years under his belt and had already dealt with the fame and all that.

why is "exposure" considered such a positive term when referring to a band. isnt it usually a negative word, as in being naked in front of the whole school in your nightmare?

why is fame the goal instead of music? why does it matter how many fans you have if you have enough to get by?

see sig below.

[lennon]

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.

i respectfully disagree:
selling a song for commercial use does not change the meaning of the song for the band or its original intended audience simply because its in a commercial. the meaning may be different in the use of the commercial for someone who hears the song for the first time in the commercial, but most art is left up to the interpretation of the viewer or audience and songs can have many meanings. not just the one intended by the artist. just because an artist says he wrote a song about his love for his mom i might interpret it and use it as anthem for my love of my wife, my friends, or of life itself. how many of us research every song we hear to find the artists intended meaning and inspiration behind the piece of music. no one.
everyone listens to music then adapts the song to fit into their life and their life experiences.

[monet2u]

I don't think most artist create something (a song for instance) thinking.."this will be perfect for a car ad". However, as time goes by...an ad agency feels that song would be perfect and then go about using it in their commericals if possible.

I'm sure as fuck Iggy didn't do Lust For Life, for a cruise line or any of the other ads it's played in. However, I still bop my head and sing along just as I would if I heard that song anywhere else. I still like the song and I still like Iggy.

[Rebecca]

Wynton Marsalis has an iTunes commercial, and I think it would be difficult for anyone to say he is less relevant or less self-respecting because of it. I especially like that commercial because I think if someone hears a 30 second clip of a jazz tune and decides to download it, that's a great thing.

Re "I'm biased because I think Wynton is by far the most talented, virtuosic human alive" becca

[aquaphase]

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.

This hits the nail right on the head. Granted, I'm not very fond of the monsterous jump in ticket prices these days (fuck, I paid $30 to see the Sisters of Mercy, and just passed on $60 Tool tickets), but it really is a supply and demand thing. In order for big bands to play the big venues they need to play in order to be enjoyed by the maximum number of fans, it takes a lot of support staff and personnel. These people have to be paid as well as all equipment/food/transportation. This all gets passed on to the fans. Granted, $130 is fucking ridic to see a shriveled up old man who used to sing w/ 3 other guys, but people still pay it.

[lennon]

dont you think it ruins your chance of making anything truly beautiful when youre concerning yourself with money and practical things that early on? i think you have a greater chance of self ruin in that case. i dont think bob dylan's whole career was altered when he was on the victorias secret commercial because he already had a good 40 years under his belt and had already dealt with the fame and all that.

why is "exposure" considered such a positive term when referring to a band. isnt it usually a negative word, as in being naked in front of the whole school in your nightmare?

why is fame the goal instead of music? why does it matter how many fans you have if you have enough to get by?

see sig below.

it all depends on the band, but yes i generally agree that if a band is concerned about putting out hits or making money the product will be compromised. but whos to say the product might not also be better. the added stress can lead to a better product just as it can for you and me in our everyday life.

why do you consider 'exposure' to be negative? of course there are different levels of exposure but once the album is on the market how does the level of exposure change the finished product?

i would hope that fame is not the reason why people/bands produce music and art. hopefully it is the love of the art itself which guides the inspiration. the fame is only a by product.

[Dalya]

a lot of musicians write songs thinking "i hope this will get lots of radio time".

aside from all that, i hate commercials and once a song is used on a commercial it just becomes noise to me, just like the fucking Stacy Furtniture guy yelling in my face.

just because lots of musicians are doing it now, doesnt make it any less vulgar. just because it brings recognition to someone worthy doesnt make it ok. and in my opinion, yes, it does degrade the music and the musician, no matter how good of a person they are. theyre compromising themselves. they are SELLING THEMSELVES. unless they dont actually like their own music or it doesnt mean anything to them. in which case, they are jingle writers anyway, not musicians.

[Dalya]

music isnt a "product". its not deoderant. its an art form.

[mr_j]

music isnt a "product". its not deoderant. its an art form.

so? commercials can be works of art, though. look at the apple 1984 commercial. or the jose gonzalez/bouncing ball commercial, and tell me those aren't brilliant moments in cinematography...

[aquaphase]

music isnt a "product". its not deoderant. its an art form.

now now. That's not very dada of you.

[Dalya]

exposure is negative bc it skews your sense of reality, therefore you can no longer make relative art and your sophmore album will be about how hard it is to read about yourself in Us Weekly all the time.

exposure in the music world means fame and money. fame is not natural for human beings and most cant deal with it.

to me the word exposure, even out of context, is a pretty negative word. revealing more than you want to reveal. first thought that comes to mind is a stripper. and if anyone tries to defend stripping and say that stripping doesnt diminish your self worth, i will neck punch you because thats bullshit and we all know it.

selling your body causes you to lose value in your own eyes and the eyes of others.

how is selling your words/soul any different?

[Dalya]

so? commercials can be works of art, though. look at the apple 1984 commercial. or the jose gonzalez/bouncing ball commercial, and tell me those aren't brilliant moments in cinematography...

maybe the camera angles are good, but a commercial can never have soul. therefore its not art.

what makes something art? being pretty sounding or pretty to look at? doesnt it have to mean something? if what it means is BUY ME I WANT TO BE RICH, isnt that a really fucking ugly side of humanity? i think so.

i sort of feel sick right now.

[mr_j]

Art doesn't exist inside a vaccuum. It doesn't exist inside a philosophical ideal, either. If you keep it locked up, then isn't that more elitist than sharing it with an audience? Art requires commerce in order to survive, even if it's on the smallest of levels. It might not be 'for-profit,' but even the noisest noisemakers want to sell enough records to make another record. Not all of them do, of course--but then, are those that don't care about making art thrive really serious about making art in the first place?

those who don't care about money generally don't care about money because they've always had it, or have a way to make enough to survive. very few artists actually work themselves into the ground intentionally making themselves poorer and poorer for something that does not reap enough rewards to break even. there's a goal in their mind for what they do, and i bet it sure isn't some conceptual idea about what art should be.

[Rebecca]

Art, in all forms, is a commodity. It may not seem natural to think of it as such, but it is. To think that art does not conform to the same rules as other things that are bought and sold is somewhat ignorant.

Your definition of selling out makes perfect sense, but it's just not practical. It would be impossible for someone to make any sort of living as a musician without selling themselves. Every time you get on a stage or sell a record or sell a painting, you are in essence selling a part of yourself, whether you are on some indie label playing at shitty dive bars or you are Paul McCartney selling your concert tickets for hundreds of dollars. Therefore, if the definition of selling out is selling yourself, then every single artist who has made $.01 from their music is a sell out.

I don't think Logan becomes less of an amazing musician when he goes and plays shitty wedding gigs (talk about music with no meaning...) to pay the rent. If he didn't play those shitty gigs sometimes, then he would have to get a real job and wouldn't have time to become a better musician.

I agree with a lot of what you have said, because I can tell you truly care about the integrity of good music, and that's important. But you are putting artists up on a pedestal, when really they have to make a living just like the rest of us.

-All About The Music



(ahahahahhahaha)





P.S. Dalya + Rebecca = still BFF

[Dalya]

i hardly think that refusing to sell your song to mitsubishi is keeping it in a vacuum. i didnt say dont press records, i said dont whore your music. theres a difference.

artists sell paintings, but i doubt any of us would respect an artist very much who did a series for starbucks ads in People Magazine or something.

if youre an musician and you cant get a lot of "exposure" without putting your song on TV, maybe its because youre not very good or you really dont have anything to say.

and if youre an artist i dont think you need to concern yourself with making art in general thrive. you need to make your own art thrive and let the philanthropists concern themselves with making art accesible.

there is a difference between "not caring about money" is in not being aware of its effects/existence (only rich people are capable of this) and not being greedy. only wanting enough money to survive is perfectly acceptable and healthy and sane. you should want enough money for food and shelter. but more money isnt going to fill the hole inside you left from a shitty childhood, so theres no point in being greedy.

radix malorum est cupiditas