I'd like to play out an argument. Y'see, I was talking to a mate about musicians "selling out", and neither of us could put into words what is bad about it.
So, if I was to ask you, "What's so bad about bands or musicians licensing their songs for TV ads?", you would say...
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Technorati
I'd say nothing ... what's the ...
I'd say nothing ... what's the problem with it ? this business of being true to yourself and your music, it's bollocks, as an "artist" you want to be heard first and for most, otherwise why put your views to music and go out there and punt them around ? you want adulation your ego massaged with people coming up saying .. oh that was beauitful, or yeah man that's the way the system sucks .. what artist is going to say no to the chance of getting heard ( seen ) by a larger audience and hopefully making abit of money out of their music to boot ... :-) ... anyone who dosen't sell out given the chance will only continually live to regret it and bore the tit's off their mates with the "we almost made it "stories. :-) .. sell out, go on ... :-)
This beats the shit out of me, really. ...
This beats the shit out of me, really. Musicians, like all people, deserve to make a living for themselves doing a job that they love. If that involves playing in a pub for 20 people, or playing a huge stadium with thousands, good for them. If they have written a song, and people think it's appropriate for product placement, even better. More money = more time to do what they love to do. Surely, it is all about doing their job ie doing what they are best at, and being remunerated for doing that. This argument has always fascinated me. Is it that when you love someone's music, you want to keep it to yourself, and you consider it selling out when, in fact, millions get to hear it, so it becomes somehow less desirable to you? Is obscurity a prerequisite for admiration? Jesus. If musicians want to sell their music to whoever wants it, it's theirs to sell. Why shouldn't people make a buck? It's not as if they are prostituting small children. Good topic, HB.
here here jackie ... :-) !...
here here jackie ... :-) !
well i don't think many musicians do ...
well i don't think many musicians do sell out - selling out (my definition) would be doing something you don't like. so for example, for a band like the Wiggles to sell out they would really have to hate children's music. but it's kinda like (in many cases) prostitution, you wouldn't be doing it if you didn't need money
i hate it when people tell me to not talk about Christianity while on stage, like i know they mean the best and they say things like you should let people come up to you and ask you what your songs are about, then you can talk about it and it won't turn people off, but i guess it's kinda like homosexuality, i want society to get out of the habit of thinking that religion is something you should talk about in private because it's more appropriate
prostitution, homosexuality, ...
prostitution, homosexuality, christianality .. religion ... why bring any of these into a topic like this, you total far king idiot.
"total far king idiot", great attack ...
"total far king idiot", great attack dumbass
// great attack dumbass oh! touché!...
// great attack dumbass
oh! touché!
haha...
haha
I have done it once, a remix I did was ...
I have done it once, a remix I did was used as a sting for TV One's summer season one year. But I only did it cos I didn't want to annoy my friends who I'd remixed. I would never do it with my own music.
The thing I don't like about it is mainly having my memory of (and associations with) a piece of music forever recontextualised in a gross way. I actually don't want to always think of Cadbury's chocolate when I hear one of my favourite Beach Boys songs or Telecom when I hear numerous Bacharach classics. Generally I hate advertising and have been known to be insane enough to declare it an anti-democratic process of propaganda in the past. :) But things do change...
I feel almost as strongly about hearing music I like used in movie soundtracks... but then I think 90% of movies should have no music in them anyway... I've turned down a lot of TV work, have agreed to a few things.. art docos and the like.
I think it's quite a different thing to write music for advertising, cf. the guys from Devo and locally people from ... well, I don't know who's honest about it, but I can think of at least 3 well regarded indies who do it. Again, not something I'd do, money-wise I'm happy to focus on something more career-based than occasional cash fixes, but then I never ever expect to get money from my music.
And to make it really clear, I certainly don't judge or begrudge anyone - an Auckland musician said his attitudes changed a lot when he had a kid and suddenly he was like "well, I can stick to my convictions here or I can really easily get dosh for my family"...
A couple of goodies from Tom Waits:
"Commercials are an unnatural use of my work, like having a cow's udder sewn to the side of my face. Painful and humiliating."
"Apparently the highest compliment our culture grants artists nowadays is to be in an ad - ideally naked and purring on the hood of a new car. I have adamantly and repeatedly refused this dubious honour."
He's such a bad boy, has reaped almost US$3 million in damages from people hiring imitators to do Waits-like songs in ads.
Bla bla.. it's bloody hard to have any convictions about anything I reckon. I could talk myself out of any of this if the need arose. :(
/"well, I can stick to my convictions ...
/"well, I can stick to my convictions here or I can really easily get dosh for my family"...
I like this one- some things are worth swallowing your pride for.
Hey foetus, went for a drink with Rick ...
Hey foetus, went for a drink with Rick and his other half yesterday, at our usual haunt the roebuck, had a very pleasant afternoon. But back onto the topic at hand .. surely if your an artist, then you must want your work to be seen and heard, otherwise what's the point, tom waits I'm sure for all his not selling out rectoric ( if that's what it is ) is part of the global marketing machine which turns out his cd's in their thousands and sells them for him at a price where he makes a comfy living out of the proceeds. Has he sold out ?
Yeah, I should say I have no idea about ...
Yeah, I should say I have no idea about "selling out", I was responding to the bit about what was so bad about putting your song in advertising. Tom Waits says stuff about ads and he sticks to his guns no that point. He doesn't say stuff about distribution, manufacturing or the capitalist mode of production. :)
Also, I'm not sure these are ...
Also, I'm not sure these are contradictory ideas:
a) get your music heard
b) choose the means by which your music is heard
Still, it's basically a death wish for anyone (like me) writing mellow electronic music. The only way to even vaguely reach a wide audience is through advertising and soundtracking.
Rock and a hard place, if your ...
Rock and a hard place, if your producing music which people like and want to hear more of when you play it to them, but your like I don't want to go down the meat market track that is the mass exposure route, then it's a hard call as to how to get your stuff out there and heard in a more public domain. Adverts are just one option of course, but if it's the only option open to you, do you take it ?
// Tom Waits says stuff about ads and ...
// Tom Waits says stuff about ads and he sticks to his guns on that point
Ahem, I seem to remember "Heart-Attack & Vine" getting played rather alot in the 90's as part of a Levi's ad. (well I think it was Levi's, it was definately around the time that campaign was running that re-launched some old rockers - and got the Clash a n#1 single)
// Ahem, I seem to remember ...
// Ahem, I seem to remember "Heart-Attack & Vine" getting
// played rather alot in the 90's as part of a Levi's ad.
From wikipedia:
"In 1993, Levi's used Screamin' Jay Hawkins's version of Waits's "Heartattack and Vine" in a commercial. Waits sued, and Levi's agreed to cease all use of the song, and offered a full page apology in Billboard Magazine."
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/tom_waits ]
also interesting to see that Waits won ...
also interesting to see that Waits won that case despite the fact he didn't actually own the copyright on the song....
"One wonders what case Waits tried to make against Levi's. He could not sue for copyright infringement (Waits did not hold the copyright), nor for voice misappropriation (Hawkins did not do an impersonation). He probably sued for something like "false endorsement" (embarrassment, damage to artistic reputation or professional standing, future publicity value)."
[ external link ]
//...surely if your an artist, then you ...
//...surely if your an artist, then you must want your work to be seen and heard, otherwise what's the point...
Bollocks - I know plenty of songwriters and artists who couldn't give a flying f**k wether or not their songs are seen or heard. It depends on wether you're enamoured with making the music or having the trappings of being a musician. Sure exposure is nice and makes things more financially viable but not everyone has dreams of being the next big thing - so folks are quite happy with just making music without trying to shove it down everyone elses throats.
[my pet peve]
Take for example the dubious merits of the music video - it is basically advertising and 75% of the videos produced out there have little or no artistic merit to them - they are for all intents and purposes an advertisment for your song. How is this different from allowing your music to be used to adverstise someone elses product?
//You don't mean those are the only ...
//You don't mean those are the only options, right? Sure they are polar opposites, but there can still be people who make a living from music without "shov[ing] it down everyone elses throats", right? Sorry, just want to make sure I understand you correctly.
My choice of phrases "shoving it down everyones throats" was probably not my wisest move! What I've outlined there are basically the two polar opposites - and like everything else it's a sliding scale. To make a living from music you pretty much have to be active in "promoting" it to other people - it doesn't happen on it's own (or it does very very rarely).
/Interesting. Given that music videos on TV are a way of getting music across to people, do you think the same applies to radio?
Well my issue is more in the way that people approach music videos - ie simply as exposure. Very few people approach them as a work of art in their own right (and this can be seen by the massive piles of uninspired videos on rotation these days). I don't listen to commercial (music) radio anymore so am not really qualified to comment on the radio side of things - radio has always confused me actually.
//And, if you don't mind Scott (you still here, mate?), could I ask you the original questions of this thread: What is bad about selling out, and, for that matter, what is "selling out"?
What is selling out? To me it's allowing other factors (usually financial) aside from artistic concerns to influence your decision process surrounding your art form. Whats bad about selling out? Nothing at all - if you're happy with it. At the end of the day it's no one elses business except the actual artist themselves.
/[wainuiomata]
/so to say some musos don't give a flying f"*k if their music's heard etc .. I'm sure at some level there's a need for opinon and feed back, so in that alone it shows there's a desire for recognition of their work at some level ... it's just that some / most want that recognition at an higher level with the fame and fortune at the end of it, and some maybe don't.
Oh certainly recognition comes into - but what is being recognised? Is it the work and effiort put in to produce a piece of art or is it recognition that the final product is "popular" and acceptable to our society? The question has too be asked - what sort of recognition is being sought by the artist?
I see "selling out" in a similar way to ...
I see "selling out" in a similar way to wainuiomata.
I see it more as a label that the 'fans' of a band impose upon them, rather than something that the band actively does. This is perhaps borne out by the fact that musicians cannot agree on what selling out is.
When a band is starting out, and-importantly- they are 'great'; they will naturally develop a 'small loyal following'.
However, the fact that they are 'great' invariably means that when their 'small loyal following' recommends them to their friends and plays their recordings to others this 'greatness' will be apparent to them also.
The band now plays to the 'small loyal following' + their friends + the friends of their friends.
A crowd this big attracts interest from labels and promoters, band makes 'great' debut album which 'small loyal following' claims a certain amount of ownership over - I mean they were there from the start weren't they?
The records 'greatness' insures radio play, a video is made, and a tour is done. The band is now available to an audience far wider than the original 'small loyal following' (who at this stage are still claiming some form of exclusive ownership.
But.
The larger audience also sees the 'greatness', which attracts interest from bigger labels, promoters etc.
The band is now signed to a major label and being played internationally. The kids of the world are happy because the band are 'great' and the band are happy because they're playing in Bangladesh and meeting Oasis and snorting coke with Uma Thurman - things couldn't be better (when they started out they never saw themselves like this, the best they'd hoped for was a support slot for shihad and a trip to Melbourne).
The only people who aren't happy are the 'small loyal following' that are now totally disenfranchised from the band, and being the vociferous gatekeepers of cool that they are cry "sell-out" to anyone that will listen. (Which doesn't include the 'great' band as they're in Bangladesh snorting coke off Uma Thurmans thigh with Oasis)
As for selling music to advertisers, ...
As for selling music to advertisers, that's quite complicated as there are more than one way to do it.
As in the Tom Waites example, a track can be licensed to advertisers by the copyright holder (which is quite often not the artist involved). A local example would be, I suspect as I don't know the facts, the FlyingNun/Hallensteins campaign. This equates to being sold out, rather than actively selling out. Good for the bank balance, possibly disastrous to your moral integrity depending on your fanbase.
Then there's actively selling out. Moby would be a good example here as he made every track off his play album available to advertisers.
There's partially selling out, as in Jet's SJD example - a company, in this case Telecom approaches you for the rights to one song for one add. It's a one off thing, you didn't actively seek it out, you made some money, any harm done? N0, not much.
Actually this ones even muddier as it was an instrumental track - I mean it's not like selling your voice is it, it's just a bunch of samples.
And then there's the 'make music to sell' concept. Make your out-takes and 30 second noodles available. Make money, no harm done, no one even needs to know it's you.
On the subject, and someone may be able to help me here, in those telecom ads for Jetstream with the Geek-force a Module poster is clearly visible on the wall in one of them, the music could very well be Module ( same style ) so is it?
Cos that would be a slightly different thing again - allowing your music and your name to be used - which is far more gratuitous.
And to end with another question...
What about endorsements? You know, where a young drummer sells his image, signature and band-name for a free drum-kit. Is that selling out? ( I'd say yes).
Yes, scott, what recognition is being ...
Yes, scott, what recognition is being sought, I guess it's got to be some sort of popular recogniton, someone other than yourself must like what you the artist has been doing, that way making it in someway a "popular" tune .. if it's just down to you and your opinion then it's an individual, possibly totally baised perspective. As to whether it's popular within "society" ( sorry about the apostrophies, bad habit of mine ) I guess that's down to what you want to produce .. I mean I could go into a studio and bang dustbin lids, shoot shootguns and yell with some kind of a rhythm and call it music .. but is it .. ?? if that's the case then everyone in the world's a muso aren't they .. ? I'm losing my train of thought, got someone over my shoulder wanting to work on this computer so gotta log off for now .. hope above makes some sense ..
i'd buy that song, sounds like a winner...
i'd buy that song, sounds like a winner
I think that song was on Die die die's ...
I think that song was on Die die die's first album? Could have been the Mint chicks though....
I'm a musical genius ... :-) I'll pop ...
I'm a musical genius ... :-) I'll pop into one of the studios when they're free today and put a track or 60 down, shouldn't take more than a couple of hours to create this ( these ) masterpiece .. hang on ... forgot the shotgun .. infact don't even own one now, I may have to shelve the project, sorry people ..
Aha! Interesting post, Scott. Can I ...
Aha! Interesting post, Scott.
Can I ask you to clarify something?
...making the music or having the trappings of being a musician... and ...folks are quite happy with just making music without trying to shove it down everyone elses throats
You don't mean those are the only options, right? Sure they are polar opposites, but there can still be people who make a living from music without "shov[ing] it down everyone elses throats", right? Sorry, just want to make sure I understand you correctly.
Anyhoo, that aside...
Videos... are for all intents and purposes an advertisment for your song. How is this different from allowing your music to be used to adverstise someone elses product?
Interesting. Given that music videos on TV are a way of getting music across to people, do you think the same applies to radio?
And, if you don't mind Scott (you still here, mate?), could I ask you the original questions of this thread: What is bad about selling out, and, for that matter, what is "selling out"?
Fair point on the video thing, never ...
Fair point on the video thing, never really looked at it that way, our receptionist plays her led zep cd's thro our TV here at work .. obviously no pictures, but I can't help looking up at the screen sometimes expecting to see something .. I've taken to associating music with pictures at some level, even tho when I was younger, the radio was the only place to really hear music ... there were a few music programms, but none if any videos .. which as you say are in many ways an advert for the music.
As for the muso's who don't give a flying f*"k if their music's seen or heard, I guess there are some who are like that .. like people who like cooking but don't want to be a chef in a top class resturant .. but even an amateur chef like to show off their creations at some level or another and get feed back from their mates from time to time .... so to say some musos don't give a flying f"*k if their music's heard etc .. I'm sure at some level there's a need for opinon and feed back, so in that alone it shows there's a desire for recognition of their work at some level ... it's just that some / most want that recognition at an higher level with the fame and fortune at the end of it, and some maybe don't. Fair call tho Scott.
Fair point on the video thing, never ...
Fair point on the video thing, never really looked at it that way, our receptionist plays her led zep cd's thro our TV here at work .. obviously no pictures, but I can't help looking up at the screen sometimes expecting to see something .. I've taken to associating music with pictures at some level, even tho when I was younger, the radio was the only place to really hear music ... there were a few music programms, but none if any videos .. which as you say are in many ways an advert for the music.
As for the muso's who don't give a flying f*"k if their music's seen or heard, I guess there are some who are like that .. like people who like cooking but don't want to be a chef in a top class resturant .. but even an amateur chef like to show off their creations at some level or another and get feed back from their mates from time to time .... so to say some musos don't give a flying f"*k if their music's heard etc .. I'm sure at some level there's a need for opinon and feed back, so in that alone it shows there's a desire for recognition of their work at some level ... it's just that some / most want that recognition at an higher level with the fame and fortune at the end of it, and some maybe don't. Fair call tho Scott.
'Selling out' is the idea that ...
'Selling out' is the idea that you're letting money/market write the songs, rather than your soul/artistic vision/creativity/emotion/expression... in short, that you're not being true to yourself... but it's a pretty bullsh!t concept, honestly.
I mean, jaded fans are provoked into thinking this way about bands that change their sound or suddenly become popular- by this logic, the goal is to constantly write songs that sound the same and never sell more records than the last album.
"songs the same..." Status Quo ...
"songs the same..."
Status Quo should be OK then. I've just heard "The Party Ain't Over".
Interesting. Personally, I have nothing ...
Interesting. Personally, I have nothing to sell out with, but the concept of "selling out" appears to me to have devolved into something that so-called fans accuse bands of in order to prove how pure they are.
I really liked Greg Johnson's song used on the Bendon (I think) ad back in the early 1990s. "Mama saaaaid, it's alriiiiiight to dreeeeam..."
or maybe it's the fact that when bands ...
or maybe it's the fact that when bands "make it" the bed rock fans who's followed them from the start are pushed to one side as new people come along, they take over the fan base, and "corporate" people take over the running of the band, people feel left behind and see that as a sell out... maybe ...?
I get that impression, for ...
I get that impression, for sure.
Also, I wonder if it has to do with how successful the band already is when it licenses its songs for ads. For example, I never heard anyone complain about Hammond Gamble doing ads (or the above-mentioned Greg Johnson song), but when U2 lends Vertigo to the iPod ad, the shit hits the... errm, band. Do you think that might have something to do with it?
Maybe, but maybe again there were ...
Maybe, but maybe again there were people out there who didn't like Hammond Gamble doing the adds, but he's not as global as U2 as such, so you don't really hear about it. It's a hard one to pin down, why one thing may apply to one band ( person ) and another to another in the eyes of the people who carry opinions on these things. ( if that makes sense ) the only time we tend hear the " sell out " cry is when someone's just made it or are already successful and decide to give their music a change or try another avenue of promotion, Yet when either of these things happen for the most part the same people who sit there saying, this is great music, and come up to you at gigs with words of encouragement are the same ones who rubbish you as a sell out when the above mentioned happens ... man I know I should re-read this, but I already have once and it confused me .. but I'll post it anyhow, as I'm sure there's something there that makes alittle sense .. :-)
ah .. no, no just re=read .. and no, ...
ah .. no, no just re=read .. and no, nothing really makes any sense .. sorry about that .. :-) !! and I haven't even had a drink yet .. :-)
As soon as you turn your music into a ...
As soon as you turn your music into a commodity, the sell out begins. But that in itself is not a bad thing.
It's what you do with the money that defines the sell out.
I'm not sure if any one has said this ...
I'm not sure if any one has said this yet, so I'll say it anyway.
I think that it's when you start to make an obvious sway towards a more mainstream "sound" in order to make money or increase your fan base (so as to make more money (Like Moby or Eric Clapton for instance)), as opposed to writing what you feel.
Sometimes artists just gain a larger audience because they are actually really good, and thats not selling out (although some people say that they have (Like Radiohead or Pink)). That is why you need a REALLY good marketing company (which isn't selling out)
What's bad about it? Nothing if you ...
What's bad about it?
Nothing if you have no need for a soul I guess...
here's what the professionals say:...
here's what the professionals say:
[ http://www.answers.com/selling%20out ]