There is no black and white.
You can't be totally for the art or the commercial aspect.
You won't survive.
Who defines integrity? Is it based on public perception or what the artist knows is true?
As time progresses needs change, positions shift, opportunities arise...
Are we being selfish in saying that an "artist" must stick to the same beliefs even if they no longer feel they are true or is it solely the "artist's" duty to satisfy their fans?
How do you satisfy such a diverse mix of people? Go with the majority? Isn't that closely linked to commercialism?
We all call for an ideal world but who gets to choose the ideal?
yadda, yadda, yadda.

easy tiger. you need to chill out.

im sure all artists wake up in the morning and say to themselves "wow, today im gonna trade in my musical talent and style for an endorsement." or not.

bands that are chosen for endorsements are already making music that is popular. its not like a band will change style because coke added them to their playlist.

Some artists aspire for the commercial route and write music that is suitable for these uses.
Some artists cling to artistic integrity and shun any association with brands or products.
Some artists are forced by record labels/poverty to sell their music to advertising.
Some artists sell themselves in order to become better known through advertising.

It's all about which way ya wanna go and how much you value music as artistic expression. Oh, and if you're commercially driven, how good you are at sucking cock.

Well by your reckoning all artists are sellouts just about.. Why does selling your music make you value your music less? Its the same old selling out argument like my music is more pure because I never let it be used in commercial blah blah. And I bet Nesian boys drank alot of coke in their time and ate McDonalds too so their probly plugin a product they grew up on.. You always get these so called music purists who think artists have to be like monks not allowed to be percieved as making any money from their work and keeping away from any commercialism. Commercials are a great way of exposing your music to people who would never normally hear it and its up to the artist to decide who they want their music associated with. If I wrote a track that was later used by an advert its still the same track but the purists view it differently, if by selling a track enables the artist to make more music at the end of the day the artist will do it to enable them to keep doing what they love.

Music videos are commercials.

- It's all about integrity.
- Artists who plug Coke or Pepsi betray their art as vacuous at heart
- Relevant bands who get a platform promote Amnesty International or Greenpeace
- Spice Girls little more than walking endorsements. is there musical legacy likely to be remembered?
- We need someone to hold fast to the higher purpose of their art
- significant music should be free of the manipulation, coercion and duplicity of advertising companies.
- kuntakinte

true integrity is not judged in the public domain- all "artists" prostitute to some degree- any "artist" worth their salt will- if it please them- prostitute their "art" to whatever extreme they choose- & if a puritanical sector of the public objects- & they claim that now their "art" is less "significant"- then i would hope that "artist" just ignores such self-righteous pol studies plebs

spice girls had at least 4 great songs on each of their 2 cd's- i thjink they'll be remembered- don't be such a high art snob

// art is not profit

and this actually perfectly sums up arguments either way - art and money are two completely different concepts, michaelangelo painting the roof of the cistine chapel wouldn't have come cheap, but is anyone going to question his integrity?

the concept of paying someone to create something for you is as old as the oldest profession - it's called commission, there's no shame in it, after all, everyone's gotta eat, even musicians and artists ... let them make a buck, and keep them off the streets.

the worst part of this whole argument is that it's completely hypocritical ... at least the musicians that are doing endorsements or writing songs for corporates are out there trying to make a living doing something they love ... how many of you can honestly say they've never done something they weren't entirely comfortable with for work? how many of you can say that you're genuinely happy doing what you're doing and that it's been your dream forever?

// commerce is not art

anything can be an artform if you look at it from the right perspective ... it takes some kind of talent to get people to come into your domain, and purchase whatever it is you're pushing. being a surgeon is an artform, you save peoples lives through cutting them with knives and taking bits out and putting bits back, a house is a work of art, landsacpe gardening, industrial design, all of the above and more require some kind of vision

are you going to question the integrity of starship children's hospital because it's sponsored by mcdonalds?

or the westpac trust rescue helicopter?

why this need to believe there's any ART in ANYTHING we see in popular culture?

we don't know what art is .. we've been raised with all our whims catered to .. ART is redundant

if you can buy something then it's a convenience

we've seen too many sunsets on postcards or mementos in duty free shops

if ART survives from the past it's been copied and explained into meaninglessness

our survival instinct has shrivelled up like our appendix - except in countries / suburbs with exteme poverty - there it's renamed criminal necessity

we're spiritually bankrupt .. so we stoop to arguing about commerce vs. art

all that STUFF that earns the "artist" a buck is merely CRAFT / marketting / permutations of what's worked in the past / remix / rerun / recycled

recognise this as SHMULZ without any ORIGINAL FLAVOUR nor any NOURISHMENT FOR THE SOUL

still think it's art? - look at your lifestyle and guage the depth of your spiritual awareness... how can we recognise art when we're so shallow

SHMULZ has detoured our evolutionary PATH

the momentum of the mass-media machine destroys anything genuine like a great devilish homogenizer

it's been feeding us our own faeces so long now we love the taste

mmm yum yum gobble gobble gobble :)

[ http://www.underbelly.co.nz ]

I think music is more like the 1950s nowadays, elvis had a team of song writers feeding him new material just like someone like robbie williams has now as an example. The original singer song writers are always around whatever decade doing their own thing and always will be whether record labels pick them up or not. The main difference is the importance now on the visual side of music "the music vid" which people pay more attention to than the actual music which is a shame.

Yeah I agree with you Krackatoa, i think that WAY too much emphaisis is becoming placed on the music Vid in comparison to the actual music, this doesnt make sense really, as the artist isn't exactly in charge of making the video clip now are they?

another thing i'd like to point out to kuntakinte, is what does it matter if a band gets corporate sponsorship if the band doesn't care? as far as i know, nesian mystik wrote their song as the y saw fit, and coke decided they liked the jingle, so they used it in an ad. where's the compromise of artistic integrity there?

if a band does have strong anti-corporate beliefs then they won't allow their beliefs or their music to be compromised if offered money to do so.

i still don't see the problem.

//Artists who plug Coke or Pepsi betray their art as vacuous at heart and perpetuate the fantasy world the corporation promotes; y'know, it's sunny, hot girls frollick in swim suits, everyone is young and affluent and drinks Coke and loves McDonalds.

I like the Nesian Mystik song but hearing them on the ad doesn't make me run out to the shops to buy coke. As expressed on earlier posts, I say good on them for getting their music heard and for being able to make a comfortable living out of doing what they love.

//The reality is uglier - child obesity and malnutrition.
So you're smart enough to know this but the rest of the world isn't.
Oh Pah LEAse! I find the whole argument condescending and utterly insulting to the intelligence of the public. I say if you're stupid enough to think that drinking coke and eating McDonnalds is going to make you sexier, your life happier, make the rain stop and keep the skys sunnier then you deserve to "enjoy coke" become malnourished and obese.