Selling Out: Classic or Dud?

1. You like the song in question more than the artist does.
2. Take their money and screw 'em.

It depends on the product in many ways.

signing to a major label and winning a support slot for the hot 99.5 return of rock tour with Ashlee Simpson and Hoobastank: Dud

its just that simple

But that's only because it means your music fits in with Ashlee Simpson and Hoobastank .. so it's the grim reality that you suck that makes it dud.

That said, I think it is useful to draw a bit of distinction between the song being used in an ad for, say, shoes and being used in a movie about sensitive indie-music-listening young people gaining wisdom whilst getting their hearts broken.

In the first, Hewlett Packard (or whoever) is using the hip indie sound of your hip indie record to appeal to a notional hipster demographic. Their ad agency wants you to think of them as a hip, non-square company, a company who "gets it," and therefore you buy stuff from them. And they get money with which they hire ad agencies whose creative employees are hip to the indie scene, and the cycle repeats.

This is problematic if your indieism is a specifically anti-corporate indieism, rather than just a likes-kinda-quirky-music indieism.

In the latter situation, a record is being used to set a mood in a movie in which the characters are presumably supposed to be hip indie-likin' people themselves. Given the prominence of music in how such young people define themselves and define one another, culturally speaking, this is kind of unavoidable.

It wouldn't have made sense to have the characters in "Reality Bites" listening to Phil Collins, just as it wouldn't make sense for "Garden State" or "I Am Sam" or "High Fidelity" to have a soundtrack full of Hoobastank.

I can think of many artists who have never had their music used in adverts - almost all of them in fact - but not many who starved to death. Perhaps there's a news story being swept under the carpet here.

The only thing on this whole bled-dry subject that annoys me is dullards who scream at the advertising agency/multinational corporation for using their favourite pop song, while persisting with their doe-eyed admiration of the band who sold the rights in the first place (or signed a contract depriving them of such rights)

Taking Sides: "How Soon Is Now" in a Mazda ad versus "How Soon Is Now" as the theme to the WB's Charmed

I bought R.E.M.'s first EP, Chronic Town, when it came out and thought I had found God. I loved Murmur, Reckoning, but then watched, with greater and greater dismay, as this obscure little band's audience grew, grew beyond obsessed people like myself, grew to encompass casual fans, people who had heard a song on the radio and picked up Green and listened for the hits. Old people liked them, and stupid people, and my moron neighbor who had sex with truck drivers. I wanted these phony R.E.M.-lovers dead.

But it was the band's fault, too. They played on Letterman. They switched record labels. Even their album covers seemed progressively more commercial. And when everyone I knew began liking them, I stopped.

...

To me, everyone was a sellout. Any band that sold over 30,000 albums was a sellout. Any writer who appeared in any mainstream magazine was a sellout. I was a complete, weaselly little prick, and I had no idea what I was talking about, and goddamn if I don't wish I could take all that back, because I knew nothing then, just as you know nothing now.

except steve doesn't make any money. he only pays himself $24K a year for his efforts. rest goes back into studio/employees' salaries/etc.

What interests me now is the way they're pushing the envelope. The Decemberists' new record doesn't come out until March, but one of the songs, "Sixteen Military Wives," is now appearing on an HP ad. I don't care that they sold the song to HP, but this means that instead of waiting for hip ad execs to find their music, they're aggressively moving their songs - probably priming them with All Things Considered, ad agencies, etc. Should an ad agency hear a band's albums before the fans do? Is that a shade worse than just selling your song to somebody after the album's out?

On the other hand, if somebody digs the sound of the commercial, looks around a bit, and comes to a band they wouldn't otherwise have heard, can't we classify that as a Good Thing?

The attitude that makes me most ill is this one: "they're different, special, like they're tailored for people just like me, and not for just anyone. You don't expect them to get mainstream exposure. This is (or was) a cult band, a nice secret...."

It's classic if you're doing it to purposefully rip-off the music industry and milk them for all its worth (see Associates, The KLF, Scritti Politti's deconstruction-fueled subversion of pop, Laurie Anderson's "O Superman" unwittingly being a fuck you to the concept of marketability...no, I'm certain she did not intend for it to be a massive single, but I think it not only could but SHOULD have been an F.U. to marketability considering how "uncommercial" it sounds).

As for the Associates, if you've never read the liner notes to the reissue of Fourth Drawer Down, they sold demo tapes of previously recorded songs to interested majors while releasing new songs through Situation Two.

But I get very uncomfortable when I see stuff like that Ford Puma ad where they used old Steve McQueen footage. That's one step from doing a ventriloquist act with his mouldy corpse endorsing your product.

your statement proves I am right! Uh...

(I know what you mean, but I'll assume you know what I mean too)

i worry for the future day when advertisers realize that having a song in an ad is such a good career move for a band that they can start getting bands to do it for free ... or maybe they can actually get bands to PAY THEM for the placement. and why not? bands/labels are already paying to get on the radio. and manufacturers are already paying tv and movie producers to get their products on screen.

so i think bands and songwriters should enjoy this windfall while they can, cause it very well might not last.

maybe i'm just really really paranoid. or really really cynical. but it seems really obvious to me for some reason!

Or when you KNOW the original artist wouldn't have endorsed the company or product, i.e. the Nina Simone/Muse/Nestle "Feeling Good" fiasco.

RICH WORDS coming from Pitchfork! But completely and utterly OTM. All of this concern about artists biographies and what they use their income for is very strange to me.

It wasn't that it ruined the music for me. I have never seen the commerical and I don't even know what song they used. It just kind of ruined the story I had in my head of them and what they meant. It is selfish, but I would have liked to see them go down in flames like Peter Laughner or Lester Bangs. I would have liked to have seen someone carry that negativity to its final conclusion. To see something that punk still happening. Of course nobody is punk after they have to pay rent and keep enough money in the bank for car repairs and emergencies.

I understand why they did it, they were all broke as hell, and needed cash for debts, living expenses, and maybe a cool guitar. It wasn't like they all bought yachts with the ad money. I don't blame them, it was the best decision they could have made. I just wanted them to be an example of somebody who stuck to their guns till the end. I know it is completely unfair to saddle somebody with a morality that I myself do not live by. It just would have been nice to know something like that still exists.

I am not sure what I am trying to say with this post. Perhaps something is lost when bands from the margins of mainstream culture become acceptable. It is just another reminder that people at the margins of culture are just a farming system for the center, not a genuine alternative inspite of it. Does it make the indendent system weaker when people crossover into the larger cultural world. Should this even be a concern? But hey, I have no right to point fingers, we all have rent to pay.

...and david eggers is an assclown.

I think it's rare that a song used in a commercial triggers massive attention to the song and artist that wouldn't otherwise be there, which the band's fans would see as 'undesirable' (Pink Moon being an obvious exception).

I think general corporate sponsorship (beginning with ClearChannel, obv.) is more consistent with the commercialization found in 'selling out' that some of us dislike. Commercials are only the tip of the iceberg.

If you like it, who gives a fuck?

In other words, you wanted them to kill themselves for your entertainment. Too bad you missed out on public executions.

This is making a fetish of obscurity, and I must say I disagree strongly.

Do you like things that are outside of the mainstream because they are good, or because they are outside of the mainstream? Put another way, do you dislike mainstream music because it is bad, or simply because it is mainstream?

You seem to be saying the latter (at least partly).

What was the reason you started seeking out "alternative" (for lack of a better word) music? Because you didn't see yourself and your tastes reflected in the mainstream? Or because you just reflexively assume that if a lot of people like something, then you can't?

But if "alternative" musics enter the larger culture, and become the weft of advertisements and movie soundtracks and elevator muzak and whatnot, then we will live in a world in which "mainstream" music IS what we used to call "alternative." The problem that led you to prefer the "alternative" will be, to some extent, gone.

Is the problem that you can't conceive of a universe in which you're one of the mushy majority instead of a discerning minority?

and what of it? no-one in my experience wants to feel that they're part of the mushy majority. it's more that over-educated pop fans have taken the radicality of liking pop for an actual political stance, so indie = evil conservatism, like it's a really pressign political issue.

"selling out" generally is an artistick problem when it is associated w/thee artist having an attitude that s/he is writing "shit for thee masses", wtf, this will do, they'll lap it up anyway etc. Otherwise, who gives a shit. It's always a lot easier if you can find thee rekkird you are looking for in a high-street record shop, w/o having to buy it mail order.

DUD - Owning the publishing of somebody ELSE'S songs, and profiting from them. EXTREME DUD if done so by a fellow musician, i.e. McCartney, Jackson, whoever else.

No, I wanted the punkest kid in school to remain the punkest adult. I always hoped they would stick to their guns, and not give in to reality like everybody else.

This is making a fetish of obscurity, and I must say I disagree strongly.

this is a false binary. You do not have to be obscure to not do mitsubishi commericals, they were not obscure beforehand, check the ilm archives they made a bit of a stir a few years back. Not working with corporate media does not make automatically obscure. I never once raised that issue. I don't care about how well known they were, and they are still relatively unknown. Corporate money was the issue. Mind you this whole issue is regarding someone who almost punched me in the face 10 years ago for saying that Econochrist had commerical potential.

Do you like things that are outside of the mainstream because they are good, or because they are outside of the mainstream? Put another way, do you dislike mainstream music because it is bad, or simply because it is mainstream? You seem to be saying the latter (at least partly).

are these my issues, or your issues projected onto me?

I never once made any reference to popularity, they are still completely obscure in comparison to somebody like Vonbondies much less Jack White. Their profile is only slightly higher than the other bands on the Sympathetic Sounds comp. What I liked about them was that they were this pissed punk rock band. They were one of the rawest and best bands in Detroit at the time. They rode the garage wave, but they were punk. I wanted them to be too pissed to do a commerical. In my mind, that was part of the appeal, I wanted the reality to match the sound of the records. The ideology I had projected onto that band was one of the the major things I liked about them. For me it was a package, and I don't hold other bands to this same standard. It hasn't even ruined the music for me, it was just a part of the package that I wish they would have kept.

What was the reason you started seeking out "alternative" (for lack of a better word) music? Because you didn't see yourself and your tastes reflected in the mainstream? Or because you just reflexively assume that if a lot of people like something, then you can't?

Again, I think you are projecting a set of issues on me that have nothing to do with what I said.

I got into the music I liked when I was younger because it was what spoke to me personally. When I was 14 Metallica's Black album was the hot jam, I have never owned a Metallica album in my life. It isn't because I am was too cool, it just didn't speak to me in any way, shape, or form. First it was Disintegration by the Cure when I was 13, then I liked Joy Division when I was 15, they were my favorite band till about 18 when I started getting really into Bowie's Berlin era records and Kraftwerk. Frankly, I though Hootie was bullshit at the time, but not because it was popular but because it was bullshit.

I don't watch television or read dean koontz because I think they are beneath me, I don't consume that kind of media because it doesn't speak to me. I does not project or evoke the kind of world I want to live in. On a personal level, I am not interested. Nobody cares what I think, in the adult world people don't give a shit about your personal tastes. At best people will consider your thoughts if it flatters their personal vanity or reinforces their world view (and that is a best case scenario.) I turn 28 in March, I am a little old for that kind of thinking. Seriously, people are more concerned about their kids and mortgage, not the minutia of Detroit techno from 10 years ago.

My interest in media is relational. It makes me feel less alone. I feel extremely marginal and out of touch with the mainstream. It isn't a badge I wear with pride. When I see the sales guy at work stepping out of his Lexus with his pretty girlfriend and nice clothes I don't feel smugly superior because I have the first three PIL records on vinyl. I would love to be that guy, to have the career, the house and family on the way, to feel connected with the world around me. That guy is the winner, not me. One of the few consolations life offers is that there are a few other people throwing these bottles out into the ocean.

Is the problem that you can't conceive of a universe in which you're one of the mushy majority instead of a discerning minority?

Seriously dude, I have a lot of problems, but this ain't one of them.

Now I am going to drive home and listen to commercial hip-hop radio because the new Lloyd Banks and Ciara feat. Missy singles are good *and* popular at the same time. I like good music.

I should rewrite this to make it more clear. It isn't that I think Dean Koontz or TV are low forms of media that I am too good for, they just don't mean anything to me. I don't see myself in it, it does not reflect my interests.

You think the Sales guy at work is the winner do you Disco Nihilist? I must say, that's a wee bit sad. Salespeople are completely full of shit. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to be rich, but not through pursuing a "career" that principally involves bullshitting people on an hourly basis.

The arguement boils down to this. It's Classic if you think it's okay to sell your integrity out to Mitsubishi so they can implant a chip in the consumers brain that forever will make a song not only resonate with an emotion, but their new fucking hatchback. It's a dud if you wish to keep your integrity, but remain in possible obscurity.

Also, selling out in the sense of handing your tunes over for advert purposes is fairly dud, in a lot of cases, especially if you're someone who professes certain ideological beliefs that many corporations are opposed to, in theory and in practice.

Over here are the noble artists doing what they do to nobly express their noble emotions. Nothing involving commerce at all.

(I guess the only reason they put stuff on records and enter into deals with record companies is that there'd otherwise be no way to nobly share their noble emotions. I guess the only reason they charge admission to their concerts is so that they can pay those noble roadies and whatnot.)

And over there are the bad bad greedy people who --egad-- sell stuff in order to make a living.

(I guess commerce never fed anybody's family or improved anyone's quality of life; it's all just take, take, take, by the big fat greedheads.)

If someone offered you money for some shitty poetry you wrote in high school, and you don't even remember what half of it means, why not sell it?

Productive artists write songs, record them and move on. It's the audience that latches on to them and cries when the artist sells them.

sssssssssssssssssssss

For the indie artist is a bit tougher. But still my arguement applies. I don't suggest they are complete sell outs. But song has lost it's meaning at that point. It's gone away with the dollars. And I don't discount the pragmatic point of view that it will increase the number of people who will listen to it. Or increase the likelyhood that others will listen to more of the artists music. But at the point where it's meaning is that of selling a product, it has lost it's artistic merit. It is instead just a production. It's makeup to sell the product. Which I hope isn't what the artist was trying. But if they were we wouldn't really be calling them artists now would we?

There are a hundred shades of grey in this. And of course selling your music to any degree is "selling out", but comparing that to putting it on a fucking Volkswagon commercial is childish. Selling it on a CD is saying,"Here's what I have to say, listen if you'd like." Putting it on a commercial is saying,"I'll whore out what I created to someone to make you buy some sunkist."

I've heard that "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction" was originally writen as "(I Can't Get Any) Tea and Crumpets," but they changed it to be more saleable in the US.

Well, yeah, but only if the songs get worse as a result.

Anyway, that is what we get for not having a landed aristocracy with tons o' money to blow on artistic patronage anymore, innit?

Goddamn democracy.

Classic.

Where, oh where, do we draw the line between "selling out" and "sucking less"?

But thank you for the polite insult at my intellect. What will you top that off with next? A sharply barbed attack at my mother beginning with 'yo mama? Well I'll give you a little ammunition. She wears moo-moos on Sundays, and loves Barry Manilow. Have fun.

After crossing paths with Jamie Cullum backstage at the Brit Awards, Pharrell Williams has reportedly expressed a desire to work with the lounge-midget, causing at least half-a-dozen die-hard dirty south fans to gasp in disbelief at the prospect. Surely The Neptunes are above this Radio 2 easy-listening housewife-audience shit? Such concerns certainly didn’t stop Outkast working with Norah Jones for The Love Below, but that’s because ‘selling out’ has never really been an issue in hip hop – Ghostface Killah has been on a number one hit single in the UK, Phil Collins is revered in hip hop circles (possibly as much for his ideals on taxation as his drum fills / MOR balladry / Big Band jazz appreciation), Cribs exists – so it’s hardly surprising that Pharrell should want to work with Cullum, despite the latter’s perception amongst hipsters as a cheesy Mom-fave. And to be fair, as I mentioned here last month, Cullum’s not got a bad voice at all. Were Pharrell to have expressed an interest in working with Joss Stone I’d be pissing my pants in anticipation.



‘Selling out’ is a strange idea, and a relatively recent one. Although the terminology dates back to when Robert Johnson struck his deal at the crossroads, the concept of taking the devil’s dollar and thus losing your morality/artistic integrity in exchange for a fat slice of the success pie seems, in its current incarnation, to be a post-post-punk phenomenon, perhaps perpetuated due to the social migration of rock n roll from being a predominantly working-class cultural form to being an art form practiced by all and sundry. Back in the sixties class barriers didn’t affect artists’ commercial aspirations though. Posh London boys The Rolling Stones had no qualms about stealing riffs from Delta bluesmen, and nice clean working class Liverpool kids The Beatles (‘skilled’ rather than ‘unskilled manual’) likewise had no fear of a populist musical hook or lucrative marketing tie-in (“they’re sellin’ hippie wigs in Woolworths, man…”) so why should Pearl Jam or Sonic Youth fear the adman’s cash and the hipster’s scorn?



The myth of the romantic artist once again has a lot to answer for; history has given us a perception of the ‘true’ artist creating from a deep-seated and almost spiritual desire or need to do so (note that the romantic artist is always male – this is because, as far as culture is concerned, women don’t ‘need’ to create ‘art’ because they can ‘create’ babies [this is why rockists are misogynist]); to create from a sense of financial gain is to betray the myth. Likewise to create something which becomes immensely successful is to pander to your audience and be an artisan or entertainer rather than an ‘artist’; the ‘artist’ creates for himself and/or some ‘higher power’, and thus cares little for the tastes of any potential audience. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere before, this romanticist myth can be traced back to Beethoven and further, and debunked all along the way (Michelangelo was commissioned to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, for instance, not ‘inspired’, likewise Mozart composed to order, Dickens wrote his ‘novels’ in sections for serialisation in popular newspapers and magazines, Shakespeare wrote plays to entertain audiences rather than give English lit. undergrads historical impetus). But the art world has long since left this mythology behind – students at Goldsmiths College in London receive more lectures on how to market and promote their work (which, as often as not, is their ‘persona’ rather than any actual artefact – witness the winner of last year’s Turner Prize; a potter who’s transvestism was more important than his ceramics) than they do on how to be a draughtsman or sculptor – so why is the music world lagging behind again?



‘Art’ has been perceived as a high brow, middle class pursuit since the industrial revolution, and the fact that prominent contemporary artists (Damien Hirst, Tracey Emin) are increasingly seen as conceptualists rather than talented individuals further removes the appreciation of art from the concerns of the average person in the street. Pop and rock music on the other hand, as happy as it is to borrow misunderstood criteria of determining artistic value from the art world, is a populist, working class concern; circus games, in essence. The reason The Beatles released records was so that people would like them, buy them, and get them in the charts; there was no shame in being popular (and, considering the tactical replacement of Pete Best with Ringo Starr, and the influence of Brian Epstein over their formative career [selling their records cheap in his own shop in order to gain greater exposure for them – a trick still used today in altered form by record companies who practically giveaway CD singles to stores to encourage low prices in the first week of release, and thus high chart positions], little initial aversion to the kind of manipulation that leads modern groups to be accused of being manufactured; an approach at odds with the reverence shown to The Beatles’ artistic oeuvre by the countless books, documentaries, and other assorted facets of the canon-building industry). Even years after the Fab Four had gone their separate ways, popularity, success and money weren’t bywords for lack of worth or commercially determined coercion; as if the Filthy Lucre reformation and tour wasn’t enough evidence of their less-than-artistic-motivations, The Sex Pistols essentially began life as a walking, talking, gobbing advert for Vivian Westwood and Malcolm McLaren’s Sex shop, clothes-horses for a fledgling fashion which would go on to make many, many people very, very wealthy. The situationist schtick of much punk was more a symbol of a vibrant youth culture playfully finding its identity than a disaffected generation on the verge of some socio-economic uprising; post-68 there could be no youth uprising.



Between The Beatles and The Sex Pistols lie two important commercial ‘failures’ who have found post-tense laudation and cult status; The Velvet Underground and Big Star. I don’t need to delve into the semiotics of cool to explain the posthumous appeal of The Velvets anymore than I would to explain James Dean’s lasting appeal – we all know the value of a tragic hero, even if Lou Reed still hasn’t had the decency to die. The image, the drugs, the flirtations with ‘art’ and the avant-garde are all a part of it, but the main crux, the real deal-maker in terms of cementing fanship, appears to be the perception that, rather than being a great band who never sold any records, The Velvets are a great band because they never sold any records; elitism in nutshell. There is, of course, no evidence in this idea for The Velvets’ quality, it lies entirely in the snobbery of the idea that 'most' people simply don’t ‘get’ The Velvets because they’re not cool/smart enough.



But that’s OK, because Lou and the rest seemed happy not to sell any records or be appreciated outside of hip crowds, they positively lolled in their anti-popular status. Poor Alex Chilton of Big Star found himself lauded as a genius despite a desperate desire to emulate his heroes commercially as well as artistically; an indie folk hero for his uncompromising approach to the recording of 3rd/Sister Lovers in particular, Chilton wasn’t making an artistic statement when he bounced a basketball to form a kick drum track on one song, or drenched “Kangaroo” in caustic space noise, or tore his own tunes apart from the inside – he was doing his best to spite a crumbling record company that had failed to market his music properly, thus condemning him to a life away from the chart success he coveted. He wasn’t kicking against the system or capitalism or lowest-common-denominator culture; he was kicking against undeserved failure. That he’s been painted into a corner as some kind of tragic visionary is as sad a truth as the fact that his records are still not finding the exposure he wanted for them even today.



Courtney Love quite rightly said in an interview with NME a few years ago that the fear of ‘selling out’ was a dangerous concept; more than most she has cause to despise the idea, as fear of fakery and inauthenticity essentially cost her the life of her husband. She posited the idea, as have others before and since, that the concept entered the world of rock and pop via the post-punk era when the middle classes became enamoured with the artistic posturing and possibilities of rock and pop. Marxist cultural theory would then suggest that the bourgeois classes, keen to maintain the socio-economic power balance, poisoned the water so to speak, by filtering into rock/pop’s consciousness the idea of artistic integrity being more valid than popular success. If one can make the working class kids feel guilty about success then one can keep them in their economic place of their own volition. Of course this is just conjecture; it’s probably as much to do with pop kids attempting to validate their passions to their highbrow peers, whatever background they may come from. It isn’t just about the low-level invasion of working class culture, with unhelpful memes (i.e. Selling Out, always easy to espouse when you've got a Trust fund). And of course one can’t forget that the post-punk era, as well as producing a wealth of wonderful music, also opened the minds and possibilities of pop and rock in the way that few other movements managed in a creative sense; for every ideologically unsound poseur there was someone striving to get a message and an idea across to as many people as possible.



But still the indie-world has been blighted with countless examples of artists running away from success and the perceived guilt that must go along with it. After shifting God-only-knows-how-many records, Pearl Jam made a big song and dance about being in it for the spirit of rock by removing the barcodes from their albums (No Code being a rather clumsy ideological statement of this fact, if not actually a bad record in itself). When Blur released their eponymous album in 1997, Noel Gallagher accused them of running away to make “weird art” because they’d lost the commercial battle of the Britpop wars, retreating into artistic statements and pretending it was because they never wanted to be popular in the first place, rather than because Morning Glory had trounced The Great Escape in the minds and homes of the British public. Such posturing seems almost spiteful when bands like Disco Inferno are forced to split up because not enough people are paying attention. Running in the other direction almost, The Manic Street Preachers announced in early interviews that their plan was to make one double-album which would sell a million copies, and then split-up; after Generation Terrorists and Gold Against The Soul both failed in this aim, they made their artistic statement with The Holy Bible and then found the success they’d always claimed to desire with the more anthemic and palatable Everything Must Go. In another interview with NME Courtney Love blasted Radiohead’s retreat from success –

“Okay I'm going to say it and all of Britain will hate my guts, but Radiohead! Fuck 'em for not bailing us out of this bullshit. OK, Thom, yes, yes, we admit it. We wrote off “Creep” as a pretty good song in the wake of Nirvana, yes we did it, we did it, we all did it. We didn't rate you for the genius you are. We are at fault! We didn't recognise your genius until it was too late but do you have to make us feel your pain? Can I show you the shit people say about me every day? Why? Why promise me salvation with The Bends? Why promise me salvation with OK Computer and then leave me? Leave me and my entire generation and, even worse, the generation underneath me with a fucking single-note Moog? Kid A was number one in this country 'cos a bunch of little kids heard their older brothers and sisters saying “Bizkit?'s wack, Radiohead rules” and so they ran out and bought Kid A and now they will never trust us again. How could you take one of the greatest guitarists in the history of rock'n'roll and not let him play? Fine, you satisfied yourself and you left us with Fred. Thanks. Thanks, buddy. I know those nice musty rooms in Oxford have really cool 16th-century books that American trash like me couldn't dream of understanding but could you write a fucking rock song that slays me?”

As much as rock music may not be my thing, I have to agree, which is part of the reason I find so much of the hate and scorn directed at The Darkness baffling and faintly disturbing, even if I’m not blown-away by the actual record.



I could delve into film studies and auteur theory for analogues regarding authenticity, artistic visions and the likes, had I more time and space, and maybe in the future I will. But right now I’ll say that the precious factions of pop and rock could do with learning a few more lessons from hip hop, where the popular isn’t treated with disdain and where the most successful music commercially isn’t the least ambitious creatively. Mind you, hip hop seems to suffer from romanticising its dead in exactly the same way as every other culture and music. That the figures they posthumously canonise don’t carry the same ideological baggage as tragic, mixed-up figures like Kurt Cobain, Bill Hicks and countless other rock/pop folklore characters is neither a blessing nor a curse; hip hop has a whole different school of issues with its ghosts.



But still; making records that people love does not equate with exploiting them – and people love pop music.






For one week only the UK Chart Top Ten Predictions League has moved to The Turntable. Normal service will resume next week.

Wait, what? Whats the news here...?

My two problems with that are:
1. It may never have been emotional to the artist - it was only emotional to you.
2. It may have been emotional to the artist at one time, but the artist couldn't give a rat's ass about it now because it's 20 years old and the artist hasn't thought about it in 19. Unlike fans, good artists (unless they are narcissists) don't listen to their record every day after school.

Bonus summation: The artist may not be thinking commerce as much as thinking, "Well, I've got this old thing in the closet. What else can I do with it before I toss it."

True. Obviously, George W. Bush wasn't the president of the USA by then, or they'd rather have changed it to "(I Can't Get No) Salvation", to make sure that it was not verboten by the Government.

2. Then he doesn't have any respect for what he's created, or atleast the state he was in when he wrote it.

But what if it doesn't really have to do with any emotions at all. The artist is just talented enough to easily write great songs with minimal effort. Then that'd be selling your talent. Which isn't as bad, considering that's what we all do everyday, but I would argue that doesn't mean it's right either.

What I'm thinking is more like he has no memory of the state he was in. Songs may be emotion, creation, expression, recorded and then forgotten. ...like things you said that were profound at the time, but you no longer remember why.

They are for sale to anyone who wants them. Let the bidding begin at $100,000 each.