Selling Out: Classic or Dud?

There's no such thing as "selling out" unless it is a criminal act.

http://www.liebermanmgt.com/gene.html

Didn't Bono once make a fool of himself saying that all music is political? Yes, I think so.

Why?

I've met Gene, he's a great guy. And he's had plenty of rough breaks in his career. Who are we to judge?

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.

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.