Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
One thing I cannot stand is people bitching about artists "selling out." Here's how I see it: As long as you're not setting out to make music for the specific purpose of getting it into ads, then who gives a damn!?. It's just some person at an ad agency that digs your music and wants to put it in a commercial and pay you handsomely for it. That's money that can be used to make more good music for us to enjoy. It's not like Bob Dylan or The Flaming Lips set out to write songs for car commercials. If that was the case, it'd be lame. Otherwise, I don't see it as a knock on anyone's artistic integrity if they choose to license songs for commercials. I think the the so-called fans who get pissed off when their favorite bands get popular or get played in a commercial are ridiculous and should get a life.
Last Edit: Oct 26, 2007 9:32:23 GMT -5 by sunnyd - Back to Top
Here's my take: When you make music (or any kind of art for that matter), it is a way to communicate and share a little bit of yourself with the world. When you sell your cds, tickets, t-shirts, you are selling that music. And if you are talented enough, and lucky enough, to be able to make tons of money doing that, more power to you. I have no issue with musicians getting filthy rich off of their music.
To me, selling your music to be used in a commercial says that you don't care if your music has meaning, or moves somebody. You only, or at least primarily, care about whether you can make money off of it. I mean, if I sit down and write a piece of music that has real meaning to me, I would want people to be able to hear that music, and to feel a little bit of what I felt when I was writing it. Do you think that's possible when that music becomes so closely associated with a car, or a soft drink, or a fast food restaurant?
Obviously, what a person wants to do with his music is his own business. But when I see a person who has so little regard for his own music, it definitely makes me respect him (and by extension, his music) less. I'm not generally an idealistic person, but in this respect, I guess I am because if I like someone's music, but that music doesn't seem to mean much to that person, I probably won't listen to it.
Post by stallion pt. 2 on Oct 26, 2007 11:20:03 GMT -5
hilari said:
Here's my take: When you make music (or any kind of art for that matter), it is a way to communicate and share a little bit of yourself with the world. When you sell your cds, tickets, t-shirts, you are selling that music. And if you are talented enough, and lucky enough, to be able to make tons of money doing that, more power to you. I have no issue with musicians getting filthy rich off of their music.
To me, selling your music to be used in a commercial says that you don't care if your music has meaning, or moves somebody. You only, or at least primarily, care about whether you can make money off of it. I mean, if I sit down and write a piece of music that has real meaning to me, I would want people to be able to hear that music, and to feel a little bit of what I felt when I was writing it. Do you think that's possible when that music becomes so closely associated with a car, or a soft drink, or a fast food restaurant?
Obviously, what a person wants to do with his music is his own business. But when I see a person who has so little regard for his own music, it definitely makes me respect him (and by extension, his music) less. I'm not generally an idealistic person, but in this respect, I guess I am because if I like someone's music, but that music doesn't seem to mean much to that person, I probably won't listen to it.
I understand your point, but I'd like to point out that that "special feeling" artist x's music gives you is something you put into the music, not the artist. It's a value you give the music based on how it makes you feel, and no matter how special you think it is the artist likely doesn't feel the same way. I know that as a musician, after writing a song, rehersing it endlessly to perfection and then recording it (which ensures a million more repitions), I've heard it a billion times and any special feeling I may have felt after writing it has been sucked out by repition. The song still sounds the same, but I've heard it so many times I just can't be as excited about it as somebody who's never heard it. And if Dell or Cadallic approched me and offered to pay me $15 grand to use it in an ad, I'd jump. That doesn't change how the song sounds, though. The notes are the same, it's the perception you bring to it that's changed.
I'd also like to point out that my favorite band, Ween, has a song of their new album (called Fiesta) that they have adamently been trying to get into a Taco Bell commercial. I love the song, and I don't think hearing it in a Taco Bell ad would make it sound different to me, even though I don't like Taco Bell's food. They want it in their because it's money in the bank and increases their exposure. I guess that's tecnically "selling out" but I haven't lost an ounce of respect for Ween for it. They've been trying (and mostly failing) to get songs in ads for years (They did get that Happy HaunaChristmKwanzica song in an ad a few years ago), yet their not a band that gets accused of selling out because they've remained so weird for so long. So why the double-standard?
John: We don't even understand our own music Spider: It doesn't, does it matter whether we understand it? At least it'll give us . . . strength John: I know but maybe we could get into it more if we understood it
I understand your point, but I'd like to point out that that "special feeling" artist x's music gives you is something you put into the music, not the artist. It's a value you give the music based on how it makes you feel, and no matter how special you think it is the artist likely doesn't feel the same way. I know that as a musician, after writing a song, rehersing it endlessly to perfection and then recording it (which ensures a million more repitions), I've heard it a billion times and any special feeling I may have felt after writing it has been sucked out by repition. The song still sounds the same, but I've heard it so many times I just can't be as excited about it as somebody who's never heard it. And if Dell or Cadallic approched me and offered to pay me $15 grand to use it in an ad, I'd jump. That doesn't change how the song sounds, though. The notes are the same, it's the perception you bring to it that's changed.
I'd also like to point out that my favorite band, Ween, has a song of their new album (called Fiesta) that they have adamently been trying to get into a Taco Bell commercial. I love the song, and I don't think hearing it in a Taco Bell ad would make it sound different to me, even though I don't like Taco Bell's food. They want it in their because it's money in the bank and increases their exposure. I guess that's tecnically "selling out" but I haven't lost an ounce of respect for Ween for it. They've been trying (and mostly failing) to get songs in ads for years (They did get that Happy HaunaChristmKwanzica song in an ad a few years ago), yet their not a band that gets accused of selling out because they've remained so weird for so long. So why the double-standard?
To an extent, I agree that the feeling put into the music is put there by the listener. I would say, though, (and I think you kind of said this, too), that when the person writes the song, they initially do put feeling there. I think that initial feeling is what allows a listener to attribute something to it, even if they attribute something different than what the musician felt or intended to convey. I'm not a musician, so I don't know about the rest, but I don't doubt at all that a song may lose a lot of that feeling for an artist after all of that repition.
I think part of what I was trying to say, though, is that when the artist sells the song for a commercial, the people who may have heard the song, and felt that feeling, are instead going to hear that song, and feel like they want to go buy a new pair of shoes. (I do think it is possible to hear a song in a commercial and feel something from it, but it seems a lot less likely to me). So, when they sell the song to the commercial, it says to me that they don't care if the people listening to the songs feel something in response to the songs or not.
As for Ween, I really can't comment on that except to say that, based solely on what you said, it sounds to me like they are more interested in money than music. And I'm not even saying there's anything inherently wrong with that. I'm also not saying that it makes them bad musicians. But I am saying that it makes me not think of them as "artists" or of their music as "art."
Post by stallion pt. 2 on Oct 26, 2007 11:55:24 GMT -5
hilari said:
As for Ween, I really can't comment on that except to say that, based solely on what you said, it sounds to me like they are more interested in money than music. And I'm not even saying there's anything inherently wrong with that. I'm also not saying that it makes them bad musicians. But I am saying that it makes me not think of them as "artists" or of their music as "art."
Well I don't know how much Ween you've listened to, but it's not too hard to think of their music as "art" since it tends to stray from what most people think of as "commercial" music (Commercial as in popular and unchallenging, not commercial s in advertising tools).
So why can't a band/artist be interested in money AND music. There's a myth that circulates among music fans that musicians are only "artists" and "authetic" if they don't seem to want to get payed for what they do, or at least pretend they dont want your money. As much as I hate to, I'm going to paraphrase Kid Rock from an interview I saw awhile back. He was deriding musicians who use that "we're only in it for the music" line to come off as more "artistic" he basically said: of course you're in it for the music. We all are. That's why we're musicians. So why are you REALLY in it?
Bottom line: do you think Michelangelo would have spend 4 years working on the Sistine Chapel if the pope haden't offered to pay him for it? Music is a business. All art is a business. Musicians are selling a product. If you want artists who claim to hold the same values as you do about "authentic music" and commerciality, than that's fine. But I'd rather just have good music, and good music is good music weather or not it's been in an ad. I don't expect musicians I like to have perfect integrity. I just want to hear the notes, rhythms and maybe even the lyrics. those are not changed by things like proft motives and commercial endorsments.
John: We don't even understand our own music Spider: It doesn't, does it matter whether we understand it? At least it'll give us . . . strength John: I know but maybe we could get into it more if we understood it
Post by steveternal on Oct 26, 2007 12:11:35 GMT -5
hilari said:
I think part of what I was trying to say, though, is that when the artist sells the song for a commercial, the people who may have heard the song, and felt that feeling, are instead going to hear that song, and feel like they want to go buy a new pair of shoes.
Not to tip the scales of this fine discussion in which both parties are making great points, but I want to jump in on this part. Log Lady, I think you're dangerously oversimplifying the intent, cause, reaction and effect of music being paired with advertising. It's a tremendously complex, psychologically-based process, and each person who experiences it will have a different reaction/effect. It depends greatly on the product and the song, and the medium and the environment and the time and every nuance of the individual viewer. I remember being smitten with the Nick Drake song "Pink Moon" in the popular VW Cabrio commercial years ago ('99 or so?). It was a couple years later that I even learned to Nick Drake was, but now I'm a big fan. I never bought a VW, but I own all of Drake's albums. So for me it was a solid sale, but the most impressive product was his music. And I'm sure that was not the intent of VW or its ad agency.
As for Ween, I really can't comment on that except to say that, based solely on what you said, it sounds to me like they are more interested in money than music. And I'm not even saying there's anything inherently wrong with that. I'm also not saying that it makes them bad musicians. But I am saying that it makes me not think of them as "artists" or of their music as "art."
Well I don't know how much Ween you've listened to, but it's not too hard to think of their music as "art" since it tends to stray from what most people think of as "commercial" music (Commercial as in popular and unchallenging, not commercial s in advertising tools).
So why can't a band/artist be interested in money AND music. There's a myth that circulates among music fans that musicians are only "artists" and "authetic" if they don't seem to want to get payed for what they do, or at least pretend they dont want your money. As much as I hate to, I'm going to paraphrase Kid Rock from an interview I saw awhile back. He was deriding musicians who use that "we're only in it for the music" line to come off as more "artistic" he basically said: of course you're in it for the music. We all are. That's why we're musicians. So why are you REALLY in it?
Bottom line: do you think Michelangelo would have spend 4 years working on the Sistine Chapel if the pope haden't offered to pay him for it? Music is a business. All art is a business. Musicians are selling a product. If you want artists who claim to hold the same values as you do about "authentic music" and commerciality, than that's fine. But I'd rather just have good music, and good music is good music weather or not it's been in an ad. I don't expect musicians I like to have perfect integrity. I just want to hear the notes, rhythms and maybe even the lyrics. those are not changed by things like proft motives and commercial endorsments.
I have no problem with the idea of being in it for the money and the music. I don't doubt that many of my favorite musicians are interested in making lots of money. In my mind, it's a matter of priorities. It is when the money becomes more important than the music that I have a problem. The question is not whether they are going to do it and not take my money, it's whether they would be doing it whether they are making money or not. (Incidentally, I think that changes for a lot of musicians. Obviously, most musicians don't start out making a lot of money. But, I think that, for some musicians, as they make more money, the money becomes more and more of a priority to them.)
My example would be David Byrne, one of my very favorite musicians. In a time when bands are doing reunion tours right and left, and making mad money off of them, David Byrne has basically refused to do any kind of reunion with the Talking Heads because doing so would be going backwards for him. Now, I'm sure David Byrne is not hurting for money, but I would also venture a guess that he's not the richest guy in the world. He could make a ton of money off of a reunion tour, but his ideals are more important to him. (I know that this is not exactly the same thing as making a commercial, but I think it is relevant.)
On a side note, I should clarify my statement that I wouldn't listen to a musician if I didn't think their music meant much to them. That is not to say that I wouldn't listen to a musician whose song I had heard in a commercial. There are a couple of musicians that I quite enjoy listening to that it wouldn't surprise me at all to hear their music in that context. But, I don't particularly think of these people as artists or as having a great deal of musical integrity. I just happen to enjoy some music that I don't think is art.
I think part of what I was trying to say, though, is that when the artist sells the song for a commercial, the people who may have heard the song, and felt that feeling, are instead going to hear that song, and feel like they want to go buy a new pair of shoes.
Not to tip the scales of this fine discussion in which both parties are making great points, but I want to jump in on this part. Log Lady, I think you're dangerously oversimplifying the intent, cause, reaction and effect of music being paired with advertising. It's a tremendously complex, psychologically-based process, and each person who experiences it will have a different reaction/effect. It depends greatly on the product and the song, and the medium and the environment and the time and every nuance of the individual viewer. I remember being smitten with the Nick Drake song "Pink Moon" in the popular VW Cabrio commercial years ago ('99 or so?). It was a couple years later that I even learned to Nick Drake was, but now I'm a big fan. I never bought a VW, but I own all of Drake's albums. So for me it was a solid sale, but the most impressive product was his music. And I'm sure that was not the intent of VW or its ad agency.
You make a good point, but I can't help but think that you are in the minority. Maybe I don't give people enough credit, but I have trouble believing that most people are going to be aware enough to separate the song from the commercial the way that you did.
Your post brings up another question in my mind: How is it different when the musician is someone less known versus a well-known, established musician like Dylan? (I guess I'm making an assumption here because I am not familiar with Nick Drake. Forgive my ignorance if this is someone well-established with whom I should be familiar.) My tendency is to be more forgiving of the musician who is less well-known and can use the exposure as well as the money.
edit: And I have probably oversimplified more than you said. Based on the above paragraph, even I can apparently see some of the shades of grey on this issue.
Last Edit: Oct 26, 2007 12:28:40 GMT -5 by sunnyd - Back to Top
Post by lordrockinhood on Oct 26, 2007 12:32:34 GMT -5
stallion said:
hilari said:
Bottom line: do you think Michelangelo would have spend 4 years working on the Sistine Chapel if the pope haden't offered to pay him for it?
No, but I'd like to think he might have at least had a few second thoughts if McDonald's was the one offering to pay him for it... then again, maybe he wouldn't- just sayin'
Johnny Cash and family were offered a good deal of money to use "Ring of Fire" for a hemorrhoid commercial. Thank God they did not take the money and run. That said, I have no problem with artists getting paid for the use of their songs. But I do feel differently about the song once it is used to sell an item. I can not help it.
If your love for a song can be ruined by its use in a commercial then that's pretty fickle. I mean if your favorite song gets played in a commercial and you can no longer feel the same about the song and can only equate it with a car now, that's more of an issue with the listener than the musician. Good music is good music. I don't see how a commercial can change that for people.
Hearing ween in a tv comercial is kinda like hearing one of your buddies get on the intercom at work and saying, Jack Mehoff come to the cafeteria.. would Jack Mehoff please come to the cafeteria
If your love for a song can be ruined by its use in a commercial then that's pretty fickle. I mean if your favorite song gets played in a commercial and you can no longer feel the same about the song and can only equate it with a car now, that's more of an issue with the listener than the musician. Good music is good music. I don't see how a commercial can change that for people.
I did not say my love for the song was ruined, just changed. And not necessarily in a bad way either. And true, it is a issue with each and every listener. That is why this subject has so many complex and varied opinions. And it is fun to discuss.
If your love for a song can be ruined by its use in a commercial then that's pretty fickle. I mean if your favorite song gets played in a commercial and you can no longer feel the same about the song and can only equate it with a car now, that's more of an issue with the listener than the musician. Good music is good music. I don't see how a commercial can change that for people.
I did not say my love for the song was ruined, just changed. And not necessarily in a bad way either. And true, it is a issue with each and every listener. That is why this subject has so many complex and varied opinions. And it is fun to discuss.
Post by steveternal on Oct 26, 2007 12:53:28 GMT -5
hilari said:
Your post brings up another question in my mind: How is it different when the musician is someone less known versus a well-known, established musician like Dylan? (I guess I'm making an assumption here because I am not familiar with Nick Drake. Forgive my ignorance if this is someone well-established with whom I should be familiar.) My tendency is to be more forgiving of the musician who is less well-known and can use the exposure as well as the money.
I'd probably have to say that you should know who Nick Drake is. He was a brilliant folk-rock singer/songwriter from the early 70's, released three albums now all regarded as masterpieces, then committed suicide just before his success really got going. So anyway, I'd say he's mildly well-known in this day in age, but perhaps not someone the average person knows.
You do bring up a good point. What would you think about the people whose profession it is to compose music for ads? Most are not in it to release albums or tour or be famous, but just write the music they are told to. There was an NPR interview with a young guy who had a career like that, but I don't remember his name so I can't find it.
Post by stallion pt. 2 on Oct 26, 2007 12:54:45 GMT -5
lordrockinhood said:
stallion said:
hilari said:
Bottom line: do you think Michelangelo would have spend 4 years working on the Sistine Chapel if the pope haden't offered to pay him for it?
No, but I'd like to think he might have at least had a few second thoughts if McDonald's was the one offering to pay him for it... then again, maybe he wouldn't- just sayin'
I don't see much difference between the McDonald's and the Holy See. Both are mega-billion-dollar operations with questionable business ethics.
I guess the commercial thing really boils down to each individual case. I'm glad Cash never sold Ring of Fire to Preperation H. It would have drasticlly altered the meaning of the song. I understand Lordrockin's gripe about "Do you Realize" for the same reason. But I don't think less of the Lips for selling that song, and the song is still special to me, esp. since I don't watch TV and have never seen the commercial. I guess if you are worried about advertising changing the way you think of your favorite band, you should watch less TV, since popular music in ads seems to be here to stay.
John: We don't even understand our own music Spider: It doesn't, does it matter whether we understand it? At least it'll give us . . . strength John: I know but maybe we could get into it more if we understood it
I guess if you are worried about advertising changing the way you think of your favorite band, you should watch less TV, since popular music in ads seems to be here to stay.
Now that is the best idea on here so far! I watch way too much TV and if I don't like hearing my favorite song sell a particular brand of Tampon I should turn the d@mn thing off. I will work on that after I watch this next show ;D
Steve: I have no problem with people who make a career of writing music for commercials, but I don't think of it as art. Which, in all honesty, may not be fair of me, and I'm sure there are plenty who would disagree with me. I'm sure that there are those who would consider graphic designers artists even when they are creating a company logo. And I guess, in a sense, they are, but for me, art is something that is personal rather than something that is commissioned. (And this made me stop for a second to consider whether I consider a painting that has been commissioned to be art. My instinct is to say no, but I would have to say that is a qualified no. I think there are some factors that could sway me to a yes, depending on the situation).
Stallion: I don't think it would change my perspective depending on whether or not I was exposed to the commercial. I think just knowing it was out there would be enough to affect my hearing of the song. (But I can't say for sure because I can't think of a song that I love being used in a commercial. I'm sure that there are some out there, but I can't think of any off of the top of my head.)
Michealangelo spent four years in constant battle with the Pope. The only reason he accepted the commision was so he could work on another project (sculptures for a tomb)...
This was probably the biggest fued in all of the Rennaissance. Constant bickering over form, style, color, even content... Michealangelo won, he stayed true to his vision, the pope gave in. (like he had a choice) Michealangelo was kind of a b*tch...
So even though he was getting paid by the Church he still stayed true to "the art"
Post by stallion pt. 2 on Oct 26, 2007 13:13:36 GMT -5
hilari said:
(And this made me stop for a second to consider whether I consider a painting that has been commissioned to be art. My instinct is to say no, but I would have to say that is a qualified no. I think there are some factors that could sway me to a yes, depending on the situation).
I think you need to re-think that notion. The Sistine Chapel example I used before is just one of thousands of examples of "high art" that was commissioned by the church or royalty. almost everything Bach wrote was for church, and Mozart was commissioned by royalty for most of his famous works. One might argue that the Church or a Duke is not the same as a corperation, but the roles they played in financing art and collecting money from the general populace are arguably very similar. In fact, Mozart was often hamstrung in his composing by narrow-minded royalty who insisted his music had "too many notes" and needed to be simpler and more "commercial." He often complied, and I think his music suffered for it. But is it still art? I think so.
edit--I guess we learned at least 2 things today. Karma to Aly when I can ;D
John: We don't even understand our own music Spider: It doesn't, does it matter whether we understand it? At least it'll give us . . . strength John: I know but maybe we could get into it more if we understood it
I did not say my love for the song was ruined, just changed. And not necessarily in a bad way either. And true, it is a issue with each and every listener. That is why this subject has so many complex and varied opinions. And it is fun to discuss.
I did not direct my post at anyone specific, I'm just sayin'. It is fun to discuss, but I think sometimes people get too worked up about this kind of thing. Is it kind of weird to hear a song you feel passionately about used to sell a product? Yeah, I admit it is. But at the end of the day, its still the same song that meant something to you. And you as the listener control how you handle that. Personally, I won't let my appreciation for a song be corrupted by its use in an ad.
- On a side note, I'd definitely rather hear a FLips song I love in an ad for Dell than some stupid reworking of a stupid song for Kraft cheese, like this:
Everything was commisioned by the church back then. Art for any other purpose was frowned upon (except portraits). The Church was in charge of art education and promotion. They had a monopoly on the art world. If you wanted to paint the church was your only option.
Art for art's sake didn't start until the late 1600's
*edit- check it out, we've stumbled on a topic I actually know quite a bit about and could talk about all day ;D
I think you need to re-think that notion. The Sistine Chapel example I used before is just one of thousands of examples of "high art" that was commissioned by the church or royalty. almost everything Bach wrote was for church, and Mozart was commissioned by royalty for most of his famous works. One might argue that the Church or a Duke is not the same as a corperation, but the roles they played in financing art and collecting money from the general populace are arguably very similar. In fact, Mozart was often hamstrung in his composing by narrow-minded royalty who insisted his music had "too many notes" and needed to be simpler and more "commercial." He often complied, and I think his music suffered for it. But is it still art? I think so.
Like I said, there are factors that would sway me towards a yes. Specifically, how much influence the person who commissioned it had/how much leeway the person painting it had is the biggest factor that is involved. When I said I was leaning towards no, I was specifically thinking of a situation where a person says, "I will give you money if you will paint me a picture of this thing in this style" (such as when you have a portrait painted). Even in that situation, it is possible for me to consider it art, but it is less likely that I will. As you go down the continuum, the more control over style, subject, etc. the painter has, the more I will generally consider it art.
Last Edit: Oct 26, 2007 13:22:38 GMT -5 by sunnyd - Back to Top
alyroo
Bonnafunky Dirtyroo Princess of Blinkytown and moonpie expert
Post by stallion pt. 2 on Oct 26, 2007 13:27:23 GMT -5
I'd just like to say if I could give karma to everone in this thread for keeping up a lively yet civil discussion, I would. Sometimes I think of this place as an argument room, but I never intend on being rude or angry. Karma all around. M: I came here for a good argument. A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument. M: An argument isn't just contradiction. A: It can be. M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. A: No it isn't. M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction. A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position. M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.' A: Yes it is! M: No it isn't!
John: We don't even understand our own music Spider: It doesn't, does it matter whether we understand it? At least it'll give us . . . strength John: I know but maybe we could get into it more if we understood it
assignments in art school have all kinds of limits and requirements but it still qualifies.
But is part of the point of those exercises to take the specifications and make it your own or is it just to become technically proficient? If it is the former, then I think that fits fine with what I said. I didn't mean to imply that any specifications stops it from being art. I just meant that the less control the artist has over the finished product, the less I see it as art.
If it is the latter, then I don't see it as art. I see it as a means to become a better artist.
I'd just like to say if I could give karma to everone in this thread for keeping up a lively yet civil discussion, I would. Sometimes I think of this place as an argument room, but I never intend on being rude or angry. Karma all around.
assignments in art school have all kinds of limits and requirements but it still qualifies.
But is part of the point of those exercises to take the specifications and make it your own or is it just to become technically proficient? If it is the former, then I think that fits fine with what I said. I didn't mean to imply that any specifications stops it from being art. I just meant that the less control the artist has over the finished product, the less I see it as art.
If it is the latter, then I don't see it as art. I see it as a means to become a better artist.
I agree but I see art with a very broad definition. No matter how constrictive an assignment or commission is the artist will make it his own. Every mark an artist makes is his own. Whether its a master or a housewife in her kitchen scrapbooking.
Now if there's a discussion about art versus craft that's a whole other kettle of fish.
and everything an artist does makes him/her more proficient. Art is an exploration... a process.
;D
