Post: #1

This is one of those cultural neuroses that seem to have disappeared.

But when I was growing up (I'm 32) it seemed to be something that artists worried about. Hell - this is the main reason why Kurt Cobain killed himself.

Bill Hicks was influential in pushing this agenda. With his continual rants about artists selling out, doing commercials or pushing anti-drug messages. Hicks seemed to be obsessed over whether or not an artist was still on 'The Artistic Roll Call of Merit'. And it took just a single transgression to render your entire output worthless.

This seemed to be a very American concern. Since in the UK - we take any such concerns with a weary does of cynicism. Indeed - by UK standards - Bill Hicks was an insecure loser.

One of the original hipsters - in a funny sort of way.

The reason I am writing about it is because I just heard the Marc Maron interview with Joe Rogan. And it is weird hearing Marc bust Joe Rogan for making tens of millions of dollars from hosting a shitty reality TV show called 'The Fear Factor'.

I think Marc Maron is a good interviewer since he exposes himself so much emotionally. And gets straight to whatever is on his mind. But again - the guy is a fucking loser - who worships the dead cock of Bill Hicks and is about a tenth as funny as Hicks - who was only ever averagely funny himself.





Now - the reason I feel that the concern with selling out has died away - is because of the internet.

The internet makes it so easy to rip off content creators (in any art form) that these guys have to hustle fifty times harder than they did in the past just to survive. And as such - I feel audiences now accept this Faustian Pact - that they will not get mad at their heroes for doing what they have to do to survive. In exchange for the artists not really caring about getting ripped off.

Which is why Lars Ulrich trying to destroy Napster was such a weird mental head fuck for music fans at the time.

For me - I have always being cool with artists selling out. I can separate the message from the medium. As Bono correctly says - rock music has had a death cult for the past 30 years - in which fans are quietly disappointed when a rock star lives a long life and reaches old age.

To which, Bono responds, 'Fuck that shit.'

I am a huge fan of Iggy Pop - and never had a problem with him funding his retirement by doing some car insurance commercials:





So - I am wondering how you guys feel?

Do you get upset when an artistic hero does a commercial?

The only way I could be angry at an artist for 'selling out' - would be if I felt they were supporting an economic system which I totally rejected.

Yet - for those fans who get mad - what economic system would they rather have than capitalism?

We have made an interesting move forward as a culture when the idea of 'selling out' has gone from being a reason to kill yourself to a concern that most young people cannot even comprehend.

Post: #2

"Do you get upset when an artistic hero does a commercial? "

Nope. I've never understood the axiom that in order to be "authentic" an artist must fit the STARVING artist stereotype.

"Success" (defined here as commercial viability) does not equal "illegitimacy" save for in the most pseudo-intellectual of constructs.

Post: #3

Art: everyone has sold out now, nobody's doing anything good and new, most stuff is trite referencing of stuff done before. Music, film, visual and performance art.

There's a kind of cultural exhaustion, at least in the West. There might be room to do new stuff in places like China and the Middle East, where new freedom gives artists some space. But even those artists just end up borrowing old stuff from the West.

Post: #4

As long as they continue to deliver well-composed instrumentals and poetic lyrics with mindblowing vocals, would you even care about wtf they do?

Its really the question of "Are you a fan of their PERSONALITY or are you a fan of their MUSIC." Make that distinguishable and move on with your life.

Post: #5

Every band wants a cult following. They want dumb mindless fans to love them forever. Success comes with lots of money and fame but it's not about that. It's about making it on your own terms. Corporations like to have their hand in the creative outcome in order reach a broader audience. Makes sense. But band really hate "selling out" to sell more records.

Post: #6

I have a policy to only care about the output of the artist and not their personal lives. So it doesn't really matter to me whether they're multi-millionaires and really successful commercially or starving artists living in their mom's basement (only difference is I'm more likely to support the less successful artists). What really matters to me is the quality of their music/art/performance/etc.

Take Kanye West for example, people say he's a complete asshole, egomaniac, whatever. I personally think he makes good music so I listen to him. Say what you will about Mel Gibson being antisemitic or a racist idiot, but Apocalypto is one of my favorite movies.

The only thing I can't tolerate and have no respect for is when an artist gains commercial success and then noticeably dumbs down or changes the quality of their output in order to make more money. That is the definition of a sellout. So if there is a musician who I really enjoy and then they blow up, cool, I'm happy for them. But if they blow up and then desperately start searching for a radio hit or get the hot-at-the-moment singer on their album, I don't fuck with them anymore.

Another example of selling out that I can't support would be somebody changing their political or ideological beliefs simply because they have to to be successful. Take Ice Cube for instance, he was one of the most politically charged, abrasive, and raw rappers of the 1990's. Now he's making kids movies and playing the stereotypical gangsta in Coors Light commercials. Everything he does now completely contradicts what he stood for earlier in his career.

Success from hard work and genuine creative output should be supported. But if they change their beliefs or desperately search for that popularity then their output suffers and I won't support what they've become.

Post: #7

Yeah - my best friend was in a band and they were on the edge of mainstream success. The woman who signed them had previously discovered a band that went on to be the one of the biggest bands in the UK. And before that she had discovered 'Coldplay' who have gone on to be the most successful band in the world.

Anyway - it never worked out for them. Although I always thought it was cool when they supported 'The Strokes' and 'The Breeders' in concert - since I love those two bands. But what I did notice is that the dangling of the carrot of commercial success does mess with the minds of people. Particularly if they have never experienced success before.

It corrupts.

You have 5 guys trying to make cool music.

Then they get spotted and tipped to be the next big thing.

And suddenly - a subtle change in thinking takes place. It isn't noticeable on an individual level - which is why it is so subtle. But as a group there is definitely a sense of trying to learn from the styles of whichever bands have being successful before you.

But here is the thing. You cannot fake your sound. Which creates a strange paradox.

Imagine a brilliant musician - who thinks 'Coldplay' are shit. Indeed - he might say to himself - that he is more talented than those guys - so he will reverse engineer whatever it is that made them successful - and do it ten times better.

But it never works. And the reason is that in order to make slightly shitty music that becomes successful - you have to be trying to communicate your ideas with all your passion. Which means only people who are genuinely slightly shitty in the first place can communicate that vision. And those who are more talented can never connect with the simpler concepts that those popular bands are trying to sell.

So - if your band gets discovered because the record label thinks there is a chance you guys could be 'the next big thing' - it is more an insult than a compliment. As was the case with my best buddy's band since his music was fucking shit.

This is a form of self-selection. And often people don't realise it is going on. A similar thing happened with Noam Chomsky when he reminded an interviewer from the BBC that you only got to be an interviewer for the BBC if you unquestioningly accepted a lot of political propaganda without even being aware of it.

Post: #8

A lot of people in America think they are entitled to everything for free.

They want a police force, and other social safeties but don't want to pay taxes and decry any hint of socialism.

They are used to getting media for free, and think that quality music grows on trees.

They don't understand that to make something of quality requires devoting all your time to it, so you can't get a regular job. I have to practice several hours a day to bring my music to the world.

Musicians have to make a living. Ideally, we'd have a social system that gives people the basic necessities in life, and then artists could have some kind of support that wasn't the government picking out which artists to subsidize.

In Europe, the aristocracy used to support the arts for ages. We never had that here.

Now you've got ancient rock bands dusting off moth balls and going on tour because nobody can sell any CDs. The market for live music is cluttered and that brings the prices down for concerts, so musicians don't get paid as much.

There's going to have to be a revolution or something.

And for all you who think it won't affect you, just wait until 3D printing hits big. The collapse of the record industry is going to be a drop in the bucket when we watch almost all fabrication industries disintegrate as people are able to conjure almost any object they desire in a machine in their house.

Our society needs to re-organize to take all this stuff into consideration, or we are headed for real disaster I believe.

Post: #9

Concerts aren't getting cheaper. With all the downloading going in they have to make their money through ticket sales and merch.

Post: #10

(05-22-2014 10:10 AM)Parlay44 Wrote:  Concerts aren't getting cheaper. With all the downloading going in they have to make their money through ticket sales and merch.

Right now, the only solution is for musicians to ask for more money for live performances.

As the market for live music gets super saturated, competition will bring the prices down.

Musicians will have to go back to doing other things to support their craft.. prostitution, selling drugs, whatever..

Our culture will suffer unless things are re-organized.

Post: #11

Back to the OPs point, fuck all that 'selling out' shit.

Remember Rage Against the Machine and how everyone shit on them for being signed to a major label and having their music sold at Barnes and Noble? Well, Tom Morello's response was something like, "Look, you retards, yes corporations suck but sometimes you have to make a deal with the devil to get your message/music out."

As for Bill Hicks, Im so glad Denis Leary stole his act and actually made it funny.

Post: #12

I didn't read your entire post.

But I understand artists who do it. I myself work in this biz. We all start doing it because we love it, but we can't pay the bills with love. I love music, but I love money even more.

Also, while some people play it safe getting a job, studying etc; most artists are working. It carries a big risk, but when you make it the reward is just as big.

It's not easy. The money, time, energy, and focus that is needed to get to a certain level in the music industry it's exhorbitant.

Post: #13

(05-22-2014 10:22 AM)soup Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 10:10 AM)Parlay44 Wrote:  Concerts aren't getting cheaper. With all the downloading going in they have to make their money through ticket sales and merch.

Right now, the only solution is for musicians to ask for more money for live performances.

As the market for live music gets super saturated, competition will bring the prices down.

Musicians will have to go back to doing other things to support their craft.. prostitution, selling drugs, whatever..

Our culture will suffer unless things are re-organized.

Singers make 99% of their money from live performances. Right now making money from sales it's virtually impossible. I just got a royalty check for about 100k plays (youtube, spotify, etc.) and it was only $4.50.

That's the reason there's so much shitty music. Those with talent won't be the ones who will get the recognition, but those who have enough money to spend.

If I like an artist I try to buy their music. After all, making a song can take days, or even weeks. It's very sad how people these days don't value music or any type of art.

You would think paying a $40 ticket to see someone live it's expensive,, but again, you don't know how much money one has to spend to get to that level. I've seen artists who spend millions of dollars in their careers before seeing $1 back.

Post: #14

(05-22-2014 11:31 AM)Pete Wrote:  I didn't read your entire post.

But I understand artists who do it. I myself work in this biz. We all start doing it because we love it, but we can't pay the bills with love. I love music, but I love money even more.

Also, while some people play it safe getting a job, studying etc; most artists are working. It carries a big risk, but when you make it the reward is just as big.

It's not easy. The money, time, energy, and focus that is needed to get to a certain level in the music industry it's exhorbitant.

Most people don't understand the magnitude of commitment and adversity real musicians contend with. How could they?

Post: #15

There's no clear answer.

Which music do you like better? The music that the artist wrote and produced by himself or music that has been changed by the studios so that it is more commercial.

Which movies are best? The ones where the scriptwriter and director can do something mostly their own way or the Hollywood backed films that are intentionally 'average' and aimed to appeal to mass audiences because 'average' is less financially risky.

Clearly artists need to make money but that money is offered at a cost.

Whoever puts forward the capital takes on the risk. Once the artist takes that capital, they're no longer in a position to take risks or push boundaries because they've given away control to a studio or financial backer.

Van Gogh died in poverty. He sold some of his paintings for a loaf of bread. Many other artists have gone the same route.

I think there's a choice artists usually have to make. Money at the expense of artistic credibility. I'm not saying you can't have both but it's difficult. Money also changes you as a person. People have different priorities. Some would rather die brilliant with a middling income, others would rather be rich. Who are we to judge?

Post: #16

I think it was Paul McCartney who said that for most of history - musicians didn't make any money. And that the money earned in music over the past 40 years is the exception and not the rule.

That bubble has popped and will never come back.

Not making money from music is the norm. It was only the rise of consumerism, teenage pop culture and the monolithic record companies that created this weird moment in time where pop music could be extremely profitable.

Music is going the way of poetry. Sure you have a handful of people who can make money from it. But the rest are supported by universities, private wealth or second jobs. Hell - my favourite poet was Philip Larkin - and he spent his life working as a university librarian.

I will mention that Bob Lefsetz has an amazing blog (which he updates everyday) about the state of the music industry. He gives some fascinating insights into how fucked the music business is - even for the likes of Lady Gaga and Miley Cyrus.

The old music model is broken beyond repair.

http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/

As for the future. It will be interesting to see how it pans out. Personally - I never understood why musicians wanted fame and fortune from their music? Music should be about trying to make the best music possible and trying to perfect a certain idea or vision.

I am a magician - and I know lots of geniuses who devoted their lives to pursuing magic for the pure love of it. Not only did they never make money (or win fame) from it - they were utterly uninterested in that in the first place.

That is how I would feel about music today. Unlike the past - it is quite cheap to record music to a high level. And as such - I am not sure why musicians want more than the simple satisfaction of creating a piece of art?

Sure anything else on top of that is a nice bonus. But it shouldn't be the core reason that drives you.

And besides - if you feel that society 'should' compensate you for your efforts, I would ask - why should they?

You chose to become a musician - and could stop at any time. Added to which -the world is already drowning in amazing music. So - I am not sure why the rest of us should be so grateful? Particularly when there are many other art forms and creative pursuits that people tackle purely for the love of it and nothing else.

Post: #17

^^ Exactly. Musicians complaining about being underappreciated and whatnot automatically get the eyeroll from me. It should be a hobby these days, not a profession.

Post: #18

(05-22-2014 12:45 PM)cardguy Wrote:  I think it was Paul McCartney who said that for most of history - musicians didn't make any money. And that the money earned in music over the past 40 years is the exception and not the rule.

That bubble has popped and will never come back.

Not making money from music is the norm. It was only the rise of consumerism, teenage pop culture and the monolithic record companies that created this weird moment in time where pop music could be extremely profitable.

Music is going the way of poetry. Sure you have a handful of people who can make money from it. But the rest are supported by universities, private wealth or second jobs. Hell - my favourite poet was Philip Larkin - and he spent his life working as a university librarian.

I will mention that Bob Lefsetz has an amazing blog (which he updates everyday) about the state of the music industry. He gives some fascinating insights into how fucked the music business is - even for the likes of Lady Gaga and Miley Cyrus.

The old music model is broken beyond repair.

http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/

As for the future. It will be interesting to see how it pans out. Personally - I never understood why musicians wanted fame and fortune from their music? Music should be about trying to make the best music possible and trying to perfect a certain idea or vision.

I am a magician - and I know lots of geniuses who devoted their lives to pursuing magic for the pure love of it. Not only did they never make money (or win fame) from it - they were utterly uninterested in that in the first place.

That is how I would feel about music today. Unlike the past - it is quite cheap to record music to a high level. And as such - I am not sure why musicians want more than the simple satisfaction of creating a piece of art?

Sure anything else on top of that is a nice bonus. But it shouldn't be the core reason that drives you.

And besides - if you feel that society 'should' compensate you for your efforts, I would ask - why should they?

You chose to become a musician - and could stop at any time. Added to which -the world is already drowning in amazing music. So - I am not sure why the rest of us should be so grateful? Particularly when there are many other art forms and creative pursuits that people tackle purely for the love of it and nothing else.

Try being a great musician- it's a fulltime occupation.

Post: #19

(05-22-2014 12:51 PM)Cunnilinguist Wrote:  ^^ Exactly. Musicians complaining about being underappreciated and whatnot automatically get the eyeroll from me. It should be a hobby these days, not a profession.

You will drown in a sea of shitty music.

Post: #20

You're an idiot for not selling out. Money is money.

I will say this, when I saw this commercial it made me a little sad.

Post: #21

Going commercial and being artistically great are not mutually exclusive.

In the 1960s, the Beatles sometimes had their songs picked apart and rearranged by producer George Martin (who actually wrote the into and outro of "Can't Buy Me Love"). At Motown, they had a "quality control" department that went over each potential single in detail, sometimes getting the artists to do major rewrites.

And yet, songs like "My Girl" (by Motown's Temptations) and "She Loves You" (Beatles) have never gone out of style and most people would not deny they were significant works of art. Innovative, even. I'd argue they're better than the undisciplined hippie stuff that came soon after (Grateful Dead, Airplane, Blue Cheer).

Speaking of Motown, they ended up pioneering '70s funk in the '60s with the latter-day Temptations records like "Cloud 9" and "Ball of Confusion." How? It was a deliberate attempt to copy Sly Stone and in their quest to make money, they rewrote the book on black music.

All that said, I don't believe Kurt Cobain killed himself over selling out. First, "In Utero" is pretty uncompromising. Second, nothing was stopping him from going even more non-commercial on the next album and pushing his audience away (i.e. Weezer's "Pinkerton"). I think Cobain's drug problems are what ultimately did him in. My ex was addicted to pills at one point. Never underestimate the power of drugs to turn regular humans into ghosts.

Post: #22

Grateful dead "undisciplined hippy stuff".... The Grateful Dead is misunderstood by many people even though their musical ability was so high. Their music is made for people on LSD.

Until you've listened to them in that context its impossible to really "get it".

Post: #23

Nothing wrong with selling out. Playing music for a living is tough, especially starting out.

That being said, I think the biggest problem with music today is that the only thing that really sells seems to be party music. Nobody wants to hear anything they can't drink to.

I used to love music, nowadays I barely even listen to it outside the gym.

Post: #24

People overestimate the impact of "art" on the average person in the modern era. Good music adds a soundtrack to the times but I have yet to see a revolution or a significant change in our way of life started over a song. For example the 60's era of protest or idealism wasn't generated by the music but the politics at the time which happened to coincide with a tumultuous period. Baby Boomers like to get all crazy about woodstock and claim it changed this or that. Musically, it was influentially but overall it didn't mean shit to society. It's just entertainment and pop culture at the end of the day. You can't "sell out" if you're marketing or selling a product to begin with. The whole concept is a joke.

Post: #25

The issue with music is that all of recorded music is now pretty much instantly accessible by everyone. This includes Bach, the Beatles that band you saw one time in a Baltimore bar 16 years ago.

And a lot of the old stuff sounds fresher than what you hear on radio in the adult contemporary, "alternative," top 40, or urban contemporary formats.

So yeah, musicians will have to work harder to attract audiences to live performances. They will also have to be more creative.