bands that "sell out"... how do you feel about it? (1 Viewer)

[Mike Broadman]

Mingus was used in a car commercial? I don't remember that (I manage to avoid commercials for the most part).

Do you happen to know which song they used?

 

[Philip Hamm]

II B.S.

 

[Jordan_E]

When I saw U2 in the new commercial for the I Pod, I felt a little sad.

 

[Marko_J]

I don't think that U2 are sellouts, and mainly because of one thing - in this comercial the song isn't just promoting the Ipod.
Here we have a case of cross-selling - with this comercial U2 is advertising the new CD, they are promoting the new single "Vertigo", which is at this moment exclusively available at the Itunes... and nowhere else...

is it any different than billboards for the new CD, posters and such things at Target store - the "7" CD in the Target store few years ago?

they are not using the song to promote car/detergent/ipod... but they are promoting Vertigo...

but maybe I'm biased - i'm a u2 fan and I can also remember 1987 when they even went to such lenght on their US tour to cover all the adds on the stadiums with sheets in order to be free from any "sell out" labels..

sory for my bad english, I hope that I make sense

 

[chung_sotheby]

Browsing through the previous posts, there are many great discussions going on about the levels of commercialism in the music industry, and all started because U2 decided to make a 30 sec Ipod commercial. Incredible.
Just some thoughts:

-While some might construe the Ipod commercial as such, I don't think that it was selling out on the part of U2. I have, for the most part, admired their artistic creativity and daring and I don't believe that lending their sound and image to sell a product is selling out, as long as they did not have to comprimise their music to sell the product. In other words, I do not think that U2 wrote the song (Vertigo, if I remember correctly) specifically to sell Ipods, or to make themselves more commercially viable or to sell more records at Walmart. On the other hand, it is pretty ironic that people are sort of in a hubub about this particular instance since the product endorsed is a device that in some cases expedites the piracy of music (according to the RIAA, not me)


-This is wrong on so many levels, I can't even really comprehend what my mind is going through. According to Webster, Art is:
"the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects."
The definition of art is not:
"the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects THAT ONE CAN SELL."

Art is in NO WAY only about business. While some people use "art" to make a living, they are no longer artists if they specifically go into artistic endeavors for the sole purpose of making money; they are at best entertainers or performers, and at worst lackeys or prostitutes. There are many other forms of work where one can comprimise their integrity and beliefs for the sole purpose of monetary gain, however I for one believe that the artistic field (like the teaching and medical fields) is not one of them. In art, to comprimise one's beliefs for the sole purpose of gaining money or acceptance is to go against everything that art represents.

-To express my position a little more clearly, I will use one of my favorite examples: Moby. While some may say that Moby is a sell out (since he liberaly licenses his work for commercials and other endorsements), I do not think this is the case. In an interview, Moby said (and I am paraphrasing) that if someone wants to pay him $100k to use his song in a car commercial, and he can use that $100k to fund anti-pollution charities, who are you to say no when that money might make a ten-fold difference in the world as opposed to if you had not licensed the song out? In other words, you can choose what to do with your song, but make sure you choose wisely. I think that U2 acted in this same vein. While they could have licensed their song or likeness out to Exxon-Mobil, or Phillip-Morris, or the NRA, they decided to do it for a device that promotes the online distribution of music. And this coming from a guy that drives a car to work, smokes cigarrettes, and likes shooting guns.
While I have no problem with artists selling their work for monetary gain, I have a HUGE problem with them PRODUCING their work solely for monetary gain. I think that one cannot call themselves an "artist" if they are only in art for the money.

 

[Philip Hamm]

No one gets good enough to make the money if they're "just into it for the money". It's kind of like pro sports.

There are a lot of people playing in little flag football leagues all over the country because they love playing. There are a lot of people who play professionally.

For the most part you do not get to be good enough in pro sports or art unless you really are gifted and have the get-up-and-go. You may say people like Brittney Spears and Boy Bands don't qualify under some criteria, but they are at least partially responsible for the songs they sing.

I don't consider Randy Moss any less an athlete because he gets paid a lot. Nor do I consider *insert derided "sellout" artist here* any less an artist because they strive to make a generous living with their art.

Dictionary be damned, art is a business in practical reality. Of course there are hobbyist musicians and artists all over the country just as there are those hobbyists playing in beer-league softball and flag football. Some of them are damn good!

It's not "right" or "wrong", it simply is.