Tag Archives: selling out

Selling out revisited…again

Music

I’ll be honest: I didn’t read Miles Raymer’s follow-up in the Chicago Reader to his previous column on selling out. I thought his original piece fell apart once you looked at the evidence (and I said so here). Plus, on this issue, I think he’s being contrarian just to get a good column out of it (not that there’s anything wrong with that), so I didn’t bother with it.

On the other hand, Anne Elizabeth Moore did read it and had some interesting things to say about it in a letter to the editor.

Read more of my own navel-gazing musings on the concept of selling outhere.

Calm before the storm

Music, ,

A few notes before I head out of town:

* Lots of people have been asking which band I have most been looking forward to seeing, and my first response is Sons & Daughters, but that’s only because I probably won’t be able to see my first choice: a teenage metal band called Black Tide – out of Miami, of all places – whose sole show conflicts with a few acts I really need to see to make sure I know what all the indie-nerd music sites will be talking about this year. I will probably regret it, but there you go. In any case, Sons & Daughters will probably be great, too.

* Speaking of metal, I already mentioned this in my Twitter stream but I wish Tragedy : A Metal Tribute to the Bee Gees had a show prior to my departure on Sunday. Because this just looks awesome.

* Last SXSW note: all my Twitter updates through Sunday will be here.

* The whole selling out thing has been on my mind again recently because of this article in AdAge and because a local musician I know on a personal and professional level is selling a song to a national chain for – one assumes – some big bucks. Much as think his music is fantastic, and deserving of a wider listenership, I haven’t changed my mind since I wrote about this originally or in one of the many follow-ups: licensing songs to commercials is good for a quick infusion of cash, not for gaining the kinds of fans that make for a long-term career. It certainly can be an indirect way of boosting one’s career (that commercial might mean more money to spend on the next album or a longer tour, to name two examples) but anyone who hears it for 30 seconds while they’re watching The Office isn’t going to be a person who sticks around for much longer than that.

Art, the non-Garfunkel variety

Music

There’s been some fiery back and forth in the comments in this post on the selling of art (specifically music) and I thought it was worth bringing it out into the open.

Julene said: Um, wow. So if art is sold – it is no longer that artist’s work? I think what you are trying to say is that commissioned work for a specific ad or commercial reason is different than art created for for oneself or art’s sake and ended up being purchased.

No, I’m saying that if you create art ostensibly for yourself or under the auspices of a set of ideas (the way, say, Jeff Tweedy writes music as a part of Wilco) and then allow it to be used for commercial purposes, then be prepared for people to have a very different idea about what your art is or even who you are. Does anyone else think of The Caesars as anything other than “the iPod band?”

Now, this isn’t a value judgment. When you are commissioned to do public art, you are operating under a specific set of circumstances and creating art within them. It can still be striking, moving art. But this is different than creating art for its own sake. The motivations behind its creation and then how it’s perceived are fundamentally different.

Julene’s absolutely correct in saying that an artist does not have complete control over how his or her art is perceived whether it was created as a commission or for its own sake (witness the way the meaning of Bruce Springsteen’s song “Born in the U.S.A.” has been lost behind a fist-pumping chorus). When I said “artists need to be OK with is the notion that it is no longer their art when it is sold” I meant that they are placing that art they created for its own sake within a different context than the one in which it’s created. So the feelings behind it are no longer purely their own. It’s seen as Apple’s or Volkswagen’s.

There’s a giant gaping hole in my argument here that anyone is welcome to exploit and that’s this: most musicians don’t just create art for its own sake, it’s created in the hopes that they can make a living (a.k.a. money). My short retort to this argument is that most often music that can also be called art (not all of it can) is still created for its own sake in the hopes that someone will be willing to put up money to support that artist’s efforts without compromising the creation of the art. Sometimes this is true, sometimes it isn’t. Sometimes the artist is complicit in this, sometimes the artist is not.

But that’s a whole other post, even though I’ve now opened this can and dumped the worms are all over the place.

Addendum: My man in Memphis, Kerry Hayes, has a related post at his blog Rural Free Delivery, where he points out that Kevin Barnes, lead singer of Of Montreal, posted about this issue on Stereogum. I read Barnes’s missive after my original post but found his logic so lacking in…well, logic that it didn’t seem worth it to post a counter-argument.

Addendum 2: Thanks to a referral link, I just found this piece by Anne Elizabeth Moore on this topic that’s a response to the Miles Raymer column that started this whole jag.

If your fans jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too?

Music, ,

There’s little point in raising any objections to The Eagles’ exclusive distribution deal with Wal-Mart for their double-album Long Road Out of Eden just because it’s about money. Back in 1994, The Eagles had an unfortunate influence on the music industry thanks to their prolonged absence from it, and were therefore able to command upwards of $100 – then a princely sum – for a ticket to one of their reunion shows, which has led to an ongoing competition to see who can command the most dollars per ticket. But in terms of sheer greed, The Eagles are far outpaced by other bands who jump at every licensing deal throw at them. Plus, it’s far less disconcerting to see a band “selling out” when its music no longer matters. So this move means almost nothing to anyone who isn’t on the Eagles Inc. payroll.

I can’t even get that irritated by the obvious hypocrisy. In a recent CNN interview, Don Henley says that Wal-Mart made them “a really good offer” and that’s presumably why he’s excepting Wal-Mart from his usual tirades about the evils of corporations. Henley is rock’s biggest blowhard, and I’ve long felt that the louder someone has to be about their beliefs, the less sincere they are. It’s as if they’re trying to convince themselves while they’re convincing you. Social responsibility was good for his career, until it wasn’t. And again, it’s not like the Eagles have been above a big money grab before.

No, the thing I find objectionable is Henley’s further reasoning about the wisdom of their decision:

And a lot of our fans are customers of Wal-Mart, so we thought it was a good fit.

Hmm, where have I heard that before? Oh wait, I remember.

We feel okay about VWs. Several of us even drive them.”

Is this the new standard? It’s OK as long as it’s something you or your fans use? If so, I can’t wait for, say, Tegan and Sara’s “Knife Going In” to show up in an ad for Land O’ Lakes Butter. Or maybe an exclusive distribution deal with BP Amoco stations for the next album by Rihanna because “a lot of my fans have cars that use gas, so it seemed like a natural fit.” Or music from Nickelback’s next album showing up in an Ex-Lax ad because it’s so shitty.

Selling out revisited

Music, ,

I received a press release today that contained this as its lede:

“Legendary BRONX ART FUNK group ESG (who will have the new feature song on Mini Cooper commercials nationally) will perform their LAST EVER SHOW in Chicago at the Estrojam Festival Friday, Sept 21st.”

Now, initially I felt this was the perfect indictment of the theory I’d previously railed against in a blog post not too long ago: that selling out is actually a good thing. But it turns out it’s not that simple. From Wikipedia:

“On May 9, 2007, ESG drummer Valerie Scroggins was indicted by a Brooklyn grand jury on charges of taking more than $13,000 in workers’ compensation payments. Scroggins, a bus driver for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York), told them that she suffered a shoulder injury last September. In November, Scroggins went on tour with ESG, where an MTA investigator filmed her playing “drums for an hour or more and on every song the band played, doing things very similar to actions she told her employers she could not perform,” according to the Brooklyn DA’s press release. Scroggins asserts that her injury is legitimate and that she could not safely drive a bus.”

So not only does the inclusion of your song in a commercial not lead to financial solvency, it doesn’t even mean that a member of a band with both longevity and respect – and ESG do have both – won’t consider committing (alleged) fraud in order to make ends meet.

I don’t mean to suggest there’s a cause and effect relationship here, but it’s far from a panacea either.

Selling out is great for bands…who don't really want to be in bands

Music,

Miles Raymer attempts to defend “selling out” in this week’s Chicago Reader. I admire the contraiainist effort, but he never quite justifies why more commercial usage of music “might be just what the music industry needs.” Artists have been offering begrudging nods to commercial licensing for a few years now, ever since Moby showed it was both financially rewarding, and didn’t lead to becoming a complete asshole in the process. But this newish aspect of music labels’ business plans hasn’t exactly infused them with scads of cash, as Raymer notes.

So it’s not exactly reaping a whirlwind for labels, but it’s obviously helping new bands find an audience, right? Well, no. The reason why is simple: licensing music for commercial purposes doesn’t create new fans for a band, it only associates the band with a moment in time, or with a particular movement, which makes it all the easier for any new fans they’ve acquired to move on when the moment is over.

There’s a much longer post to be written on just this point, but music – particularly the big tent that the term “indie rock music” has come to represent – is much more commodified now than it ever was before. Where it used to be that a certain segment of the population sought out the hot new restaurant or the hipper-than-thou nightclub as a way to show they were on the cutting edge of what was “in,” this same segment now accomplishes that by seeking out information about which bands are being touted as the next big thing.

It’s easier to do that now because the information about which bands are new and breaking is everywhere, and not spread by word-of-mouth or via record stores that most folks wouldn’t step foot in. It would be fine if this kind of re-purposing of music were merely confined to commerce, but the problem is that these people are showing up at live shows as well, with little respect for the culture created around it. (If Wilco wants to “get the music out there,” good for them. But if they do it by selling off their tunes to car companies, they shouldn’t be surprised if more guys like this start coming to their shows.)

When you directly associate your music with commerce – that is, when the music is used to sell something other than an album, CD or MP3 – it’s likely that the audience you reach will associate it that way, as well. Therefore, your music becomes nothing more than a plate of grilled salmon, a gin and tonic, or a pair of trendy new jeans. It’s something to be consumed at that time, without much thought given to it after it’s outlived its utility.

So licensing ultimately fails to expand or develop an audience. I know that many people thought that Moby allowing the majority of his Play album to be used for commercial purposes was a bold way of reaching a wider audience, but a few years on and that new audience of his has all but disappeared, leaving him struggling to sign with a label until recently. The Shins – an example Raymer uses to illustrate the positive effects of “selling out” – will probably never escape its Garden State association, and will probably rise and fall depending on how long the “Braff rock” trend lasts.

The band The Caesars went from being a never-were to a has-been in the blink of an eye, despite the ubiquity of its single “Jerk It Out,” first heard in iPod commercials. The Servant had a song called “Cells” in the trailer for Sin City, but it didn’t help its next album “How To Destroy A Relationship” get a U.S. release. Bodyrockers’ song “I Like The Way” was used in a Diet Coke ad, the show Las Vegas, and the Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show in 2005. In fact, you probably know the song without even realizing it. Listen to it at their website, and you’ll probably find yourself saying “Oh that song!” like I did. Yet the name “Bodyrockers” meant nothing to me, and probably means nothing to a lot of other people since their self-titled album is also only available on import, and the News section of their site has been sorely lacking any if it since December of 2005.

And bands with a built-in audience should perhaps be wary of going the commercial route, too. Wilco certainly took it on the chin from their long-time fans. Sonic Youth can justify selling CDs through Starbucks and re-release its classic albums all it wants, but its audience isn’t fooled. (Perhaps as Jessica Hopper goes, so goes the Daydream Nation?)

I’m not denying that a band allowing its music to be used in a commercial is a good way to get a short-term infusion of cash. Raymer’s best argument in the piece is that if bands that make a living through music “can’t stay safely in the black by playing gigs or selling records, some of them are bound to choose licensing deals and sponsorships over day jobs or credit-card debt.” I can’t say I wouldn’t do the same thing if letting Volkswagen use my songs meant I could devote my life to making music. But I don’t think it would. More likely, it means your band will be no more memorable to the average listener than the can of Coke they just tossed in the trash. And rather than allow you to leave that day job and devote your life to creating music, it’s more likely to leave you still trying to sell your latest CD to uninterested audiences, only this time you’ll be selling it to them with an orange crème frappuccino.