sell outs!!!

Dudess wrote: »

.
Also The Killers - it seems to be majorly uncool to like them. Well f*ck it, I think anything I've heard by them (apart from Somebody Told Me) is great.

+1. I don't think anybody could accuse them of selling out, they merely advanced their sound. Sam's Town for me was album of the year when it came out and if anything it's less commercial then Hot Fuss. Hot Fuss was a collection of 5 singles built around 7 fillers, Sam's Town was an attempt to make an album you can listen to from start to finish without any drop in quality which I think they achieved with flying colours. Not the mark of a sell out

ball ox wrote: »

It's nearly as annoying as people who stop liking bands when they become popular, a perfect example being the the kind of tools that think arcade fires 'funeral' is 'ok' but not as good as their first release.....

Errr, Funeral was their first ALBUM to be released.

In my opinion letting a song be used for advertisement purposes devalues it greatly.
Allowing a song to be used in a movie is not the same thing as a movie is(well usually) a peice of art advertisements have no artistic merit whatsoever and are purly created to maximise revenue.
I can forgive a young up and coming act letting a song be used in advertisement as A)Most musisions in the early stages of thier career have **** all money
The record company probably had the power to make the decision

When an established act with power behind them does it I do lose a lot of respect for them I would never stop listening to a band for solely this reason but it would affect my opinion of them.
2 Good examples include
New Order for years refused to let thier songs be used in advertisements turning down large sums of money but recently they have been used numouroes times I know the band lost a lot of money with the bankrupting of Factory records but with many world tours since then as well as money earnt from sales of the back catelouge which they have the rights to they shoudnt need the money and haveing a peice of art associated with a product devalues its importance
Sting has for many years campaigned to help save the rainforests he later appeared in an add for Jaguar promoting high powered cars with high emission rates while also campaigning for the environment and being a hypocrie to producing terrible music to stings list of crimes.
I dont have a problem with an artist being commissioned to create a peice of music for an add such as Brian Eno being payed to create the windows music but accepting payment for a peice of art previously created for artistic purposes makes you less of an artist in my opinion

Dudess wrote:

What a moron.

I do hope you're referring to Mr. Wire and not me!!

Dudess wrote:

A number of people have gone off Arcade Fire now. Considering their music is just as brilliant as a few years ago, that can only be because of their popularity. White Stripes - good example.

Well more fool them, because Icky Thump is, without doubt, my favourite album from 2007. They keep getting better and better imo. Anyone who gave up on The White Stripes when Elephant came out does not know what they're missing!!:)

Derek DGoldfish wrote:

advertisements have no artistic merit whatsoever

That's a pretty harsh statement. They're designed to sell products: if the products sell than the advertisers have obviously done something right.

DerekD Goldfish wrote:

and are purly created to maximise revenue.

You say that like it's a bad thing!!!

DerekD Goldfish wrote:

When an established act with power behind them does it I do lose a lot of respect for them

It doesn't bother me in the slightest. I don't think it undermines an artist's credibility unless they disagree with what the product stands for or if the company has a bad reputation.
Like if I was a successful rockstar (!!!), I wouldn't let Nike use my music because of their shocking record when it comes to their employees. But I would have no problem with, let's say, RTE using my music for advertising their scheduele.
I think it's silly to turn down large sums of money in order to avoid being labelled a sellout. I'd be really happy if I had E1,000,000. But I would be even happier with E2,000,000. It's not a crime to want a bit more money. Everyone dreams of being rich- it's only greed when you become obsessed with the idea and compromise your morals/beliefs.
2 Good examples include

DerekD Goldfish wrote:

New Order for years refused to let thier songs be used in advertisements turning down large sums of money but recently they have been used numouroes times I know the band lost a lot of money with the bankrupting of Factory records but with many world tours since then as well as money earnt from sales of the back catelouge which they have the rights to they shoudnt need the money and haveing a peice of art associated with a product devalues its importance
Sting has for many years campaigned to help save the rainforests he later appeared in an add for Jaguar promoting high powered cars with high emission rates while also campaigning for the environment and being a hypocrie to producing terrible music to stings list of crimes.

Ok I agree with you on Sting - he does come across like a hypocrite. But I don't mind Blue Monday being used to advertise Mars Bars - I don't think Peter Hook, at any point in his life, said "You know, I disagree with Mars Bars and what they represent."

DerekD Goldfish wrote:

I dont have a problem with an artist being commissioned to create a peice of music for an add such as Brian Eno being payed to create the windows music but accepting payment for a peice of art previously created for artistic purposes makes you less of an artist in my opinion

Art is very subjective,though - like I said before, I don't think Blue Monday is less aesthetically pleasing because the "evil corporate whores" from Mars got their nougatty hands on it.

I suppose what it really boils down to is what the artist has in mid when they compose their music.
If a song is written with the sole intention of getting mainstream success and money , then it has no artistic merit and those musicians do not have much artistic integrity.
However, I doubt when New Order wrote Blue Monday they had dollar signs in their eyes and were thinking "Y'know, this would sound great in an ad for chocolate and we would get rich off it." No, they wrote the song because...well...it was good. Years later the offer came up and they probably thought "Yeah, Why not? Bit of extra money won't hurt." I don't think there's anything wrong with that.:)

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Ah come on now, as much as I wish I could use that as an argument, it's completely untrue.

No its not
Advertisements are not art

They're designed to sell products: if the products sell than the advertisers have obviously done something right.

They have achieved their goal that doesn't make it art.
If I set out to paint a wall and I paint it doenst mean its art it just means
I acheived what I set out to.
I have no problem with people making money from art bust it should be the result of achieving your goal of creating a worthwhile peice of art not the goal in itself.
If an action is carred out with the sole aim of creating money its not art its work.

, I don't think Blue Monday is less aesthetically pleasing because the "evil corporate whores" from Mars got their nougatty hands on it.

I dont think all corporations are evil
Im slighly lefty but im far from a communist
Its having your song associated with a product that annoys me
Truly great songs become known as "The Mars song" or "The O2 song"
rather than by the artist themself if I was an artist I couldnt live with this and I find it hard to understand how someone that considers themselves an aritst could.


Also while im on another rant 95% of the people that took part in both Live Aid ceremony's are scum of the earth
The vast majority of them (I'll let Bob of the hook) couldnt have cared less about the people there were suposed to be helping and just used it as free wordwide exposure which massively increased sales of pretty much all the artists involved yet very few of them donated this extra income to the cause.
Most of the time when acts take part in charity events its for thier own good and IMO acts who use the suffering of others to gain exposure and income from themselves are scum

I think it's silly to turn down large sums of money in order to avoid being labelled a sellout. I'd be really happy if I had E1,000,000. But I would be even happier with E2,000,000. It's not a crime to want a bit more money. Everyone dreams of being rich- it's only greed when you become obsessed with the idea and compromise your morals/beliefs.

Firstly, not everyone dreams of being rich.

Secondly, I agree entirely with DerekD. I take music seriously (the pretension!) and I expect musicians to take their music seriously too. It's easy to follow the latest musical fads, listening to this and that 'catchy' band for a few months, getting bored of them and then turning to the next major label-backed artist of the moment. But real enjoyment (for me anyway) comes from ignoring the 'popularity' of an artist and searching for bands whose music isn't influenced by the potential for popularity. Bands who look upon music as the art that it is and make albums, first and foremost, simply for the sake of creating something beautiful, or saying something important - or not important, or trying to push the boundaries of sound, or simply making it for themselves.

When you listen to music, emotions inevitably get stirred in you - you're moved somewhere. Whether it's just the power of the lyrics, or the rhythm, or the distortion, you'll start thinking about something - the subject of the song, your own life, whatever. That's the point of music, and of art generally: to move the listener. If the artist allows their music to be used in advertisements or TV theme songs or even movies (there are exceptions, if the artist feels the movie captures the emotion of the song well then I guess I don't mind so much), then they're allowing their music to be associated with something totally external to what the artist was presumably trying to do with their music. When people hear 'Blue Monday', they're inevitably going to think about Mars bars. For New Order to permit the use of that song not only devalues their work as a piece of art, but shows disrespect to their fans in my view.

Fortunately, it is perfectly possible for good bands who are conscious of these sentiments to make a fine living from their work even if they don't hit a nerve with the masses (à la Arcade Fire, for example). But that requires those of us who love good music to support these bands by buying their CDs, going to their gigs, telling our friends and simply listening to their music.