Can you excuse an artist "selling out"?

December 9, 2004 11:13 AM

Inspired by this Ask(ed)Me further down the page: If an artist "sells out" a song to advertise a product, but uses the profits for charity or good works, is it excusable? Does it depend on the product? Do we all just ignore commercials anyway (since we're such enlightened, non-materialistic intellectual MeFites)? Let's say you're a financially and artistically successful artist: What's your price, if you have one?
posted by Shane to Society & Culture (22 answers total)

My favorite commentary on selling out is this piece Dave Eggers wrote. I agree with him wholeheartedly.
posted by cali at 11:17 AM on December 9, 2004

Your big mistake is thinking that popular music is somehow above, beyond or more pure than any other piece of music that goes along with a TV ad. Admittedly, the agency buys the music for its associations, and with many popular songs, that association is more or less specifically transgressive. But transgressive against what? Nothing is more rebellious, transgressive, more threatening to the established order of things than raw capitalism itself. The market is "Born to be Wild," it's a "Gangsters' Paradise," and as long as you can't get "No Satisfaction," it will rampage through everything you hold sacred to get a buck. And this -- unlike your favorite band (or Dave Eggers favorite band, the Flaming Lips) -- is cool.
posted by Faze at 11:37 AM on December 9, 2004

Moreover, a musical work--especially a work of so-called "popular" music--is itself a product. Using a song in an advertisement is not selling out; it's product placement.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:42 AM on December 9, 2004

Some people would rather their music be heard and appreciated for itself, and not always in the context of someone else's product.

I'm not condemning artists who sell their songs for ads, but it's perfectly understandable why someone wouldn't want to.

[i]And this -- unlike your favorite band (or Dave Eggers favorite band, the Flaming Lips) -- is cool.[/i]

I'm not sure what you're saying. The Flaming Lips had songs in commercials, isn't that what you were arguing in favor of? Or are you just trying to say you don't like them in general?
posted by ludwig_van at 11:52 AM on December 9, 2004

Oops. I got my tags mixed up. Too many forums. Time
posted by ludwig_van at 11:52 AM on December 9, 2004

to go outside. Excuse me.
posted by ludwig_van at 11:53 AM on December 9, 2004

An artist who doesn't "sell out" in some way or another probably won't be an artist for very long. When you play a show, you're "selling out" to the fans and the club. When you record an album, you're "selling out" to the consumer market. When an artist does anything with even the slightest intent to make some money (otherwise known as "making a living"), apparently that's "selling out". It's not wrong, or an abandonment of some higher principle, it's called WORKING, dag nab it.

Why is this business of art supposedly exempt from the basic economic considerations that all other exchange-based transactions follow?

Frankly, I find the concept of "selling out" to be a particularly lame straw man. It implicitly asserts that art should be done without any consideration of how one will continue to do it in the long term.

Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong.
posted by Aquaman at 11:56 AM on December 9, 2004

I think the distinction between music for music's sake and music for a product's sake is very clear. It's not about the money, it's whether the music is presented on its own, as music (which can be art, entertainment, or both) or in the background of an ad, as part of a campaign to get you to buy something entirely unrelated.

It's using the music for what was presumably not its original intent. Again, there's nothing wrong with that, but it makes sense that Joe Blow may prefer his music to sell itself and not cars/computers/laundry detergent.

I don't see why that's hard to understand.
posted by ludwig_van at 12:00 PM on December 9, 2004

I agree with Aquaman - very few musicians make much money for very long. Sure, I winced the first time I heard Iggy Pop for that cruise line advert, but it's the reality of the world. How much money has Iggy actually made from selling records? Probably not a whole lot. Concerts can be lucrative, but only for a small number of artists who are popular enough to play large venues, and that fame is generally fleeting. Are we to blame an artist for selling one song to one commercial that can earn him or her ten times more than all of their lifetime royalties put together? Moby sells his songs to commercials sometimes before the CD is even released. Yet he continues to create good music, so does the fact it's a commodity make it somehow less pure? How about the artists that toil away in obscurity until their music reaches a mass audience on TV or in a film?
Personally, I find music used for a commercial a lot less offensive than the new wave of "pop stars" like Ashley Simpson who have an hour-long "special" on MTV before they have even released their début album, and take the stage at SNL and grace the cover of Rolling Stone before they've even had a national tour. At least the commercial jingles have already proven good songs before the artists raced to position themselves as product.
posted by sixdifferentways at 12:13 PM on December 9, 2004

Response by poster: Moreover, a musical work--especially a work of so-called "popular" music--is itself a product.

I think that's a fine line. Music is (or should be) unavoidably product but also art. Art transcends.
(On preview, what ludwig just said.)

And if you're speaking from a bias against pop music, then let's use something more classical yet completely abused by adverts. Okay, that doesn't always work as well as an example, because obviously Vivaldi didn't "sell out" the strings from Winter from the Four Seasons to the seemingly thousands of TV commercials that have used it ;-)

I'm not totally speaking from a "How can they sell out?!" viewpoint either. It instinctively ticks me off when a tune I like shills a product, but if I were in the position of the creator, I keep thinking about all the good I could do with a million bucks paid to me just so, I dunno, maybe the Energizer Bunny could hop around to 20 seconds worth of music or something.
posted by Shane at 12:13 PM on December 9, 2004

I don't think indie bands make much money. I'd love to know how financially comfortable some of my favourites are, but after reading an interview with Lou Barlow, I doubt they're doing well. Barlow, in indie land is fairly well known, has been around awhile and I believe cracked the mainstream pop charts with a song from the Kids soundtrack. Anyhow, he's thinking of getting out of the music business because he can't live on what little money comes in. He's thinking of becoming a nurse so he can support himself. Now, I didn't expect him to be rich by any means, but I didn't think he'd be that bad off. You can find his music fairly easily all across the US and Canada. Even in the shittiest record stores in the cultural backwater I'm from, I saw a couple Folk Implosion and Sebadoh albums.

If I love your music, and you can sell out a bit to keep making music, PLEASE, do so. I'd rather keep being able to listen to your stuff. It's the lesser of two evils.

I can even excuse this in bands that are successful. In the aforementioned thread, I mentioned a Jaguar ad that features "London Calling" by the Clash. I don't care so much when I hear "Should I Stay or Should I Go?" in ads, because that song's a bit of fluff. "London Calling", however, is politically charged and intense, and by allowing it to be put into a luxury car ad, well, that diminishes it.

It's a luxury to be able to say no to money, but when you're already rich, you can afford to do just that. REM could have said no to Disney, but they didn't. Why? Greed, I can only assume, and greed is not an admirable trait, is it? Certainly not when it's something the justifiably labelled sell-outs sing against, all the time.
posted by picea at 12:25 PM on December 9, 2004

Timbuk 3 has continuously refused to sell their song "The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades", most famously when the US Army wanted to use it. Barbara K explains:

"[A]rtistically, for me to contribute my passion about my music and creativity to something that creates isolationism by making people want more for themselves or feel the need for the newest truck or expensive pair of sunglasses goes against my intuition, my compassion, and my own happiness. Money can't buy those things back."
posted by teg at 12:46 PM on December 9, 2004

I find it strange and vaguely tasteless when certain acts which explicitly rail against capitalism appear in adverts--Stereolab pops to mind. I thought it was funny that Rage Against the Machine was on a major label.

That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with licensing your song if you think it's worth it and you're not hypocritical about it. I remember hearing that Bob Seger, when asked about his ubiquitous "Like a Rock" truck ads, said they put his kids through college. Sounds like a good trade-off to me.
posted by mookieproof at 12:51 PM on December 9, 2004

Aquaman, you're wrong.

The difference is a pretty obvious one. When you play a show you might have to make some compromises but you're engaging an audience who is (hopefully) interested in your music. When a company uses your music to shill a product they're using the experience of your music to rub a little gloss on their product. And unfortunately, it's almost always destructive to the original experience. I don't hate Iggy Pop for selling out, but I can't hear 'Lust for Life' without thinking about Carnival Cruise lines anymore.

The Modest Mouse guy (who's name escapes me, I don't like Modest Mouse much) said that anybody who complains about selling out isn't making a living off their music. Sure, fine, I don't dispute him. Faced with destroying the associations people might have with one of my songs, and quitting my day job, well I don't really know what I'd do. But pretending it doesn't make a whit of difference to the people who listen to it is just asinine.

(Caveat: I have no idea how much, if any, influence Mr. Pop himself had on the decision to use his music. It doesn't matter to my overall point.)
posted by lumpenprole at 1:05 PM on December 9, 2004

There are a two issues that are getting confused here. Let me see if I can break it down:

1) Should musicians be able to earn a living at what they are doing? Absolutely - but this will almost inevitably "compromise" them, in the sense that the primary goal of their music will be to satisfy the market rather than some other ambition, political, artistic, or otherwise. Very few musicians are lucky enough to be able to do exactly what they want and have lots and lots of people pay them to do so. Some refuse to compromise on their vision, and thus have to get day jobs; others don't, and can afford to pay their rent. Aquaman is totally on the money (sorry): bands that are trying to make a living are continuously "selling out" and engaging in marketing of themselves. But there are also artists who don't want to let the market determine the direction of their art. The disconnect occurs when artists that we thought had placed themselves "above" the market turn around and participate in it.

2) Should musicians (or any other public figures, for that matter) use their privileged position in the public arena to sell products? Michael Jordan decided to hawk McDonalds to kids so that he can add a few million bucks to his overflowing savings account, rather than telling them to exercise more and eat healthily, like he does. Opportunistic? Yes. Socially responsible? No. And I imagine that this is what people feel when they hear Clash songs being used to hawk cars - that its hypocritical for them to try to get us to do something (buy a Buick) that they would never do themselves. The problem is not so much that musicians are allowing their output to sell products; its that they seem to be entirely undiscriminating in the products that they choose to be associated with.
posted by googly at 1:15 PM on December 9, 2004 [1 favorite]

It's "excusable" no matter what, as there is nothing to excuse. When an artist chooses to "sell out," they are cashing in on their talent in a perfectly acceptable way. While many artists also tend to start sucking at their work around the time they do this, correlation is not causation.

That an artist should be considered tainted in some way because they're making a buck is silly.
posted by majick at 1:28 PM on December 9, 2004

Look, I'm sorry, but unless we're engaging in a brand new definition of 'Selling out' Aquaman is not 'right on the money'. Nobody in full possesion of their senses has ever accused a band of selling out for playing a show and advertising said show. Or making albums and trying to get people to buy said albums. That's patently ridiculous.

The issues around selling out are almost always ridiculously overstated by hormonally enraged teenagers, but it boils down to this.

1. There is huge industry around the marketing and selling of music.

2. This industry does not in any way care what the music is as long you will buy it and products associated with it.

3. Ostensibly, a band or artist cares about thier music and making a connection to their listeners.

4. Insomuch as they allow others to use that connection to ask you to consider products for purchase, they are participating in the industry and can be said to be 'selling out'

Of course it's never black and white. I always felt like if a company wanted to use me to advertise a product (never gonna happen, btw) it would go like this

1. Do I actually use/like the product? (nike, no. Guinness, yes)

2. Will they let me do something new for the product (I'll write a Guinness song, but I'd feel weird about a a song about politics being in a beer ad)

But that's my thing. Again, if you're in the position of having/not having a day job, it might be a different decision. Everybody has to draw their own lines.

(it's worth mentioning too, that a lot of those classic songs are licensed by record labels, not artists. Some are labels that bought catalogs from older, failing lables. Several steps removed from the artists themselves.)
posted by lumpenprole at 1:32 PM on December 9, 2004

That an artist should be considered tainted in some way because they're making a buck is silly.

No, it's not. It clearly depends on the artist's professed philosophy, as has been stated.

If Ian MacKaye started putting out records for Geffen, he would surely be tainted, just like if Jerry Falwell came out and admitted that he were gay.
posted by ludwig_van at 1:42 PM on December 9, 2004

I do not consider allowing your music to be used in an ad as selling out. In fact, if it's a good peice of music, it's a welcome relief to the craptacular jingles.

Quite frankly, I'm surprised that high profile music is still used in ads -- it outshines the product more often than not.
posted by krisjohn at 4:36 PM on December 9, 2004

I posted this in the other thread, but I'd like to recommend this NYT article about the Apples in Stereo licensing tracks for ads and how they make those decisions.
posted by Vidiot at 7:49 PM on December 9, 2004

I've never understood the mentality that wishes to horde great music, except from the point of view of a live music fan who likes being able to see their favorite band in intimate, inexpensive places. I am a such a fan, and I've had the experience of following many wonderful bands from their small club lives to big hollow-sounding venues where I am an annoyed dot far off in the grass. It'd be nice if concert halls were better designed, and if jackasses never went to big shows to impress their dates, but I never, never would I wish it any other way for good, struggling musicians trying to earn their keep. They want to be heard, they want to be able to make music, and I want that for them. I routinely think things like: Go on, Wayne Coyne. Go get rich off Microsoft and get paid big bucks for pondering mortality with big bunnies, because I love that you've figured out how to live such an unlikely, strange, and wonderful life.

As noted in the other thread, VW ads, as the most obvious example, have introduced many, music listeners to great, underheard music. Nick Drake, Spiritualized, Polyphonic Spree -- lots of folks love them now who might otherwise have never had heard of them. There are lots of people who wouldn't encounter it any other way, which is easy to forget if music is your grand obsession. That such commercials can be lucrative enough to give a band as good as Apples in Stereo (great link, Vidiot) the power to record the music they want, or give them more time off from the work world to follow their creative pursuits, while at the same time helping more people to hear them, well, that sounds like a godsend and I only wish it could happen to every small band that's worthy of it. Commercial culture usually does nothing but punish such musicians for their creative choice, and this sounds like the ultimate bank error in your favor to me: unlikely, unexpected, and unbelievably fortunate.

Tours are terrible for small bands. That cheap ticket is nice for me, but they're sleeping on the sound guy's floor, more than likely. Most labels are terrible for small bands, too, as Steve Albini has famously pointed out. If a band can eke out a good commercial deal for itself with no labor, touring, or production costs to them, with the significant side benefit of promoting their music, I honestly don't see any reason not to be happy for them.
posted by melissa may at 9:10 PM on December 9, 2004

Oh, and I forgot to name my price: how's about a year's salary for me and my husband? That would give us a year of not working, of making music, of having a creative life that's all our own. I dream of a sudden deathless happy windfall all the time. A pittance from some bloated marketing budgetwill do, and suddenly, we'd be free. It sounds absolutely, heart-stoppingly lovely.
posted by melissa may at 9:20 PM on December 9, 2004