I have vivid memories of the furor created when Michael Jackson bought the rights to the Beatles' entire catalog, then promptly sold "Revolution" to Nike. This was on the heels of the use of, among others, "Good Vibrations" by the Beach Boys to sell orange soda. The idea that the so-called artistic integrity of musicians could be compromised so easily was a heated topic of debate for a while before America went back to worrying about what Fawn Hall would be wearing to the Kennedy Center Honors. Like most people, I still managed to take note of when certain high profile songs appeared in commercials, though the end results were usually unsurprising. Was anyone all that shocked when the Rolling Stones let Microsoft use "Start Me Up" for their Windows 95 campaign? This from the band that's flogged the dying horse of their career for the last 20+ years?
Time was when we wannabe hipsters mocked the bands which sold their souls to Miller Genuine Draft (Phil Collins, Eric Clapton) or whatever it was Bachman Turner Overdrive allowed to use "You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet" (as if BTO needed further mocking). In recent years, however, it's startling how soon bands go from underground, word-of-mouth acts to pitchmen for the Gap or Hummer. This leads to the obvious question: can you be dubbed a sell-out if you haven't actually established artistic credibility?
There are still some notable holdouts: Neil Young, for one, and others like Bruce Springsteen and Paul Westerberg and dozens of others who, just because they haven't yet, doesn't mean they won't. Obviously I'm not counting bands that are either too freaky (the Residents) or those whose use as a product endorser would cause the company to fold (Marilyn Manson). Even artists once regarded as above such things, like the Clash and U2, have succumbed to the lure of easy money (admittedly, Mick Jones and company waited until Joe Strummer was in the ground before becoming automobile pitchmen).
Part of the problem is that most of the songs grabbed for commercials these days sound like they were written specifically for advertising: they're vaguely catchy and instantly forgettable. Most of the time, I'm not even aware I'm hearing something not specifically written to sell erectile dysfunction products. Honestly, it wasn't until songs that I actually liked started popping up in ads that I began to take notice.
For a bad example, I always kind of enjoyed the Sundays' version of the Stones' "Wild Horses," so it was a little jarring to see the Budweiser commercial that featured it (not nearly as disconcerting as the first time I saw the "London Calling" Jag commercial, however).
Nowadays, I tend to assume any jingle on a given commercial is some new pop song that's been co-opted for advertising. I have less of a problem with that than I do with established acts who continue to whore themselves for no good reason, frankly. The way the music industry operates at present (and I think Michael owes me a rant on this subject), 95% of new bands will be lucky to record a second album, much less establish a respectable career. If they keep up the endorsements, however, they get lumped in with the Britneys, Stones, and Aerosmiths of the world as acts that are less artists than salesmen.
A fact which I'm sure will trouble them mightily.
I've always objected to the whole idea that a band can somehow "sell-out." The idea of "artistic integrity" in a pop music act is tenuous at best. While it may have had validity prior to the mid-80s, the licensing of pop (and other) music for commercial purposes has simply become another revenue stream for artists (or more likely their labels) and songwriters.
Artistic integrity means that you aren't beholden to someone else's needs. Nothing more. If Sting didn't write his song with a Jaguar commercial in mind, then no big deal.
And if he did, so what?
Any band that has *gone after* a record contract, high sales, or significant radio airplay has already "sold out" because it is, quite simply, a requirement of the business.
Any songwriter who has crammed the song that's actually in their head into a standard Intro, Verse, Chorus, Verse, Chorus, Chorus, Fade, three-and-one-half minute form has "sold out." But if they don't, the song won't get recorded.
It's just a necessity to fit the market. If you're an artist who needs to make money to support your art, you're going to fit your product to the market at some level. There shouldn't be any shame in it and I laugh when I hear folks like Neil Young bitching about it.
Even more funny are bands like Rage Against The Machine. I mean how radical can you be with a major label contract?
LIGHTS OUT!
GUERILLA RADIO!
I WORK FOR SONY!
LIGHTS OUT!
GUERILLA RADIO
BUY MY T-SHIRT!
LIGHTS OUT!
GUERILLA RADIO!
GET IT AT WAL-MART!
Seriously, how can anyone not see that *ANY* top-40 band on a major label these days is a so-called "sell out." I knew this at some level for most of my music listening life, but when I saw a Rage Against The Machine T-Shirt in Foleys (a mid-range department store in Texas) right next to a Scooby Doo shirt, I had that epiphany.
It's no big deal. Bands gotta make money. No matter what magic the image-makers conjure, the band sold out when they signed the contract.
"Bands gotta make money."
I thought they did it for the chicks.
I'm fully aware of the business requirements at play here (a fact I think I already mentiioned), I still have a tendency to question someone continuing to shill long after the need has passed. I'm not a musician, but it seems to me someone calling themselves an "artist" might like people to remember their song for something other than a Taco Bell commercial.
Obtaining a contract isn't in the same ballpark as signing your rights over for advertising. Not all record labels = Sony (just as selling your act doesn't = "selling out"). Bands can still tour and sign with smaller labels and be profitable. Will they want to make more money? Probably. Is selling your t-shirts in Wal-Mart or letting Verizon sponsor your tour a necessary component of that? I don't think so, and there are plenty of bands - not just Neil Young - who share that philosophy.
I'll argue that "selling out" might in some circumstances be itself an artistic statement. For example, the Smash Mouth that is suggested by the song "Walkin' on the Sun" is a band that I can easily see grinning hugely at the inherent subversion of cashing big checks from big corporations for use of "All-Star".
Similarly, Chumbawamba used "Tubthumping" revenue to support their anarchic causes.
To expand a little on Greg's point, I don't believe that allowing an advertiser to use your song is necessarily "selling out." I would say that it depends on the comparative ideology of the band and the company to which the rights are sold.
For example, if Sinead O’Connor sold the rights to one of her songs to the Catholic Church, that would be considered selling out (IMO).
Well, perhaps that wan't so much an expansion upon Greg as a complete appropriation and change of subject.
Whatever.
Actually, Greg, Chumbawamba used their fame to exhort their legions of fans to steal their CD. You will note that they haven't made another record. Strange, that.
Sting had an interview on NPR recently. In it he discussed, among other things, his own 'selling out'. His statement was that he considers his music to be A Good Thing, and really any vehicle that gets it heard is acceptable to him, whether it be a new album or a car commercial. Audio is here:
Sting is a rather gray area for my little theory of selling out, although I was thinking of the NPR piece when I wrote it.
Selling the rights of your song to a car manufacturer, when you are an aggressive supporter of the rain forests and global pollution reduction, is a little hairy. Sting even seemed a bit squirmy when asked about this apparent conflict.
I guess what spurred my thinking on this was the difference between the initial hullabaloo around the phenomenon in the '80s - when a number of bands that were formerly anti-establishment and espoused social rebellion ended up selling crappy beer - and the present day, when such things are more the norm. I think I came down more harshly than I meant to on the whole "selling out" aspect with regards to new artists.
HWRNMNBSOL, your point is undermined by the facts:
Chumbawumba had another album on emi/universal (00's WYSIWYG). They put out Readymades on their own label in 2002. They rereleased their albums Shh! and Slap! (as a single CD named Shhlap!) in 2003.
They also re-recorded their a capella album "English Rebel Songs" this year.
They've made plenty of records since Tubthumping, We've got one, which we bought in a CD store. And now I really want "English Rebel Songs (1381-1984)", even if I can't afford it.
Reality therefore forces me to revise my statement, but only just:
While Chumbawumba may have made other albums, they have not been aggressively marketed by the Man, and certainly none of their singles have cracked the pop charts. Could this have something to do with annoying the Man once too often? It could be. It could also be that Chumbawumba sucks.
As a corporate sell-out myself, I have little room to chastise musicians for doing the same. Hey, poverty sucks.
That said, I'd lose some respect for a band if part of their appeal was avid independence. Rage Against the Machine made its mark by railing against the "establishment." (And thus, their name). If they sold any rights to their songs to Starbucks, Ford, Coors, etc., I'd wouldn't buy any new albums of theirs on the theory that they'd jumped the shark, became phony, and anything they did after that would likely suck. But I wouldn't throw out any of their old work; the stuff that got me to like them in the first place because that would be forever frozen in time as solid work.
However, chumps like Brittney Spears are whores. You can't really fault them for being what they are because they never pretended to be anything else. Though, I'll never pay a dime for any of "those" types of artists' work. When so called "artists" opt to go that route - the "I'm a already a multimillionaire but I'm going to squeeze every last stink' penny out of this gig" route - thats when P2P file sharing becomes morally (though perhaps not legally) justified.
* Note: Folks, if your bands are keepin' it real, do them the favor actually buying their music. If you file swap you deprive that band of pecuinary gain, which only gives that band a financial reason to sell out. Don't be part of the reason they sell out in the first place. However, as stated above, file swapping is ethically proper when used to screw the likes of Madonna, Metallica, and/or Nelly.
In sum, I can't fault anyone with either trying to make a living, or trying to be true to their art/work. Both are honorable endeavors. But to borrow an analogous thought from the always loveable Charles Barkely, artists don't have to be role models; there is no implied social contract that they must be altruistic. If it bugs you, then don't buy their stuff. But if you are an American, please don't feign moral indignation. This is the world's numero uno capitalist society and each of has right to sell out if we so choose.
Wait a minute...you mean moral indignation is un-American?
Forget everything I said.
I never said moral indignation was unamerican. (Heck, for many within the GOP is a part-time job).
I think perhaps my comments were not as well-formed as I would have liked them to be. My primary point is that I don't think many bands can avoid the "classic" definition of "selling-out" these days. Cross-marketing, licensing, sponsorship, and assembly-line production techniques are just par for the course these days.
Also, let's not confuse the difference between artists and entertainers. The Britneys and Justins and J.Los were never artists, so there's really no way they *could* lose their artistic integrity.
One of the folks I completely respect in the current pantheon is Dr. Dre. I remember an interview I saw where he said (paraphrasing) "I couldn't care less about all this gangsta stuff - I'm just here to make money and whatever makes me money is what I'm going to do."
I respect that a ton more than a band that claims to be revolutionaries fighting for the little people in the trenches, oppressed by fascists and global corporations while getting a paycheck from one of those corporations and selling merchandise at a chain that gets busted for hiring illegal immigrants...
I have absolutely no problem with someone wanting to make money. I applaud it. And I've never had a problem differentiating between music I create as a craft to make money and music I create that is artistic. Occasionally I get lucky and create both at the same time, but that's a rarity.
I shall rant, indeed, but not tonight.
For tonight all I can do is reply to this:
Was anyone all that shocked when the Rolling Stones let Microsoft use "Start Me Up" for their Windows 95 campaign?
With this:
"You make a grown man cry..."
No amount of money can by that kind of prescience.