OK, you people have to be fucking with me, because this is without question the stupidest shit I’ve read in at least three hours.
When an artist relinquishes his work to be exploited for means other than that which he created it he is essentially giving license for someone else to change that work and give it a meaning or purpose that wasn’t intended by the artist. That idea is understandably repugnant to most artists. People do a lot of repugnant things for money but I don’t think anybody was ever been admired for doing so.
I don’t think it’s at all pretentious for an artist to be repulsed by the idea of someone else fucking with his art. Granted, it is a little presumptuous for that artist’s fans to think they have a say in the matter, though.
The Who before they sold out. Hey, hang on?
Where do you get the idea that I hate wealth? I have no problem with people earning money, I have a problem with advertising. As I clearly said. There’s good sources of income and there’s bad sources of income. Selling out = accepting money from a bad source.
I don’t “link commercials with terrorism”, I used terrorism as an example of something that is clearly evil and unacceptable. I did not say they were the same thing.
…oh, nevermind. I’m sick of arguing with people who can’t tell a metaphor from their elbow.
Even Tom Waits needed to make a little cash on the quick now and then.
But doing an ad for dog food? He’s still cool.
They’re already selling their music to make a living. Who cares where they sell it?
And Cocoa Puffs definitely!= KKK.
Wait…what about Klan Krispies?
I was being a bit facetious in the hopes that you might clarify your position. Do you think that a song is artistically harmed if it were, in fact licensed for a morally objectionable cause? (I realize that this is a somewhat separate question from “selling out” in general; I’m not now trying to confuse the issue.)
For another quite popular band that hasn’t done much in the way of selling out, there’s Pearl Jam. Probably trying to imitate Neil Young.
That was awesome, thanks! I’ve loved him for years, had no idea about his arrest or lawsuits…
Joe
I think the artistic merit of a song can be judged independently from its commercial uses. However, if an artist were to license his song for a morally objectionable cause, that is certainly a decision by which we can judge the artist and his morals.
I don’t think there’s anything morally objectionable with licensing a song to advertise everyday products, especially if the artist likes that product anyway. It’s his song and he can decide how it is used until the copyright runs out.