Your statement implies that the quality of music is correlative to whether or not its used in an ad. It also assumes that older music is used because new music is somehow worse, while ignoring the actual reasons a song might be used. Like, say, nostalgia or familiarity. Not to mention that classical music is used in countless ads and movies too, which definitely isn’t a statement on what’s a superior genre. De Beers isn’t going to use AC/DC or Maroon 5. Face it: the Stones are a canonized, all-time band and their music will be around forever. It doesn’t automatically invalidate everything that gets recorded afterwards.
Exactly. If a car company wants to use my song (written and recorded in the manner I choose) in a commercial, hey, that’s gravy for me! Where do I sign? If a car company wants me to write a song about how fabulous their new Philestina SUV is, then if I say yes, I’m a sellout, and I would be unworthy of any claim to artistic integrity.
FTR, the answer to the second, for me, will always be an emphatic “no”.
And while I don’t begrudge Justin or whomever making money that way, I ardently eschew such artists, as is my perogative based on my own personal values.
You know what struck me about your post? I’m reminded of “Soak up the Sun” by Sheryl Crow. It could have been an odd timing thing, but I remember hearing this song on an American Express ad before I actually heard it on the radio. Does anyone recall this the same way?
I’m not trying to get in a pissing match with you, man and, upthread, I noted how indeed I thought music would change in the next 20 changes. I also offered an opinion on “selling out” and read all your posts. You’ve made several blanket statements as to the quality of modern music (essentially: it all sucks) and, hell, I’d even agree that a large majority of terrestrial radio-peddled mainstream music (especially rock) is bad. Thing is, the statement to which I and Justin_Bailey are referring seems to be one of your arguments as to why modern music is no good. I find it a bad argument and I pointed out why. No need to be pointlessly offended.
Not that one, but I’ve definitely heard songs where they were not only a “single”, but were also featured in an ad campaign/movie trailer/viral marketing brainfart, all released simultaneously. That level of premeditated commercial endeavor, I think, would qualify as a “sellout”.
Which brings me to the notion that today’s listeners don’t give a damn that their revered stars are, artistically speaking, blowing businessmen in airport restrooms. Apparently, it is the unironic mainstream public opinion that being a lip-synching dance troupe is equivalent in value to being an actual musician who writes, sings, plays and makes their own decisions, music-wise.
Given that, I am (in the words of Paul Weller) Going Underground. And I’m quite happy to be there.
1- Justin Timberlake was an example. He may be a staunch anti-corporate crusader or he might be as shill-tastic as Smashmouth. Beats me. The Carlin example was real though. Always bothered me.
2- You might have misread me. I’m not sure I would call the second example selling out (even if I find it gross), as long as the hypothetical artist has never made statements (musically, in writing, or otherwise) that he’d be contradicting for money. Your example is essentially that of a jingle-writer, who, while I wouldn’t call him an artist, per se, I wouldn’t call him a sell out. He’s just an ad man at that point.
Wait, but I disagree with your fundamental premise. That is, I see no reason to believe that the fact that the relatively old is still popular/resonant implies in any way that the new is not good. I mean, by that argument, the Stones themselves sucked, because in 1962 Gershwin’s “I’ve Got Rhythm” was, as it still is today, incredibly popular. Hell, Handel’s Messiah was written before the United States even existed and there’s probably not one modern American in a dozen that doesn’t know the melody for the “Halleluiah Chorus” - which still appears in pop culture and commercials at least as often as “Start Me Up.” Messiah has stayed prominent through Gilbert & Sullivan, Gershwin, Richard Rogers, Jagger, Daltrey, Streisand, Springsteen, Metallica, and Queen. Does that mean that all of those musicians could be classified as “not very good” simply because they failed to push old Handel out of the public consciousness?
The man who most Americans would identify as the most famous playwright who ever lived died in 1616; does this mean that there are no good plays being written in contemporary America? Throngs still line up to see the Mona Lisa, but that doesn’t invalidate modern art; there’s not a film moment more universally recognized than Bogart and Bergman at the airport, but there have been great movies since Casablanca.
I mean, it’s not like everyone gets a list of 1,000 songs that they can like, and in order to like something new you have to bump something old from the list. What is good endures, and is joined by what is new in our collective aesthetic consciousness. I can go to the opera and enjoy Puccini, hum “They Can’t Take That Away from Me” while walking to the parking lot, listen to “Satisfaction” and “Born to Run” on the radio when I drive home, fall asleep while watching the filmed “Les Miserables” concert, and wake up when my clock radio starts playing something contemporary. They can all be part of what I consider “good music.”
There is good music being written and performed today, just as much as there has always been. Where will we be in 20 years? Well, probably roughly the same place as we are today. “Satisfaction,” “Someone to Watch Over Me,” and “Bohemian Rhapsody” will still be with us, and so will two or three dozen songs from the modern era - there’s just no way to know yet which ones will last. Stylistically, I’d love to hear what someone suggested upthread - a return to musical theatre as a home for popularly-appreciated music; or, rather, a blending of musical and pop/rock. Google Jason Robert Brown - who is a bona-fide genius as a songwriter and performer - and you’ll see my ideal.
Thing is, it’s not what you said. You wrote that seeing stones touring (and selling out) at 60+ **and ** selling cars makes you sad. Your basic premise, i.e. that there’s is no new good music, is the reason you’re pointing this out. The Stones’ music is used in car ads (because there’s no new good music) and they tour at 60+ and sell out (because there’s no new good music). I’m not arguing with you about your basic premise (no new good music), I’m arguing that there’s nothing wrong with the Stones touring, because they’re doing what white musicians from England do - play their own brand of r’n’r.
Now, had they been trying to make hip-hop or contemporary r’n’b to find a young audience, well that would make *me * sad. But your argument about the Stones is not a valid support for your basic premise.
