What are your views on bands selling out? I can see why some fans may see it as a bad thing. But if the quality of music is still there, then what's all the fuss about? I am thinking of the LCD Soundsystem and Nike collaboration. Why do so many people care?
- Features: * Vote for DiS and for your alternative Mercury prize winner
- Reviews: * Cats In Paris - Courtcase 2000
- Features: * Mixtape #14: The Walkmen
- Features: * A Month in Records: August 2008
- Features: * Half a week with The Hidden Cameras
- Reviews: * Nightmares on Wax - Thought So...
- Features: * The Weekly DiScussion: what's on your Summer '08 megamix?
- Reviews: * YACHT at London ICA, Thu 28 Aug
- Features: * Photo Diary: The National's Green Man snaps
- Features: * FAQs: Can I intern for DiS? Can I write for DiS? (Part 1)
- Features: * Win a Rock n Roll Weekender to Jack Daniel’s Birthday JD Set in Tennessee
- Features: * The Music: "We will not be away as long this time"
- Reviews: * Conor Oberst & the Mystic Valley Band at London Camden Electric Ballroom, Wed 27 Aug
- Features: * Reading/Leeds: Day Three report
- Reviews: * The Gutter Twins at Sheffield Leadmill, Wed 27 Aug
- * The Spinto Band @ Cambridge The Soul Tree, 8/09
- * Gemma Hayes @ London Union Chapel, 8/09
- * American Music Club @ Bristol Thekla Social, 9/09
- * Glasvegas @ Glasgow Barfly, 9/09
- * To The Bones @ London Notting Hill Arts Club, 10/09
- * Katy Perry @ London Monto Water Rats, 10/09
- * Crystal Castles @ Bristol Thekla Social, 10/09
- * Mark Kozelek @ Brighton Audio, 10/09
- * Bon Iver @ London Shepherds Bush Empire, 11/09
- * American Music Club @ London Bush Hall, 11/09
- * Someone Still Loves You Boris Yeltsin @ London Borderline, 11/09
- * Plans and Apologies, Jeffrey Lewis, The Atoms @ Derby The Royal, 12/09
- * Guided Missile @ London Buffalo Bar, 13/09
- * Videocrash @ London Koko, 13/09
- * Jeffrey Lewis @ Sheffield Plug, 13/09
I don't think James Murphey sold out at all.
Seriously, what's the big deal?
That whole 45 minute track thing was a great idea. I would have done it.
I think...
...the fact many people find Nike to be one of the most morally reprehensible companies on the face of the Earth to have something to do with it.
LOL
"morally reprehensible" - why? the ethical spotlight has been on Nike for over 10 years... in reality they are probably doing more than any other huge multinational to ensure safe and fair working rights for those making their products (the fact its still shit wages and bad working conditions, and that Nike were forced to do this be the swell of public opinion is another matter altogether)... but they are certinally no worse than any other large clothing manufacturer and no where near as destructive to people, animals and the environment as Rio Tinto, Shell or even Sony ....
attacking Nike is just an easy option for wimpy middle class liberal (nike-owned) converse wearing wannabe revolutionaries - who all use a mobile phone, own a computer, have a car......
Nike does bad things.
So do many other companies. Thats like teh fax!
Indeed
and I would say that the people who don;t like NIke, also don't like rio Tinto, Shell, Sony etc etc.
Just because there are worse companies than Nike, doesn;t mean they should be let off the hoof for their misdemeanors.
And also, life isn't black and white and it is extremely difficult to live a 100% ethical life. I think people who do their bit should be commended for the effort they make, rather than be criticised when they fail to find the ethical optoin. Just because you own a pair of converse doens't mean you give up your right to criticise wrongdoing by large corporations... but if you want to be that extra bit good:
http://www.getethical.com/getprod.php?prodid=1007
http://www.vegetarian-shoes.co.uk/pc-114-18-blackspot-sneaker.aspx
I meant hook,
not hoof of course!
But in saying all this
I have no problem with James Murphy etc.
.
I honestly have no idea why people make such a fuss - its a bit fucking sad if you ask me.
I'd personally jump at the chance to work with Nike.
And why single him out anyway? He's not the first. Melvins, Dinosaur Jr, MF Doom... Nike have released signature shoes for all of these artists.
There's a pair of Melvins nikes????
Holy Shit.
About the Nike thing
From James Murphy:
"everybody relax. i'm on a major label in most fucking territories anyway! didn't i already sell out a million times already? jesus.
anyway, i don't like nike, and at first when i was asked, i was totally not into it. it really wasn't a ton of money or anything either. the truth is when i thought about it, it was straight up a good challenge, musically. i thought it was kind of funny that it was workout music etc., and so i made something to distract me from the LP and give me a new perspective on it. it totally did, and now the record is way better.
i'm seriously not here to be anybody's fucking indie poster boy. i'm 36 years old, for fuck's sake. i measure what i do, my ethics, my success or failure on terms like "is this good music?" and "am i getting out of my comfort zone to do something real?" i think we make better music than other people. i know it's not cool to say, but i do. we work really hard and fucking try to balance making music that works as well as pushes things forward every day, and that's my life. if that's not good enough for you, there are plenty of fucking boring indie bands out there sucking the life out of music, but, most assuredly, NOT doing anything that could be considered "selling out". go buy their records, then call me in 5 years and tell me if you give a shit about a single thing they made.
well--great. karma's a whore. someone just smashed the rear window of my beat-ass volvo 240 wagon, so there's $150 in the toilet. and it's raining.
i would have kept blathering on about this, but it seems i have to go cover the hole with a garbage bag or something.
shit."
and another from one of the Juan Maclean people:
http://forums.dfarecords.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=1979
Haha. That's great
I love James Murphy.
lolz
a musical challenge he could have completed with or without the fat cheque from nike.
it's stuff like this i hate ^^^ like jack white, going on about that song he wrote for Coca Cola as being some kind of artistic watermark.
seriously, if you want to take the money, take the fucking money, but at LEAST have the balls to admit to it.
this is better than most, at least, but only because he's being offensive.
How is he being offensive?
That kind of 'musical challenge' would never have come a long without Nike. When would you ever think of making a 45 minute track designed around an arc for running or whatever normally?
i mean 'offensive'
as in slagging off his detractors, not his actions.
as i said, they presented him with the challenge, if he didn't like nike but thought it was a good idea, he could've told them to bog off but done it anyway.
I think that's a bit silly.
I've no problem with him taking the money anyway.
I don't see why he can't be interested in the idea AND take the money.
Plus recording music costs money, innit.
i'm not saying that!
what i'm saying is: i have no problem with people taking the money, but it's when they try and say they did it solely for artistic reasons.
i mean, he tries to come across as saying that he doesn't care about people's criticisms, but then again the first thing he says is that he "doesn't like" nike. if he doesn't care what people's opinions, why say that?
he attempts to make it sound like he did it purely for the artistry of it, but if he "didn't like" nike he wouldn't be interested in promoting them in the first place.
It's entirely possible
for him to not like Nike, but still think it's a good idea and want to be paid for it.
Maybe he shouldn't have pointed that out, but seriously, I don't get the big deal at all.
that's kinda what i'm saying
i'd respect him more if he'd have just said "yeah, i wanted the money and it was a nice challenge" instead of what he did say.
It's probably because he's being attacked and critisised
by people on internet messageboards and being called a sellout, and he got sick of it.
He doesn't really owe an explanation to anyone, but at least he wrote one.
I agree with guntrip on this
There's a big difference between being on a major and putting your name to a company like Nike. It's clearly nothing to do with music and it's just shit.
God bless James Murphy
Especially the part about the new LCD soundsystem album...
He forgot the one final blow though. The 'sellout' types should check their shoe cupboards...
If they see the word converse once, then they're officially fucking Hypocrites.
Wut?
Nike owns Converse
What exactly is selling out?
Death Cab For Cutie were accused of selling out because they signed to Atlantic. Bands who make music videos are accused of being sellouts. I don't think the music of Death Cab has changed because they have been signed.
I have
absolutely no problem with it.
Who do you think does have a problem with it
is it those die hard fans who 'discovered' and heard of the band first?
.
Best Nike Shoe Ever
a)Dunk Hi,
b)Jordan IV,
c)Air Max 90?
What about MAVRK
they are nice. Cheap, but nice!
Do you think it's good that he
will be selling more records/selling more tickets as a direct result of working with Nike?
to be honest
i find it quite sad that people can't see that working for nike is pretty shit really. the argument about him being on a major anyway is really lame, it's like 'well i'm doing one bad thing already, so isn't it ok for me to do another?'. no. how apathetic are we that we just lazily accept a talented artist being paid by a pretty appaling company. it's really not on.
i had this argument with a friend and he was all like 'but nike's shoes are a contribution to popular culture'. bollocks. culture is an interchange between people, a mishmash of ideas and thoughts without barriers between artist and crowd (here's a good example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oqkqgq867j8). whereas nike steal images from alternative culture (eg. hip-hop), without offering their image up for use. like if i wanted to use a nike tick in a picture or a record cover or whatever, they'd sue my ass. that's not art or culture, it's property. they detract from art, they are a leech on culture. not to mention that they've used what amounts to slave labour to make said trainers. it's wrong of him to work from them.
p.s. aldojackmasterfunk
worst post ever
I think people who still talk about 'selling out'...
Are a bit thick.
Musicians get paid to make music, they're not monks (the religious ones, not the band) they're not doing it for some higher purpose.
Someone wants to give you money to make music, sell your music and advertise it?? How dare they!!
well, no
it's a bit more complicated than that.
like, the world, for instance!
musicians are not monks
no way! but they are, like, artists, though aren't they? last time i checked. and aren't revolting capitalist corporations like nike the antithesis of art? so isn't it a bit fishy to make music for them?
'Someone wants to give you money to make music, sell your music and advertise it?? How dare they!!'
well, this is all very well and good when you remove this comment from the actual situation, as you do. if it was some collective or charity who wanted to give him money to make music and sell it OBVIOUSLY that's fine. but it's not. it's nike.
So?
Its not us that have to make the decision whether its right or wrong to take their money, they didn't ask any of us to do it. Obviously they haven't heard me play guitar...
Whoever said that people that can hold a tune or string a few chords together are 'artists' should be shot. Not everyone who can make some pleasant noises that last around 3 minutes is a saint.
hmmm
'Its not us that have to make the decision whether its right or wrong to take their money, they didn't ask any of us to do it...Whoever said that people that can hold a tune or string a few chords together are 'artists' should be shot.'
this doesn't make any sense. i can't comprehend what your point is.
'Its not us that have to make the decision whether its right or wrong to take their money, they didn't ask any of us to do it...'
so i can't make judgements on other peoples behaviour? OBVIOUSLY it's not my decision. what does this even mean.
I just feel and have always felt...
...lending your music/art to sell a product has no artistic merit at all. Especially for companies that despite what you believe still use sweatshops in Indonesia amongst other countries, still maintaining poor working conditions.
OMG I AM A KERAZY LIBERAL.
.
Whoever said taking cash to make a tune had any artistic merit?? You do know some bands make money for making crap songs? The Kooks are making money or their drivel, they're more morally reprehensible than a band writing a campaign song for the Nazi party.
*merit, artistic or otherwise, and to say so...
...offends me.
Slight correction I felt was necessary.
(I made that correction before I read your last reply, btw)
why?
.
Nike have contributed to popular culture
Whether you think it's in a negative way or not, or whether they did it in an entirely shitty immoral way, and by forcing their way into mainstream culture.
The Nike tick is iconic, as are their shoes. Brands are part of popular culture. Andy Warhol anyone?
So what?
Slavery was a part of American culture and to a lesser extent are own. It was bad. Being a part of culture doesn't earn it any favours.
I never said it did.
I was just saying you can't deny it's place in popular culture.
Yes I see.
Forgive me. I like you.
Bill Hicks....
"Here's the deal, folks. You do a commercial, you're off the artistic roll-call forever. End of story. You're another corporate shill, you're another whore at the capitalist gang-bang. And if you do a commercial, there's a price on your head, everything you say is suspect and every word that comes out of your mouth is like a turd falling into my drink."
Almost relevant.
I like Bill Hicks
But I dont care what he says, if Nike/ Gap/ McDonalds offered me a load of cash to knock out a song (which would probably take a couple of days) I would take the money and run (or just spend it on strippers).
that's because
you are bill hick's proverbial turd
Bill Hicks:
funny, but not always right.
but
right on this occasion
Prove it.
I dont base my morals on what Bill Hicks tells me.
'I dont base my morals on what Bill Hicks tells me'
waht does this mean
What do you think?
It means I'm a grown up, because somebody like Bill Hicks (who I'm a big fan of) says its wrong doesnt mean I agree.
yeah
but who said you had to base your morals on what bill hicks said. he was just using a quote that he agreed with. the two are seperate.
yep
He's not right at all.
That's just like saying 'if you're an artist and you do bad things, then you're not an artist anymore'.
I prefer
Bill Hicks: right, but not always funny.
UNLESS you're Willie Nelson.
Everyone leaves that part out.
I've always thought this was rubbish
Given that the majority of Baroque/Classical music was written by employees of the aristocracy (the corporates of their day) and people like Beethoven only got to *seem* independent because capitalism had developed to a point whereby he could sell his publications. Does the music still stand up, yes, it does? Is Bach off the artistic roll-call? No, he's not.
Bach=Fucking Sellout
haha
haah
yeah but they
couldn't make their music without the patronage of the aristocracy. murphy could EASILY have said no to nike, as he almost did.
besides, crapitalism and the old aristocracy are two entirely seperate things.
Capatalism rocks though
Hippie. How are you communicating with us? By yoghurt pots and string??
no
edible paper, lasooed to hemp rope tied around the ankle of a carrier pigeon.
no you are right I AM COMMUNICATING THROUGH THE ALMIGHTY MEDIUM OF CAPITALISM!! MWAH HAHA.
WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
Stop shouting.
My point is, we're all capatist consumers to some extent, it amuses me that people complain about capatalism on their PCs (using broadband).
why does that amuse you
it's not at all funny. computers aren't somehow an exclusively capitalist concept that couldn't exist without capitalism.
like, i would still wear shoes if i lived in a non-capitalist system, they would just be made by people who have unions and rights and get good wages and hours. my opinions aren't somehow invalidated by my using a computer, any less than they are by my wearing clothes. and EVEN if it was somnehow wrong that i'm using a computer (which it evidently isn't) how would that even invalidate my orignal argument? it would just make me slightly hypocritical, but no less wrong.
my belief system isn't based around a return to the state of nature. just having the self-respect to ignore companies who abuse human rights and dignity.
in fact
someone in the guardian interviewing chomsky made the same excessively stupid point about using a computer, and the paper ended up having to pay him damages because it was the worst point ever. that and they claimed he denied the holocaust.
'We all consume to some extent'
to quote myself. I didn't say having a computer makes you a capatalist pig, I said we all consume to some extent, making us all part of 21st century capatlism. What was 'selling out' 20 years ago isnt the same anymore.
If you don't love capitalism you have to live without electricity.
You missed the memo.
I didn't get the memo
I was too busy liberating Nike workers.
..and music
the music industry is a luxury of the bourgoise
I'm pretty sure since-last-summer...
...is more than aware of the compromises we make as part of a capitalist society but I don't see how that means you aren't allowed to oppose it?
I think it's better to buy something and use it to communicate with others who would like to help make the world a little bit of a better place than just to blindly consume it all.
sorry, another rephrase...
*oppose elements of it that you disagree with
the point is
accepting money to make music does not intrinsically make the music worse. In fact different people have lots of different motivations for making music, but that needn't affect the music itself at all (though it might affect the lyrics). And the difference between a good artist and a bad artist is whether the art is good or bad, not whether the motivation for making the art is good or bad.
Correct.
Wow, sense has been spoken...BE GONE WITH YOU!
of course it can affect the music!
whoever is paying for it can tell you what to do.
Prove it
Go on.
...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkXmVRf7__E