Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
I don't think i've ever seen a longer list of responses to a guardian blog than that!
Everyone queueing up to tell him how shite his music is/was
Fair enough really. He is a bit of a twat
my office used to be "the hit factory" and he still comes to pick up his mail. and he nice.
he doesn't actually come across to me as either hyporcritical or wrong.
he seems to think that you can make a career out of singles nowadays, that you can put out a good song, market it via the internet or whatever and have it sell 15 million copies. Really? Does he have no idea how the industry works
And he is also fairly hypocritical, much as he tries to deny it or make excuses. His music making was about money as much as anyone. His songs were created with the intention of selling as many copies as possible, and tapping into the pockets of the lowest common denominator. When he did the whole blah about people buying his records because the artist "believed" what they were saying. Well, that gets me rubbing my chin furiously
Plus, Waterman has miiiiiillions of pounds, and so can quite happily reject money from such avenues
"15m people bought Never Gonna Give You Up because they believed Rick Astley singing it, and because they believed what we said"
So it's OK for people to have a song that is obviously not coming straight from the heart but was picked by a lucky dip factor from your massive bank of songs - that's somehow more real than seeing it on an advert? Surely it's just as fake in a way?
I personally haven't a problem in the world with hearing a song I like on an advert, and I couldn't care less about 'selling out'.
He should have been taken to task about his crimes to British music.
I think he should be forced to watch archive documenteries about John Peel and Tony Wilson, A clockwork Orange style until he reforms.
To me, it implies making some sort of artistic sacrifice to gain wider success. Actually, maybe it doesn't, but nonetheless, I don't see how anyone could argue that isn't a bad thing unless they didn't care about the music in the first place.
I think a lot of people claiming someone's 'sold out' is down to them *perceiving* an artist to follow a certain set of principles and thus they are disappointed.
This is clearly as silly as your mum being sad because you haven't decided to get a career in law that pays loads of money or something.
Selling out would be Radiohead advertising (gas guzzling?) cars, I guess.
Plus there is another way to look at the "issue" of selling music to adverts.
If you look at someone like Aphex Twin, I believe he basically makes a living by selling songs to adverts, thus giving him the creative freedom to do what the fuck he wants to musically as he has sufficient income from adverts not to worry about how 'commercially viable' his music is.
it depends on who it is and what they're advertising. To use your example, its like your mum being sad because you took a high paying job designing missiles for BAE or something. Not that silly really, particularly if you claim to have principles
In another article on the Guardian website about London Calling it says something like "the song used on Jaguar ad >> Ford owns Jaguar >> Ford company created by Jew Hating dick". Its a big grey area, but i'd expect someone with outward principles which inform their music to have some ethical and principalistic bounds
that you can't sell out on a principle unless you had that principle in the first place.
If a band has never pretended to have any principles about whether or not to take money from adverts then, no matter what you feel about them taking money from adverts, it's factually incorrect to accuse them of selling out.
i would only use the term "selling out" in very specific cases as described
But i reserve the right enjoy a song less after it is used on an advert. The ad finitum repetition, the reduction of songwriting to 30 second melodic flashes, the negative connotations and links drawn in my mind from having a song i like associated with a commercial product i don't like. And even if you can't accuse an artist of selling out when they display no outward principles, you can still be disappointed in them and perceive them to reduce in stature due to their doing of something you wouldn't condone personally. Personality matters a lot in music, and if you think an artist who you admire has done something you find distasteful then it may affect the way you see them
Of course, people (particularly poor-ish bands) need to get money every way they can, but it doesn't mean we have to pat them on the back for it
Selling out for me is changing your music style to fit in with what sells.Interestingly enough perhaps the most popular indie artists at present The Arctic Monkeys havent thus far and i don't think they will despite the pressures.
I think no matter how talented you are if you don't lose a little of your music integrety to the music industry you get no favours in return and then your career nosedives at break neck speed.
It is wrong they have the power to do this but it is the way of the world.
Not really. If you sign a deal (especially with a major label) then they're investing fuckloads of money in you. It's hardly surprisingly they want something in return.
Surely if you don't want that then you don't take the money in the first place?
They are signing artists who have a particlar style at the time of the deal.They know what they do, they know their expanses and limitations and having their poetic licence compromised some can handle others don't.Those that don't get eaten up by the coperates who all piss in same pot.
The best music is uninterfered.Why are so many artists debut albums there best ?