Discussion:
NBC Today's Corporate Slut Sell-out
(too old to reply)
TopDog
2004-04-18 00:18:38 UTC
Permalink
Blondie - One Way or Another

That's okay though, Deborah's hagged out now.
Robert Wiersema
2004-04-18 00:44:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by TopDog
Blondie - One Way or Another
That's okay though, Deborah's hagged out now.
The nerve of an artist making a living from their art... The unmitigated
gall.
Patrick1765
2004-04-18 00:55:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by TopDog
Blondie - One Way or Another
Post by TopDog
That's okay though, Deborah's hagged out now.
I am sure they wouldn't do that if they didn't need the money, unlike say...
Elton John
Post by TopDog
The nerve of an artist making a living from their art... The unmitigated
gall.
Either your music is art, or it is crap, once it is in a commercial, it
becomes crap. Just an opinion of course.
Lmmr
2004-04-18 01:08:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick1765
Post by TopDog
Blondie - One Way or Another
Post by TopDog
That's okay though, Deborah's hagged out now.
Either your music is art, or it is crap, once it is in a commercial, it
becomes crap. Just an opinion of course.
Its going to be funny if ( and I probably should use when) a Springsteen
song ends up in a commercial and/or ad, the same bashers of "sell out" will
be front and center with their pom-poms declaring it the "best ad ever",
"brilliant", etc. And wondering where the DVD honor tree is.
TopDog
2004-04-18 01:13:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lmmr
Post by Patrick1765
Post by TopDog
Blondie - One Way or Another
Post by TopDog
That's okay though, Deborah's hagged out now.
Either your music is art, or it is crap, once it is in a commercial, it
becomes crap. Just an opinion of course.
Its going to be funny if ( and I probably should use when) a Springsteen
song ends up in a commercial and/or ad, the same bashers of "sell out" will
be front and center with their pom-poms declaring it the "best ad ever",
"brilliant", etc. And wondering where the DVD honor tree is.
Not me. However, I do like it when Bruce's music is used in movies.


Does that count as product placement?
Patrick1765
2004-04-18 01:19:22 UTC
Permalink
Date: 4/17/2004 9:08 PM Eastern Standard Time
Its going to be funny if ( and I probably should use when) a Springsteen
song ends up in a commercial and/or ad, the same bashers of "sell out" will
be front and center with their pom-poms declaring it the "best ad ever",
"brilliant", etc. And wondering where the DVD honor tree is.
Born in the USA has already been used in commercials, not the official
version, but an obvious replication. I will call Bruce a sell out if and when
that ever happens, which I doubt it ever will.
Robert Wiersema
2004-04-18 01:26:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick1765
Date: 4/17/2004 9:08 PM Eastern Standard Time
Its going to be funny if ( and I probably should use when) a Springsteen
song ends up in a commercial and/or ad, the same bashers of "sell out" will
be front and center with their pom-poms declaring it the "best ad ever",
"brilliant", etc. And wondering where the DVD honor tree is.
Born in the USA has already been used in commercials, not the official
version, but an obvious replication. I will call Bruce a sell out if and when
that ever happens, which I doubt it ever will.
When does a sell-out happen? And why? Is the only pure art that which has
no commercial ambition? And if we accept that artists are allowed to make
money from their works of art, why is it so unconsionable that they allow
use of that work in a way that benefits them?
TopDog
2004-04-18 01:34:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by Patrick1765
Date: 4/17/2004 9:08 PM Eastern Standard Time
Its going to be funny if ( and I probably should use when) a Springsteen
song ends up in a commercial and/or ad, the same bashers of "sell out"
will
Post by Patrick1765
be front and center with their pom-poms declaring it the "best ad ever",
"brilliant", etc. And wondering where the DVD honor tree is.
Born in the USA has already been used in commercials, not the official
version, but an obvious replication. I will call Bruce a sell out if
and
Post by Robert Wiersema
when
Post by Patrick1765
that ever happens, which I doubt it ever will.
When does a sell-out happen? And why? Is the only pure art that which has
no commercial ambition? And if we accept that artists are allowed to make
money from their works of art, why is it so unconsionable that they allow
use of that work in a way that benefits them?
Those are good questions and for now I can only say what my reaction is.
See, the thing is, I might have certain emotions, memories, moods,
attitudes - emotions - attached to a song. When certain songs are used in
ads, the context totally, totally changes. I feel my own attachments ripped
from me and replaced with this wildly different context and, it kind of
disgusts me.
Robert Wiersema
2004-04-18 01:43:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lmmr
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by Patrick1765
Date: 4/17/2004 9:08 PM Eastern Standard Time
Its going to be funny if ( and I probably should use when) a
Springsteen
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by Patrick1765
song ends up in a commercial and/or ad, the same bashers of "sell out"
will
Post by Patrick1765
be front and center with their pom-poms declaring it the "best ad
ever",
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by Patrick1765
"brilliant", etc. And wondering where the DVD honor tree is.
Born in the USA has already been used in commercials, not the official
version, but an obvious replication. I will call Bruce a sell out if
and
Post by Robert Wiersema
when
Post by Patrick1765
that ever happens, which I doubt it ever will.
When does a sell-out happen? And why? Is the only pure art that which
has
Post by Robert Wiersema
no commercial ambition? And if we accept that artists are allowed to make
money from their works of art, why is it so unconsionable that they allow
use of that work in a way that benefits them?
Those are good questions and for now I can only say what my reaction is.
See, the thing is, I might have certain emotions, memories, moods,
attitudes - emotions - attached to a song. When certain songs are used in
ads, the context totally, totally changes. I feel my own attachments ripped
from me and replaced with this wildly different context and, it kind of
disgusts me.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the artist, but says an awful lot
about your susceptibility to advertising.
TopDog
2004-04-18 03:39:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick1765
Post by Lmmr
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by Patrick1765
Date: 4/17/2004 9:08 PM Eastern Standard Time
Its going to be funny if ( and I probably should use when) a
Springsteen
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by Patrick1765
song ends up in a commercial and/or ad, the same bashers of "sell
out"
Post by Lmmr
Post by Robert Wiersema
will
Post by Patrick1765
be front and center with their pom-poms declaring it the "best ad
ever",
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by Patrick1765
"brilliant", etc. And wondering where the DVD honor tree is.
Born in the USA has already been used in commercials, not the
official
Post by Lmmr
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by Patrick1765
version, but an obvious replication. I will call Bruce a sell out if
and
Post by Robert Wiersema
when
Post by Patrick1765
that ever happens, which I doubt it ever will.
When does a sell-out happen? And why? Is the only pure art that which
has
Post by Robert Wiersema
no commercial ambition? And if we accept that artists are allowed to
make
Post by Lmmr
Post by Robert Wiersema
money from their works of art, why is it so unconsionable that they
allow
Post by Lmmr
Post by Robert Wiersema
use of that work in a way that benefits them?
Those are good questions and for now I can only say what my reaction is.
See, the thing is, I might have certain emotions, memories, moods,
attitudes - emotions - attached to a song. When certain songs are used in
ads, the context totally, totally changes. I feel my own attachments
ripped
Post by Lmmr
from me and replaced with this wildly different context and, it kind of
disgusts me.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the artist, but says an awful lot
about your susceptibility to advertising.
I've stated my opinion. If you choose to misunderstand how I came to it,
that's your problem.

Susceptible to advertising? I suppose that would make me human, since
advertising works on our built in psychological mechanisms.

You say it like it's a bad thing...
Robert Wiersema
2004-04-18 04:16:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by TopDog
Post by Patrick1765
Post by Lmmr
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by Patrick1765
Date: 4/17/2004 9:08 PM Eastern Standard Time
Its going to be funny if ( and I probably should use when) a
Springsteen
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by Patrick1765
song ends up in a commercial and/or ad, the same bashers of "sell
out"
Post by Lmmr
Post by Robert Wiersema
will
Post by Patrick1765
be front and center with their pom-poms declaring it the "best ad
ever",
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by Patrick1765
"brilliant", etc. And wondering where the DVD honor tree is.
Born in the USA has already been used in commercials, not the
official
Post by Lmmr
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by Patrick1765
version, but an obvious replication. I will call Bruce a sell
out
Post by TopDog
if
Post by Patrick1765
Post by Lmmr
and
Post by Robert Wiersema
when
Post by Patrick1765
that ever happens, which I doubt it ever will.
When does a sell-out happen? And why? Is the only pure art that
which
Post by Patrick1765
Post by Lmmr
has
Post by Robert Wiersema
no commercial ambition? And if we accept that artists are allowed to
make
Post by Lmmr
Post by Robert Wiersema
money from their works of art, why is it so unconsionable that they
allow
Post by Lmmr
Post by Robert Wiersema
use of that work in a way that benefits them?
Those are good questions and for now I can only say what my reaction is.
See, the thing is, I might have certain emotions, memories, moods,
attitudes - emotions - attached to a song. When certain songs are used
in
Post by Patrick1765
Post by Lmmr
ads, the context totally, totally changes. I feel my own attachments
ripped
Post by Lmmr
from me and replaced with this wildly different context and, it kind of
disgusts me.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the artist, but says an awful lot
about your susceptibility to advertising.
I've stated my opinion. If you choose to misunderstand how I came to it,
that's your problem.
Susceptible to advertising? I suppose that would make me human, since
advertising works on our built in psychological mechanisms.
You say it like it's a bad thing...
Sorry, I seem to have touched a nerve, and I didn't intend to. I'm honestly
curious - I used to share exactly those feelings about selling out, but I
don't anymore. It's unfortunate if your associations for a song are coopted
by images and impulses from its use in advertising, and I can definitely see
how that would ruin a song for someone, but an artist is allowed to profit
from their work just like anyone else... Sorry if I pissed you off.
Patrick1765
2004-04-18 04:24:06 UTC
Permalink
Date: 4/18/2004 12:16 AM Eastern Standard Time
but an artist is allowed to profit
from their work just like anyone else... Sorry if I pissed you off.
The point is, at least to me... is that an artist should have enough
integrity not to sell their songs out to advertising. Now of course there are
exceptions, I can see Blondie doing it, because they probably are kind of short
of money at the moment, what with being a novelty act at this point, but for
someone like Elton John, or bands like Led Zeppelin, Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan,
or the Who, who at least shouldn't need the money at this point in this career,
to me it kind of cheapens the band and their songs to see them selling out the
way they do.
Foxy1Vixen
2004-04-18 05:38:05 UTC
Permalink
Are we even sure who owns the rights to these songs? It's not even the artist,
in some cases.

=========================
<<
The point is, at least to me... is that an artist should have enough
integrity not to sell their songs out to advertising. Now of course there are
exceptions, I can see Blondie doing it, because they probably are kind of short
of money at the moment, what with being a novelty act at this point, but for
someone like Elton John, or bands like Led Zeppelin, Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan,
or the Who, who at least shouldn't need the money at this point in this career,
to me it kind of cheapens the band and their songs to see them selling out the
way they do.
<BR><BR>
clr
2004-04-18 05:55:11 UTC
Permalink
that's a straw man argument. in all of the cases being discussed, the
artists in question have sold their songs.
Post by Foxy1Vixen
Are we even sure who owns the rights to these songs? It's not even the artist,
in some cases.
=========================
<<
The point is, at least to me... is that an artist should have enough
integrity not to sell their songs out to advertising. Now of course there are
exceptions, I can see Blondie doing it, because they probably are kind of short
of money at the moment, what with being a novelty act at this point, but for
someone like Elton John, or bands like Led Zeppelin, Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan,
or the Who, who at least shouldn't need the money at this point in this career,
to me it kind of cheapens the band and their songs to see them selling out the
way they do.
<BR><BR>
Foxy1Vixen
2004-04-18 06:06:07 UTC
Permalink
Well, I didn't know one way or the other, that's why I asked. Regardless of
that, I never said I was against or for the selling of music to advertisers.

=========================

<< that's a straw man argument. in all of the cases being discussed, the
artists in question have sold their songs.
<BR><BR>
Matt Orel
2004-04-18 12:24:36 UTC
Permalink
Maybe in all of the cases being discussed, but not in all of the more prominent
cases. Obvious examples would be the Nike-Revolution ads, and the
Wrangler-Fortunate Son ads.
Post by clr
that's a straw man argument. in all of the cases being discussed, the
artists in question have sold their songs.
Post by Foxy1Vixen
Are we even sure who owns the rights to these songs? It's not even
the artist, in some cases.
clr
2004-04-18 18:39:46 UTC
Permalink
i was going to mention the beatles but the beatles weren't being
discussed.
Post by Matt Orel
Maybe in all of the cases being discussed, but not in all of the more
prominent cases. Obvious examples would be the Nike-Revolution ads, and
the Wrangler-Fortunate Son ads.
Post by clr
that's a straw man argument. in all of the cases being discussed, the
artists in question have sold their songs.
Post by Foxy1Vixen
Are we even sure who owns the rights to these songs? It's not even
the artist, in some cases.
Matt Orel
2004-04-18 19:54:58 UTC
Permalink
Then you were playing tactically in a strategic world.
--Condi
i was going to mention the beatles but the beatles weren't being discussed.
Post by Matt Orel
Maybe in all of the cases being discussed, but not in all of the more
prominent cases. Obvious examples would be the Nike-Revolution ads,
and the Wrangler-Fortunate Son ads.
Post by clr
that's a straw man argument. in all of the cases being discussed,
the artists in question have sold their songs.
Post by Foxy1Vixen
Are we even sure who owns the rights to these songs? It's not even
the artist, in some cases.
TopDog
2004-04-18 13:25:26 UTC
Permalink
And in the case of Revolution it wasn't anybody remotely Fab.
Post by Foxy1Vixen
Are we even sure who owns the rights to these songs? It's not even the artist,
in some cases.
=========================
<<
The point is, at least to me... is that an artist should have enough
integrity not to sell their songs out to advertising. Now of course there are
exceptions, I can see Blondie doing it, because they probably are kind of short
of money at the moment, what with being a novelty act at this point, but for
someone like Elton John, or bands like Led Zeppelin, Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan,
or the Who, who at least shouldn't need the money at this point in this career,
to me it kind of cheapens the band and their songs to see them selling out the
way they do.
<BR><BR>
TopDog
2004-04-18 04:25:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by TopDog
Post by Patrick1765
Post by Lmmr
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by Patrick1765
Date: 4/17/2004 9:08 PM Eastern Standard Time
Its going to be funny if ( and I probably should use when) a
Springsteen
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by Patrick1765
song ends up in a commercial and/or ad, the same bashers of "sell
out"
Post by Lmmr
Post by Robert Wiersema
will
Post by Patrick1765
be front and center with their pom-poms declaring it the "best ad
ever",
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by Patrick1765
"brilliant", etc. And wondering where the DVD honor tree is.
Born in the USA has already been used in commercials, not the
official
Post by Lmmr
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by Patrick1765
version, but an obvious replication. I will call Bruce a sell
out
Post by TopDog
if
Post by Patrick1765
Post by Lmmr
and
Post by Robert Wiersema
when
Post by Patrick1765
that ever happens, which I doubt it ever will.
When does a sell-out happen? And why? Is the only pure art that
which
Post by Patrick1765
Post by Lmmr
has
Post by Robert Wiersema
no commercial ambition? And if we accept that artists are allowed
to
Post by TopDog
Post by Patrick1765
make
Post by Lmmr
Post by Robert Wiersema
money from their works of art, why is it so unconsionable that they
allow
Post by Lmmr
Post by Robert Wiersema
use of that work in a way that benefits them?
Those are good questions and for now I can only say what my reaction
is.
Post by TopDog
Post by Patrick1765
Post by Lmmr
See, the thing is, I might have certain emotions, memories, moods,
attitudes - emotions - attached to a song. When certain songs are used
in
Post by Patrick1765
Post by Lmmr
ads, the context totally, totally changes. I feel my own attachments
ripped
Post by Lmmr
from me and replaced with this wildly different context and, it kind
of
Post by TopDog
Post by Patrick1765
Post by Lmmr
disgusts me.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the artist, but says an awful
lot
Post by TopDog
Post by Patrick1765
about your susceptibility to advertising.
I've stated my opinion. If you choose to misunderstand how I came to it,
that's your problem.
Susceptible to advertising? I suppose that would make me human, since
advertising works on our built in psychological mechanisms.
You say it like it's a bad thing...
Sorry, I seem to have touched a nerve, and I didn't intend to. I'm honestly
curious - I used to share exactly those feelings about selling out, but I
don't anymore. It's unfortunate if your associations for a song are coopted
by images and impulses from its use in advertising, and I can definitely see
how that would ruin a song for someone, but an artist is allowed to profit
from their work just like anyone else... Sorry if I pissed you off.
Thanks, Robert. I appreciate that.

It's definitely a Catch-22 because the business side must balance the
creative side. Without one there is very little of the other.

Here's an interesting analysis of a different aspect of 'selling out' -
changing one's music style to meet the demands of your label.

http://www.aef.com/06/news/data/1325

It's a bit dated but makes some interesting points.
Patrick1765
2004-04-18 04:33:34 UTC
Permalink
Date: 4/18/2004 12:25 AM Eastern Standard Time
Here's an interesting analysis of a different aspect of 'selling out' -
changing one's music style to meet the demands of your label.
My favorite commercial, I had no idea what it was even for, was one where they
used the DEVO song Freedom of Choice. This is a song that most people
probably don't even know, and they are using it in a commercial. Come to
think of it, alot of commercials that use songs, I don't know what they are
advertising.
Robert Wiersema
2004-04-18 04:56:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by Robert Wiersema
Sorry, I seem to have touched a nerve, and I didn't intend to. I'm
honestly
Post by Robert Wiersema
curious - I used to share exactly those feelings about selling out, but I
don't anymore. It's unfortunate if your associations for a song are
coopted
Post by Robert Wiersema
by images and impulses from its use in advertising, and I can definitely
see
Post by Robert Wiersema
how that would ruin a song for someone, but an artist is allowed to profit
from their work just like anyone else... Sorry if I pissed you off.
Thanks, Robert. I appreciate that.
It's definitely a Catch-22 because the business side must balance the
creative side. Without one there is very little of the other.
Here's an interesting analysis of a different aspect of 'selling out' -
changing one's music style to meet the demands of your label.
http://www.aef.com/06/news/data/1325
It's a bit dated but makes some interesting points.
Thanks - interesting read.
It's a delicate thing - is The Who selling out when its songs are used as
themes for tv series, or just when used for advertising? Does the use of
Rock n Roll invalidate the quality of Zep's music?
I don't think there are any easy answers.
But when it comes down to it, when I hear The Times They Are A'Changing, I
don't think of the Bank of Montreal (nor do I think of Victoria's Undies
when I hear Lovesick). Do I think of Nike when I hear Revolution? Nope.
The flipside is (and I'm ashamed to admit this) I discovered Nick Drake
through a VW commercial, as did a lot of other people. It was a perfect,
beautiful ad that likely sold a shitload more Nick Drake cd's than it did
cars...
clr
2004-04-18 05:52:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Wiersema
Thanks - interesting read.
It's a delicate thing - is The Who selling out when its songs are used as
themes for tv series, or just when used for advertising? Does the use of
Rock n Roll invalidate the quality of Zep's music?
I don't think there are any easy answers.
But when it comes down to it, when I hear The Times They Are A'Changing, I
don't think of the Bank of Montreal (nor do I think of Victoria's Undies
when I hear Lovesick). Do I think of Nike when I hear Revolution? Nope.
The flipside is (and I'm ashamed to admit this) I discovered Nick Drake
through a VW commercial, as did a lot of other people. It was a perfect,
beautiful ad that likely sold a shitload more Nick Drake cd's than it did
cars...
and what about when mike watt sold that minutemen song to vw many years
ago, because 1) the guy at the ad agency was a fan, and 2) d.boon's
father was extremely ill and needed the money?
TopDog
2004-04-18 13:25:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by Robert Wiersema
Sorry, I seem to have touched a nerve, and I didn't intend to. I'm
honestly
Post by Robert Wiersema
curious - I used to share exactly those feelings about selling out,
but
Post by Robert Wiersema
I
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by Robert Wiersema
don't anymore. It's unfortunate if your associations for a song are
coopted
Post by Robert Wiersema
by images and impulses from its use in advertising, and I can definitely
see
Post by Robert Wiersema
how that would ruin a song for someone, but an artist is allowed to
profit
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by Robert Wiersema
from their work just like anyone else... Sorry if I pissed you off.
Thanks, Robert. I appreciate that.
It's definitely a Catch-22 because the business side must balance the
creative side. Without one there is very little of the other.
Here's an interesting analysis of a different aspect of 'selling out' -
changing one's music style to meet the demands of your label.
http://www.aef.com/06/news/data/1325
It's a bit dated but makes some interesting points.
Thanks - interesting read.
It's a delicate thing - is The Who selling out when its songs are used as
themes for tv series, or just when used for advertising? Does the use of
Rock n Roll invalidate the quality of Zep's music?
In the last case, I feel a retro-active sense of having been cheated. The
integrity has been shattered.
Post by Robert Wiersema
I don't think there are any easy answers.
But when it comes down to it, when I hear The Times They Are A'Changing, I
don't think of the Bank of Montreal (nor do I think of Victoria's Undies
when I hear Lovesick). Do I think of Nike when I hear Revolution? Nope.
The flipside is (and I'm ashamed to admit this) I discovered Nick Drake
through a VW commercial, as did a lot of other people. It was a perfect,
beautiful ad that likely sold a shitload more Nick Drake cd's than it did
cars...
While reading that article I realized that I would not hold it (mentally)
against an artist for breaking out through an ad. This seems like a strange
double standard, but I guess the difference is that I have no buy-in for the
artist at that point. I would almost feel a sense of 'more power to them'.

And maybe this unearths another small point - why not let some of those ad
$$$ go to struggling musicians who really need it instead of further lining
the coffers of established artists (or, I guess we better thing of royaly
holders, as FoxyV points out.)
Charlie Board
2004-04-18 13:54:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by TopDog
While reading that article I realized that I would not hold it (mentally)
against an artist for breaking out through an ad. This seems like a strange
double standard, but I guess the difference is that I have no buy-in for the
artist at that point. I would almost feel a sense of 'more power to them'.
I feel the same way. When I first hear a long-loved song in an ad I
feel nothing but anger....but a month or so ago when I first heard
the Detroit Cobras over a Bud Lite ad I was whooping like my team
had won the NCAA's. Wierd.
clr
2004-04-18 05:51:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lmmr
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by Patrick1765
Date: 4/17/2004 9:08 PM Eastern Standard Time
Its going to be funny if ( and I probably should use when) a
Springsteen
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by Patrick1765
song ends up in a commercial and/or ad, the same bashers of "sell out"
will
Post by Patrick1765
be front and center with their pom-poms declaring it the "best ad
ever",
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by Patrick1765
"brilliant", etc. And wondering where the DVD honor tree is.
Born in the USA has already been used in commercials, not the official
version, but an obvious replication. I will call Bruce a sell out if
and
Post by Robert Wiersema
when
Post by Patrick1765
that ever happens, which I doubt it ever will.
When does a sell-out happen? And why? Is the only pure art that which
has
Post by Robert Wiersema
no commercial ambition? And if we accept that artists are allowed to make
money from their works of art, why is it so unconsionable that they allow
use of that work in a way that benefits them?
Those are good questions and for now I can only say what my reaction is.
See, the thing is, I might have certain emotions, memories, moods,
attitudes - emotions - attached to a song. When certain songs are used in
ads, the context totally, totally changes. I feel my own attachments ripped
from me and replaced with this wildly different context and, it kind of
disgusts me.
so tell me, how did you feel when chris stein of blondie had to stop
playing music because he developed a very rare and incurable disease?
and of course musicians have those great, great health plans. were you
disgusted about that? and where is your righteous indignation at the
fact that great musicians - they must be great bcause you hvae such
memories attached to their art - can't make a living off of that art?

and you do realize that debbie harry isn't all of blondie, right, in
terms of making the decision to sell t he song? but of course, it's a
woman, so she's a "slut".

now, *that* is digusting.
Patrick1765
2004-04-18 01:48:01 UTC
Permalink
Date: 4/17/2004 9:26 PM Eastern Standard Time
And if we accept that artists are allowed to make
money from their works of art, why is it so unconsionable that they allow
use of that work in a way that benefits them?
The artist can do whatever they want with their music, however from a personal
standpoint, a song is ruined when it is used in a commercial, so to me the song
has been sold out.
Glenn
2004-04-18 06:03:42 UTC
Permalink
Post of the year contender...

Although I don't know if saying "when" is right. I don't see it
happening while Bruce is alive.

I will admit that I was reassured when someone at Somerville tried to
jump on Bruce for having a "corporate sponsor" (Chevy, IIRC, was the
"sponsor" of the CBS broadcast of the Barcelona show) and he was very
quick to point out that they weren't sponsoring him, he hasn't had a
sponsor, etc.

I suppose it could be seen as a dim view of Bruce's future heirs, but
that would be the only way I could ever see it happening.

One idea that I really like is Bruce setting up a trust that would
administer the exploitation rights to his music after he passes on. It
could be set up so that the proceeds would benefit a worthy charity,
social, or political organization that Bruce supports, and would allow
for the exposure of Bruce's music for years after his passing.

-Glenn
Post by Lmmr
Its going to be funny if ( and I probably should use when) a Springsteen
song ends up in a commercial and/or ad, the same bashers of "sell out" will
be front and center with their pom-poms declaring it the "best ad ever",
"brilliant", etc. And wondering where the DVD honor tree is.
Dan
2004-04-18 06:26:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Glenn
Post of the year contender...
I disagree.

There may be many reasons to bash Springsteen fans.

But there is no reason to bash them in advance of doing/saying something they
may/may not one day do/say.

Let's leave that to the AMBSers.


Dan
"Tame The Tigers!"

(remove NoSpam to Email)
Glenn
2004-04-18 06:40:02 UTC
Permalink
I could be wrong, but I was pretty sure lmmr meant it tongue-in-cheek.
As did I...

-Glenn
Post by Dan
Post by Glenn
Post of the year contender...
I disagree.
There may be many reasons to bash Springsteen fans.
But there is no reason to bash them in advance of doing/saying something they
may/may not one day do/say.
Let's leave that to the AMBSers.
TopDog
2004-04-18 13:30:52 UTC
Permalink
I share your views on this - I don't think it will happen while Bruce is in
control. I wouldn't be surprised to see him set up something to control his
catalog.

The only ad I wouldn't mind seeing him do is for Fender guitars. But he'd
probably insist on doing it live. :)
Post by Glenn
Post of the year contender...
Although I don't know if saying "when" is right. I don't see it
happening while Bruce is alive.
I will admit that I was reassured when someone at Somerville tried to
jump on Bruce for having a "corporate sponsor" (Chevy, IIRC, was the
"sponsor" of the CBS broadcast of the Barcelona show) and he was very
quick to point out that they weren't sponsoring him, he hasn't had a
sponsor, etc.
I suppose it could be seen as a dim view of Bruce's future heirs, but
that would be the only way I could ever see it happening.
One idea that I really like is Bruce setting up a trust that would
administer the exploitation rights to his music after he passes on. It
could be set up so that the proceeds would benefit a worthy charity,
social, or political organization that Bruce supports, and would allow
for the exposure of Bruce's music for years after his passing.
-Glenn
Post by Lmmr
Its going to be funny if ( and I probably should use when) a Springsteen
song ends up in a commercial and/or ad, the same bashers of "sell out" will
be front and center with their pom-poms declaring it the "best ad ever",
"brilliant", etc. And wondering where the DVD honor tree is.
A to Z
2004-04-18 13:38:11 UTC
Permalink
The one ad that has really bugged me is James Taylor performing onstage,
JUST for the commercial, which was not for anything musical (I think it was
a phone company). It's not that it's illegal, or immoral, or that he doesn't
have a right, it's just sort of... icky.

On the other hand, I agree, if putting your music on the iPod commercial is
what gets a band like Jet noticed, that's no problem for me.
Post by TopDog
I share your views on this - I don't think it will happen while Bruce is in
control. I wouldn't be surprised to see him set up something to control his
catalog.
The only ad I wouldn't mind seeing him do is for Fender guitars. But he'd
probably insist on doing it live. :)
Post by Glenn
Post of the year contender...
Although I don't know if saying "when" is right. I don't see it
happening while Bruce is alive.
I will admit that I was reassured when someone at Somerville tried to
jump on Bruce for having a "corporate sponsor" (Chevy, IIRC, was the
"sponsor" of the CBS broadcast of the Barcelona show) and he was very
quick to point out that they weren't sponsoring him, he hasn't had a
sponsor, etc.
I suppose it could be seen as a dim view of Bruce's future heirs, but
that would be the only way I could ever see it happening.
One idea that I really like is Bruce setting up a trust that would
administer the exploitation rights to his music after he passes on. It
could be set up so that the proceeds would benefit a worthy charity,
social, or political organization that Bruce supports, and would allow
for the exposure of Bruce's music for years after his passing.
-Glenn
Post by Lmmr
Its going to be funny if ( and I probably should use when) a Springsteen
song ends up in a commercial and/or ad, the same bashers of "sell out"
will
Post by Glenn
Post by Lmmr
be front and center with their pom-poms declaring it the "best ad ever",
"brilliant", etc. And wondering where the DVD honor tree is.
TopDog
2004-04-18 13:42:54 UTC
Permalink
Yeah, good call. Exactly.

It's like watching someone you respected cheapen themselves. Ick.

Thank goodness I don't respect may race car drivers.
Post by A to Z
The one ad that has really bugged me is James Taylor performing onstage,
JUST for the commercial, which was not for anything musical (I think it was
a phone company). It's not that it's illegal, or immoral, or that he doesn't
have a right, it's just sort of... icky.
On the other hand, I agree, if putting your music on the iPod commercial is
what gets a band like Jet noticed, that's no problem for me.
Post by TopDog
I share your views on this - I don't think it will happen while Bruce is
in
Post by TopDog
control. I wouldn't be surprised to see him set up something to control
his
Post by TopDog
catalog.
The only ad I wouldn't mind seeing him do is for Fender guitars. But he'd
probably insist on doing it live. :)
Post by Glenn
Post of the year contender...
Although I don't know if saying "when" is right. I don't see it
happening while Bruce is alive.
I will admit that I was reassured when someone at Somerville tried to
jump on Bruce for having a "corporate sponsor" (Chevy, IIRC, was the
"sponsor" of the CBS broadcast of the Barcelona show) and he was very
quick to point out that they weren't sponsoring him, he hasn't had a
sponsor, etc.
I suppose it could be seen as a dim view of Bruce's future heirs, but
that would be the only way I could ever see it happening.
One idea that I really like is Bruce setting up a trust that would
administer the exploitation rights to his music after he passes on.
It
Post by A to Z
Post by TopDog
Post by Glenn
could be set up so that the proceeds would benefit a worthy charity,
social, or political organization that Bruce supports, and would allow
for the exposure of Bruce's music for years after his passing.
-Glenn
Post by Lmmr
Its going to be funny if ( and I probably should use when) a
Springsteen
Post by TopDog
Post by Glenn
Post by Lmmr
song ends up in a commercial and/or ad, the same bashers of "sell out"
will
Post by Glenn
Post by Lmmr
be front and center with their pom-poms declaring it the "best ad
ever",
Post by TopDog
Post by Glenn
Post by Lmmr
"brilliant", etc. And wondering where the DVD honor tree is.
A to Z
2004-04-18 13:51:24 UTC
Permalink
let me also clarify, about the "that's no problem for me" comment: I'm
perfectly aware that Jet, James Taylor, Iggy Pop, The Who, and any other
band whose music I've heard in a commercial doesn't give a flying fuck what
I think...

I'm sure that many of them have HAD a flying fuck, what with supermodels,
groupies and private planes, etc....
Post by TopDog
Yeah, good call. Exactly.
It's like watching someone you respected cheapen themselves. Ick.
Thank goodness I don't respect may race car drivers.
Post by A to Z
The one ad that has really bugged me is James Taylor performing onstage,
JUST for the commercial, which was not for anything musical (I think it
was
Post by A to Z
a phone company). It's not that it's illegal, or immoral, or that he
doesn't
Post by A to Z
have a right, it's just sort of... icky.
On the other hand, I agree, if putting your music on the iPod commercial
is
Post by A to Z
what gets a band like Jet noticed, that's no problem for me.
Post by TopDog
I share your views on this - I don't think it will happen while Bruce is
in
Post by TopDog
control. I wouldn't be surprised to see him set up something to control
his
Post by TopDog
catalog.
The only ad I wouldn't mind seeing him do is for Fender guitars. But
he'd
Post by A to Z
Post by TopDog
probably insist on doing it live. :)
Post by Glenn
Post of the year contender...
Although I don't know if saying "when" is right. I don't see it
happening while Bruce is alive.
I will admit that I was reassured when someone at Somerville tried to
jump on Bruce for having a "corporate sponsor" (Chevy, IIRC, was the
"sponsor" of the CBS broadcast of the Barcelona show) and he was very
quick to point out that they weren't sponsoring him, he hasn't had a
sponsor, etc.
I suppose it could be seen as a dim view of Bruce's future heirs, but
that would be the only way I could ever see it happening.
One idea that I really like is Bruce setting up a trust that would
administer the exploitation rights to his music after he passes on.
It
Post by A to Z
Post by TopDog
Post by Glenn
could be set up so that the proceeds would benefit a worthy charity,
social, or political organization that Bruce supports, and would allow
for the exposure of Bruce's music for years after his passing.
-Glenn
Post by Lmmr
Its going to be funny if ( and I probably should use when) a
Springsteen
Post by TopDog
Post by Glenn
Post by Lmmr
song ends up in a commercial and/or ad, the same bashers of "sell
out"
Post by A to Z
Post by TopDog
will
Post by Glenn
Post by Lmmr
be front and center with their pom-poms declaring it the "best ad
ever",
Post by TopDog
Post by Glenn
Post by Lmmr
"brilliant", etc. And wondering where the DVD honor tree is.
Matt Orel
2004-04-18 14:49:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by A to Z
let me also clarify, about the "that's no problem for me" comment: I'm
perfectly aware that Jet, James Taylor, Iggy Pop, The Who, and any other
band whose music I've heard in a commercial doesn't give a flying fuck what
I think...
I'm sure that many of them have HAD a flying fuck, what with supermodels,
groupies and private planes, etc....
Yes, but how many have taken a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut?
A to Z
2004-04-18 16:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Orel
Post by A to Z
let me also clarify, about the "that's no problem for me" comment: I'm
perfectly aware that Jet, James Taylor, Iggy Pop, The Who, and any other
band whose music I've heard in a commercial doesn't give a flying fuck what
I think...
I'm sure that many of them have HAD a flying fuck, what with
supermodels,
Post by Matt Orel
Post by A to Z
groupies and private planes, etc....
Yes, but how many have taken a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut?
Sting?

(think about it...)
Matt Orel
2004-04-18 19:48:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by A to Z
Post by Matt Orel
Yes, but how many have taken a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut?
Sting?
(think about it...)
Much too hard for me.
At least you didn't say John Madden.
TopDog
2004-04-18 14:24:04 UTC
Permalink
Some fascinating reading here:
LICENSED TO SELL:
Why the Jingle is Dead and Commercial Pop Rules
http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/archives/15/licensed.html

First of all, I made the point some weeks ago that it's not songs that are
being sold but *us* - the audiences memories, associations, relationship
with the music. This says it succinctly:

"People react intuitively, and commercials turn that to an advantage.
Jingles aimed to elicit brand-name recall, but ads now work by "borrowing
interest"--transferring value from the music to the product. Commercials not
only borrow interest from music, they borrow our interests, milking our
memories and desires, and selling them back to us."


This article is really good, along with the timeline.
Salesnoise: the convergence of music and advertising
http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/archives/15/salesnoise.html

Fascinating tidbits include:

1908


The song "In My Merry Oldsmobile" by Johnny Marks becomes a popular anthem
of the emerging car culture. Recognizing its sales potential, the Oldsmobile
Motor Company uses the song in its advertising and promotion.

Early 1920s

Palmolive Soap goes whole hog by renaming its soloists (Frank Munn and
Virginia Rea) Paul Oliver and Olive Palmer. Unknown artists are preferred
over vaudeville performers so they don't compete for name recognition.

1950s


Morris Levy and Alan Freed try to trademark the term "rock and roll."

1955



The third time it is released, Bill Haley's "Rock Around the Clock" hits #1,
the only legit rock song in the Top Ten that year. Initially, the song
bombed. It was only after appearing in the movie The Blackboard Jungle that
it struck gold, establishing rock and roll as a commercial genre
Greg Weber
2004-04-18 13:59:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by A to Z
The one ad that has really bugged me is James Taylor performing onstage,
JUST for the commercial, which was not for anything musical (I think it was
a phone company). It's not that it's illegal, or immoral, or that he doesn't
have a right, it's just sort of... icky.
On the other hand, I agree, if putting your music on the iPod commercial is
what gets a band like Jet noticed, that's no problem for me.
I guess I'm missing something in this discussion.

I don't see how use of art in a commercial message automatically diminishes
the artist.

It creates a new association in the mind of the viewer/listener, sure, but
is that necessarily a bad thing? The kid who only knows "Happy Jack" as
backing music for a Hummer commercial might go the extra mile and check out
The Who. The woman who finds herself humming Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue"
after watching a United Airlines commercial might do the same thing. More
than a few folks my age got their first taste of classical music and opera
from watching Bugs Bunny on Saturday mornings.

The one thing I'd like to see? A credit line for backing music at the
bottom of the screen. Some commercials have 'em; some don't.

--G.
Two-cents'-worth, WI
Robert Wiersema
2004-04-18 15:56:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by A to Z
The one ad that has really bugged me is James Taylor performing onstage,
JUST for the commercial, which was not for anything musical (I think it
was
Post by A to Z
a phone company). It's not that it's illegal, or immoral, or that he
doesn't
Post by A to Z
have a right, it's just sort of... icky.
On the other hand, I agree, if putting your music on the iPod commercial
is
Post by A to Z
what gets a band like Jet noticed, that's no problem for me.
I guess I'm missing something in this discussion.
My posts, apparently...
Post by Robert Wiersema
I don't see how use of art in a commercial message automatically diminishes
the artist.
Yup.
Foxy1Vixen
2004-04-18 16:26:49 UTC
Permalink
If you think about it, doesn't a really bad/cheesy video "cheapen" the
experience of the song as well? That'll definitely alter your impressions as
well, although, nowadays, many kids probably never had a chance to imagine
their own personal "movie" to a song--they're used to being spoon-fed a video
image.

=========================

<< I guess I'm missing something in this discussion.

I don't see how use of art in a commercial message automatically diminishes
the artist.

It creates a new association in the mind of the viewer/listener, sure, but
is that necessarily a bad thing? The kid who only knows "Happy Jack" as
backing music for a Hummer commercial might go the extra mile and check out
The Who. The woman who finds herself humming Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue"
after watching a United Airlines commercial might do the same thing. More
than a few folks my age got their first taste of classical music and opera
from watching Bugs Bunny on Saturday mornings.

The one thing I'd like to see? A credit line for backing music at the
bottom of the screen. Some commercials have 'em; some don't.

--G.
Two-cents'-worth, WI
<BR><BR>
Patrick1765
2004-04-18 16:43:50 UTC
Permalink
Date: 4/18/2004 12:26 PM Eastern Standard Time
If you think about it, doesn't a really bad/cheesy video "cheapen" the
experience of the song as well?
It does, but you can avoid a video, you can't really avoid a commercial unless
you have Tivo.
clr
2004-04-18 18:38:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Foxy1Vixen
If you think about it, doesn't a really bad/cheesy video "cheapen" the
experience of the song as well? That'll definitely alter your impressions as
well, although, nowadays, many kids probably never had a chance to imagine
their own personal "movie" to a song--they're used to being spoon-fed a video
image.
music IS evocative.

there were songs i could not listen to for years because i associated
them with certain boyfriends, and when the relationship ended, well, i
didn't want to hear those songs or the songs made me angry.

there are songs that remind me of certain times of my life when things
were not so hot, and i'd rather not hear THOSE songs either, sometimes.

and then one day another association happens to the songs, or the
memories fade, and they're mine again.

it's not just commercials.
Greg Weber
2004-04-18 18:44:58 UTC
Permalink
It creates another association, that's for sure.

I like your reference to a personal "movie" that we associate with songs.

I'm not sure I'd want anyone to see my personal movie of "Point Blank," tho.

--G.
Post by Foxy1Vixen
If you think about it, doesn't a really bad/cheesy video "cheapen" the
experience of the song as well? That'll definitely alter your impressions as
well, although, nowadays, many kids probably never had a chance to imagine
their own personal "movie" to a song--they're used to being spoon-fed a video
image.
=========================
<< I guess I'm missing something in this discussion.
I don't see how use of art in a commercial message automatically diminishes
the artist.
It creates a new association in the mind of the viewer/listener, sure, but
is that necessarily a bad thing? The kid who only knows "Happy Jack" as
backing music for a Hummer commercial might go the extra mile and check out
The Who. The woman who finds herself humming Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue"
after watching a United Airlines commercial might do the same thing. More
than a few folks my age got their first taste of classical music and opera
from watching Bugs Bunny on Saturday mornings.
The one thing I'd like to see? A credit line for backing music at the
bottom of the screen. Some commercials have 'em; some don't.
--G.
Two-cents'-worth, WI
<BR><BR>
clr
2004-04-18 18:49:19 UTC
Permalink
but a bad movie of a book does the same thing, too. so, are books not
allowed to be turned into movies for that reason?
Post by Greg Weber
It creates another association, that's for sure.
I like your reference to a personal "movie" that we associate with songs.
I'm not sure I'd want anyone to see my personal movie of "Point Blank," tho.
--G.
Post by Foxy1Vixen
If you think about it, doesn't a really bad/cheesy video "cheapen" the
experience of the song as well? That'll definitely alter your impressions
as
Post by Foxy1Vixen
well, although, nowadays, many kids probably never had a chance to imagine
their own personal "movie" to a song--they're used to being spoon-fed a
video
Post by Foxy1Vixen
image.
=========================
<< I guess I'm missing something in this discussion.
I don't see how use of art in a commercial message automatically
diminishes
Post by Foxy1Vixen
the artist.
It creates a new association in the mind of the viewer/listener, sure, but
is that necessarily a bad thing? The kid who only knows "Happy Jack" as
backing music for a Hummer commercial might go the extra mile and check
out
Post by Foxy1Vixen
The Who. The woman who finds herself humming Gershwin's "Rhapsody in
Blue"
Post by Foxy1Vixen
after watching a United Airlines commercial might do the same thing. More
than a few folks my age got their first taste of classical music and opera
from watching Bugs Bunny on Saturday mornings.
The one thing I'd like to see? A credit line for backing music at the
bottom of the screen. Some commercials have 'em; some don't.
--G.
Two-cents'-worth, WI
<BR><BR>
Greg Weber
2004-04-18 20:46:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by clr
but a bad movie of a book does the same thing, too. so, are books not
allowed to be turned into movies for that reason?
Not at all. I'm fine with multiple associations. (I'm also pretty good at
mentally rewriting movies to suit my taste <g>).

OTOH, a buddy's wife has *never* seen the movie "Gone With The Wind." She
read Mitchell's book as a kid, adored it, and never wanted to take the
chance that the movie wouldn't live up to her expectations.

--Fr. G.
Tara, WI
Post by clr
Post by Greg Weber
It creates another association, that's for sure.
I like your reference to a personal "movie" that we associate with songs.
I'm not sure I'd want anyone to see my personal movie of "Point Blank," tho.
--G.
Post by Foxy1Vixen
If you think about it, doesn't a really bad/cheesy video "cheapen" the
experience of the song as well? That'll definitely alter your impressions
as
Post by Foxy1Vixen
well, although, nowadays, many kids probably never had a chance to imagine
their own personal "movie" to a song--they're used to being spoon-fed a
video
Post by Foxy1Vixen
image.
=========================
<< I guess I'm missing something in this discussion.
I don't see how use of art in a commercial message automatically
diminishes
Post by Foxy1Vixen
the artist.
It creates a new association in the mind of the viewer/listener, sure, but
is that necessarily a bad thing? The kid who only knows "Happy Jack" as
backing music for a Hummer commercial might go the extra mile and check
out
Post by Foxy1Vixen
The Who. The woman who finds herself humming Gershwin's "Rhapsody in
Blue"
Post by Foxy1Vixen
after watching a United Airlines commercial might do the same thing.
More
Post by clr
Post by Greg Weber
Post by Foxy1Vixen
than a few folks my age got their first taste of classical music and opera
from watching Bugs Bunny on Saturday mornings.
The one thing I'd like to see? A credit line for backing music at the
bottom of the screen. Some commercials have 'em; some don't.
--G.
Two-cents'-worth, WI
<BR><BR>
Lmmr
2004-04-18 14:11:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Glenn
Post of the year contender...
Although I don't know if saying "when" is right. I don't see it
happening while Bruce is alive.
I suppose it could be seen as a dim view of Bruce's future heirs, but
that would be the only way I could ever see it happening.
One idea that I really like is Bruce setting up a trust that would
administer the exploitation rights to his music after he passes on.
Thus the use of the word "when" in my post. And now people are putting
"qualifiers" on it. Its either yes or no.

If I was in Las Vegas and could bet that 1) A Springsteen song will never
appear in a ad, or 2) A Springsteen song will appear in a ad before the year
2765. I would be like that British guy who sold everything, I would put it
all on #2.

I would have to guess that people have more important things to worry about
in life than whether or not a song appears in a 30 second commercial ( I
thought most TV watchers are like me anyways, with the remote control
permantely attached to my right hand and instantly channel surf when
commercials come on so I can never see them).

My current list of things that are much, much, much more important to me
whether a Springsteen song or any artists song has or will ever appear in a
commercial.

- Why did Art Howe remove Tom Glavine on Friday night, where he was pitching
a one-hitter with a pitch count of only 76 pitches.
- Was Omarosa deliberately sabotaging Kwame chances on The Apprentice or is
she simply stupid and delilusional.
- Will Ross and Rachel get back together or will Ross allow her to move to
Paris alone on Friends.
- I just did laundry and can't find three socks to complete the pairs.
- And what are we going to have on the grill today in this beautiful 75
degree day in NY
A to Z
2004-04-18 14:19:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lmmr
- Why did Art Howe remove Tom Glavine on Friday night, where he was pitching
a one-hitter with a pitch count of only 76 pitches.
not sure. He's used to having starters and no relievers, so you would think
his tendency would have been in the other direction. BUT - do we know what
conversations ahd gone on between Howe and Glavine ("I'm tiring, skip", "my
shoulder's a little tight") or between the catcher (Phillips?) and Howe
("he's losing it, skip"). Today's papers report that indeed, Glavine did
have a tight or stiff shoulder.
Post by Lmmr
- Was Omarosa deliberately sabotaging Kwame chances on The Apprentice or is
she simply stupid and delilusional.
she is definitely delilusional. She thinks that she can get better deli in
Washington than in New York.
Post by Lmmr
- Will Ross and Rachel get back together or will Ross allow her to move to
Paris alone on Friends.
Ross has no control over the matter. Rachel owns him like a puppet.
Post by Lmmr
- I just did laundry and can't find three socks to complete the pairs.
two are behind the dryer, the other is still on your laundry basket
Post by Lmmr
- And what are we going to have on the grill today in this beautiful 75
degree day in NY
pigeon
TopDog
2004-04-18 14:58:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lmmr
Post by Lmmr
- Was Omarosa deliberately sabotaging Kwame chances on The Apprentice or is
she simply stupid and delilusional.
Kwame sabotaged himself by picking Bitcharosa. I mean Assorama. I mean
Assaroma. No additional effort on her part was done to sink Kwame - she was
just being herself.

More importantly, where did Amy get the bionic hair that seems to instantly
go from straight to ringlets and back again the next moment?
Patrick1765
2004-04-18 15:18:01 UTC
Permalink
Date: 4/18/2004 10:11 AM Eastern Standard Time
- Why did Art Howe remove Tom Glavine on Friday night, where he was pitching
a one-hitter with a pitch count of only 76 pitches.
Art Howe is no Bobby Valentine
Was Omarosa deliberately sabotaging Kwame chances on The Apprentice or is
she simply stupid and delilusional.
Ever notice if you switch the letters around, is it Omarosa or Osama ?
Will Ross and Rachel get back together or will Ross allow her to move to
Paris alone on Friends.
Friends is leaving the air about 5 years too late.
I just did laundry and can't find three socks to complete the pairs.
They are probably clinging to the inside wall of the dryer trying to escape.
Lmmr
2004-04-18 22:49:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lmmr
My current list of things that are much, much, much more important to me
whether a Springsteen song or any artists song has or will ever appear in a
commercial.
<SNIP>

Just to keep everyone updated.
Post by Lmmr
- I just did laundry and can't find three socks to complete the pairs.
- One sock was in the hallway that fell out of the laundry bag, one sock was
stuck in the dryer, and the 3rd sock was still in the hamper and never made
it to the washer.
Post by Lmmr
- And what are we going to have on the grill today in this beautiful 75
degree day in NY
- Had chicken spiedies. (for the 99% of the worlds population that never
had, you are missing out - big time)
A to Z
2004-04-18 22:50:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lmmr
Post by Lmmr
My current list of things that are much, much, much more important to me
whether a Springsteen song or any artists song has or will ever appear
in
Post by Lmmr
a
Post by Lmmr
commercial.
<SNIP>
Just to keep everyone updated.
Post by Lmmr
- I just did laundry and can't find three socks to complete the pairs.
- One sock was in the hallway that fell out of the laundry bag, one sock was
stuck in the dryer, and the 3rd sock was still in the hamper and never made
it to the washer.
I got 1 out of 3
Post by Lmmr
Post by Lmmr
- And what are we going to have on the grill today in this beautiful 75
degree day in NY
- Had chicken spiedies. (for the 99% of the worlds population that never
had, you are missing out - big time)
oh, pigeon...
Robert Wiersema
2004-04-18 01:21:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick1765
Either your music is art, or it is crap, once it is in a commercial, it
becomes crap. Just an opinion of course.
Why? How does that process work?
Patrick1765
2004-04-18 01:28:39 UTC
Permalink
Date: 4/17/2004 9:21 PM Eastern Standard Time
Post by Patrick1765
Either your music is art, or it is crap, once it is in a commercial, it
becomes crap. Just an opinion of course.
Why? How does that process work?
Once I can't listen to your song on the radio or on CD withouth thinking of the
commercial, the song is ruined for me, I usually change the station of skip the
track when it comes on, therefore, it's now crap in my mind.
Robert Wiersema
2004-04-18 01:44:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick1765
Date: 4/17/2004 9:21 PM Eastern Standard Time
Post by Patrick1765
Either your music is art, or it is crap, once it is in a commercial, it
becomes crap. Just an opinion of course.
Why? How does that process work?
Once I can't listen to your song on the radio or on CD withouth thinking of the
commercial, the song is ruined for me, I usually change the station of skip the
track when it comes on, therefore, it's now crap in my mind.
But that doesn't have anything to do with the artist or the song - it has to
do with your susceptibility to advertising...
TopDog
2004-04-18 03:45:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick1765
Post by Patrick1765
Date: 4/17/2004 9:21 PM Eastern Standard Time
Post by Patrick1765
Either your music is art, or it is crap, once it is in a commercial,
it
Post by Patrick1765
Post by Patrick1765
becomes crap. Just an opinion of course.
Why? How does that process work?
Once I can't listen to your song on the radio or on CD withouth thinking
of the
Post by Patrick1765
commercial, the song is ruined for me, I usually change the station of
skip the
Post by Patrick1765
track when it comes on, therefore, it's now crap in my mind.
But that doesn't have anything to do with the artist or the song - it has to
do with your susceptibility to advertising...
No, what it says a lot about is the 'artists' susceptibility to greed.
clr
2004-04-18 05:53:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by TopDog
Post by Patrick1765
Post by Patrick1765
Date: 4/17/2004 9:21 PM Eastern Standard Time
Post by Patrick1765
Either your music is art, or it is crap, once it is in a commercial,
it
Post by Patrick1765
Post by Patrick1765
becomes crap. Just an opinion of course.
Why? How does that process work?
Once I can't listen to your song on the radio or on CD withouth thinking
of the
Post by Patrick1765
commercial, the song is ruined for me, I usually change the station of
skip the
Post by Patrick1765
track when it comes on, therefore, it's now crap in my mind.
But that doesn't have anything to do with the artist or the song - it has
to
Post by Patrick1765
do with your susceptibility to advertising...
No, what it says a lot about is the 'artists' susceptibility to greed.
oh my god. do you really think the members of blondie are rolling in
the money? oh, my god. not everyone is townshend, or led zep, not
everyone who sells their songs to commercials is rolling in the dough.

it's not your songs. it doesn't belong to you. an artist is entitled
to make a living and do whatever they want with their art. they do not
owe you anything.
Lmmr
2004-04-18 19:07:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by clr
it's not your songs. it doesn't belong to you. an artist is entitled
to make a living and do whatever they want with their art. they do not
owe you anything.
Well said.

After reading Zeke's/Billyi's review comments on AMBS of another amazing
David Bowie concert last night in Berkeley got me looking at his website for
NY area shows.

I just hope that all of the "sell out" bashers stay true to their guns and
avoid the artist because I want to enter and win Bowie's contest with Audi
to win a brand new Audi TT Coupe.
Patrick1765
2004-04-18 19:15:21 UTC
Permalink
Date: 4/18/2004 3:07 PM Eastern Standard Time
I just hope that all of the "sell out" bashers stay true to their guns and
avoid the artist because I want to enter and win Bowie's contest with Audi
to win a brand new Audi TT Coupe.
I for one never said I was going to AVOID the artist, I just said their music
has been cheapened.
clr
2004-04-18 19:54:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lmmr
Post by clr
it's not your songs. it doesn't belong to you. an artist is entitled
to make a living and do whatever they want with their art. they do not
owe you anything.
Well said.
After reading Zeke's/Billyi's review comments on AMBS of another amazing
David Bowie concert last night in Berkeley got me looking at his website for
NY area shows.
I just hope that all of the "sell out" bashers stay true to their guns and
avoid the artist because I want to enter and win Bowie's contest with Audi
to win a brand new Audi TT Coupe.
i saw him again on wednesday, after seeing him only a few months ago,
and even sick the man did not disappoint. he's just having so much fun
up there.

anyway, he's at jones beach this summer. also atlantic city but those
tickets are pricey.

someone else you know is likely heading for jones beach.
--
=========================================
DW #001
www.jukeboxgraduate.com
Lmmr
2004-04-18 20:16:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by clr
Post by clr
i saw him again on wednesday, after seeing him only a few months ago,
and even sick the man did not disappoint. he's just having so much fun
up there.
anyway, he's at jones beach this summer. also atlantic city but those
tickets are pricey.
someone else you know is likely heading for jones beach.
I keep hearing great thing from this Bowie tour, a online fansite had a
review entitled "rebel rebel: bowie redux" that was very good.

I saw the Jones Beach date, but that is a bad weekend. Jones Beach is the
bandshell venue of choice for the little missus, probably seeing The Dead
down there for a show. And Kid Rock :)

Don't know if he done announcing shows, but with a few east coast bandshells
maybe he will play at Saratoga.
Rev Rockabilly
2004-04-18 21:14:30 UTC
Permalink
My stance on this issue hasn't changed since the 80's...there isn't an
argument that will get me to change my mind on this issue....

I used to post as "Agent Rev" on the message board at Johnny Rivers'
website-since his association with Wal-Mart, I bid the board goodbye
(not a Beezer goodbye, either) & haven't been assoociated with it since
(the lack of critical, intelligent discussion on that message board was
also a factor in my decision.) I haven't reached for a JR CD since the
commercials started running (& I have about 15 "legit" JR CD's)

The ORIGINAL "Certified Rock & Roll Archaeologist"...accept no
substitutes
http://community.webtv.net/RevIsBack/RevRockabilly
billyi
2004-04-19 00:53:14 UTC
Permalink
Your stance may not change.....and that's noble of you (and anyone else who
takes such a stance). Now, if you can show how your noble ethics and lofty
standards have played into your own life...and ways that you've turned down
great sums of money (or, at the very least, how you've turned down the means
to keep your family and loved ones from living in poverty), then it will
give your unbendable judgment all the more credibility.

So, please, cite the circumstances of how your "stance" has been put to a
test or challenged....and how you managed to live with the loss of money and
standard of living that came from your noble and unwavering "stance."
Perhaps every rock performer/songwriter who has ever sold his/her/their song
for a commercial can learn from your stellar example and actions.

Me, I've got a decent job. I've got health benefits and an insurance plans
that even pay me if I'm out because of injury or illness.
I know when/where my next paycheck will be coming. I can plan vacations,
concerts, etc. accordingly with such security.
I'll never make a king's ransom, but we do okay....are able to afford our
mortgage, put away money for the daughters to go to college, pay for music
lessons, etc. In other words, ours (meaning my family's) is a pretty
stable living and standard of living.

So, who the hell am I.....or anyone else....to sit in judgment of one whose
chosen path/vocation may not have been as stable. A flash in the pan....a
few months/years of glory....only to fade away?

I was out of work for 4 months last year due to illness (that's close to
half of my work year).....had I not an insurance plan that ensured that I
was paid in full while off my feet, what would have happened? And what
business would it be for anyone else to decide how I scraped together money
to keep food on my family's table or a roof over their heads? Also during
that time, I was in the hospital for about a month. Included during that
stay were two surgeries. The total tab for the stay was over a quarter of a
million dollars. Could I have repaid that on my salary as a teacher......
or whatever money I've made by freelance writing or playing
bars/coffeehouses/festivals? Not hardly.

I think it's best to remember that we all don't walk in the same shoes
before we cast harsh and smug judgments on those who may have circumstances
that vary greatly from our own.
Post by Rev Rockabilly
My stance on this issue hasn't changed since the 80's...there isn't an
argument that will get me to change my mind on this issue....
I used to post as "Agent Rev" on the message board at Johnny Rivers'
website-since his association with Wal-Mart, I bid the board goodbye
(not a Beezer goodbye, either) & haven't been assoociated with it since
(the lack of critical, intelligent discussion on that message board was
also a factor in my decision.) I haven't reached for a JR CD since the
commercials started running (& I have about 15 "legit" JR CD's)
The ORIGINAL "Certified Rock & Roll Archaeologist"...accept no
substitutes
http://community.webtv.net/RevIsBack/RevRockabilly
Robert Wiersema
2004-04-19 00:59:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by billyi
Your stance may not change.....and that's noble of you (and anyone else who
takes such a stance). Now, if you can show how your noble ethics and lofty
standards have played into your own life...and ways that you've turned down
great sums of money (or, at the very least, how you've turned down the means
to keep your family and loved ones from living in poverty), then it will
give your unbendable judgment all the more credibility.
So, please, cite the circumstances of how your "stance" has been put to a
test or challenged....and how you managed to live with the loss of money and
standard of living that came from your noble and unwavering "stance."
Perhaps every rock performer/songwriter who has ever sold his/her/their song
for a commercial can learn from your stellar example and actions.
Me, I've got a decent job. I've got health benefits and an insurance plans
that even pay me if I'm out because of injury or illness.
I know when/where my next paycheck will be coming. I can plan vacations,
concerts, etc. accordingly with such security.
I'll never make a king's ransom, but we do okay....are able to afford our
mortgage, put away money for the daughters to go to college, pay for music
lessons, etc. In other words, ours (meaning my family's) is a pretty
stable living and standard of living.
So, who the hell am I.....or anyone else....to sit in judgment of one whose
chosen path/vocation may not have been as stable. A flash in the pan....a
few months/years of glory....only to fade away?
I was out of work for 4 months last year due to illness (that's close to
half of my work year).....had I not an insurance plan that ensured that I
was paid in full while off my feet, what would have happened? And what
business would it be for anyone else to decide how I scraped together money
to keep food on my family's table or a roof over their heads? Also during
that time, I was in the hospital for about a month. Included during that
stay were two surgeries. The total tab for the stay was over a quarter of a
million dollars. Could I have repaid that on my salary as a teacher......
or whatever money I've made by freelance writing or playing
bars/coffeehouses/festivals? Not hardly.
I think it's best to remember that we all don't walk in the same shoes
before we cast harsh and smug judgments on those who may have
circumstances
Post by billyi
that vary greatly from our own.
Wow. Carefully reasoned, well written, well thought-out, free of rhetoric...
Are you sure you're in the right group?
TopDog
2004-04-19 01:05:31 UTC
Permalink
If I knew that Deborah Harry needed the money, I would feel differently.

Good post.
Post by billyi
Your stance may not change.....and that's noble of you (and anyone else who
takes such a stance). Now, if you can show how your noble ethics and lofty
standards have played into your own life...and ways that you've turned down
great sums of money (or, at the very least, how you've turned down the means
to keep your family and loved ones from living in poverty), then it will
give your unbendable judgment all the more credibility.
So, please, cite the circumstances of how your "stance" has been put to a
test or challenged....and how you managed to live with the loss of money and
standard of living that came from your noble and unwavering "stance."
Perhaps every rock performer/songwriter who has ever sold his/her/their song
for a commercial can learn from your stellar example and actions.
Me, I've got a decent job. I've got health benefits and an insurance plans
that even pay me if I'm out because of injury or illness.
I know when/where my next paycheck will be coming. I can plan vacations,
concerts, etc. accordingly with such security.
I'll never make a king's ransom, but we do okay....are able to afford our
mortgage, put away money for the daughters to go to college, pay for music
lessons, etc. In other words, ours (meaning my family's) is a pretty
stable living and standard of living.
So, who the hell am I.....or anyone else....to sit in judgment of one whose
chosen path/vocation may not have been as stable. A flash in the pan....a
few months/years of glory....only to fade away?
I was out of work for 4 months last year due to illness (that's close to
half of my work year).....had I not an insurance plan that ensured that I
was paid in full while off my feet, what would have happened? And what
business would it be for anyone else to decide how I scraped together money
to keep food on my family's table or a roof over their heads? Also during
that time, I was in the hospital for about a month. Included during that
stay were two surgeries. The total tab for the stay was over a quarter of a
million dollars. Could I have repaid that on my salary as a teacher......
or whatever money I've made by freelance writing or playing
bars/coffeehouses/festivals? Not hardly.
I think it's best to remember that we all don't walk in the same shoes
before we cast harsh and smug judgments on those who may have
circumstances
Post by billyi
that vary greatly from our own.
Post by Rev Rockabilly
My stance on this issue hasn't changed since the 80's...there isn't an
argument that will get me to change my mind on this issue....
I used to post as "Agent Rev" on the message board at Johnny Rivers'
website-since his association with Wal-Mart, I bid the board goodbye
(not a Beezer goodbye, either) & haven't been assoociated with it since
(the lack of critical, intelligent discussion on that message board was
also a factor in my decision.) I haven't reached for a JR CD since the
commercials started running (& I have about 15 "legit" JR CD's)
The ORIGINAL "Certified Rock & Roll Archaeologist"...accept no
substitutes
http://community.webtv.net/RevIsBack/RevRockabilly
clr
2004-04-19 01:15:12 UTC
Permalink
and it's not just debbie harry, all the blondie songs were co-written
with chris stein, who DOES need the money.

if you actually knew what you were talking about in the case of this
band, it might help your case. but all you keep demonstrating is that
you do not.

chris stein almost fucking died, debbie gave up what could have been a
lucractive solo career when she was still 'hot' to take care of him.

so now is it okay? or is she still a slut?
Post by TopDog
If I knew that Deborah Harry needed the money, I would feel differently.
Good post.
Post by billyi
Your stance may not change.....and that's noble of you (and anyone else
who
Post by billyi
takes such a stance). Now, if you can show how your noble ethics and
lofty
Post by billyi
standards have played into your own life...and ways that you've turned
down
Post by billyi
great sums of money (or, at the very least, how you've turned down the
means
Post by billyi
to keep your family and loved ones from living in poverty), then it will
give your unbendable judgment all the more credibility.
So, please, cite the circumstances of how your "stance" has been put to a
test or challenged....and how you managed to live with the loss of money
and
Post by billyi
standard of living that came from your noble and unwavering "stance."
Perhaps every rock performer/songwriter who has ever sold his/her/their
song
Post by billyi
for a commercial can learn from your stellar example and actions.
Me, I've got a decent job. I've got health benefits and an insurance
plans
Post by billyi
that even pay me if I'm out because of injury or illness.
I know when/where my next paycheck will be coming. I can plan vacations,
concerts, etc. accordingly with such security.
I'll never make a king's ransom, but we do okay....are able to afford our
mortgage, put away money for the daughters to go to college, pay for music
lessons, etc. In other words, ours (meaning my family's) is a pretty
stable living and standard of living.
So, who the hell am I.....or anyone else....to sit in judgment of one
whose
Post by billyi
chosen path/vocation may not have been as stable. A flash in the pan....a
few months/years of glory....only to fade away?
I was out of work for 4 months last year due to illness (that's close to
half of my work year).....had I not an insurance plan that ensured that I
was paid in full while off my feet, what would have happened? And what
business would it be for anyone else to decide how I scraped together
money
Post by billyi
to keep food on my family's table or a roof over their heads? Also during
that time, I was in the hospital for about a month. Included during that
stay were two surgeries. The total tab for the stay was over a quarter of
a
Post by billyi
million dollars. Could I have repaid that on my salary as a teacher......
or whatever money I've made by freelance writing or playing
bars/coffeehouses/festivals? Not hardly.
I think it's best to remember that we all don't walk in the same shoes
before we cast harsh and smug judgments on those who may have
circumstances
Post by billyi
that vary greatly from our own.
Post by Rev Rockabilly
My stance on this issue hasn't changed since the 80's...there isn't an
argument that will get me to change my mind on this issue....
I used to post as "Agent Rev" on the message board at Johnny Rivers'
website-since his association with Wal-Mart, I bid the board goodbye
(not a Beezer goodbye, either) & haven't been assoociated with it since
(the lack of critical, intelligent discussion on that message board was
also a factor in my decision.) I haven't reached for a JR CD since the
commercials started running (& I have about 15 "legit" JR CD's)
The ORIGINAL "Certified Rock & Roll Archaeologist"...accept no
substitutes
http://community.webtv.net/RevIsBack/RevRockabilly
--
=========================================
DW #001
www.jukeboxgraduate.com
Evan Z
2004-04-18 19:57:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lmmr
Post by clr
it's not your songs. it doesn't belong to you. an artist is entitled
to make a living and do whatever they want with their art. they do not
owe you anything.
Well said.
It's well said, I agree, but it's sort of irrelevant to the charge that
those artists have "sold out." Obviously artists allowed to and are entitled
to sell their songs to corporations for use in commercials. But listeners
are then allowed to and entitled to decide that singers who do that have
cheapened those songs. That's the power listeners have, and good for them
and good for all of us. A few people here have described how certain songs
just seem worse to them after seeing them in commercials (James Taylor,
etc.). That's just taste at work--not that different from the kind of taste
that tells you that you love Springsteen but can't stand, say, Bon Jovi--and
it's hard to argue with it. Anyway, there's a plenty long history of people
defining art as that which is separate from crass commercial culture.

Having said that, I think the historical moment for that "art is not
commerce" point of view has passed, and it doesn't really matter to me,
personally, if anyone I like sells their songs. The songs are commerce to
begin with, not religion. I hope Blondie, who I like a lot, makes a killing
off those commercials. All IMO of course.

ezb
Robert Wiersema
2004-04-18 20:14:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Evan Z
Post by Lmmr
Post by clr
it's not your songs. it doesn't belong to you. an artist is entitled
to make a living and do whatever they want with their art. they do not
owe you anything.
Well said.
It's well said, I agree, but it's sort of irrelevant to the charge that
those artists have "sold out."
No, it's entirely relevant. The charge is that the artist has sold out (ie,
the artist has cheapened the work by profiting from it), when in fact the
case is that the associations of the songs held by the listener have been
changed by its use in the commercial. It might seem like semantics, but
there's a crucial difference. People are criticizing the artist's actions,
when in fact it is their reaction and response which has resulted in the
change.
Post by Evan Z
Obviously artists allowed to and are entitled
to sell their songs to corporations for use in commercials. But listeners
are then allowed to and entitled to decide that singers who do that have
cheapened those songs.
No. The listener's association has changed. Has nothing to do with the
artist, or with the art itself.
Post by Evan Z
That's the power listeners have, and good for them
and good for all of us. A few people here have described how certain songs
just seem worse to them after seeing them in commercials (James Taylor,
etc.). That's just taste at work--not that different from the kind of taste
that tells you that you love Springsteen but can't stand, say, Bon Jovi--and
it's hard to argue with it. Anyway, there's a plenty long history of people
defining art as that which is separate from crass commercial culture.
Having said that, I think the historical moment for that "art is not
commerce" point of view has passed, and it doesn't really matter to me,
personally, if anyone I like sells their songs. The songs are commerce to
begin with, not religion. I hope Blondie, who I like a lot, makes a killing
off those commercials. All IMO of course.
ezb
Evan Z
2004-04-18 20:56:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by Evan Z
Post by Lmmr
Post by clr
it's not your songs. it doesn't belong to you. an artist is entitled
to make a living and do whatever they want with their art. they do
not
Post by Evan Z
Post by Lmmr
Post by clr
owe you anything.
Well said.
It's well said, I agree, but it's sort of irrelevant to the charge that
those artists have "sold out."
No, it's entirely relevant. The charge is that the artist has sold out (ie,
the artist has cheapened the work by profiting from it), when in fact the
case is that the associations of the songs held by the listener have been
changed by its use in the commercial.
Okay. So how is the fact that the artist is _entitled_ to sell the song
(which is obviously true) relevant to what you're saying? Everyone knows the
artist is entitled to sell the song. At issue is whether that sale is in
good or bad taste, and that's a matter of taste, which is all I'm saying;
it's a matter of taste whether that sale makes the song less artistic, and
(better) it's a matter of taste whether that sale make the song less
enjoyable to listen to.

Again, I don't see how the fact that the artist is entitled to sell the song
is relevant to that. It's a straw man--no one is arguing that the artist is
_not_ entitled to sell the song.

It might seem like semantics, but
Post by Robert Wiersema
there's a crucial difference. People are criticizing the artist's actions,
when in fact it is their reaction and response which has resulted in the
change.
I don't get the distinction. The criticism is the reaction--it's the
articulation of the feeling that the song has been cheapened.

Isn't all criticism--all assessments of music of books or whatever you
like--a matter of response and reaction? Perceptions of art always belong to
the audience--fans, critics, listeners, other artists, whatever. Listeners
are the ones who decide what's art and what isn't. They decide who's "sold
out" and who hasn't, and of course they decide that based on their reactions
to the actions of the artists, among many other things.
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by Evan Z
Obviously artists allowed to and are entitled
to sell their songs to corporations for use in commercials. But listeners
are then allowed to and entitled to decide that singers who do that have
cheapened those songs.
No. The listener's association has changed. Has nothing to do with the
artist, or with the art itself.
You say "No" as though you've found some grand problem with what I wrote,
and maybe you have, but the distinction you're drawing, again, is a little
too fine for me. Some listeners' opinions of some songs or singers has
changed in some subtle way that's hard to describe but is clearly deeply
felt (hence the title of this thread) and not at all uncommon--and those
opinions have changed (or those associations have changed) at least
partially in response to or because of the artists' decision to allow the
song to be used in a commercial. If you agree with that horribly written
sentence, then I'm not sure where we disagree here.

ezb
TopDog
2004-04-18 23:52:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by Evan Z
Post by Lmmr
Post by clr
it's not your songs. it doesn't belong to you. an artist is entitled
to make a living and do whatever they want with their art. they do
not
Post by Evan Z
Post by Lmmr
Post by clr
owe you anything.
Well said.
It's well said, I agree, but it's sort of irrelevant to the charge that
those artists have "sold out."
No, it's entirely relevant. The charge is that the artist has sold out (ie,
the artist has cheapened the work by profiting from it), when in fact the
case is that the associations of the songs held by the listener have been
changed by its use in the commercial. It might seem like semantics, but
there's a crucial difference. People are criticizing the artist's actions,
when in fact it is their reaction and response which has resulted in the
change.
Post by Evan Z
Obviously artists allowed to and are entitled
to sell their songs to corporations for use in commercials. But listeners
are then allowed to and entitled to decide that singers who do that have
cheapened those songs.
No. The listener's association has changed. Has nothing to do with the
artist, or with the art itself.
I think its a bit more than that. It partly has to do with the artists
motivation moving from making art, to making money no matter what the effect
on their fans perception of the art.
Lmmr
2004-04-18 23:59:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by TopDog
Post by TopDog
I think its a bit more than that. It partly has to do with the artists
motivation moving from making art, to making money no matter what the effect
on their fans perception of the art.
It moves from "making art" to "making money" the moment their is a price tag
on the album or a price on the concert ticket.
A to Z
2004-04-19 00:06:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by TopDog
Post by TopDog
Post by TopDog
I think its a bit more than that. It partly has to do with the artists
motivation moving from making art, to making money no matter what the
effect
Post by TopDog
on their fans perception of the art.
It moves from "making art" to "making money" the moment their is a price tag
on the album or a price on the concert ticket.
no, it does not, necessarily. It can in fact, be both at once. DaVinci,
Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Faulkner, Gershwin, Mozart, all made art - and
all made a living. The fact that they made a living did not keep their art
from being art, it just allowed them to be a little bit more comfortable
while doing so.

On the other, if William Faulkner had stopped working on novels to write
copy for Alpo ads, or captions for Hallmark, then he would have left art and
moved to "making money"
billyi
2004-04-19 00:36:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by A to Z
On the other, if William Faulkner had stopped working on novels to write
copy for Alpo ads, or captions for Hallmark, then he would have left art and
moved to "making money"
Yet William Faulkner did go out to Hollywood in the early 1930s to become a
screenplay writer.
The reason why? The revenue from his literary works wasn't enough for him
to make ends meet.
So, is there really a huge difference between what you've written above and
what actually happened in Faulkner's life?

It should also be noted that Faulkner penned (or, most likely typed) the
screenplays for TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT and THE BIG SLEEP....both for the
legendary director Howard Hawks. I doubt anyone would call into question
that both films are wonderful (and no doubt that is due to the ensemble
efforts of having folks such as Hawks, Faulkner, Bogart, Bacall, etc. all in
the mix).

Still, if he could produce like that....for need/want of money....perhaps
there would have been an Alpo commercial that would be worthy of "art"-like
status.

Yet, in all fairness, he did continue to write during these years: A GREEN
BOUGH (1933) ~ PYLON (1935) ~ ABSALOM, ABSALOM (1936), THE UNVANQUISHED
(1938), THE WILD PALMS (1939), THE HAMLET (1940), GO DOWN MOSES (1942) and
INTRUDER IN THE DUST (1948). Yet, one could make a reasonable argument that
his very best work was before he hit the Land of Locusts: THE SOUND AND THE
FURY (1929) ~ AS I LAY DYING (1930) and SANCTUARY (1931). I would not blame
any decline in quality of work on Faulkner being in Hollywood as much as I
would the vices to which Faulkner succumbed.

I dunno, Michelangelo painted one hell of a billboard for the Popes with his
Sistine Chapel.....
Robert Wiersema
2004-04-19 00:43:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by A to Z
Post by TopDog
Post by TopDog
Post by TopDog
I think its a bit more than that. It partly has to do with the artists
motivation moving from making art, to making money no matter what the
effect
Post by TopDog
on their fans perception of the art.
It moves from "making art" to "making money" the moment their is a price
tag
Post by TopDog
on the album or a price on the concert ticket.
no, it does not, necessarily. It can in fact, be both at once. DaVinci,
Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Faulkner, Gershwin, Mozart, all made art - and
all made a living. The fact that they made a living did not keep their art
from being art, it just allowed them to be a little bit more comfortable
while doing so.
Are you aware of just how patronizing that sounds to those of us who make a
living from artistic pursuits? Dance, monkey, dance...
For writers, painters, dancers, singers and the like, their work is to make
art. It is their job. It's not a hobby, and it's not de facto altruistic -
if you know an artist's name, it's because the creation of art is their
business.
This is my basic problem with file sharing, Napster and the like - artists
are being robbed of their ability to profit from their work. So if file
sharing is okay, but selling your songs for commercials is taboo, what does
that leave? Are singers allowed to charge for tickets, or is that too
mercenary, and against the spirit of pure art? Dance monkey, dance...
Post by A to Z
On the other, if William Faulkner had stopped working on novels to write
copy for Alpo ads, or captions for Hallmark, then he would have left art and
moved to "making money"
And what of his move to hollywood? How do you reconcile that with the
above?
And how do you reconcile the fact that most of the figures you mentioned
above had wealthy patrons to support them, or interests in theatre
companies, or a wealthy background? Art for art's sake? Bullshit. And
unduly sanctimonious of you to think so.
TopDog
2004-04-19 00:53:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Wiersema
Are you aware of just how patronizing that sounds to those of us who make a
living from artistic pursuits? Dance, monkey, dance...
For writers, painters, dancers, singers and the like, their work is to make
art. It is their job. It's not a hobby, and it's not de facto altruistic -
if you know an artist's name, it's because the creation of art is their
business.
This is my basic problem with file sharing, Napster and the like - artists
are being robbed of their ability to profit from their work. So if file
sharing is okay, but selling your songs for commercials is taboo, what does
that leave? Are singers allowed to charge for tickets, or is that too
mercenary, and against the spirit of pure art? Dance monkey, dance...
Dance monkey, dance...(TM) (R)

'Dance monkey, dance' is a service mark of Robert Wiersema.

Get a lawyer, that phrase could catch on! ;)
clr
2004-04-19 01:13:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by A to Z
Post by TopDog
Post by TopDog
Post by TopDog
I think its a bit more than that. It partly has to do with the
artists
Post by A to Z
Post by TopDog
Post by TopDog
motivation moving from making art, to making money no matter what the
effect
Post by TopDog
on their fans perception of the art.
It moves from "making art" to "making money" the moment their is a price
tag
Post by TopDog
on the album or a price on the concert ticket.
no, it does not, necessarily. It can in fact, be both at once. DaVinci,
Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Faulkner, Gershwin, Mozart, all made art - and
all made a living. The fact that they made a living did not keep their art
from being art, it just allowed them to be a little bit more comfortable
while doing so.
Are you aware of just how patronizing that sounds to those of us who make a
living from artistic pursuits? Dance, monkey, dance...
For writers, painters, dancers, singers and the like, their work is to make
art. It is their job. It's not a hobby, and it's not de facto altruistic -
if you know an artist's name, it's because the creation of art is their
business.
hey rob. neal pollack was at the pop music studies conference this
weekend, and he told the story about how he'd freelanced an article to
men's health about weight watchers for me. now, he also mentioned that
he wished of course that his fiction and more artistic writing could
give him enough money to live on, but that his "anthology" only got him
$22k (and he qualified that 'only' by saying that that was probably what
it was worth).

anyway, three months later, weight watchers calls him, would he be
willing to write some copy for their men's program? he quoted them a
number (it was $10k), he wrote it, he sent it to them, everyone was happy.

so i guess that's selling out, too.

he wasn't necessarily proud or happy about it, either, but jesus, it's
make a living from WRITING or go work at fucking starbucks or take a
soul-sucking corporate job. so instead he makes money from writing,
because, he is, after all, a WRITER.

he has been told he's "sold out" too. he finds it really funny.
TopDog
2004-04-19 00:07:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by TopDog
Post by TopDog
Post by TopDog
I think its a bit more than that. It partly has to do with the artists
motivation moving from making art, to making money no matter what the
effect
Post by TopDog
on their fans perception of the art.
It moves from "making art" to "making money" the moment their is a price tag
on the album or a price on the concert ticket.
Okay, but that's a balancing act to distribute the art.

When you license the music for an ad 10 years down the road, its most likely
purely a cash grab.

I wish I had something to license out, then I wouldn't have to waste my time
whining for nothing.
Lmmr
2004-04-19 00:20:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by TopDog
Post by TopDog
I wish I had something to license out, then I wouldn't have to waste my time
whining for nothing.
Well the urinal advertisments are taken, you can cross that off the list
TopDog
2004-04-19 00:50:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lmmr
Post by TopDog
Post by TopDog
I wish I had something to license out, then I wouldn't have to waste my
time
Post by TopDog
whining for nothing.
Well the urinal advertisments are taken, you can cross that off the list
Shhhh. I'm studying genetics!
Lmmr
2004-04-19 00:54:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by TopDog
Post by Lmmr
Post by TopDog
Post by TopDog
I wish I had something to license out, then I wouldn't have to waste my
time
Post by TopDog
whining for nothing.
Well the urinal advertisments are taken, you can cross that off the list
Shhhh. I'm studying genetics!
You should study medicine.
______________________________
Many Dutch Doctors Admit Sex with Patients

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Four percent of Dutch male doctors have admitted
having sexual contact with one or more patients, a survey published on
Saturday showed.

The survey of about a thousand family doctors conducted by sexologist Peter
Leusink in 2002 was published in the Dutch Journal of Medicine on Saturday
and covered prominently in national media, making the front page of the
Algemeen Dagblad.

Citing Leusink's results, the Algemeen Dagblad daily said 4.3 percent of
male doctors surveyed and 0.8 percent of female doctors had admitted sexual
contact with patients, in most cases with one patient, but in a third of
cases with two or three.
TopDog
2004-04-19 01:06:11 UTC
Permalink
Wrongo... I'm headed to Holland for medical treatment. Much simpler!
Post by Lmmr
Post by TopDog
Post by Lmmr
Post by TopDog
Post by TopDog
I wish I had something to license out, then I wouldn't have to
waste
Post by Lmmr
my
Post by TopDog
Post by Lmmr
time
Post by TopDog
whining for nothing.
Well the urinal advertisments are taken, you can cross that off the list
Shhhh. I'm studying genetics!
You should study medicine.
______________________________
Many Dutch Doctors Admit Sex with Patients
AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Four percent of Dutch male doctors have admitted
having sexual contact with one or more patients, a survey published on
Saturday showed.
The survey of about a thousand family doctors conducted by sexologist Peter
Leusink in 2002 was published in the Dutch Journal of Medicine on Saturday
and covered prominently in national media, making the front page of the
Algemeen Dagblad.
Citing Leusink's results, the Algemeen Dagblad daily said 4.3 percent of
male doctors surveyed and 0.8 percent of female doctors had admitted sexual
contact with patients, in most cases with one patient, but in a third of
cases with two or three.
clr
2004-04-19 01:09:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by TopDog
Post by TopDog
Post by TopDog
Post by TopDog
I think its a bit more than that. It partly has to do with the artists
motivation moving from making art, to making money no matter what the
effect
Post by TopDog
on their fans perception of the art.
It moves from "making art" to "making money" the moment their is a price
tag
Post by TopDog
on the album or a price on the concert ticket.
Okay, but that's a balancing act to distribute the art.
When you license the music for an ad 10 years down the road, its most likely
purely a cash grab.
why is your need to make al iving more valid than a musician's need to
make a living? why is your standard valid to them?
clr
2004-04-19 01:08:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by TopDog
Post by Robert Wiersema
No. The listener's association has changed. Has nothing to do with the
artist, or with the art itself.
I think its a bit more than that. It partly has to do with the artists
motivation moving from making art, to making money no matter what the effect
on their fans perception of the art.
no, it's about YOUR perception of what their motivation is.

it's not black and white. it's not cut and dried.

i just had a whole huge conversationa bout this the other day at the pop
music studies conference so i am just FIRED UP and ready to go here.
there is the ian mackaye model, which says that you should make music
for music's sake and art for art's sake and making a living off it
should never compromise the art or the music no matter what, that you
should have a straight job that finances your art or your music. and
then there is the other side, which is - why the hell shouldn't you be
able to make money?

i mean, i'm sure part of every musician's motivation is to make money
and survive off of their art and not have to get a day job. that's
there even for bruce.
--
=========================================
DW #001
www.jukeboxgraduate.com
A to Z
2004-04-18 22:10:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Evan Z
Post by Lmmr
Post by clr
it's not your songs. it doesn't belong to you. an artist is entitled
to make a living and do whatever they want with their art. they do not
owe you anything.
Well said.
It's well said, I agree, but it's sort of irrelevant to the charge that
those artists have "sold out." Obviously artists allowed to and are entitled
to sell their songs to corporations for use in commercials. But listeners
are then allowed to and entitled to decide that singers who do that have
cheapened those songs. That's the power listeners have, and good for them
and good for all of us. A few people here have described how certain songs
just seem worse to them after seeing them in commercials (James Taylor,
etc.).
that was me, re: James Taylor, and a minor quibble, one that actually
supports your next point: I never actually cared that much for JT, he was
always too depressing for me - he could make Happy Birthday and Feliz
Navidad into dirges. Seeing JT sing in a commercial did not actually change
my opinion of the song, nor of JT - it just struck me as a bit odd, and a
bit sad, to see someone who I considered unique and non-commercial in a
commercial....
Post by Evan Z
That's just taste at work--not that different from the kind of taste
that tells you that you love Springsteen but can't stand, say, Bon Jovi--and
it's hard to argue with it. Anyway, there's a plenty long history of people
defining art as that which is separate from crass commercial culture.
Having said that, I think the historical moment for that "art is not
commerce" point of view has passed, and it doesn't really matter to me,
personally, if anyone I like sells their songs. The songs are commerce to
begin with, not religion. I hope Blondie, who I like a lot, makes a killing
off those commercials. All IMO of course.
ezb
billyi
2004-04-18 21:05:17 UTC
Permalink
And with Bowie....let's see (right off the top of my head): "Modern Love"
used for Pepsi, "Heroes" used for Microsoft, "Life On Mars" used for a
French Postal Service, "Crystal Japan" written specifically to advertise a
Japanese soda in Japan, use of "Never Get Old" (along with damn near EVERY
famous Bowie persona) used in a European commercial of Vittel bottled water.

I have to say that I didn't think of France a few months ago when he did
"Life on Mars" in San Jose....I did not think of Microsoft or bottled water
when I heard "Heroes" or "Never Get Old" at either January's show or the one
from this past Friday.
Post by Lmmr
Post by clr
it's not your songs. it doesn't belong to you. an artist is entitled
to make a living and do whatever they want with their art. they do not
owe you anything.
Well said.
After reading Zeke's/Billyi's review comments on AMBS of another amazing
David Bowie concert last night in Berkeley got me looking at his website for
NY area shows.
I just hope that all of the "sell out" bashers stay true to their guns and
avoid the artist because I want to enter and win Bowie's contest with Audi
to win a brand new Audi TT Coupe.
billyi
2004-04-18 21:11:14 UTC
Permalink
Hold it.....I did think of Coca~Cola during "Modern Love" on Friday (me,
Coke over Pepsi any day)......but only because I'd gotten thirsty watching
from watching that guy work so hard down on the stage....and from my dancing
in the aisle now and then.
Post by billyi
And with Bowie....let's see (right off the top of my head): "Modern Love"
used for Pepsi, "Heroes" used for Microsoft, "Life On Mars" used for a
French Postal Service, "Crystal Japan" written specifically to advertise a
Japanese soda in Japan, use of "Never Get Old" (along with damn near EVERY
famous Bowie persona) used in a European commercial of Vittel bottled water.
I have to say that I didn't think of France a few months ago when he did
"Life on Mars" in San Jose....I did not think of Microsoft or bottled water
when I heard "Heroes" or "Never Get Old" at either January's show or the one
from this past Friday.
Post by Lmmr
Post by clr
it's not your songs. it doesn't belong to you. an artist is entitled
to make a living and do whatever they want with their art. they do not
owe you anything.
Well said.
After reading Zeke's/Billyi's review comments on AMBS of another amazing
David Bowie concert last night in Berkeley got me looking at his website
for
Post by Lmmr
NY area shows.
I just hope that all of the "sell out" bashers stay true to their guns and
avoid the artist because I want to enter and win Bowie's contest with Audi
to win a brand new Audi TT Coupe.
TopDog
2004-04-18 23:48:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by clr
it's not your songs. it doesn't belong to you. an artist is entitled
to make a living and do whatever they want with their art. they do not
owe you anything.
And no one has said anything counter to this.

I just say sometimes I don't fucking like it very much.
TopDog
2004-04-19 00:04:08 UTC
Permalink
And there's more yet to this that I haven't touched on...

And that is that with each great pop song that I love being shilled out to
some cheezy ad, I have the feeling that the march of corporate advertising
has just taken another step towards covering the world with logos and ads to
the point that it will be inescapable.

This progression, this constant search for new ways to reach 'target
markets' makes me uneasy. I feel invaded when some marketing bonehead
figures out a new way to put an ad in front of me.

I think the scariest one yet was the idea of the huge space balloon that
would advertise Coke to the world. It would just sit up in the sky
endlessly.

How long until someone figures out how to put logos in DNA so that blades of
grass shill for Scott's?

Damn, maybe I should talk about things like that - someone will probably do
it.

Does this constant progression of marketing and corporate commercialism
bother anyone else?

Does anyone else miss clean white boards in hockey with no ads on them?

Does anyone else think that little screens in front of urinals running ads
while you piss are excessive?
A to Z
2004-04-19 00:10:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by TopDog
And there's more yet to this that I haven't touched on...
And that is that with each great pop song that I love being shilled out to
some cheezy ad, I have the feeling that the march of corporate advertising
has just taken another step towards covering the world with logos and ads to
the point that it will be inescapable.
This progression, this constant search for new ways to reach 'target
markets' makes me uneasy. I feel invaded when some marketing bonehead
figures out a new way to put an ad in front of me.
I think the scariest one yet was the idea of the huge space balloon that
would advertise Coke to the world. It would just sit up in the sky
endlessly.
well that was just dumb
Post by TopDog
How long until someone figures out how to put logos in DNA so that blades of
grass shill for Scott's?
if they can also figure out a way for it to stay green, and stay 2 inches
long, I'll take it
Post by TopDog
Does anyone else miss clean white boards in hockey with no ads on them?
YES! not as much as the damn super-imposed ads behind home plate, or the ads
under the ice between the blue lines, but yes! I watched the highlight sho
of the 1981 Stanley Cup playoffs on ESPN Classic a few days, and was
thinking about that.
Post by TopDog
Does anyone else think that little screens in front of urinals running ads
while you piss are excessive?
I like the places that put copies of the USAToday or local sports section.
Sometimes I drink more just so I have to go back and finish the story...
TopDog
2004-04-18 01:30:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by TopDog
Blondie - One Way or Another
That's okay though, Deborah's hagged out now.
The nerve of an artist making a living from their art... The unmitigated
gall.
I guess 40 million records sold isn't enough of a 'living'.
Robert Wiersema
2004-04-18 01:42:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by TopDog
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by TopDog
Blondie - One Way or Another
That's okay though, Deborah's hagged out now.
The nerve of an artist making a living from their art... The unmitigated
gall.
I guess 40 million records sold isn't enough of a 'living'.
So now we can tell people how much they're allowed to make, and anything
more than that is selling out? Is there a handy chart I could refer to -
someone in retail is allowed to make X before they're a sell-out? A
computer programmer is allowed to make Y? A rock band is allowed to sell X
million records, but anything over or beyond that means they're selling out?
That's ridiculous... and a surprising dispatch from the land of king
dollar. I thought that the American Dream was to live free and profit as
much as possible?
Lmmr
2004-04-18 02:05:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Wiersema
I thought that the American Dream was to live free and profit as
much as possible?
"After all, the chief business of the American people is business...."
Calvin Coolidge in a 1925 speech
TopDog
2004-04-18 03:41:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by TopDog
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by TopDog
Blondie - One Way or Another
That's okay though, Deborah's hagged out now.
The nerve of an artist making a living from their art... The
unmitigated
Post by TopDog
Post by Robert Wiersema
gall.
I guess 40 million records sold isn't enough of a 'living'.
So now we can tell people how much they're allowed to make, and anything
more than that is selling out?
No... in this case, though, my sell out detector went off. It's a personal
opinion.


Is there a handy chart I could refer to -
Post by Robert Wiersema
someone in retail is allowed to make X before they're a sell-out? A
computer programmer is allowed to make Y? A rock band is allowed to sell X
million records, but anything over or beyond that means they're selling out?
That's ridiculous... and a surprising dispatch from the land of king
dollar. I thought that the American Dream was to live free and profit as
much as possible?
I'm not going to get drawn into a stupid argument over this. Trying to
quantify where selling out begins is a fruitless enterprise.

Finally, I hope my American friends are not offended at your finger-pointing
and assumptions about the 'land of king dollar'.
A to Z
2004-04-18 03:46:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by TopDog
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by TopDog
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by TopDog
Blondie - One Way or Another
That's okay though, Deborah's hagged out now.
The nerve of an artist making a living from their art... The
unmitigated
Post by TopDog
Post by Robert Wiersema
gall.
I guess 40 million records sold isn't enough of a 'living'.
So now we can tell people how much they're allowed to make, and anything
more than that is selling out?
No... in this case, though, my sell out detector went off. It's a personal
opinion.
Is there a handy chart I could refer to -
Post by Robert Wiersema
someone in retail is allowed to make X before they're a sell-out? A
computer programmer is allowed to make Y? A rock band is allowed to
sell
Post by TopDog
X
Post by Robert Wiersema
million records, but anything over or beyond that means they're selling
out?
Post by Robert Wiersema
That's ridiculous... and a surprising dispatch from the land of king
dollar. I thought that the American Dream was to live free and profit as
much as possible?
I'm not going to get drawn into a stupid argument over this. Trying to
quantify where selling out begins is a fruitless enterprise.
Finally, I hope my American friends are not offended at your
finger-pointing
Post by TopDog
and assumptions about the 'land of king dollar'.
or about the land of Top Dog...

or is that TO Dog
TopDog
2004-04-18 03:47:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by TopDog
Post by TopDog
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by TopDog
Post by Robert Wiersema
Post by TopDog
Blondie - One Way or Another
That's okay though, Deborah's hagged out now.
The nerve of an artist making a living from their art... The
unmitigated
Post by TopDog
Post by Robert Wiersema
gall.
I guess 40 million records sold isn't enough of a 'living'.
So now we can tell people how much they're allowed to make, and anything
more than that is selling out?
No... in this case, though, my sell out detector went off. It's a personal
opinion.
Is there a handy chart I could refer to -
Post by Robert Wiersema
someone in retail is allowed to make X before they're a sell-out? A
computer programmer is allowed to make Y? A rock band is allowed to
sell
Post by TopDog
X
Post by Robert Wiersema
million records, but anything over or beyond that means they're selling
out?
Post by Robert Wiersema
That's ridiculous... and a surprising dispatch from the land of king
dollar. I thought that the American Dream was to live free and profit
as
Post by TopDog
Post by Robert Wiersema
much as possible?
I'm not going to get drawn into a stupid argument over this. Trying to
quantify where selling out begins is a fruitless enterprise.
Finally, I hope my American friends are not offended at your
finger-pointing
Post by TopDog
and assumptions about the 'land of king dollar'.
or about the land of Top Dog...
or is that TO Dog
Used to be... now it's the land of King-ston dollar...

Doesn't matter though... I'm hagged out now.
Foxy1Vixen
2004-04-18 02:21:58 UTC
Permalink
There you go, no one in The Who or Led Zeppelin gets called "slut" or "hagged
out". But they sold out too. I guess that's why they call it a man's world?
=========================

<< Blondie - One Way or Another

That's okay though, Deborah's hagged out now.
<BR><BR>
Matt Orel
2004-04-18 02:35:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Foxy1Vixen
There you go, no one in The Who or Led Zeppelin gets called "slut" or "hagged
out".
Maybe so (or perhaps not), but I distinctly recall Mick Jagger managing to call
himself a slut once on SNL.

--Matt

But they sold out too. I guess that's why they call it a man's world?
Post by Foxy1Vixen
=========================
<< Blondie - One Way or Another
That's okay though, Deborah's hagged out now.
<BR><BR>
A to Z
2004-04-18 03:18:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Orel
Post by Foxy1Vixen
There you go, no one in The Who or Led Zeppelin gets called "slut" or "hagged
out".
Maybe so (or perhaps not), but I distinctly recall Mick Jagger managing to call
himself a slut once on SNL.
and most of the stones are hagged out....
Post by Matt Orel
--Matt
But they sold out too. I guess that's why they call it a man's world?
Post by Foxy1Vixen
=========================
<< Blondie - One Way or Another
That's okay though, Deborah's hagged out now.
<BR><BR>
TopDog
2004-04-18 03:43:26 UTC
Permalink
Led Zep / Cadillac is about the worst sell out I've ever seen and I've said
so before.

Keith Richards is the king of hagged out.
Post by Foxy1Vixen
There you go, no one in The Who or Led Zeppelin gets called "slut" or "hagged
out". But they sold out too. I guess that's why they call it a man's world?
=========================
<< Blondie - One Way or Another
That's okay though, Deborah's hagged out now.
<BR><BR>
clr
2004-04-18 18:48:21 UTC
Permalink
please note:
"By the release of 1982's The Hunter, Blondie had split. Despite
continuing with a solo career, Harry spent much of her time nursing
Stein, who began suffering from the rare genetic illness pemphigus.
After nearly dying, Stein recovered and continued to assist Harry with
her solo records. He also produced acts for his Animal Records."

but, you know, she's "hagged out" so chris should dump her after all.

i realize TD has me killfiled so he won't see any of this, but my god.
chris stein almost fucking DIED. he had to give up his career, as did
debbie. and now they have a chance to make some money and 1) suddenly
it's all HER fault and 2) they're not 'allowed' to.

i'm so completely disgusted by the ignorance and the hypocricy in this
thread, almost more than anything i've seen on rmas. you call yourself
a FAN of this music?

==========================

Blondie's Chris Stein


by Frank Tortorici


Chris Stein (lower left) has fully recovered from his near fatal illness.

Just as 1997 marked the return of '70s supergroup Fleetwood Mac, 1999
could be the year for the comeback of another highly successful '70s
band, Blondie.

New-wave pioneers Blondie plan to make their first television appearance
since 1982 on the American Music Awards, Jan. 11. Rapper Coolio is
scheduled to appear with the band when it performs the title track from
its upcoming album, No Exit. The LP, due in stores Feb. 23, is the first
set of new material from the group -- now comprising key members
including singer Deborah Harry, guitarist Chris Stein, drummer Clem
Burke and keyboardist Jimmy Destri -- in almost 17 years.

Though the quartet had been threatened last year by legal action from
former members Nigel Harrison and Frank Infante (who are not part of the
reunion at this point), it appears all systems are go.
Stein, whose musical visions -- along with those of then-girlfriend
Harry -- shaped the band in the '70s, was born 49 years ago today in
Brooklyn, N.Y. In 1973, after graduating from New York's School of
Visual Arts, Stein joined the glitter rock band the Stilettoes, which
included Harry. As the lineup shuffled, Stein and Harry took over the
direction of the band, which morphed into Angel and the Snakes and then
Blondie.

Blondie were a fixture at the Manhattan punk mecca CBGB's in the
mid-'70s; there, they gained attention with their quasi girl-group punk
sound and Harry's Marilyn Monroe-ish looks. Blondie's eponymous indie
debut, featuring the single "(Se)X Offender," increased the band's
audience in late 1976. Plastic Letters followed the next year.

At first, Blondie's signing to Chrysalis Records for the Mike
Chapman-produced Parallel Lines (1978) didn't seem to be the commercial
break the band needed. But by mid-1979, the disco-tinged "Heart of
Glass" (RealAudio excerpt) hit #1 in the U.S., propelling the LP to
platinum status and making Blondie a superstar act. Eat to the Beat
(1979) also went platinum and Blondie had the biggest-selling single of
1980 with "Call Me," the theme to the Richard Gere box-office hit,
"American Gigolo."

Two subsequent #1's -- the reggae-ish "The Tide Is High" and "Rapture"
-- from 1980's Autoamerican were a mixed blessing for Blondie. While
they added to the group's chart success, the songs' divergent styles
were emblematic of a musical rift growing in the band.

Stein and Harry, who wrote most of the songs, were becoming more
eclectic in their tastes, while the other members generally wanted to
continue with the band's successful punk-pop formula.

By the release of 1982's The Hunter, Blondie had split. Despite
continuing with a solo career, Harry spent much of her time nursing
Stein, who began suffering from the rare genetic illness pemphigus.
After nearly dying, Stein recovered and continued to assist Harry with
her solo records. He also produced acts for his Animal Records.

But Stein largely was absent from press coverage until last year, when
rumors increasingly surfaced that Blondie were re-forming. Along with
Harry, Burke and Destri, Stein re-entered the studio in 1998 to record
the forthcoming No Exit.

The first single from the album, produced by Craig Leon (Ramones), will
be "Maria." Other tracks include "Screaming Skin," "Forgive And Forget,"
"Nothing Is Real But The Girl," "Boom Boom In The Zoom Zoom Room" and
"Happy Dog."

"When a band like Blondie re-forms, you wish them the best," said Joey
Ramone, a friend and contemporary of Blondie during his years with punk
legends the Ramones. "Because they were a great band and there's so much
sh-- out there, you hope something good comes of this thing."

"[Blondie] decided they didn't want to put out a greatest-hits album,"
Blondie manager Ed Thomas said. "They wanted to make a record that
doesn't feel like a comeback record. They wanted to make an album that
sounds like a Blondie record taken to the next level."

Other birthdays: Thom Mooney (Nazz), 51; George "Funky" Brown (Kool and
the Gang), 50; and Grant Young (ex-Soul Asylum), 35.
Loading...