Artists 'SELLING OUT' - can we discuss?



So, regardless of Chan in particular, what do you think of artists lending their music (and therefore their image, etc) to sell products?

(btw, I realize some artists don't own all of their catalog and don't have control over how their music is used, for example : The Beatles.)
kublakhan
Kubla- I agree with you. Selling, is not the same as selling out. If Neil Young sells the rights to use "The damage done" in an anti-heroin commercial, more power to him; if he sells the rights to "Bluebird" to a company that had named its latest attack fighter plane "Bluebird" that would be selling out!!!!!
swampwalker, this is what started me off again thinking about the subject of this post. Chan Marshall (Cat Power) sings about isolation, the fear of reaching out for love, etc... and now she is on a commercial singing some song promoting diamonds. first of all, nobody should be lending their music to sell diamonds, imo, but least of all chan marshall. so she's really disappointed me.

I need to add this to my list:

3. John Coltrane (had he lived past 40 he would never have sold out. Never. Not for anything.)
i would humbly submit that to purport to know what is in the heart and mind of another in terms of how they choose to apply their art is a flawed premise. not trying to pick a fight. freewill + human nature + democracy = shit happens. sorry it bothers you so.
musicdoc, i agree in chan's case but in others' they make a great effort to be unmistakably clear what their music is about and then so often sell out.

"freewill + human nature = democracy = shit happens." talk about nonsensical.
Kubla:
an artist who has made a living purporting certain values, who has created a fan base who share those values (...) suddenly for nothing more than another paycheck goes against those values
Are you raising the question of financial supremacy, i.e., "for the right amount of money, anything can be bought" or is it more of a moral question: "with people/in times, of weak(ening) moral fibre, cash rules over personal beliefs?

Both perhaps.

My answer to either would be, I don't really know. I would personally side with the proposition, "stick to what you preach", as you do.
BUT consider the following:
1) an obscure artist -- obscure to the mass market -- may see this as a way to touch many more people... One example: many years ago, before most of our times, there was a hit called "Those were the days (my friend)". This song referred to the Spring of Prague (short-lived revolution against Soviet rule in Czech). Not the sort of music to play in the erstwhile Soviet Union. However, as a "hit", this song WAS played in certain other Soviet countries... however unlikely and unexpected this would seem. OK, maybe an extreme case.

2) The "human" + financial side: some artists grow older. Playing their song -- even in a commercial -- may make them feel there's a come back (and it helps the industry resell their work).

3) The "human side"-2: some people may feel there is recognition in their work being chosen -- even for a commercial.

I don't know if, for example, Chan, subscribes to any of the above, however.