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
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.
Make as much as you can while you can, most bands dont have a shelf life like The Stones' so rake it in while you can and get over it.
Kudos to Tom Waits for suing that car company for ripping off his singing style. But in the end it's really more a question of "when" rather than "if" almost any popular song will be used to sell soap, Starbucks, or maybe botox or motorized wheelchairs. If it doesn't happen in an artist's lifetime, then his estate will probably do it. Choice of placement can make a difference. Iggy Pop can probably smile at the irony of "Lust for Life" covering a cruise-line commercial, and "Happy Jack" as background to a bunch of kids riding around on toy Hummers is more acceptable than "Who Are You" as the CSI theme song. When the royalities keep the wolf at the door it's OK: it was painful to see Roger Daltry a few years back making ends meet by peddling Time/Life 60's compilations on 3AM infomercials. But Peter Noone belongs there. Like Kubla I suspect Neil Young never will.