Artists 'SELLING OUT' - can we discuss?

John Densmore of the Doors had a great article in The Nation some years back in which he succintly laid out his rationale for not allowing the Doors music to be used as a selling "hook". His two bandmates were of a decidedly different mind. Of course, it was those same band members who thought a Doors reunion concert without Jim Morrison was a grand idea. I must admit that while I don't care at all what bands do with their music long after its expiration date (or at any time), I was a bit dismayed when I heard Peter Gabriel's Solsbury Hill on the telephone ad. Perhaps he donated all the proceeds from the licensing to Amnesty International or Doctors Without Borders or the Peter Gabriel Fund.

I think one needs to think of selling music through commercial endeavor as an extension of their profession and equate it with whatever job or profession you are employed.

A band may start off rehearsing in a basement, garage, loft etc... If they get gigs and eventually a record deal, and play to larger audiences it is equivalent of you or I getting a promotion or raise and being wooed by another company.

If you believe that artists who decide to license their music to a company or sell their catalog for compensation then I hope you turned down your promotion or raise because you have decided that you do not want any further economic rewards for your occupation because you just love doing your job and that is reward enough

Bianchi27, your argument is flawed in that you can't compare an "artists" work to that of most people's jobs. If you believe in "art" as something other than a commodity that is.

Well, maybe my perspective would be different if I had talent, and were a working musician. Hey, the classic groups of the '60's and '70's had grueling tour schedules, enless hours in the studios, constant creative and personnel conflicts, and were always getting screwed by their record labels. So maybe to them, it was primarily just a job!

I don't have a problem with the "B" list groups making some extra money. By "B" list, I'm not referring to talent, just fame & money. But I do hate it when commercials change the lyrics to hawk the product...a musical venial sin, IMHO! I was actually amazed to hear the Buzzcocks song EVERYBODY'S HAPPY NOWADAYS for some SUV ad. Good for them!

I do hate it when the "A" list groups sell out!! How did the piss away all of their millions, or do they just want more millions? The Stones are now a corporate enterprise, and charge hundreds of dollars to see their "Dead Men Waking Tours", not to mention that Mick hasn't been able to sing live for 20 years! I feel like the "A" listers are "pimping out" their children to make more money. But I do agree with Dgarretson concerning the use of the Who's HAPPY JACK for Hummer. I actually liked that one, because I thought that the commercial artistically portrayed Jack as a kid!

Sir Paul is the worst of the worst. I remember years ago when he was halking a credit card as a concert tour tie-in. "You can only buy tickets with the XXX-card", he merrily gleamed, as he sold out all of his integrity, in one stroke. Well, I hope he put some money aside, as his divorce is going to cost him...BIG TIME. Marrying a girl young enough to be his daughter, without a pre-nuptial...I guess that confirms that he wasn't the brains of the Beatles! Sell Paul, sell [out].

What is it about musicians (and by implication other artist) that makes so many people begrudge them the right to make an honest dollar? Being a musician is a job! It's a way to put food on the family table. It's also a very hard and extremely competitive occupation. Public taste is fickle and there's always some new kid in town who spent his entire adolescence in his family's basement learning everyone of your solos. And that's assuming you achieve some level of success which practically speaking is highly unlikely since most musicians cannot support themselves without taking day jobs. (Buddy Guy drove a truck for nearly a decade after cutting his first records.) After years of playing in bars, endless touring and getting ripped off by record companies/agents someone offers you 5 or 6 figures for a song you did a decade ago. And because of that someone has the gall to say you're selling out! Maybe the artist is thinking of a piano player or drummer he worked with for 20 years who died in a ward room of a public hospital of cancer (all those nights in smokey bars) and how people had to take up a collection for his funeral expenses.

But of course a different standard is used when the artist is successful. But can anyone explain to me why Sir Paul, MIck & Keith, Smokey, Dylan or Eric shouldn't be billionaires? But then again, by some of the replies here Shakespeare or Mozart would be relegated to performing on street corners for spare change. In a meritocracy talent is rewarded.