[Jeff Guidry]

Dunno why my King Diamond picture isn't loading....but I thought it was a funny joke......

Anyway, I got over being "betrayed" by favorite artists a while ago. Their music is not my personal property that I have control over. They do, and if they feel it is appropriate or necessary in some way to lend their music to a product, it's really not any of my business. The important thing is that I don't let it get in the way of my enjoyment of the song whether it is in a commerical or not. I've heard Iz's version of "Over The Rainbow" in commercials, and it does not detract one whit from my opinion that his version is deeply beautiful and is the definitive one, no disrespect to Judy Garland.

Stop thinking of another artists music as something that you own in any way. Then you can go on to enjoy it as it is meant to be enjoyed, a walk into the mind and feelings of the artist. You're not moving in, so don't bring all your books and furniture.......

 

[Dr.Love]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimauled /img/forum/go_quote.gif Of course I feel betrayed. Her music speaks of longing, isolation, the difficulty of connecting with another human being. That's her thing and we buy into it, we listen because we think she has something to say about these issues. And the bottom line is that it isn't what a person says, it's what they DO...and what she did was offer her image up to a company selling diamonds...which is to say, hey, this may be an answer to longing, isolation and the difficulty of connecting with others...just like the commercial says. or it may be to say, screw it, i'm just as money-hungry as the next person. and you have to ask if i really feel betrayed? I've licensed music for films and although the fees vary wildly, I would bet she didn't get more than $50-100k for that. If she needed money she could do more shows or she could have chosen to lend her music to something of more value and something more akin to her music and her message for that money but she chose not to. bad choice. How would you feel if John Lennon were alive and sold one of his songs about peace to mcdonalds? would you feel betrayed? exactly my point. the only thing that's "silly" here is that people don't see the hypocrisy. the only thing "silly" with all due respect, is that you think 'a pile of money' and the short duration '30 seconds' somehow justifies, in effect, denouncing everything you've been sining about your entire life.

A John Lennon song was used in a Nike add many years ago. Go worship a toy surprise that can be had in a Happy Meal (if they still offer them), you won't be offended or let down, pedestal sold separately though.

It's fine for your favorite bands to sell illegal narcotics and other junk/poor lifestyle choices but when it's a product you don't use or particularly like you are suddenly outraged? **** and go call the O'Reily Factor he'd understand, by the way don't forget to buy the no spin zone coffee mug and cap.

Too bad Cat Power wasn't doing a tampon add, lots of people could really use some in here.

Yoko Ono probably takes midol with her heroin, so you should go get some midol for those cramps. Paul McCartney and Ringo probably do as well!

 

[Night Surfer]

Well for some people it goes beyond the music to include what the artist stands for and/or what their message is. Those aspects become an inseparable part of the music. Why is that hard to understand?

 

[dsavitsk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Night Surfer /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yeah, I was even slightly uncomfortable the first time I heard my once-beloved Led Zeppelin on a Cadillac commercial! Not for any moral reasons, and I was not nearly the rabid Ledhead I had once been, but it still smelled of "sell-out".

IIRC, Cadillac wanted their slogan to be "Break on Through" rather than what they ended up using, which is "Break Through", but the former members of the Doors refused to sell their song so GM was forced to go second tier

I am a pretty big Cat Power fan, but this is pretty sad.

Oh, and maybe it doesn't matter to him, but sexism such as that from Dr.Love is pathetic, and enough to get one onto my ignore list.

 

[Night Surfer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsavitsk /img/forum/go_quote.gif Oh, and maybe it doesn't matter to him, but sexism such as that from Dr.Love is pathetic, and enough to get one onto my ignore list.

Agreed.

 

[Davey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Night Surfer /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well for some people it goes beyond the music to include what the artist stands for and/or what their message is. Those aspects become an inseparable part of the music. Why is that hard to understand?

We all understand what he is saying, but Minimauled seems to have invented a Cat Power persona of his own design, and then takes offense when that invented persona lets him down. If the diamond commerce offends you, get mad at Yusaf Islam for allowing one of his songs to be used in their marketing campaign. Or say you are disappointed in Chan's ethics for singing it, but to say she is denouncing her whole music career?

 

[The Actual]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davey /img/forum/go_quote.gif Or say you are disappointed in Chan's ethics for singing it, but to say she is denouncing her whole music career?

For me at least, the connections to musicians I have never even met can be very personal. They put effort into creating something of their own, and I can spend years listening to it. It is hard not to become attached to something greater than just the sounds encoded on a CD when I experience such emotional connections to it.

In this sense, being disappointed in someone and feeling betrayed by his/her actions are very similar.
I'll admit that I don't listen to Chan Marshall's music except for that one song she made with El-P, so news that another musician has contributed material to a mainstream corporation's commercial is not really a big deal to me, but I totally understand that this might be a much bigger deal to someone else.

The bottom line to me is that Minimauled feels betrayed and disappointed, and it's not fair for anyone to try invalidating that feeling, right?

 

[Minimauled]

For what it's worth, some artists don't own their catalog and don't have any say on how their music is used. Such is the case with much of the Beatles catalog, for example.

 

[Jeff Guidry]

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Actual /img/forum/go_quote.gif The bottom line to me is that Minimauled feels betrayed and disappointed, and it's not fair for anyone to try invalidating that feeling, right?

That implies that Minimauled and anyone else that feels betrayed and disappointed when an artist uses their music for commercial purposes has a valid reason for feeling so. If that is true, then what can they then ethically do to resolve this valid feeling? What actions are validated by their betrayal and disappointment?

The point I'm getting at is that it is a delicate, perhaps bordering on dangerous thing that people believe that an artist not living up to their own personal standards is a reason to feel betrayed. It opens the door for all sorts of validations and justifications of bizarre behavior.

You really ought not invest that much of yourself into the art of anyone. It's not healthy. It smacks of a lack of personal identity, borrowing one from someone else in order to feel whole. You simply cannot rely on the actions of others to fit your own worldview...............you will ALWAYS be disappointed......

 

[Thelonious Monk]

what the last guy said.. it's art. not the girl you loved cheating on you.

 

[Davey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Actual /img/forum/go_quote.gif The bottom line to me is that Minimauled feels betrayed and disappointed, and it's not fair for anyone to try invalidating that feeling, right?

Wow, you guys are taking this discussion way too seriously. It's just a discussion, who's trying to invalidate anyone's feelings? All I said to Minimauled is that it seemed silly to me to feel betrayed by what an artist does, but that's just me. Has nothing to do with anyone else. Everyone is perfectly free to feel betrayed regardless of my views

Personally, I felt a little bit betrayed by some of the songs on her last album that meandered into MOR territory, but when she is on, like in "Metal Heart", or "Shaking Paper", or ex-boyfriend Bill Callahan's "Bathysphere", or "Colors and the Kids", or "Love and Communication", or a bunch of others, she really gets to me.

Who else do you guys like along these same lines?

 

[Minimauled]

everybody chill. my point is simple. I don't like when artists purport to represent certain values and ideas and gain a fan base who share similar views and then for a paycheck go against those views therefore betraying their fans. how hard is that to understand? it's called selling out.

 

[skullguise]

I'm somewhat with Minimauled. Even though it doesn't make a difference to me personally about Chan Marshall (I do like her music, but am not a big fan per se), I WOULD be bothered if it was someone whose music and personal values - if they care to show them - I DO care about.

To me, it just means he is a big fan. Nothing wrong with that at all.

There are a couple artists/bands who sold their music to commercials, and I'm happy for them. The Buzzcocks sold a song for (I think) a Nissan commercial, and Iggy Pop sold "Lust For Life" for perhaps several things. I'm happy for them, and don't really feel they sold out.

 

[Knockturne]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimauled /img/forum/go_quote.gif Of course I feel betrayed. Her music speaks of longing, isolation, the difficulty of connecting with another human being. That's her thing and we buy into it, we listen because we think she has something to say about these issues. And the bottom line is that it isn't what a person says, it's what they DO...and what she did was offer her image up to a company selling diamonds...which is to say, hey, this may be an answer to longing, isolation and the difficulty of connecting with others...just like the commercial says. or it may be to say, screw it, i'm just as money-hungry as the next person. and you have to ask if i really feel betrayed? I've licensed music for films and although the fees vary wildly, I would bet she didn't get more than $50-100k for that. If she needed money she could do more shows or she could have chosen to lend her music to something of more value and something more akin to her music and her message for that money but she chose not to. bad choice. How would you feel if John Lennon were alive and sold one of his songs about peace to mcdonalds? would you feel betrayed? exactly my point. the only thing that's "silly" here is that people don't see the hypocrisy. the only thing "silly" with all due respect, is that you think 'a pile of money' and the short duration '30 seconds' somehow justifies, in effect, denouncing everything you've been sining about your entire life.

Huh? It wasn't even her music was it? It was Cat Stevens'...she was just selling her voice, not her art.

 

[amphead]

Just can't see why artists who don't particularly need the money, and are part of rock history would cheapen themselves.