TARGET>The Beatles> I've had it!

[forge]

I'm sorry, but I find attacks on artists for signing with a major label to be very immature and art school-ish (anyone who went to art school knows the guy I'm talking about).

B: I do not come from even the middle class. I actually grew up in log cabins and trailer homes. G.E.D. and IQ over 140 somewhere it's been a while....

C: Money is bullshit, people who think money and big labels will solve their problems, and make them famous are delusional.

D: You of course have to pretend it's an art school concept, that politics, and ethics have nothing to do with it, that only those from the middle an upper class would EVER turn down money. The fact that I am staunchly lower class in upbringing kind of screws up this consistent thread in this debate that people who think like that about their music are all part of the upper crust anyway.
.

dont know if that's directed at my comments but I made a comment about that, so..

sure it was a blanket statement and I'm not saying for a second it applies to everyone

I just meant in my experience - I was poor too in background - things improved as I got older but I do understand having to go without and my comment was based on the fact that often I found the people who had these ideas of money not being important were often the kids who were pretty priviledged and then rejected it when they got older and decided to become punks or hippies when they decided not to follow their parents Ideals etc

even sidartha buddha was a prince and then chose to leave it behind - I'd be interested to see how different his journey would have been if he started poor then got rich somehow

you know maybe what I'm saying is most applicable to hip-hop - cause so many of them started out poor there is absolutely no shame in them chasing the bling (as someone else said earlier)

public enemy were always political but did they ever turn down cash?? (I'm actually asking there because I dont actually know! )

you get what I mean though

[Thinktanx]

I'm sorry, but I find attacks on artists for signing with a major label to be very immature and art school-ish (anyone who went to art school knows the guy I'm talking about).

A: I never went to art school.

B: I do not come from even the middle class. I actually grew up in log cabins and trailer homes. G.E.D. and IQ over 140 somewhere it's been a while....

C: Money is bullshit, people who think money and big labels will solve their problems, and make them famous are delusional.

D: You of course have to pretend it's an art school concept, that politics, and ethics have nothing to do with it, that only those from the middle an upper class would EVER turn down money. The fact that I am staunchly lower class in upbringing kind of screws up this consistent thread in this debate that people who think like that about their music are all part of the upper crust anyway.

E: basically music sucks now because people are all wishy washy wanna be's, nobody will go against eh grain, everybody jumps on any new sound until it becomes cliche, and wait around for the next idea from the underground to emulate and use in the next Brittiny Spears commercial/song.

F: Punk rock is such an obvious example of this, there were a lot of really good, interesting and different bands coming out of the DIY scene in the 80's, by the 90's the mainstream had latched on and signed a few, and they all sound the same, and it's stale as fuck.

A. You sure drew a lot out of a simple statement I made. Notice said statement said nothing about class issues, I.Q., or even money at all. Nor was it intended to. It was simply an inside joke for those of us who went to art school. There was always that guy who liked to go on and on about "sell-outs". I find it to be infantile, that is, the notion that if someone makes any money off their art, then they automatically relinquish any artistic integrity. It goes hand-in-hand with the foolish myth of the 'suffering artist'.

B. My comment wasn't directed at you, particularly, but whatever, you seemed to take it personally.

C. You conveniently left out the rest of my post that clarified the first statement, so here it is again (this way I don't have to repeat myself):

Who said it was all about making cash? For some, yes. For others, it is about reaching the widest audience possible. There is no shame in that. If you make art for yourself, and yourself only, to enjoy, then so be it. There are others who create art to, hopefully, contribute to culture, and that requires an audience of some kind. And without those artists who do contribute to culture, the world would be an ugly, ugly place.

D. Your statement listed as E, this one:

E: basically music sucks now because people are all wishy washy wanna be's, nobody will go against eh grain, everybody jumps on any new sound until it becomes cliche, and wait around for the next idea from the underground to emulate and use in the next Brittiny Spears commercial/song.

If you think music sucks now that is your problem. I happen to think there are a lot of people out there making great art. Some of it, although not much, is even on the charts. Trendy shit is trendy shit, and it happens on independent labels just as much as it does on majors. People will always jump on bandwagons, and ideas will become diluted. The true artist simply moves on to creating more exciting things.

[pulsoc]

The whole issue of being a sell-out is a question of whether an artist practices what they preach. If a musician professes anticorporatism, antiestablishmentarism or whatever, then shills out to Microsoft. It's like if Karl Marx decided to become a spokesman for Bank of America - it's hypocritical and fans (who probably identified with the message as much as the music) feel betrayed.

And it's true that both
a. Most musicians have no control over whether their music is used in commercials
b. IMHO The last music to really have a political message was rap. However, the past 15 years have seen a complete degeneration of rap as a tool of communication, education, and unification to utterly vapid nonsense. I mean, have you listened to Ludacris and compared him to, say, Ice-cube? Back to back it is like the difference between a college professor and a retarded five year old. And guess who's making the money?

[Thinktanx]

The whole issue of being a sell-out is a question of whether an artist practices what they preach. If a musician professes anticorporatism, antiestablishmentarism or whatever, then shills out to Microsoft. It's like if Karl Marx decided to become a spokesman for Bank of America - it's hypocritical and fans (who probably identified with the message as much as the music) feel betrayed.

Again, I absolutely agree with this line of thinking.

[noisetonepause]

"I'm no longer selling out, I'm buying in"

[Machinesworking]

It was simply an inside joke for those of us who went to art school.

Hey, look, you posted on a public forum and you made a blanket statement, (and it was, no denying that), about people who talk about artists selling out etc.
Those of us who didn't go to art school, and get tired of people trying to claim nowadays that there is no real reason to call anybody a sell out etc.. or that it comes from an art school mindset (who's students are middle and upper class, more than 99%), that's why I read your statement as being about the hypocrisy of the concept etc.

Anyway this is redundant, people don't have a concept of an underground anymore, so why would it be a bother to sell out?

[Thinktanx]

Anyway this is redundant, people don't have a concept of an underground anymore, so why would it be a bother to sell out?

Well, I guess the internet has mostly killed that concept, yeah. I mean it is a simple fact of life these days that info travels faster, thus, before local scenes have time to really nurture themselves and grow artistically, they usually become commodity. I would agree with that mostly.

A blanket statement is "a vague and noncommittal statement asserting a premise without providing evidence or facts." I made a joke for those of us who have been to art school about 'that guy who sits in the corner and constantly slags off every successful or semi-successful artist in the world and calls them sell-outs.' It is kind of a running joke in that world. You, who has not been to art school and really has no frame of reference for my comment, took that statement and made all kinds of assumptions about it, attaching sociological, political, and ethical connotations to it. None of which were implied at all. And I can assure you that more than 99% of the kids at my school were not middle or upper class, nor, again, does it really matter as it pertains to my prior comment.

What's funny is that I actually agree with a lot of what you said. So, sorry for the confusion. I understand that you see things your way, so my comment struck you differently than it might someone else. I think we have now officially taken this thread entirely off course.

[Machinesworking]

I have to make some noise here so I'll keep this short. People used to think that it was more important to be totally self sufficient, and make, produce, and market your music yourself, than to have your records at Wall Mart. There used to be underground record labels, and people used to enjoy the fact that kids had to actually want to buy the music etc.
When I was a kid we would get all happy to get underground music from the city, another Dead Kennedys or Residents, or Coil etc. It was refreshing that these were not being sold alongside Journey.
Fugazi were offered major label deals all the time, and they never took those offers, they sold gold on a minor, which is equivalent to selling double platinum on a major. There are plenty of examples.
This is a good start.
http://mitvma.mit.edu/~mhb/ALBINI.HTML

[Thinktanx]

Well, you're link doesn't work, but i am assuming it is to the Steve Albini rant about how signing with a major label is a disaster move for most bands. This one?:

http://www.mercenary.com/probwitmusby.html

And, even though it is a bit outdated now, he is right. Although, I don't think that necessarily pertains to the idea of 'selling out'. If anything, it is a message about how signing with a major is gonna, 90% of the time, leave you with nothing in the end. So, for a band like Fugazi or, say, Bright Eyes, staying on an indie label and selling gold will recoup much more cash than going to a major and selling platinum. It is also likely that they wouldn't sell anywhere near gold if they went to the major for reasons that machines outlined before, and because indie labels have gotten quite smart about how to market their albums these days, whereas majors still seem to have their head up their ass a lot of the time. So, Bright Eyes or Fugazi take home 50% or more of every album they sell, where as, on a major, they would take home pennies (literally).