Sigur Ros will not sell out.

[OOO]

I can confirm that Sigur ros can not sell out the Hollywood Bowl, at least when I saw them they didn't.

 

I'm sure they could sell out some venues, though...

[Sir Stewart]

 

I laughed.

[embiggen]

I laughed.

 

I like making you laugh!

[Good Old Neon]

how do you know that there are false pretenses involved?

 

I can only offer my opinion, but, I don

[Spawn's dad]

you mean to say they're compromising your principles, don't you?

[bjorn_skurj]

Dude, neither Wilco nor Sigur Ros are the Rolling Stones. They are people trying to make a living providing something we all enjoy. If in one of the cases that involves making some $ on the side by licensing their songs, then I really don't have a problem with that. Any discomfort I may have felt at the VW ads is far outweighed by the enjoyment I get from listening to their music and posting all this blah-blah-blah on a message board for which they are the organizing principle. I like to get paid, too. There are many fine things about the punk-rock ethos, but to say artists must consistently deny themselves commercial opportunities takes it too far, in my opine.

[Sir Stewart]

[M. (hristine]

Tom Waits drives a Lexus SUV.

[bjorn_skurj]

Tom Waits drives a Lexus SUV.

And so he should. He is a fine American who deserves everything he gets. If was rich, I would buy him a Studebaker Dictator.

[Guest j.bickerson]

I totally agree with TreeHugger on this one. Any band that tries to justify selling out is out of their mind. There is no way that a band could possibly think that people hearing their music in commercials could lead to more people discovering the band. And trying to suggest any reason other than the almighty dollar behind their decision is definitely false pretences.

 

Sure, all you people hate to see your favorite band in bed with the international corporations that run our government, but have the guts to call a spade a spade. Take off your rose colored classes, Alice.

[ikol]

And trying to suggest any reason other than the almighty dollar behind their decision is definitely false pretences.

 

Exactly. The almighty dollar is a good enough reason.

[MattZ]

Exactly. The almighty dollar is a good enough reason.

 

I think jnick and jbick's point is that bands are hiding behind the argument that they want to expand their audience when the reality is that commercials do not expand an audience and bands just want the payday and should admit it.

 

I dont agree with either of them.

[Guest j.bickerson]

Exactly. The almighty dollar is a good enough reason.

 

"Art renders accessible to men of the latest generations all the feelings experienced by their predecessors and also those felt by their best and foremost contemporaries . . . [Art] is a means of union among men, joining them together in the same feeling . . . Art is a human activity consisting in this, that one man consciously by means of certain external signs, hands on to others feelings he has lived through, and that others are infected by those feelings and also experience them . . . A real work of art destroys in the consciousness of the recipient the separation between himself and the artist, and . . . also between himself and all whose minds receive this work of art. In this freeing of our personality from its separation and isolation, in this uniting of it with others, lies the chief characteristic and the great attractive force of art." -Tolstoy

 

"Art is not a pleasure, a solace, or an amusement; art is great matter. Art is an organ of human life, transmitting man's reasonable perception into feeling. In our age the common religious perception of men is the consciousness of the brotherhood of man-we know that the well-being of man lies in the union with his fellow men. True science should indicate the various methods of applying this consciousness to life. Art should transform this perception into feeling. The task of art is enormous. Through the influence of real art, aided by science, guided by religion, that peaceful co-operation of man is now obtained by external means-by law courts, police, charitable institutions, factory inspection, etc.-should be obtained by man's free and joyous activity. Art should cause violence to be set aside. And it is only art that can accomplish this." -Tolstoy

 

"Art is a way of saying what it means to be alive, and the most salient feature of existence is the unthinkable odds against it. For every way that there is of being here, there are an infinity of ways of not being here. Historical accident snuffs out whole universes with every clock tick. Statistics declare us ridiculous. Thermodynamics prohibits us. Life, by any reasonable measure, is impossible, and my life

[tongue-tied]

I can only offer my opinion, but, I don

[OOO]

someone just got served!!!

[bjorn_skurj]

If there's one thing my iPod nano will NEVER do, that is play Feist.

[caliber66]

you mean to say they're compromising your principles, don't you?

Yes.

[ikol]

Where do you see in any of these quotes the word "money"? Art is not money. Once you obscure art with dollar signs and new cars and starbucks coffee and bigger, longer, faster, more, more, more, more, commercials....you have stripped it of its intrinsic value.

 

I'm confused. Are you the same as Treehuggindirtguy?

 

Anyways, I don't see how an artist getting paid to have their music on a commercial strips it of its value. If anything, it confirms it by putting a dollar value on it.

[stooka]

Artists have been commissioned throughout history. There is nothing wrong with an artist selling his/her art.

[Beltmann]

Where do you see in any of these quotes the word "money"? Art is not money.

I think what you meant to say is that "Art is not money, at least according to Tolstoy and Richard Powers, whose definitions of art are debatable and whose opinions may or may not matter."

[Guest j.bickerson]

I think what you meant to say is that "Art is not money, at least according to Tolstoy and Richard Powers, whose definitions of art are debatable and whose opinions may or may not matter."

 

The fact that you are arguing semantics rather than the points I raised is validating in and of itself.

[EL the Famous]

I can only offer my opinion, but, I don

[ction]

I'd like to point out that I kinda hate that car commercial with the Clash's version of "Pressure Drop" yet I really, really still like the Clash's version of "Pressure Drop". Not as much as I like the Maytal's original, but c'mon....that's the Maytals we're talking about.

 

P.S. I would probably also kinda hate a car commerical with the Maytal's version of "Pressure Drop" if they played it as often as they do the Clash one.

 

PS2 - "Toots" is a great name.

[Beltmann]

The fact that you are arguing semantics rather than the points I raised is validating in and of itself.

You presented their opinions as indisputable fact--as if their reputation somehow puts them beyond reproach--and that's the only point I objected to. Truth is, for every quote you trot out about the evils of mixing art with commerce, I can find another one by another famous theorist/artist/writer/musician/take-your-pick who feels differently. Tolstoy's opinion carries no more weight than any other--perhaps even less, since he made those comments in a time that bears little relationship to a modern understanding of how art often commingles freely with commerce. Is Tolstoy right? Does the presence of money in art strip it of its intrinsic value? Perhaps. But what if it doesn't? What if that presumption is based on archaic superstitions regarding the power and meaning of art?

 

As for your other points, I've already raised my objections to them in a dozen previous threads and have no intentions of re-hashing them in here.

[Guest j.bickerson]

tell me how that high horse feels...

 

Thanks for starting off the personal attacks in this thread.

 

You presented their opinions as indisputable fact--as if their reputation somehow puts them beyond reproach--and that's the only point I objected to. Truth is, for every quote you trot out about the evils of mixing art with commerce, I can find another one by another famous theorist/artist/writer/musician/take-your-pick who feels differently. Tolstoy's opinion carries no more weight than any other--perhaps even less, since he made those comments in a time that bears little relationship to a modern understanding of how art often commingles freely with commerce. Is Tolstoy right? Does the presence of money in art strip it of its intrinsic value? Perhaps. But what if it doesn't? What if that presumption is based on archaic superstitions regarding the power and meaning of art?

 

As for your other points, I've already raised my objections to them in a dozen previous threads and have no intentions of re-hashing them in here.

 

But doesn't Tolstoy's position as a true artist (please argue this, I dare you) give him some credence over the rest of us schmucks?

 

As Ron Huxtable ineloquently pointed out above, those of us who aren't musicians/artists (btw I save lives in my job, so I know a thing or two about morality) don't really know what it means to sell out/not sell out, which is why I was quoting a source who DOES know.

 

However, the fact remains that commercials, unlike benefactors or sponsors of old, add/splice meaning into an existing work of art. Whether we like it or not, commercials tie themselves to songs in our brains, and we think of iPods when Feist plays, or cars when the Who plays. This is not the original intent of the artist. The art has been muddled to mean something else. It's shameless.