Jump to content

Sigur Ros will not sell out.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 510
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest j.bickerson

Look, you all keep saying I'm thrusting my values and principles upon Jeff, and that's possible. However, I've also been a fan of Wilco for a long time, and I've read lots of quotes from Jeff Tweedy. In not only the Warner Brothers conflict, but also throughout his UT/Wilco career, Jeff comes across as a guy who has really strong views on art and its power and its role in society. He has railed against the modern corporations, and in many ways tries to go against the grain (against the man) when it comes to releasing their music. (I have lots of quotes I could pull up to to prove my points, but no one likes when I quote, so just take my word on this)

 

So, I am dissapointed that Jeff is violating principles HE has stated, not mine or anyone else's.

 

edit: there seems to be something wrong with the server right now, my post was displaying incorrectly for a second.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hewlett Packard made donations to Bush, or just the CEO?

 

Companies Outsourcing Jobs Give Bush Camp. Big $$$$$

 

WASHINGTON - March 10 - President Bush makes one of his political campaign stops in Ohio today, a state that has suffered the loss of 270,000 manufacturing jobs during his administration. The economic crisis has raised questions about why the White House last month strongly endorsed the outsourcing of U.S. jobs to cheap overseas labor markets.

 

 

On the eve of his trip to Ohio to

Link to post
Share on other sites
it's amazing how you are able to live your life w/out any level of compromise...good for you.

 

a compromise means to give and take; so if they are gaining something from it, what are they losing? i wouldn't say that selling music to ad campaigns is a compromise in the context that you seem to be putting it, unless the ad agencies or the record label was demanding something more, and they said, "that's just too much, but how about we give you 3 of our songs to get you off our backs?" it certainly is an easy way to get your music heard by a lot of people, and make some money too, but it's not essential to do so - which is why many people don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
a compromise means to give and take; so if they are gaining something from it, what are they losing? i wouldn't say that selling music to ad campaigns is a compromise in the context that you seem to be putting it, unless the ad agencies or the record label was demanding something more, and they said, "that's just too much, but how about we give you 3 of our songs to get you off our backs?" it certainly is an easy way to get your music heard by a lot of people, and make some money too, but it's not essential to do so - which is why many people don't.

 

not that it matters or should matter to anybody but the artists themselves...but very little about being an artist has to do w/ being 'essential'. actually, i don't even understand your point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
not that it matters or should matter to anybody but the artists themselves...but very little about being an artist has to do w/ being 'essential'. actually, i don't even understand your point.

 

i think it generally doesn't matter to anybody, but those artists are hardly role-models and their relevancy is fleeting; which is why when you get someone that thinks beyond their own wants it is a thing which people gravitate towards. as for artists not being essential - art not only reflects society, but it shapes it - so it's not fundamentally essential like eating or breathing, but it can have as much of an impact as politics, and certainly is vital to western economy. there are always going to be politians shaping the world we live in (good or bad), like there will be artists - it's just better to have good ones, doing good things for others, rather than just themselves.

 

the compromise point was that to say 'compromise' kind of implies that people have no choice about this sort of stuff. as if they don't want to do it, but they have no choice - for them to do it, they see that they are going to be losing out in some way, but settle for partially giving up something because they are unable to get away with not giving up anything. i think that's the only way i can see this as compromise, whilst maintaining the band's dignity (not the right word, but i can't think of another at the moment) if this is not the case then selling music for ads is all positive, so where is the compromise? that's my point. . . sorry, probably no clearer! :stunned

Link to post
Share on other sites

i still have no idea what you're talking about...compromise isn't always done w/ a choice of making it. my original point is real people, including musicians/artists, make certain compromises everyday...it's impossible not to and some may even be unintentional. other words, i don't always see compromise as a bad thing, it's reality and don't think artists should be held to a different standard of it than you or I.

 

and, i meant that the act of making art has nothing (or really shouldn't have) anything to do w/ someone else's definition of what's essential. if your goal is to make music and play it in front of as many people as possible FULL-TIME or finance a tour or self-record and release another album...sometimes you are going to have to take a payday to perpetuate your art.

 

if said art is substantial enough, at least in the eyes/ears of certain beholders, it will transcend the business aspects of the machine bringing it to the listener/viewer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
so the VW campaign has brought more fans to Wilco but has somehow decreased their relevancy.

 

i don't think it's a compromise; so no - i don't think they feel they are losing anything of themselves from doing it. i'm just saying that if you view it as a compromise (which is what I thought El was saying) then that means you are saying they conceeded something (a negative aspect) to gain a positive one. therefore you can't really argue that it was ok for them to sell their songs to vw, without at least seeing why people feel the opposite. my view point is that they have always thought it ok to sell their stuff, but haven't had the chance - now they have, so they did.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, I guess I just grew up in a time where artists held themselves to higher standards. Back in the 60's and 70's bands wouldn't have gotten into bed with soulless corporations (the same corporations that grease their axles with blood and oil now, btw); Fans would not have stood for stuff like this back then. Now, we have grown complacent, and as many of you have shown, we have allowed band after band to lower our expectations to the point where people hardly raise an eyebrow when Bob Dylan becomes little more than a used car salesman.

 

The fact that many of you are ok with it is a product of the times. Sad, really, I guess. But I grew up in a time where artists had more integrity and I will continue to hold artists to those standards.

 

 

I call bullshit. Who knows those bands may have gotten into bed with corporations back then had the corporations been intrested in them. Look forty years later-

 

Paul McCartney is one of the biggest sell outs in music

Dylan is pushing Caddlilacs

Led Zepplin, The Who, and countless others have licensed their songs for commericals

Neil Young finnaly jumped the money train on this tour charing upwards 70 dollars a ticket

I've herd from a few sources that Bob Weir and Mickey Hart both belong to Bohieman Grove

Bowie at Target

 

 

 

This list could on for PAGES! It was fashionable back then for lots of these people to be anit-establishment. Now most people don't care (look at this thread). I firmly belive many of those artists were taking advantge of the times. Great song writers and musicans, humanitarians not quite.

 

The real people are in the street you aren't going to find them on a major label.

 

This year I went to see the Flaming Lips, a band that pushs that whole peace and love ideal, many people on here disagreeded with me but I found their stage show to be compelty sexist.

 

Lesson learned- respect an artists for their art.

 

As Frank said "Were Only In It For The Money"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Great song writers and musicans, humanitarians not quite. The real people are in the street you aren't going to find them on a major label.

 

Talk about calling bullshit...one can't improve their financial worth and still be a humanitarian?! Every single one of those artists you've listed have done numerous benefit-related work and contributed large sums of $ to worthwhile causes.

 

Plus, 90% of the 'real people' are out there trying to make more money as much as the next guy. Law of the jungle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
dude, Neil is $140+ this tour :lol

 

i'm guessing he's referring to:paul_starbucks_news.jpg

 

 

thanks for the defense, i was giving reffering to the chepest seats, and i acuttly think they were 160 in chicago.

 

 

Now as for McCartney way to easy of a target but if I must

 

He has an exclussive contract with STARBUCKS?!?!?!? ENOugh

 

Lexus sponsered his tour in 04 i'm sure they still have some kind of involvment.

 

250 dollar concert tickets, 40 dollar t-shirts?????

 

Performing with Jay-Z (cause the message is so similar right???)

 

and the list goes on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...