In this age of artists gladly and willingly letting their music be used in TV commercials, is the idea of "selling out" still an issue like it used to be? Or do artists just have to make money however they can in today's world?
That's the question we want you to ponder online with us this week. For the CD discussion, we continue our short run of summer repeats with a conversation from last month. Mark Wheat, Mac Wilson, and I consider Bob Dylan's latest, “Together Through Life,” in addition to Conor Oberst and the Mystic Valley Band’s recent “Outer South” and the new disc from White Rabbits, “It's Frightening” in thinking about this question.
Musicheads airs every Tuesday at 10 p.m. CT on 89.3 The Current
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 8
Do artists have the ability to stop their label from allowing their songs in ads? I'm sure if you're on an indie label, you can. But major labels? I'm not sure...
But assuming an artist DOES have this kind of control, I still don't think it's "selling out." I've learned a bit about the industry from my friend Bob (Slim) Dunlap, and it seems that it's become increasingly more difficult for artists to make enough money for them to continue living a lifestyle that allows them the freedom to continue making great art. Even if an artist IS on a major label, it's likely the same case.
Let's not forget that the cost of living continues to go up for virtually anyone in America, and many artists have spent years getting to the point where they CAN make money off their songs through ads. It shouldn't be a surprise that these artists are a bit older and maybe have a family to support. Under those circumstances, can you really blame artists for doing so, especially given how the internet has completely changed the market?
A great example would be James Mercer of The Shins selling his song "New Slang" to McDonalds (I think). He no longer owns it. But with the money he made from selling that song, he was able to buy a modest house in a lower-income neighborhood of Portland. I can't say I wouldn't have done the same thing.
There was a time an artist or band couldn't advertise anything at all without being labeled Sellout. I think now, a sellout is someone who advertises a product he or she doesn't use.
Also, it's become much more difficult for an artist to get any kind of exposure at all. Besides an ever-growing human population, the internet has truly changed everything, and an increasing number of people are turning off their radios and listening to specific genres of music online without discovering new music. The iPod has been a part of this.
In this internet age, the amount of music being created by anyone AT ALL has multiplied many times over, flooding the field of music from which we can choose to listen (and there's only 24 hours in a day). Placing a song in an ad gives a serious artist a distinct advantage for exposure to new listeners over this huge pool of music we didn't have ten years ago.
On the other hand, if you're U2 or The Red Hot Chili Peppers (and you've got more money than god), placing your song in an ad for money DOES seem a bit excessive. But then again comes the question of the major record labels and how much they control... But ultimately, I find it difficult to call most artists "sell outs."
And besides, I've always hated jingles!
The ways things have been going in the music business the last several years, how can you blame an artist for trying to make a living. CD sales continue to shrink. Gasoline prices hit musicians hard when they have a bus or van to keep on the road. I imagine gig money hasn't changed much since the 80's.
Besides that it is kinda cool to hear a great song in a commercial. I think REM and Springsteen are the last holdouts as far as song licensing goes. I understand their thinking, but obvously economically they don't need the extra exposure or the cash.
When I think of all the single sales that come from a commercial picking up a song... I say, "Sell it... smartly."
"Sell it Smartly"
Good advice Julia! I'm thinking of Iggy Pop and his song "Lust For Life" which was used in some cruisline commercial. They chopped it up for their own devices. That totally cheapened the song.
for commercial use it's a matter of licensing specific rights, usually, rather than selling a song outright. the songwriters, the publisher, and the artist and label all have interests to be addressed in the case of the use of a specific cut in an ad. that said, I think it's both a business and a personal choice for the artist, to be negotiated among the people involved.
I try not to let commercial licensing bother me too much. The way I figure it, CDs and LPs don't sell as much as they used to, so bands and artists could use the extra income when possible. Granted, it still rubbed me the wrong way a bit when I heard "Jacking the Ball" by the Sea and Cake on a Citibank commercial. But, that commercial will probably be on the air for a year or so at most, and I'll still have my memories of the song for long after. Remember, "Good Vibrations" was used on a Sunkist commercial (if I remember correctly) and we all seem to have gotten over that.