Are you a sell out? Yes. Don't let it bother you though, cause apparently I am also a sell out, and so are your parents and everyone you've ever known. The only way to avoid selling out is to live like a savage all alone in the wilderness. The moment you attempt to live within the confines of a social order, you become a sell out. Once you attempt to coexist you sell out. If that's true, then selling out is a good thing. It is an important thing. If we didn't do it, we'd be fucked, quite literally, by everyone bigger than us physically who found us fuckable.
The pseudo-nihilistic punk rockers of the 70's created an impossible code in which no one can actually live by. It's such garbage. The idea that anyone who attempts to do anything commercial is a sell out is completely out of touch with reality. The punk rock manifesto is one of anarchy and intolerance. The punk rockers polluted our minds. They offered a solution that had no future. Of course, if the world would have ended before Sandinista! was released then everything would have been alright. It didn't. Now we have all of these half-conceived ideas and idiot philosophies floating around to confuse and alienate us. I think it is important to face reality. It is important to decide whether you are going to completely rail against the system or find a way to make it work for you. You cannot do both -- and if you attempt to do both you will only become even more bitter and confused.

When I was younger, and supported my parents, I chose to float between the two. A lot of people choose to do this. There are so many confused young people running around now polluted by this alloyed version of the tenets of the punk rock manifesto. Of course they're confused. It isn't possible to be in chorus with capitalism and anarchy. You must pick one or the other. Very few people are willing to do it, though. The worst kind of person is the one who sucks the dick of the man during the daytime and then draws pictures of themselves slitting his throat at night. Jesus Christ, make up your mind! The thing is, there is a lack of balance. When capitalism is working on a healthy level, everyone gets their dick sucked from time to time and no one gets their throat slit. It's impossible to be a sell out in a capitalist society. You're only a winner or a loser. Either you've found a way to crack the code or you are struggling to do so. To sell out in capitalism is basically to be too accommodating, to not get what you think you deserve. In capitalism, you don't get what you think you deserve though. You get what someone else thinks you deserve. So the trick is to make them think you are worth what you feel you deserve. You deserve a lot, but you'll only get it when you figure out how to manipulate the system.

Why commercialize yourself? In the art industry, it's extremely difficult to be successful without turning yourself into a cartoon. Even Hunter S. Thompson knew this. God knows Duchamp and Warhol knew it. Some artists are turned into cartoons and others do it themselves. I prefer to do it myself. at least then I can control how my cock is photographed. Why should it be considered such an onerous thing to view the production of art as a job? To me, the luckiest people are the ones who figure out a way to earn a living doing what they love and gain fulfillment from. Like all things in this life, you have to make certain sacrifices to get what you want. At least most of us do. If you're not some trust-fund kid or lotto winner, you've got to slave it out everyday. People who wanna be artists have the hardest time of it 'cause we are held up to these impossible standards. We're expected to die penniless and insane so that the people we have moved and entertained over the years can keep us to themselves. So that they can feel a personal and untarnished connection with our art. The second we try to earn a living wage or, god forbid, promote our art in the mainstream, we are placed under the knives of the sanctimonious indie fascists. Unfortunately, there isn't some grand umbrella grant that supports indie rockers financially and enables us to exist outside of the trappings of capitalism.

The thing is, I like capitalism. I think it's an interesting challenge. It's a system that rewards the imaginative and ambitious adults and punishes the lazy adults. Our generation is insanely lazy. We're just as smart as our parents but we are overwhelmed by contradicting ideas that confuse us into paralysis. Maybe the punk rock ethos made sense for the "no future" generation but it doesn't make sense for me. I like producing and purchasing things. I'd much rather go to IKEA than to stand in some bread line. That's because I don't have to stand in a bread line. Most people who throw around terms like "sellout" don't have to stand in one either. They don't have to stand in one because they are gainfully employed. The term "sellout" only exists in the lexicon of the over-privileged. Almost every non-homeless person in America is over-privileged, at least in a global sense.

Obviously, I've struggled with the concept. I've struggled because of the backlash following my songs placement in TV commercials. That is, until I realized that the negative energy that was being directed towards me really began to inspire my creativity. It has given me a sense of, "well, I'll show them who is a sellout, I'm going to make the freakiest, most interesting, record ever!!!" ... "I'm going to prove to them that my shit is wild and unpolluted by the reach of some absurd connection to mainstream corporate America."

I realized then that, for me, selling out is not possible. Selling out, in an artistic sense, is to change one's creative output to fit in with the commercial world. To create phony and insincere art in the hopes of becoming commercially successful. I've never done this and I can't imagine I ever will. I spent seven years not even existing at all in the mainstream world. Now I am being supported and endorsed by it. I know this won't last forever. No one's going to want to use one of my songs in a commercial five years from now, so I've got to take the money while I can. It's the same with pro athletes. You only get it while you're hot and no one stays commercially viable for long. It's not like Michael Vick is going to be receiving any big endorsement deals anytime soon. As sad as it may seem, one of the few ways most indie bands can make any money whatsoever is by selling a song to a commercial. Very very few bands make enough money from album sales or tour revenue to enable themselves to quit their day job.

Next time you see a commercial with one of your favorite bands songs in it, just tell yourself, "cool, a band I really like made some money and now I can probably look forward to a few more records from them." It's as simple as that. We all have to do certain things, from time to time, that we might not be completely psyched about, in order to pay the bills. To me, the TV is the world's asshole boss and if anyone can earn some extra bucks from it and they're not Bill O'Reilly, it's a good thing.

one of the bands most responsible for why music is terrible.

Kevin's right, of course.

Yeah, that could be true if any band sounded like them at all.

Who is Kevin Barnes, and who cares what he thinks?

"Cato as a Pun" forgives other musical sins he may be guilty of.

I've never heard this band and I probably never will
but they are everything wrong with music today

99%

i could've signed on with this until:

"The thing is, I like capitalism. I think it's an interesting challenge. It's a system that rewards the imaginative and ambitious adults and punishes the lazy adults."

now:

fuck him and fuck his fucking pasty white privileged ass. there are enough assholes out there trying to justify their own greed, hell, we have a government literally full of them, and i don't need to support anyone who supports that line of thought. there isn't anything wrong with selling the rights to a song for a commercial, there is in espousing mis-guided republican ideals for no fucking reason at all. asshole.

and i even like his fucking band. christ.

Butch Walker just reposted this to his blog. How much more proof do you need that it's the god's honest truth?

Did anyone make it past this point? This guy's so full of shit it's comical.




k

i am so sick of people talking about a band selling out.

these people write and perform music and there are other people out there willing to pay them to use their music. it's called making a living. being a musician is not an easy career path, it's much easier to go to college and work in the corporate world or say, become a teacher. what's the difference between a band letting some big company use their music and someone putting in a 40 hour work week at a company they hate?

nothing.

it's called getting by. it's called work.

"the past is a grotesque animal" is one of my favorite songs by this guy, listen to all 12 minutes of it:
<object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=8,0,0,0" width="335" height="28" id="divplaylist"><param name="movie" value="http://www.divshare.com/flash/playlist?myId=2785964-c22" /><embed src="http://www.divshare.com/flash/playlist?myId=2785964-c22" width="335" height="28" name="divplaylist" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"></embed></object>

So fucking untrue. And I'm with you, simakos... fuck people who talk about a band selling out. Who the fuck cares? Do what you want to do, and what you have to do, to make a living. It's ridiculous.

yeah, what's more respectable? being a starving artist and working some shitty day job or finding a way to survive via the art you create? it's not easy in this country/world for anyone with any kind of artistic will to navigate our society and survive economically. artists, poets, writers, filmakers, etc are brave people. those who call "sell out!" probably don't know what it's like to be compelled to explore anything artistic. you don't choose to be an artist, it chooses you. money is money, a simple fact of trying to navigate our society.

whatever... this is so stupid to argue about this shit. you either understand or you don't. if you don't, fine, just get the fuck away from me.

If the music is good, who gives a fuck, yeah.

People who complain about bands selling their music to car companies and stuff... wow, really, who cares. This truly affects nothing. If a good band signs to a major label and puts out a horrible album of shitty, predictable shit songs, then they're a shitty band after all and why the fuck would I bother listening to them? If Jens Lekman's new album is more "produced" and "confident-sounding" than his old songs and I prefer the older stuff, then that's just where my tastes lie. He's still writing interesting pop songs and progressing as an artist. There are honestly people out there who considered Unwound's Leaves Turn Inside You to be a sell-out. Seriously, there is a reviewer on Amazon who is a long-time Unwound fan and calls it "pop garbage." Just because he likes abrasive noise-rock doesn't mean that he can't have incredibly close-minded tastes, too. If you've heard the album, then you understand and know that it's the furthest thing from a "sell-out" one could possibly think of.

There is no selling out. There is only logical progression. And personal tastes.

That said, I'm craving a bloomin' onion from Outback right about now.

This was a big debate around 10 years ago. I think people stopped caring once it became "cool" to like pop music.

I can certainly understand musicians selling their music to companies for commercials. Whatever, famous actors and directors do commercials. Wes Anderson has AT&T ads. Michel Gondry did Gatorade Propel. Spike Jonze sells shoes. Musicians should not have to live to a higher standard.


However, that being said, Barnes took this to another level. He let Outback change lyrics to a popular song to center on steaks, fried onions, and father's day gift certificates. That's a different beast. Allowing complete abuse of your composition for cash is another level of commercialism. That's some Crumbelievable stuff, right there. It demonstrates disregard for a long standing fanbase, as it totally ruins the song. Does he even attempt to play that live?

yeah, maybe he did go a bit far on that one. poor choice or bad taste and all that, even still, it's not really that horrible. what's the real difference between changing your lyrics or simply writing a jingle? is it just because that song was on an album first and then became a jingle? what if it was a jingle first and then he changed the lyrics to be on an album?

people who have no problem with wholesale profiteering at the expense of art or good-faith commerce are either lazy thinkers ("eh, who cares") or cynical twats ("like it makes any difference, dude")

there's a word for companies that use methods other than the quality of their product to sell their product: manipulators. and, as john lennon would say when he muted the TV commercials with little sean in the room, they're usually liars as well. artists that aid these companies are usually only marginally less guilty. unless, of course, their decisions are borne of necessity to some degree

case studies:

wilco - could probably use the money, deserve the money, songs used tastefully in commercials. really only the person who made the liscencing decision (tweedy alone presumably) could know how appropriate and necessary the decision was based on his financial situation

moby - claimed the reason he liscenced songs off 'play' was to gain exposure for the record (apparently elton john didn't talk it up enough). as moby was hardly a well-known quantity at the time this move made some degree of sense. but after the album broke he kept right on shilling. bad moby

tom waits - steadfastly refuses to liscence his music, sued the pants off a corporation who dared to use a soundalike in their ad, raked in the bucks anyway. don't think tom is making a huge sacrifice, as he probably doesn't particularly need ad revenue to live the kind of life he wants to live, but he still gets a big thumbs up

dylan who allows 'shelter from the storm' to be used in a non-profit animal shelter ad: laudable
dylan who allows 'the times they are a' changin'' in an ad for a canadian bank: pitiful

and artists who allow their music to be changed (either tangibly or contextually) for commercial purposes might as well just be writing jingles

right and wrong is does not shift with the status quo

The essay made me feel sick a little inside. Reminds me of those 'what is being punk rock' essays in the old Maximum Rock and Roll zine, just pitiful.

Whatever, write your gay songs and sell them to a steakhouse, what do we care? But I won't forgive him now for writing a poorly written apology about it. Plus it just reeks of guilt.

What I don't understand is the thought process of the ad team that dreamed up the Outback spot.

"Dude, this 'Wraith' track is awesome--we should use it in our Outback spot."

"Ah, they'll never buy it."

"Yeah, I know."

"I mean, unless, of course, you know--we changed the lyrics."

"Ouch."

"I know."

"Ah, fuck it--no use pretending we're not whores."

"Amen."

The apology is the best part. If you take a look back at when this first became news, Barnes refused to talk about it. Now he's justifying it with this pathetic apology. To say it's kinda sad is to drastically understate the situation. Of Montreal was already one of the worst bands of the decade - now they've got this legacy as well. Quite apropos.

I cringed reading this the way I cringed when I read Nels Cline's apology for joining Wilco.

Rock stars ain't heroes, kids.




k

heh. and what about the taco bell ad that uses 'whip it'?

"how we gonna sell these nachos?"
"devo!"

huh?

Outback Steakhouse? More like Outback Gayhouse, amirite?

unfamiliar. story?

The Doc had a great bit on this over at Intensities in Ten Suburbs.

it's not about the twin double suspension, it's not about pop-up 'nav'

the question is:

when you turn on your car, does it make you want to suck a dick?

*CHERUB ROCK*

So that's who this dude is? lol. Explains everything. Of Montreal is awful.

No you ain't got no soul power.

Stood there boldly
Sweatin' in the sun
Felt like a million
Felt like number one
The height of summer
I'd never felt that strong
Like a rock

Like a rock, I was strong as I could be
Like a rock, nothin' ever got to me
Like a rock, I was something to see
Like a rock

Awesome. Warmed over Gear Magazine opinion column as 2007 music talking point.

Actually, I believe the song you're speaking of is "Stars" by Hum. Great song, by the way.

Pretend you're in a moderately successful indie rock band. You can either work at Kinko's when you're not busting your ass on tour, or you can sell one song to a steakhouse. Which do you choose? "Steakhouse" or "I'm a liar."

sell your song to a steakhouse if you want, just don't write a pussy ass fucking essay about it long afterwards.

Excerpt from How To Be a Rock Star, chapter VIII, section 13: Frequently Asked Questions.

47. Restaurant chain television advertisements.
a] Can I sell my song to a steakhouse?
Yes.
b] Can I write a pussy ass fucking essay about it long afterward?
No.

you're catching on, someday you can be a rockstar like me

Did people even care enough about this band to raise a fuss about the steakhouse song? Was it really that controversial to evoke an essay? When I heard it, I just chuckled.

good timing
appropriate

4/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNUYx-M_HwA

i saw this ad last nite and thought about this thread too.

I had a consumer culture course in college and we watched an educational video narrated by Dennis Hopper. That was odd. Visually, the style of the video was similar to that commercial. Perhaps he directed them.

I think there is (or needs to be) a middle ground on "selling out". I'm glad that people have realized that the old Us v. Them!/anti-anything commercial rules of the old punk rock way were silly. And I'm glad that people don't shit on indie bands for being able to make a living off of their music. I remember when some Modest Mouse fans were giving the band shit because one of the M&A songs turned up in a truck ad. Someone yelled out "CHEVY!" (or whatever make it was) after they played that song live and Isaac sarcastically said into the mic something like "Yeah man, that fucking helped me buy a house, I'm such a sell-out". At the time, MM and Brock needed that money, so it was hard to begrudge them. But I think people have given bands a little too much leeway in some ways in recent years. If you're already well off and your song shows up in a fucking Apple ad, I feel like that's unnecessary. I don't need to hear Dylan or Who songs during Nike or Victoria's Secret ads. So part of me almost misses the accusations of "sell-out" sometimes.

But at the end of the day - to me, if you want to make a living at music and some company is gonna give you tons of cash to use your song, you do it unless it offends you or rubs you wrong you on some level. Like, you don't want to be the spokesband for Marlboro or Tampax. Or if you're a vegetarian, you shouldn't help shill Ballpark hot dogs or whatever.

OK, so once you make a certain amount of money, then you have stop making money?

What's your cutoff for bands, vis a vis when they can sell songs to commercials?

I don't begrudge someone making money. It's just a turn-off for me. If I was Dylan or Townshend, I wouldn't let any company touch the songs because I don't need the money and is thus just an unnecessary compromise. If I'm Rogue Wave or Jens Lekman, I could use the money to buy a house or help make the record I wanna make.

But who are you to say who needs money? Dylan quite famously needs the cash: The whole reason he's been on the Neverending Tour for the past 15 or 20 years is to pay alimony and child support for his "secret" family...

It's not as simple as "making money," and dumbing it down to that level isn't helping your argument. It's what compromises you are willing to make to make the money.

Barnes was already a fraud, so it's not as if his Beefsteak Charlie's commercial is that much of a revelation, but let's not pretend this is about "making money."

Would you take one up the backyard for a month's rent?




k

No, that's exactly what it's about.

People just like to try and make different distinctions, so that they can still feel good about certain artists who they like cashing in, yet still be free to condemn others for what is essentially the same thing.

And for the record, I have no problem whatsoever with either end of this "selling out" spectrum.

If artists want to do something with their creations -- ie, sell a song for a commercial, etc. -- that's entirely their prerogative. Fans who bitch and moan about their own personal, sentimental attachment to a piece of art being sullied by a commercial association, hey, that's their problem.