Selling out...boy how things change.

[Squ]

Soo... new bands getting exposure causes them to not have a long career?

 

If a movie company approched your band and asked if they could use one of your band's song in a trailer for a movie, would you say no? Would say "No I have principles"? I would jump at the opportunity to have my band's song featured in a movie. Led Zeppelin refused to play on TV talk shows because they were Led Zeppelin and could do that if they felt like it. What about the Beatles on the Ed Sullivan show? Does that mean they "sold out" with the thing that is now known as their first big U.S. exposure?

 

Everyone is always so quick to point the "sell out" finger at every band. But if I was offered $1 million for one of my songs to go on some shoe commercial or something, I'd put it on the commerical. The song gets exposure, I get money for my music, and the fact that it IS on TV doesn't actually take away from the music at all. If you can't appreciate Led Zep's "Rock and Roll" anymore because it was on a car commercial, well you're just silly.

 

And another, about Led Zeppelin. I've heard all this "Zeppelin stole everything from everybody," before, and the way I saw it said in this thread was that they did it for the money. [sarcasm]Yeah, I can really picture Jimmy Page listening to some blues going, "Hey, I can take this song, change it, and then I'll be rich!"[/sarcasm]

 

Bah!

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

Originally posted by Squ:

....Yeah, I can really picture Jimmy Page listening to some blues going, "Hey, I can take this song, change it, and then I'll be rich!"[/sarcasm]

 

Bah!

Well, he DID say in interviews that Plant was supposed to change the words, but he didn't always do that. So they got sued.

 

Bill

[g.]

Obversely and obviously, LZ didn't cop all that stuff and put it under their own writing credits because they thought it sucked and would LOSE them money. Later, they had to pay people who should have been gettin' alot more cred and props all along.

[picker]

But if you ask BB King and the few other blues guys that are still around from before Zep got popular, they have nothing but thanks for the British kids who made the blues popular with white audiences in the US in the late '60s. Those guys wound up making lot more money and playing for a lot more people than they would have if Zep and Cream and the rest hadn't come along, and they know it. One week they were working the Chitlin' Circuit down south, playing for exclusively black audiences and getting paid cheese and crackers. The next week they were playing the Filmore East for all white audeinces and making some real money.

ALbert King and BB King were both very vocal about how glad they were that the blues boom came along.

[revolead]

Originally posted by bpark@prorec.com:

Originally posted by revolead:

...A great example are movies who's previews have a soundtrack, and then that song is nowhere on the movie or the soundtrack album. ..

That is an easy one... the previews are made usually before the movie is finished. When the director makes his final cut for release, he may have changed his mind about including a particular piece of music. Happens all of the time.

 

Bill

Well, ya shut me up.

[MartinC]

I never knew what the members of led zep looked like until their movie came out in the 70's-i had loved their music and thought them to be great artists. Then in the movie is R. Plant featuring his bulging crotch PANDERING to the chicks, totaly playing up the sex angle. Page was showboating too. Still dug the band and the music, but was let down by the fact that they felt they had to act that way in spite of the fact that their music itself had all the goods. OTOH, maybe they were just being themselves :-(

[webe123]

Originally posted by   :

Yeah, Memphis Minnie too. Led Zep making out-of-court settlements if I recall rightly.

 

Another point here: Arguably some of these people might not have a huge amount of talent. They'd BETTER cash in while the public is willing to sucker for it. Not everybody has what it takes to hold the line and still be working twenty years later.

But THAT is exactly the problem! They put on these stupid "boy bands" that could not play an instrument to save their life or some horrible band nobody has ever heard of into the public eye and expect everyone to fall head over heels for them....even though they probably will not even be remembered after their first album or two. Why? Because the music industry is not that concerned with staying power of a band....all they want is a quick buck and move on to the next group.

 

Where are groups like the older groups such as The Eagles, who could produce hit after hit and not only make it in one group, (rock) but also make chart toppers in another. (country) Or Led Zepplin with hit after hit or fleetwood mack with hit after hit...or....shall I go on?? (you get the picture)

 

Today, it is not really about how much talent you have, but how much the music industry can pimp you for. Mabye it was even that way in the 70s, but at LEAST the "biggies" of that era and earlier had real talent! Not just a "one hit wonder" kind of talent....which is all too common nowdays.

[Billster]

Originally posted by Gruupi:

... But if they had let a car company use their songs in 1964, I doubt that they would have kept on growing. Obviously, the music business is about making money for everyone involved. But the bands are being shortsighted in my opinion and go for the quick buck without thinking about long term careers.

I disagree. It's not over-exposure early in your career that defines long term sustainability. A long term career is sustained by TALENT.

 

I remember a lot of bands from the 80's came out with great first albums, and then the second album was awful. Why? Because the band had years of development before they got their chance to make that first album, and picked all their gems. They only had a short time to make a second album, and didn't have the talent to do it quickly.

 

How long did we wait between Boston albums? Because Tom Scholz took the time to do it right.

 

If Pete Townshend started writing crap like "Face Dances" in 1965, there never would have been a third Who album.

[webe123]

"I disagree. It's not over-exposure early in your career that defines long term sustainability. A long term career is sustained by TALENT."

 

I think that sums it all up right there...TALENT...some have it and some don't. But the sad thing is that the music industry doesn't see it that way.....why?? I really couldn't tell ya!

[Gruupi]

Maybe I am being overly optimistic, but I have to believe that there is as much talent today as ever. Maybe the bands that are getting signed aren't the ones with talent though. Again, it all comes down to image I guess. I have a friend that was signed to a major label, and he has loads of talent but he was marketed as a sex symbol. I don't think he objected to the image either. I mean I wish I was a sex symbol too hehe. He had some minor success but eventually the record company wouldn't let him make his music anymore. This is off the track of what I started this thread for but I refuse to give in that there is a lack of talent. Its just that the talent has let the marketing types dictate the direction of thier art.

[g.]

It'd probably be a good thing for anyone who's interested in the topic here to read some books or stuff on the internet about the INDUSTRY side of the MUSIC INDUSTRY. You'd be surprised how contracts are written, how few signed bands ever make good money, how many of the up-and-comers are getting screwed just like their predecessors were, and how dissillusioned they are likely to be in a few years.

 

"Selling out" is the least of their worries.

[Squ]

Originally posted by   :

It'd probably be a good thing for anyone who's interested in the topic here to read some books or stuff on the internet about the INDUSTRY side of the MUSIC INDUSTRY. You'd be surprised how contracts are written, how few signed bands ever make good money, how many of the up-and-comers are getting screwed just like their predecessors were, and how dissillusioned they are likely to be in a few years.

 

"Selling out" is the least of their worries.

wurd!

[g.]

For starters, Everybody here have the links to MixerMan Diaries? It'll at least provide some clues. It doesn't matter that it may be fiction populated with composite types found in the industry. It's true stuff nontheless.

[Billster]

Originally posted by   :

It'd probably be a good thing for anyone who's interested in the topic here to read some books or stuff on the internet about the INDUSTRY side of the MUSIC INDUSTRY. You'd be surprised how contracts are written, how few signed bands ever make good money, how many of the up-and-comers are getting screwed just like their predecessors were, and how dissillusioned they are likely to be in a few years.

 

"Selling out" is the least of their worries.

There was a thread here a few weeks ago that veered into some of these topics. Here's the pertinent outside link:

 

The Problem With Music

[g.]

Hey billster,

 

Just gettin' busy - and with the sun finally coming out and revealing a 1 axcre jungle I have to attend to as well. So I haven't had a chance to really do the linking justice. But I've read Albini's website off and on for quite awhile now, and he's usually got the goods.

 

...For guitar players especially, what he has to say about recording IN TUNE guitar parts should be required reading. Live players who never record should know this stuff too! A lot of guitarists I've played with in bands don't know the first thing about how truss relief affects their in-tune-ness, so to speak.

[webe123]

Originally posted by Gruupi:

Maybe I am being overly optimistic, but I have to believe that there is as much talent today as ever. Maybe the bands that are getting signed aren't the ones with talent though. Again, it all comes down to image I guess. I have a friend that was signed to a major label, and he has loads of talent but he was marketed as a sex symbol. I don't think he objected to the image either. I mean I wish I was a sex symbol too hehe. He had some minor success but eventually the record company wouldn't let him make his music anymore. This is off the track of what I started this thread for but I refuse to give in that there is a lack of talent. Its just that the talent has let the marketing types dictate the direction of thier art.

I did not say there was not as much talent today as before, but the talent that the music industry is putting out today, pales in comparison to what has been recorded in the past. Mabye that is because the marketing types are taking it in a different direction or they are not signing the bands with the real talent and just pushing image ahead of talent, I don't really know what is going on.

 

But I think what could be going on, and this is only my opinion, is that when you sign a major label contract today.... you have absolutely NO say over what they do with your music or the way it is presented in any form whatsoever. I am forming my opinion based on what some artists themselves have come out and said and even the law that was passed by congress a few years ago that stated the recording companies had to reveal to the musicians that were under them, their financial records as far as royalties paid to them....because a lot of musicians were being ripped off by the music industry in royalities alone. If they are willing to do that to musicians...what other ways are they willing to go to screw them over?

 

So I don't know if the bands with real talent are being pushed to the back burner for image or what, but something needs to be done!

[skipclone 1]

I`ve read most of the postings here-take my comment for what it`s worth.

IMO the way things have changed is being driven in large part by technological forces-the more they converge, the more they become indistinguishable. Pretty soon you`ll be able to watch T.V. on your radio, surf the net on your watch, have satellite T.V. in your car. People in the media have seen this coming for a while and the media are also talking to each other more-talk shows want the newest bands, sports channels want the latest rockin sounds to make accidents look cool, clothing makers want the latest faces that people recognize-it doesn`t matter from where. So with all the tieins going on, the dollars are not going where the talent is-just where the recognition is. I think this is not necessarily a bad thing, for people who are multitalented (or utterly untalented but good at the fame game). But for someone who puts all their effort into music or anything else, their moment is more likely to come and go, assuming it comes at all. I mean, this is a music forum but pro musicians are by default, part of the larger entertainment industry.

I fellow I used to know in New York was-and is- an excellent musician, spends his time poring over musical manuscripts, only plays with people who are serious and dedicated, I sat with him for a couple of lessons even though he doesn`t usually teach-a very well read and capable musician. He told me he is working on a unique approach to music, taking elements of early music, jazz and `world music` to have a sound NO ONE has jumped on. Well at that time-more than a few years ago now-I thought that was about the coolest thing I ever heard. But time has gone on, the guy`s still immersed in study and look how thing s have changed. It doesn`t matter WHAT he comes up with now, it will be chewed up, copied to death and spit out within a year.

[Teahead]

Technology really opened the door of the music business. As it advanced and trickery became more accepted...otherwise known as the '80s(!) the previously required talent was replaced by the current criteria of appeal. The difference between the two could be compensated for by the technology.

 

Funny thing is, bands like Public Enemy also came to prominence off the back of the same technology becoming available. Guys could use samplers and turntables to create an act. Like 'em or loathe 'em...it's still an act! So for every "false" performer that technology launched, there was also a "real" act with something to say.

 

I have no real conclusions, other than the fact that every cloud has a silver lining...or something upbeat like that.

 

Tea.

[BillWelcome Home Studios]

Originally posted by skipclone 1:

... But time has gone on, the guy`s still immersed in study and look how thing s have changed. ..

In a similar vein, several years ago I read a little piece about Goat Island, where they mentioned the possibility that the Knights Templar had been there. And I read something about Rosslyn. And about early copies of scripture finds like the Dead Sea Scrolls. And the Shroud of Turin, and possible involvement of the Knights Templar. And that gave me an idea for a novel. So I started researching. In and among all of the other things that I do, over these six years or so I have been picking up and reading mass amounts of data about Philip the Fair, Clement, Jesus, Joseph of Aramathea, and the four Marys (Jesus' mother, and the three that were combined into our current "Mary Magdaline"... a definition artificially imposed by the Catholic Church centuries ago and, though recinded in 1969, is still the common perception.) and the 'other' gospels, discarded by the church 1550 years ago. Oh, and Gnostic and Coptic Christianity.

 

What happens while I'm crusing along????? "The DaVinci Code", and the prequel, "Angles and Demons". (sigh...)

 

Now, in all truth, Brown did a stuning job of research, detail, and invention. I don't pretend for a moment that I would have written anything anywhere near as good. But his books have made it impossible for me to write mine, just because of the inevitabe comparisons. Too close. (Though a key point in his plot, the hero who is an expert in the field, differs significantly from my 'average guy caught in an extrordinary situation' hero.)

 

lesson? You snoose, you loose!

 

Bill

[skipclone 1]

Originally posted by bpark@prorec.com:

Originally posted by skipclone 1:

... But time has gone on, the guy`s still immersed in study and look how thing s have changed. ..

In a similar vein, several years ago I read a little piece about Goat Island, where they mentioned the possibility that the Knights Templar had been there. And I read something about Rosslyn. And about early copies of scripture finds like the Dead Sea Scrolls. And the Shroud of Turin, and possible involvement of the Knights Templar. And that gave me an idea for a novel. So I started researching. In and among all of the other things that I do, over these six years or so I have been picking up and reading mass amounts of data about Philip the Fir, Clement, Jesus, Joseph of Aramathea, and the four Marys (Jesus' mother, and the three that were combined into our current "Mary Magdaline"... a definition artificially imposed by the Catholic Church centuries ago and, though recinded in 1969, is still the common perception.) and the 'other' gospels, discarded by the church 1550 years ago. Oh, and Gnostic and Coptic Christianity.

 

What happens while I'm crusing along????? "The DaVinci Code", and the prequel, "Angles and Demons". (sigh...)

 

Now, in all truth, Brown did a stuning job of research, detail, and invention. I don't pretend for a moment that I would have written anything anywhere near as good. But his books have made it impossible for me to write mine, just because of the inevitabe comparisons. Too close. (Though a key point in his plot, the hero who is an expert in the field, differs significantly from my 'average guy caught in an extrordinary situation' hero.)

 

lesson? You snoose, you loose!

 

Bill

Yup, the Catholic church did a real number on Christianity during the 1500s, basically turned it into the sanitized, boring, intolerant version we know today. Not that it doesn`t still have good points but it has been totally censored compared to what it was before.

[Big Red 67]

Religion is the after affect of successful revolution!

[Virtual Jim]

Originally posted by Gruupi:

What can we as artists and consumers do to restore some credibility and depth to our culture?

Don't buy crap. You'd be surprised at how much of a world is out there when you stop listening to radio, watching MTV, and expecting your music to come to you.

[skipclone 1]

Originally posted by DC Jim:

Originally posted by Gruupi:

What can we as artists and consumers do to restore some credibility and depth to our culture?

Don't buy crap. You'd be surprised at how much of a world is out there when you stop listening to radio, watching MTV, and expecting your music to come to you.

expecting it to come to you? you have to run to get away from it! the company people call it `product` because that`s the way they treat it.

Of course it devalues not only the stuff they push but all music, by implication.