raddevon.com - Latest Comments in The Philosophy of “Selling Out”

Re: The Philosophy of “Selling Out”

ColdWave — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 01:29:39 -0000

I've always wondered about the inherent credibility of an established artist signed to a major label. Major labels gravitate toward bands and artists that they can package and sell for extreme profit (obviously!), which means some seminal semblance of such profitability was present in the band's music. Do most bands that create the type of music that major labels are interested in actually create heartfelt music that is reflective of their philosophies and beliefs? Or do these bands create music that is intended to be (in hope) universally liked and widely distributed? I think it's hard to start throwing around the word "art" here. I don't believe that music created to pander to a specific market is art at all--it's tripe.

As you can call absolutely any tangible or intangible result of creativity "art," I don't feel the term really has any merit as a blanket term talking about music. There's art because someone calls it art, and then there's art with the je ne sais quoi that somehow profoundly touches you. The distinction between the two is different for everyone. For me, a guitar/bass/drum band singing about relationships could be labeled art only because anything could be labeled as art. For the sake of argument, label them art, but compare them to, for example, landscape paintings (and I feel this comparison is only marginally tenuous). No matter how wonderful and pretty the painting is, it's still just another hill with trees on it. Only rarely do you find a Picasso that turns the everyday world upside down. Such music can be, at most, only benignly stimulating. How many more four-piece bands wailing about love does the world need? Is this the legacy they sincerely want to leave behind, or is this neutered self-expression inspired by monetary want? I feel this is the targeted market of major labels. (The example of a rock band singing about romance can be applied to any recurring configuration in the major labels' repertoire.)

So, since major labels predominantly pursue said bands, the bands did not have intrinsic value before the so-called "selling out," meaning they were deservedly beneath your notice from the beginning! For me, there is no middle ground for making accessible music and for creating exactly what your heart tells you to create. I don't think the inner core of any musician is a driving melody with rhyming lyrics and in-sync percussion. As I get older, I cannot tolerate "packaged" music any longer. I feel it is a disservice to the self. Maybe I'm wrong for this. And the complexities of what is packaged and what is spontaneous is another whirlpool that perhaps has no bottom.

Now, of course, it would be blind and stupid to charge forward refusing to entertain the creativity of any band signed to a major label. Some bands do achieve widespread fame on what seems to be purer expressions of the music inside them. I'm afraid it all comes down so far to personal opinion that no consensus will ever be achieved on the issue.

That said, no one has mentioned one of the most important parts of the creation of music: the producer. Especially in major labels, the producer has a control on the final product of the music that almost rivals the band's. A good example is Fiona Apple's 2005 album, "Extraordinary Machine." A major label artist, her first try at the album was produced by Jon Brion, but the label considered it too quirky and zany and refused to release the album. A year later, a new producer redid the same ten songs and the outcome was astonishingly different. (As a side note, I consider Apple to be in the faulty middle ground of trying to make music people will like as well as trying to insert genuine self-expression. I just don't think there can be room for both, as with both, it's certainly not art, but rather a product being sold.)

For this purpose, looking at the producer on a major label album will give you a good idea of just how far the band "sold out." If the band produced their own album, odds are greater that they ended up with a sound closer to what they wanted themselves with minimal interference from the record label bigwigs. I disagree with the assertion that major labels generally allow artists to go their own way for a couple of albums before intrusion; generally, the major label wants to select the producer right away.

Re: The Philosophy of “Selling Out”

raddevon — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 22:37:27 -0000

The term may be trite, but I think the concept it describes is concrete and important. The term is the most widely understood way to refer to this concept which is why I chose it for this post.

Art is certainly defined by an individuals perception. I am conveying my perception of the line between art and product. I am not trying to propose that there is some objective definition. I merely want to further perfect my subjective one.

That little logo tells a lot about the music. That logo is a story about the birth of this album. It also tells me a little about what my money is going to do when I buy it. In general, an indie label logo tells me that a good portion of my money is going to go to the artist to directly encourage him to make more music. A major label logo tells me that a tiny portion of my money will go to the artist. A lot more will go into the pockets of record executives whose job it is to milk as much money as they can out of there business. A lot of it will funnel into the RIAA who will use it to sue music fans for sharing the music they enjoy. It also tells me about the conditions under which this album was produced. Take note of the link in my original blog post which gives the reasons for not signing to a major. I know this artist is probably producing music for a label who doesn't care if the artist meets his goals; they only care that the stockholder meets theirs. To say that major label music should only be judged by how it sounds is to say that clothing should be chosen based on looks alone. Should we not also concern ourselves with the greater impacts of the products we consume?

My arguments are based on generalizations. They must be. I can't evaluate each and every artist to make decisions about their degree of artistic integrity before making a purchase. Even if I could, I could never know their true motives. The fact remains that their must be something fundamentally different about the philosophies of artists who choose to go the route of independence versus those who choose the sign that away. Those that go with the majors must know they will alienate some of their fans for the very reasons I have described above. What does it say about them that they are willing to make that leap anyway?

Re: The Philosophy of “Selling Out”

raddevon — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 21:58:23 -0000

That’s definitely true, but that’s true for anything. It’s always easier not to evaluate things. That’s why people often carry on the traditions of their parents even if they don’t make any sense.

Re: The Philosophy of “Selling Out”

raddevon — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 21:51:08 -0000

How do you figure it’s without justification? This post is an explanation of my justification for making that judgment.

Re: The Philosophy of “Selling Out”

Tiff — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:24:29 -0000

I wasn't saying that YOU were not justified, but I was saying that a lot of people like to throw around the "sell-out" tag just because an artist joins a major label, without considering their motives...without even KNOWING their motives in many instances.

Re: The Philosophy of “Selling Out”

Tiff — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 09:34:50 -0000

Sometimes I think that saying someone is "selling out" is just a way to pass judgment without needing a justification. I am not sure that it is fair. I agree that major labels tend to just be in it for the money, but I can't say that is always the case for the artists. I do think it shows a lot more integrity to sacrifice for your art if you have that luxury (no illnesses that you need to combat, no families to support, etc), but I don't know that it is right to blame the artists in addition to the corporations when music becomes incorporated.