This week, Nickelback encourages you to download Internet Explorer 8 by offering you a free Nickelback song (Warning: Bad Nickelback plays automatically in that link). You don’t win in that bargain either way, so it seems like a particularly distasteful example of selling out. Also, it makes me think that Microsoft has given up on the lucrative Portuguese market.
There are really two types of selling out. First, there is the type where a musician changes his style and people who enjoyed the previous material complain that he changed his style in order to sell more. This type of selling out seems pretty arbitrary and subjective. There are lots of reasons that somebody might go in a different direction, many of which don’t involve making more money. Also, why wouldn’t a musician want to appeal to a wide audience?
The other type of selling out–the Nickelback type–is endorsing a product, either directly by doing the pitch or indirectly by licensing music. This second type is as old as the music industry itself. Some early groups even named themselves after the product they were selling.
Then along came the 60s folk movement, and in particular Pete Seeger, to rain on the parade. Suddenly, only squares sold out. Fortunately for this blog post, Huey Lewis told us it was okay to be square sometime in the 80s.
Ever since then, musicians have been selling out with abandon. Here are some of my favorites.
Maybe you have some favorite examples of awesome sell outs of your own. Feel free to share.
I heard a Buzzcocks song on an AARP commercial. File under “it’s all over when…”
Re Nickelback/IE8, maybe they’re thinking two negatives make a positive? But boy that is a terrible combination. Maybe they’ll cancel each other out and forever disappear from our dimension. I’m not sure i would consider that a sell out though. I think you have to have some semblance of integrity before you can sell out. maybe not.
my most recently disappointing advert – Dr. House for Staples. Or did I dream that? maybe it was Best Buy… either way, i can’t find it.
In the case of the Iggy, Dylan, and the Rotten ads those are more selling a personality than the music. I mean sure it’s tacky but it kind of is OK I guess. I’ve also kind of softened somewhat to the idea of artists selling their songs to television and whatnot – though i draw the line at changing song to accommodate the ad (I’m looking at you Of Montreal). The only problem the above mentioned commercials is that when the personalities become caricatures it indirectly affects my enjoyment of the music. Like take Ozzy. Can anyone see Black Sabbath as menacing anymore? Hell, no.
So yeah whatever, music is just an undervalued commodity these days and those that devote their lives to it have to feed themselves by hook or by crook. Welcome to 21st century commerce.
Yeah? How do you feed yourself? I don’t buy that there are no other options than selling the music. I’m not exactly opposed to it, but saying that it’s necessary these days is a bad excuse.
Well I don’t know how I could feed myself if I devoted my life to music. The idea of doing nothing but living off of your music is a nice dream but most people have to have something else to make it day to day. I’m not saying selling your music to say a car commercial IS the only option but just that I can understand why people would do that.
It does bring up the question though if a song is already created, why would using it in a commercial change the song in people’s minds? If say “Like a Rolling Stone” were used to sell Danny O’Doule’s Double-action Diaper for Adults is the song suddenly worse becasue of the juxtaposition? Empirically speaking it’s the same song but I guess it gets into the whole idea of how art and audience interact. I dunno I’m rambling.
I can see why people sell their music, too. I’m just saying it’s not the only option if you don’t want your music associated with a product. There are people much less successful than Dylan that manage just fine without ever selling their music.
Selling music devalues it to some people. And it’s true, if I hear a song over and over in a commercial, I don’t like it as much.
Certainly can’t be classified as surprising, but U2 to me are the ultimate sellouts, choosing first align themselves with iPod and then switching to BlackBerry at the exact wrong moment. You know you’re a brand more than a band when your most significant choice is which mobile device you’re going to endorse.
But for U2 the choice they made seems particularly boneheaded since they jumped ship for a company dominated by corporate email users, and now the band can’t endorse (or use in public) a device that actually has impressive music and video applications.
Not since Tiger Woods endorsed Buick has a sponsorship been so obviously and solely predicated on the dollars involved.
It’s even more boneheaded, when you know that Bono had invested a pile of cash in Palm. Or maybe it’s a hedge.
Full page ad in today’s WSJ for Sprint Network trying to entice people whose iphone contracts are up to switch over and use their Palm which allows for multi-app performance…
Personally, my cell phone contract was up recently and I investigated getting a smartphone and decided I simply don’t need one.
See, now that makes it interesting to me. Now it’s a whole new thing this endorsing and aligning with products. I’ve always liked products and commercials and making money and providing money to those who can continue to entertain me with their art, whether its music, or interesting ads.
The problem is when its done poorly, or, more likely, when what is shown is so narrow. If I could see the Storey Sisters on an ad for, I don’t know, the Cookie Lounge, now how awesome is that??!! So cool!
But I understand what you’re saying, I’m still kind of freaking out that the Summit isn’t the Summit anymore but the Staples Center, or whatever, named after a place that sells stuff. But what difference is it that it isn’t just named after some guy or family or woman who funded it?
I guess I don’t get the whole ‘sell out’ thing.
But I will say that I am so over mobile interfaces and mobile phones, whew! However, depending on the date of that U2 investment, that could be kind of interesting to see the strategy of Palm, which was almost dead a mere 7 months ago, last I checked. Oh, interesting, right then is when he bought, right before new products came out.
One could think he’s helping out his fellow countrymen, but no, I thought it was a Canadian company, though HQ is in the US. So, no on both counts.
Well, who knows. But I do know that if there are companies doing well these days, its computer and mobile phone and mobile application design companies.
Well, there went my last bit of interest on the subject of mobile.
I think people get more attached to songs than the songwriters themselves do. I saw an interview with Willie Nelson where the interviewer asked him if it was true that he once sold a song for something like $5.00. Willie’s answer was, sure why not, I can always write another one. I imagine people like Dylan, Stones, etc. probably have complex hate/love relationships with their most popular songs and are probably more than glad to be making any kind of money they can from them even if it means no one will want to hear them again, something they probably wish would happen.
Of course, selling your persona is a little different.