2005.10.14.1818 :: on selling out and buying in

a rather interesting discussion has broken out over the last few days and spilled across several message boards and blogs that i frequent (i could say "blogosphere" if i wanted to immediately, involuntarily stab myself for saying it) on the subject of "selling out" and "authenticity," especially in relation to ads being used in television commercials, prompted by MIA being featured in a new honda commercial.
[some links: simon reynolds on authenticity | michaelangelo matos | dj rupture's 10-step guide to selling out]

i don't feel like i have a lot to say about it that hasn't already been said a million times, except that it's weird to realize i've totally shifted in my opinion over the last few years, if only on an unconscious level.

maybe it has something to do with the fact that it's actually a concrete thing now versus just a theoretical thing. as pointed out by jason gross, most people who speak out against it are not musicians themselves, but editorialists, and that's exactly what i was when i spoke out against it.

i guess maybe it's just me rationalizing it to myself, but it seems like in the grand scheme of things, selling a song to a commercial isn't that bad of a thing. ultimately, if i were actually approached to have one of my tracks used in a commercial, i'd have to think about it long and hard and i'm not entirely sure what my answer would be— i'd like to think "no," but it's really hard to say without actually being in the situation. i have a feeling that a lot of it would come down to what company wanted to license it, but in the end is that even what matters? isn't it less important what company is using it and more important that your music is being re-contextualized and transformed from art to advertisement?

even though i'm not sure what my response would be, i hold a lot less animosity toward people that agree to have their music licensed than i used to. i know a lot of musicians who are struggling to make a living and pulling in $50,000 from a commercial (the going rate for a minute long television ad) would certainly make their future much brighter and allow them to devote a lot more time to their music.

it seems like "keeping it real" is often used as a tool to keep musicians down, honestly. you spend all your time making music and playing shows (and possibly even promoting them) but people want to share your mp3s for free or want to be on the guestlist for your shows. promoters want to stiff you when they screw up a show or bitch about your fee and how you're not underground. people bitch about too much money being charged at the door. honestly, where in this equation is a musician supposed to make any money? to an artist who sells maybe a copule hundred copies of any release and makes a few hundred dollars off of any show, this money is almost impossible to turn down. unless you have a day job, how can you possibly not take the money? and, in the end, is it really any worse to take money from an advertisement than it is to have a dayjob? the companies that most people work for are no better than the companies trying to license tracks, right?

and if you don't license your track to them, they're just going to pay some choad in a studio a couple hundred dollars to reproduce it or they're going to license some other shitty song from somebody else. the ad is going to get made and porducts are going to get sold, so the only things you're preventing are your art being recontextualized and you getting a fat paycheck (probably fatter than you've seen in all your years of independent music).

but after saying all this, i keep reminding myself of bands like fugazi that have done it all without ever selling out. they release all their own music, they never overcharge for their shows and they're always all-ages. they've taken a very clear stand from the beginning and have been very successful with it, so maybe anybody else is just lying to themselves so that they can feel ok.