Does it ‘cheapen’ your brand to license your music to a commercial? Does this compromise the integrity of your craft?
…Thoughts?
[quote]
However, there’s a key question unique to bands that most entrepreneurs would never think of: does going commercial mean that my band is “selling out”?
In 1988, Neil Young wrote a song called “This Note’s for You.” It goes like this:
“Don’t want no cash
Don’t need no money
Ain’t got no stash
This note’s for you.
Ain’t singin’ for Pepsi
Ain’t singin’ for Coke
I don’t sing for nobody
Makes me look like a joke
This note’s for you.”
The song chastised artists who “sold out” by allowing their songs to be used in commercials or advertising. Many artists including Neil Young, Pearl Jam, Radiohead and Bruce Springsteen have never allowed their music to be used for commercial purposes as they felt that it cheapened their art. However, many well-known acts like Led Zeppelin, the Rolling Stones, and The Who realized that they would benefit not only financially, but also from the additional exposure that commercial sponsorship provided. [/quote]
I think back in the day if you made it as a musician and didnt want to use your music to support a brand then dont.
However, music and media have changed nowadays and there are so many people making music that any exposure is a good thing.
Yeah i would love an advert to use my music!
A lot of artists have made it big time through that route alone.
Although it would depend on the product, i wouldnt support something i didnt agree with or was against my morals or beliefs.
However, as for a song or selling out hell yeah! I would consider it a good think to have such publicity -and revenue.
Even the big name artists are doing it nowadays.
But i do understand that selling out as an artist just for money is not ideal and years ago i wouldnt have dreamed of it!.. but im getting older now, have a mortgage, kids etc.
Hell yes i’d sell my music to advertise cheerios!
I’m going to generalize the heck out of my answer… I think the music landscape of today makes it a pretty easy decision. If you’re in it for the love of the art, then don’t plan on making a (lavish) living with it.
If you’re trying to make a living, then plan to “sell out”. The market has changed. Money in music tends to largely come from commercials (as mentioned), movies, and video games. Selling albums the old fashioned way is a (mostly) expired model.
Again, I’m totally generalizing, but you get my point.
The funny thing to me is that I’ve seen commercials made trying to sell all of (mentioned artist’s) albums. So it’s not that they don’t support their music in advertising… they just want to be the focus of the advertisement.
Jonathan, seeing as before you had 2 music studios it could of gave your studios great exposure, as for your line of work now I think it will open a lot more doors and create some good friendships which will garner you more jobs and you can still love and have passion for what you do your not selling out you are running a business.
Back when album sales could make you a millionaire, you had the luxury of turning down alternative revenue streams and believing that you are not selling out…
But the way I see it, as soon as you commercially release your work you have “sold out” to some extent. If you want to be an artist, be that the starving type or the “in your own mind” and keep your works to yourself or give them away for free… More power to you and, yes, I’ll take fries with that… :beerbang:
I’m pretty sure there is a whole generation of Canadians who may sceptically raise their eyebrows at Neil Young’s position given his willingness to not only locate himslef in the USA for many years but to drape himself with the ol’ stars and stripes on many an occasion. Unironically, I might add…
Anyway, as to commercial use cheapening the music, if it’s populist and “commerical” anyway, what’s the difference?
Quite a bit of Bruce’s stuff falls under this TBH.
In a world, where people in general would be a bit more educated in art, and would have a higher understanding of the importance of it, there would be far more respect for it as well. And instead of budget cuts on culture subsidies, the opposite would maybe happen, and there would be more options to get by on making or playing music. Not talking about making the big bucks, just getting by, like you do now with your day-job. But in the world we live in right now, I would also accept an offer like this, milk it out, and then slowly turn back to my own thing, without compromise.
As long as you stay by your own values and respect yourself and music, I think there will be no problem in doing whatever you like after a project where you have to compromise a bit here and there.
What musicians sometimes forget as well is that you are playing FOR the audience, that in turn pays for your dues, so some respect to them, and sometimes making a small compromise to please them, isn’t that bad of a thing :). Rarely a project makes it real with purely doing it for themselves.
