How To Calculate Musical Sellouts: The Moby Equation

So by this, John Mellencamp has sold his soul how many times with "Our Country"?

I'd think that song would score pretty low, since there was never anything particularly anti-establishment about Mellencamp, his artistic rep is questionable, and the song is far from "sacred" - also, Chevrolets are not inherently anti-rock'n'roll like, say, Viagra or a brokerage business might be. But, then again, he's pretty wealthy and doesn't need the money, so that might tip things a little.

Also, I think the idea is that a song or artist would be soiled by its commercial use, and there's nothing to soil here. That song is terrible.

Very well. What about Wilco selling their whole new album to Volkswagen?

Wow, I thought this was widely known. That's tivo for you I guess.

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/articl...vw-commercials

This was in June, so I know by now they've had the commercials for "Walken" and "Either Way" out too.

In Moby's defense, nobody was listening to his music until he allowed it to be used in promos. It wasn't like he was using music people already loved and then allowed it help advertisers. He needed the ads as much as the ads needed his music.

That formula needs to account for use in films and trailers so that Smashmouth can be accurately accounted for.

Can someone explain to me why it's a problem that artists allow their work to be utilized in a commercial? I'm asking seriously here. I'm interested in your feedback.

I have no problem with it for most bands. I can hating it for The Sex Pistols or similar anti-establishment bands, but as a general principle, no problem. I mean, if Toyota wants to license The Postal Service's We Will Become Silhouettes, I get to laugh at the irony of it and listen to better music in commercials. Meanwhile, Gibbard and Tamborello can afford to focus on creating more music. Sounds mostly like a win-win.

Also, the fact that The Rolling Stones selling a song was shocking to some people is shocking to me. They're about as commercial and pro-establishment as a band can get.

But why even them? Maybe I'm just being dense, but how anti-establishment can someone be if they're releasing music through a label? Particularly with a band like the Sex Pistols who went through about three major labels (EMI, A&M, and Virgin, if I'm not mistaken)

I actually don't have a problem with it either. I was just surprised that Wilco did it, as I would've thought they'd have a problem with it. As long as the artist isn't making music to just go into ads or commercials with no real love behind it. If that's the case, go write jingles.

But why is that even a problem? Art is art and you can't take that away. If some car company wants to use Hum in it's commercials, it doesn't take away from the craft or the enjoyment of the song.

I hardly think the A&M contract counts.

My point would be that if the very foundation of your band is to rail against this sort of establishment and complacency, then you sacrifice your artistic credibility by selling your songs.

I didn't think this through too deeply, so as we keep going you may be able to show me where I'm wrong, I admit.

Am I the only person who has a problem with this estimation?

I'm not sure how I'd factor motivation into it. If Moby sat down and said "I want to write 18 commercials" before recording his next album, and all 18 songs were great, I'm not sure I'd care. It's hard to believe there wouldn't be a level of sacrificed creativity when an artist starts writing songs for purposes other than their own, but that can be judged on a case by case basis.

I just think there's something disingenuous about the enjoyment and artistic quality of music being secondary to its primary purpose in selling a product. If Reebok thinks Karen O.'s song fits their commercial, they can pay the artist for their work and use it. Totally cool. But if Reebok went to Karen O. and said "here's $xxx.xx, make us a song to sell more shoes in this commercial" I think the music suffers. Music is as much about where it comes from as it is the result, whether it's blues musicians who suffered to make their music or the inner city anger that boiled up in West Coast rap music in the 90's, or a punk generation pissed off at conformity. If the primary driving force behind music is "sell sell sell" I think it detracts from the music both inherently and from the quality of the end product.

Just my opinion though.

And that's totally cool -- I'm not trying to get in anyone's face here...I'm honesty curious why this is such a knee-jerk reaction amongst music fans. It seems like a paradox: musicians should make money from their craft, but only using certain revenue streams. If they stray, their sell-outs. Well, a) who appointed musicians to be the last-word on artistic integrity, and b) doesn't the whole notion of selling music violate that platonic ideal of artistic integrity? How is selling a CD different than licensing a song to Cadilliac? If anything, the license generates more money for the license holder than selling a CD (assuming, of course, that the artist is the license holder).

Look at Rage Against the Machine. They were part of Sony. Which machine were they raging against?

And that's a fine and good opinion. But, why is commissioning a song from Karen O. (beyond being a corporate disaster of apolcalyptic porportions) so wrong? Most art over the centuries was comissioned art. I mean, why aren't we giving Mozart shit about his Brandenberg Concertos? They were a commissioned piece. Or how about Michelangelo? He didn't paint the Sistine Chapel for kicks. The Pope asked him to do it and he got a fair amount of cake for his services.

I didn't think you were, in case that was an issue. In fact, I largely agree with you.

However, if you want to be sympathetic to bands like The Clash and Rage, you could point out that the nature of the industry has changed as the internet has evolved. 10 years ago, they didn't have online distribution, Pitchfork, and The Hype Machine. So, a band could have made the decision that having their music heard was more important than being a tree falling in a forest with nobody around to hear it, even if it meant a partial compromise in their stance. I don't know that this is what happened, I'm just suggesting an explanation.

To be fair though, those are different types of art. People don't listen to concertos for the meaning in the composition. I'm somewhat less versed on Michaelangelo, but I believe a good deal of the appreciation of his art is based on technique and aesthetics, rather than anything "deeper". The difference may be that we want to believe our musicians have something to say to us, and by allowing another cook into the kitchen, their message is tainted. It'd be like Whitman writing a poem for the Abe Lincoln to drum up support for his campaign.

Edit: I don't want o imply that other types of art are less meaningful or that people don't find meaning in them, I'm just saying that it's a less direct relationship between those pieces and their respective "messages".

I think this is why Eminem retired. He got tired of being told he had to do Slim Shady songs when he wanted to put that behind him.

It seems that every artist sacrifices creativity once they put out that first major label album. They then have to start making music for the fans. Music that "recreates that sound". Most artists with any longevity usually make it about three albums before they write "one for themselves" again. Or at least that is the pattern I see.

And that's a perfectly reasonable explanation. I'm just wondering why it's a problem to compromise a little bit and not the whole way? Personally, I'd rather listen to Hum or the Buzzcocks sell cars than Paul Anka, but that's just me...SO here's the question: once the material is for sale, why does it matter who buys it?

And speaking of the Buzzcocks, I was introduced to their music via the Nissan ad. I bought the CD and maybe some money went to Pete Shelley and the boys. I doubt it, but who knows...

Point taken, but Mozart was the pop-artist of his day, and I used him as an example of something that was created simply because some rich dude wanted it done, but the work itself retained aesthetic value. It wasn't like he had that stuff lying around and he just sent it out. He had to put pen to paper, and the only reason he did that was someone paid him to do so. And yet, it's still a great work of music.

Well with Michelangelo and Mozart, I think they were commissioned to create art. I pay you this money, you make me something great, we both benefit cuz a) I get all these people to come see your concertos; or b)all these people will come to the sistine chapel and I dunno, give tithes or whatever. Isn't that what all artists on any label are doing? Label pays you money to make something of artistic merit that we all benefit from. Be as cynical as you want, but at its core that is the relationship of artist to label, unless you're like Menudo or something.

The difference is that with commissioning artists for commercials, it's not "create something beautiful and we will use it to both gain"...it's "create something catchy that will sell this brand of car." It's a one way street that compromises the artistic part of the equation in favor of the product they're trying to sell.

Mozart could take chances and still be given the benefit of the doubt. An artist knows that if the song is some weird, ambient trip hop 8 min long track that, while having artistic merit (and something you and I may love), the hirer has veto power to say "no, this sucks, go back and do it again and make it more snappy!" I think that looming over the head of the artist in creating a song compromises the music.

And Lord knows how many posts have gone on while I was typing this.

Again, that's totally fair and I'm not trying to dictate anyone's intellectual freedom on the subject. Unless you disagree with me. In which case, you should be flogged.

Seriously, I don't see a problem in that either, probably because art can still shine through even in the most rigid constrictions. If an artist is truly skilled, he can create art in any situation. It may not be the best creation, but it still has value. Look at Warhol, he was creating art in a commercial venue, essentially saying "Yes, this is commericial, but it still has artistic value." Or check out early Spielberg. Would Jaws be the same if McG or Uwe Boll had done it? Arguably filmmakers have incredibly stringent constraints put on them, and yet, sometimes art is the result.

Couldn't you argue that composing film music is just as bad as composing a song for a commercial? You're using your art simply to enhance something else.

I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that jingle writing is an art, but there has to be some level of skill to write a tune that can convey a certain feeling in the space of a minute or two.

More often than not, this is probably the case, along with the fact that smaller artists really don't make that much money. Bands like the Shins and Postal Service probably rake in more with licensing than they do with album sales.

I read an interview with Carl Newman from the New Pornographers in which he explained why he allowed "The Bleeding Heart Show" to be used in a University of Phoenix ad. It sounds like he doesn't really consider it part of his band's aesthetic to be anti-commercial or anything, so it wasn't that much of a conflict, as long as the product wasn't disagreeable on some basic level. I think he expressed some regrets when he found out that University of Phoenix was kind of a shaky institution, but it's still essentially an educational institution and not Wal-Mart or something.

The Of Montreal/Outback commercial is an interesting case study. They licensed the song (and one that 99.999999 percent of the country wouldn't recognize, anyway), but either the band or Outback changed all of the lyrics to be Outback-specific. They're not cashing in on the hipness of the band, since you'd have to be pretty musically-aware to realize they were using a song that wasn't specifically written for the chain; they just happened to like the melody, I guess.

What's funny about that Dave is I recognized the song...I heard it on one of those annoying Pre-Movie Entertainment things that AMC does before flicks. Funny, huh.

I don't know about the relative goodness or badness of each, but the two are almost entirely different. The film is a complete object, the music simply being part of it - you're not "enhancing" something, because the film would be incomplete without it, just as it would be incomplete without a third act or with a major character's scenes as yet unfilmed. A commercial isn't created for the purpose of aesthetic enjoyment, but to advertise something. It's almost entirely utilitarian. Occasionally, you might get an ad that aspires to something like art, but those are exceptions. When popular music is involved, this is almost never the case, since they're attempting to cash in on someone else's art to sell a product.

It's more complex than this, but the two situations are very far from analogous in almost all respects, from how the filmmaker/advertiser conceives of the work, how the music is created for the work (and whether it was created expressly for it), the purpose of the work, and the perception of the work by the public.

I don't think the comparison would be valid since I think most film composers look for that kind of job. Or are you referring simply to music artists who write for films?

If the latter I see validity to your argument but I think we can all agree that writing for a James Bond opener is always a shot in the arm for any artist. Right?

Anyone?

*crickets*

*ahem*

It was just a thought I was tossing out there, but there are plenty of bands who never met a soundtrack they didn't like, and even some composers who get used over and over again for trailer music.

I'd say trailer music comes pretty close to what we're talking about, but I'm not so sure the concept of bands contributing to soundtracks does. It's unoriginal and unfortunate that "All Star" kept getting used for movies, but it's still not advertising, exactly. The director actually wanted the song to serve his aesthetic purposes, dubious as they may have been.

I wouldn't say that's always the case. Sometimes it's the music arm of the multimedia corp trying to get their band some exposure in one of their films.

In theory I'm inclined to agree with this, but in practice, "Hello Tomorrow" was a pretty cool song.

Moby's early DJing work was widely regarded as some of the best around, Go was a massive dance floor tune, and Everything Is Wrong was really well received critically. It was Animal Rights which kinda broke him as an artist and meant that the only way he could get people to hear the music from Play was to licence it out to advertising.

I was under the impression that the song existed before the commercial did. Can anyone confirm this?

I never did catch onto any of Moby's work. For some reason or another I was always partial to Fatboy Slim. I saw him in Atlanta when I worked security at the Tabernacle.

Nothing gave me more satisfaction than kicking out the two idiots who had bitten through the glowsticks in their ecstasy teeth-chattering mouths while dancing away in the balcony, splattering the walls and about five other concert goers with glow in the dark juice.

We almost began a pool to see if they would die.

Anywho, there was a song he played that night that had some Rolling Stones samples in it and it was one of the best DJ arangements I have ever heard. Not sure if it was an album offering or a touring staple. But yeah, never did get into Moby.

The thing is that the guy used to mix new songs on the fly, essentially creating sampled compositions in real time with an audience. He was pretty legendary until he fucked things up with his bizarre Punk album (my intense love for 'Thats When I Reach For My Revolver' not withstanding)

And that is what it sounded like because it wasn't anything I had heard from him prior.

Nope, composed for the commercial (Spike Jonze apparently is/was dating Karen O.).

Also, not to be a schmuck, but Bach, not Mozart, wrote the Brandenburg Concertos. Point still stands, though.

Ah fuck! Damn it...they SOUND like Mozart, but yeah, Bach makes sense. I know they're wicked hard to play on Bass though...

Wicked hard...I need to move out of Boston...

I've been a big fan of Moby for a long time. Animal Rights -- though definitely different -- is a decent album. Moby played in the CT hard-core scene (stop snickering Mr. Rivello) and I think it's cool he went back to his roots.

With it being so hard for a small band to actually get on commercial radio, getting your song played in a commercial seems a logical way to get people interested in your stuff. More power to them.

Huh, I didn't know that. So yeah, exception to the rule cuz I do love that song.

Someone asked why people are bothered by the use of certain songs in ads. I speak only for myself, but it puts me out when Reebok sells itself by using The Beatles (or Bud sells itself using John Wayne, for that matter) because it is presumptuous on some level - your shitass product isn't worthy of John Lennon or John Wayne.

On a lesser note, there is something sad about hearing an artist's name and the first thing I now think is "ipod!" as opposed to "stirring tribute to MLK!"

I also worry. If you believe that artists will be able to make less money off direct sales in the future as digital distribution grows AND it will continue to become more acceptable to license songs for ads, I think it is safe to worry that at some point more artists will specifically craft their songs with an eye on making them "saleable." This can be called the "Smashmouth Factor."

A fair number of artists already do this. There's never been much of a stigma for pop artists like Michael Jackson or Madonna to write songs designed to appeal to a vast number of people then sell them as advertising material. I don't think the paradigm shift you're talking about will mean that less chart-fixated artists like Feist or the New Pornographers, who have had some success with licensing their songs, will suddenly write music about how great iPods and the University of Phoenix are. It seems if they just keep doing what they're doing, advertisers might just continue to come to them.

I agree the tide is turning on this argument, and if companies and directors begin using music to sell their products in a meaningful way that doesn't result in forcing musicians to write glorified jingles, I'd have no problem with every commercial having a soundtrack.

I'm more interested in the soundtrack discussion. I mean, a lot of people give Garden State shit b/c it seems like that soundtrack was made for the everyday hipster, but hate him if you want, I truly believe that Zach Braff actually really dug each one of those bands/musicians. But it's a thin line between actual love and filling up a movie with trendy bands to give your film instant credibility and sellability (not a word?).