?

Log in

No account? Create an account
vw

there's never been such grave a matter as comparing our new brand-name black sunglasses

Posted on 2004.10.12 at 13:28
How I feel about it all: chipperspamranty
Soundtrack: Rufus Wainwright - Poses
In which Mark Morford rants so primroseburrows doesn't have toooo!

Fie on all of my gen's rock stars who sell their souls songs to car companies. Even those of you I admire. Especially you. WTF?

Comments:


ordeal by roses
fourish at 2004-12-10 08:51 (UTC) ()
Owwwwwwwwww.

That hurt my soul.

my life's so common it disappears
songdog at 2004-12-10 14:24 (UTC) ()
So far, Neil Young has not succumbed. He even wrote a song about it -- "This Note's For You"

I find the Zeppelin thing for Cadillac both amusing and horrifying.

I believe I've heard Dylan (*Dylan*!) on a commercial. Please tell me I'm wrong.

I love Mark Morford. His rants are at least entertaining, and usually completely justified.

try to catch the deluge in a paper cup
primroseburrows at 2004-12-11 02:40 (UTC) ()
There's a Dylan song in a Victoria's Secret commercial, says Mr. Morford.

To loosely quote patchfire: "Bob Dylan" and "Victoria's Secret" shouldn't be used in the same sentence.
peacey at 2004-12-11 08:23 (UTC) ()

On the other hand...

Yes, I agree that when artists who have made millions sell their songs/concert sponsorship/whatever to corporations, it does leave a foul taste in my mouth. But when a lesser known does it, I understand to a certain extent. If one is concentrating on one's art and doing the best one can but struggling to make ends meet for oneself or one's family, and a corporation comes with promises of funds that will secure a decent future (short or long term), then I cannot bring myself to be so arrogant as to condemn an artist for accepting it. Art in all its forms is a lot of things but we should never kid ourselves into thinking it isn't a commodity to be bought and sold.
try to catch the deluge in a paper cup
primroseburrows at 2004-12-11 15:37 (UTC) ()

Re: On the other hand...

If one is concentrating on one's art and doing the best one can but struggling to make ends meet for oneself or one's family, and a corporation comes with promises of funds that will secure a decent future (short or long term), then I cannot bring myself to be so arrogant as to condemn an artist for accepting it.

Yeah, that's fine for struggling/beginning artists. I don't hold it against them, reall. But Steven Tyler, Robert Plant and Bob Dylan certainly don't have to worry about making ends meet and getting more exposure. Them dudes are everywhere. And I bet they're plenty rich. The new artists aren't selling out, just selling, and that's not so bad. But Dylan? Bob Seger? I'm furious at those guys.

The one exception is the Beatles. Paul McCartney sold the rights to Lennon-McCartney songs years ago, and I believe Michael Jackson owns them now. So "Imagine" is on a Mac commercial (or was once) because of him, not Paul. Why Paul sold them in the first place is the puzzler.
peacey at 2004-12-12 13:16 (UTC) ()

Re: On the other hand...

*Yes, I agree that when artists who have made millions sell their songs/concert sponsorship/whatever to corporations, it does leave a foul taste in my mouth.*

Yes, I obviously agree with you.
robinhoo at 2004-12-11 16:31 (UTC) ()
While Morford's rant certainly jiggles the knife that's been stuck in my heart ever since I first heard "Like A Rock" on a Chevy commercial and almost simultaneously learned that not only had Alan Jackson sold out to Ford, but had actually re-recorded "Mercury Blues" so that he could tell us he was, in fact, "crazy 'bout a Ford truck," it doesn't take into account an important fact: there are still artists out there with integrity. Tori Amos and the White Stripes are not telling me which stores to shop in. Smashing Pumpkins and DMB are not telling me which cars to drive. Pearl Jam has, in fact, made it pretty clear that "selling out" in this fashion would not be something they would do. And while it's true that U2 has achieved new levels of "synergy" with Apple/iPod, it's important to note (as Morford does, kinda) that their team-up is about the music -- can you really imagine Bono selling the rights to "Pride" or "Sunday Bloody Sunday" to, say, Target? I can't. So while the phenomenon Morford rants about is disheartening in the extreme, I disagree with his fundamental framing point that "rock 'n' roll is dead" and the coffin has been nailed shut. There remain voices of protest against the marriage of rock and commercialism, and it is a disservice to these artists who maintain their artistic integrity to write off their medium just because some of the major players have caved.
try to catch the deluge in a paper cup
primroseburrows at 2004-12-12 00:46 (UTC) ()
And while it's true that U2 has achieved new levels of "synergy" with Apple/iPod, it's important to note (as Morford does, kinda) that their team-up is about the music -- can you really imagine Bono selling the rights to "Pride" or "Sunday Bloody Sunday" to, say, Target?

Yep. For some reason the U2 thing is different--it doesn't bother me at all.

Tori Amos and the White Stripes are not telling me which stores to shop in. Smashing Pumpkins and DMB are not telling me which cars to drive.

Mmm-hmm. And people like Dave and Tori are giving of themselves in other areas, like Tori's RAINN, and all that Dave does for peace and environmental stuff--and U2.

So while the phenomenon Morford rants about is disheartening in the extreme, I disagree with his fundamental framing point that "rock 'n' roll is dead" and the coffin has been nailed shut.

I agree here, too. My agreement was with the disgust Mr. Morford has with the sellouts. Rock and Roll is still here to stay.




Previous Entry  Next Entry