If John's music was featured in a commercial..

[hugopresser]

hey, recently at the Frieze Art Fair in New York, John spoke about doing a commercial, to pay off his student loans.

I apologize if I'm skewing the meaning of his words out of context, but he said:

"It's detestable, but i'd do it in a second! To pay off my student loans, I often wondered, what would happen if I did it? could i make some kind of underhanded apology? would people forgive me? so i'd do it in a second I suppose, just to get that, you know, $500,000 dollars from over my head.."

Don't get me wrong, he hasn't done a commercial... and i'm not trying to crucify him like "JOHN HATES RECORD STORES" again or something like that.. it's just been spinning around my head the past few days, and I thought if I was to hear one of these songs in a commercial it would make a lot of his condemnation of the mechanisms of capital/commodification of music meaningless to me.

I feel like i'm being ignorant to just go "sell out!".. and I can't say I'd say no to that money for a commercial... I'd like to think I would say no, but it must be hard to have that sort of strength

does anyone else have thoughts?

[RareGoat]

Interesting question. If we take the loose idea of using art as a means to make money as "selling out", then in a sense almost all commercially distributed music is a "sellout" -- but we all know that selling your music isn't a bad thing in itself. As for using music in commercials, then you're mixing the money aspect in with more crass commercialism - not just making money for yourself, but helping another money-making company make more money. My gut feeling is that the question of "is this okay?" has a lot to do with the motivations of the artist as well as the integrity of the other money-making company involved. Basically, if it's a "good" company, then doing a commercial for them is okay. To put it more clearly, if it's a company that John himself is cool with, then there's no real conflict of interest there. If, on the other hand, John were to do a commercial for some scumbag company that he thinks is corrupt and dangerous, just to make money, then he's clearly compromising his own positions and putting money above his own sense of right and wrong. And of course there's a lot of gray area between right and wrong. My point is that making money on your music, even if you sell it to another entity for commercial gains rather than go straight to your listening public, is not in itself a bad thing to do.

[LadyLazarus]

From what John said at Frieze last month, he would find the use of his work to sell blueberries or whatever innocuous product "despicable" and "unforgivable." He referenced Tame Impala's "Elephant" being sold in an advert recently and joked he would do it to clear his student loans, but honestly, if he were in dire straights financially and living out of his shoe I still don't think he could reconcile himself to this regime of capital, which he seems to deem the (profoundly evil) structure of power reigning at the moment. That was the impression I got, anyway, especially after the Q&A where I said I would have sanctioned the advert if he felt it was necessary. (I lived with student loans for over a decade: I know that desperation). The overall impression I got was one of disgust for the very implications of "selling out."

[Eugenia]

If a piece of music can somehow fill up his plate with food, or get him a roof to sleep under (or pay off his loans), then he should do it: license his music. I won't think any less of him, or of any other artist for doing so. I personally don't weigh rather-abstract ideas (e.g. "art", "capitalism") the same way when they get in the way of daily practicality, e.g. having food to eat. Breathing & living (and loving), is more important to me than either doing art, or fighting capitalism, so if a piece of music enables you to live, then there's no harm done by selling or licensing. A problem only arises when you already have plenty of money, and still trying to sell as much as possible, in order to make more money, for the same of making more money. Then, sure, that would be pathological, and wrong, because then you would be essentially selling your metaphysical self (in which case, the "life" won't be yours anymore to "live & breath"). But that's not the case understood here, at all. We're talking about primordial (financial) needs, not making a buck.

[LadyLazarus]

Completely agreed, and this is what I tried to convey to him in the brief window of opportunity I had to ask questions. This is also an interesting scenario to speculate on when you take into account his supreme adulation for video game music and TV themes (and perhaps even more blatantly, songs from bicycle commercials), which are all essentially selling a product.

[fl00de]

..

in exchange for money
you will trade your very soulllllll

[AppTrans]

It Takes Time would be good for an adult diaper commercial

[LadyLazarus]

It Takes Time would be good for an adult diaper commercial

I feel like I want to draw up storyboards for this now for my own amusement.

[hugopresser]

stop making wise cracks apptrans and start making poultry boy covers!!! (i can't talk im trying to finish mine at the moment.. if only for lady lazarus' interest)

[AppTrans]

haha

[epiphamus]

The essential problem is the unequivocal role played by advertising in manipulating consumers through unconscious mechanisms for material gain. It doesn’t matter if it’s a good or bad company/product. It is the way advertising functions which is the essential issue.
Given his philosophical stance on related issues, if John Maus did a commercial I would lose a great deal of respect for him. I would see it as a momentary lapse of reason and an unignorable blotch.
The only way anyone can get away with it in my eyes is if they at least concurrently subvert the product that they are promoting whilst revealing the hidden manipulative mechanisms at work in the marketing process.
I don’t really know what “selling out” is. It's a bit ambiguous for me.

[fieldmaus]

In my own limited experience of knowing a few groups of very friendly, and generally likeable poeple that have done this kind of thing, I certainly don’t think they should be outcasts or anything like that. Of course, I didn’t have the heart to say anything negative to them(which is probably wrong of me), but it is sad to see someone think that being in an advertisement is a ‘neccessary evil,’ much less an accomplishment. Not that I considered them very much as serious artists before(as opposed to just musicians that don’t want a day job), but I certainly don’t now, not in any sense of the word whatsoever. Maybe that’s wrong of me to think, Idk.

I personally don't weigh rather-abstract ideas (e.g. "art", "capitalism") the same way when they get in the way of daily practicality, e.g. having food to eat. Breathing & living (and loving), is more important to me than either doing art, or fighting capitalism, so if a piece of music enables you to live, then there's no harm done by selling or licensing. -Eugenia

Practically speaking, I don’t think doing a commercial is a matter of physical life and death. But if somehow it came to that, there are certainly other more humiliating, but less despicable ways of ensuring that an artist doesn’t die of starvation or lack of shelter. Ways like: a normal job, like John has said before,

“I hope I always make music, and I plan on doing that. But I also plan on getting a regular job. Maybe this is blasphemy to say, but I feel like [music] is not meant to be something that earning your keep depends on, because it will force you into making decisions in the interest of earning your keep, as opposed to the interest of the thing itself. And that’s a bad position to be in. It seems to me that the best work I’ve done— and maybe this is something other people can identify with— was because it was an end in itself. It was something other than making ends meet, it was an escape from all that. - John Maus” (p4k interview for rarities release)

Also there are other things like unemployment, wellfare, etc. Yea, maybe not ideal, and detested by some, but they are possible alternatives, if speaking purely in the interest of staying alive, and IMHO would be much better options than “throwing your lot in with the devil,” in John’s own words.



Subversion/Detournement(is that the correct use of the term? if not, i apologize)

Okay, so from the standpoint of possible subversion or detournement, of using the song as a force for good to turn the advertisement on itself, and in no way in the interest of capital, yea, I suppose it IS possible, but certainly doesn’t seem likely to me if gone about in the way these things are currently done. I mean, pop music itself is already kind of dangerous in this regard, don’t you agree? And unless we find some radical new procedure, I don’t think anyone would come out unharmed after digging that deep into what seems to be a very treacherous(and unneccessary) arena. --Wouldn’t it be best to just avoid these kind of advertisements altogether? Doesn’t that speak for itself as opposed to trying to get inside the operation, or am I wrong to think that?

Given his philosophical stance on related issues, if John Maus did a commercial I would lose a great deal of respect for him. I would see it as a momentary lapse of reason and an unignorable blotch. -epiphimaus

Assuming that he went about it in the way that these things are commonly done, and that a mode to completey topsy-turvy the advertisement had not yet been uncovered, I don’t think I would lose respect for him if he did that per se, as I’m sure he would never do such a thing lightly and without a lot of thought. But I would almost certainly be very disheartened, discouraged, and dissappointed. I completely I agree with his own sentiment that it is dispicable and disgusting.

[Eugenia]

I disagree. There are multiple levels of your argument that make me disagree. Some points:

- I don’t think doing a commercial is a matter of physical life and death

No, but if you can get $50k in one afternoon (a worth of 2 years of labor in some states), then why not go for it? Who wants to lay cable for Comcast under the sun all day (one of John's previous jobs)? My brother is doing a similar job in Greece (an electrician who's being doing oddball jobs for the mayor of our little town), and I know how tired he comes back home, being under the sun all day, fighting with mud. When your father or brother come home so tired that they can't even eat for an hour after they arrive, until they catch a breath, and with their skin all burned out from the sun, then licensing some art doesn't seem all that "despicable" to me. I've lived both the ugly life as a kid, and the better life later on, so I can appreciate it when there's a balance stricken between the two. Nothing is black and white in the world.

> but less despicable ways

There is nothing despicable in licensing your art. This is my reasoning: If the art was made under no pressure of making a buck, or under pressure by another authority, then that is real art. As such, it does NOT lose value if it's licensed, or sold, or whatever else, because at the time that art was created, it was as pure as it goes. If licensing takes its art value away, then it was never art in the first place. True art never loses value. The despicable part would probably be if you write new music FOR a commercial, and even then I wouldn't be so sure. Another despicable part of it would be if he would license his music to Monsanto, or to oil companies, corporations that we know that they destroy the world. But if he's licensing to an ad about environmentally-responsible baby diapers, what's the harm? Nearly none from my standpoint.

In my case, I license most of my collage artwork not under the normal "All Rights Reserved", but under liberal Creative Commons licenses. The people who download my art -- that was created under no pressure or commission, but it comes directly from me -- can reuse my collages for any purpose they deem fit. All they have to do is give me some credit somewhere. A lot of the people who usually use Creative Commons are corporations. So if one day I wake up and see one of my collages as an ad, does that mean that my art just lost value? Honestly, I don't think so. If anything, I contributed in a more altruistic world where sharing is the default. Not even the "bad" guys are to be cut out of the sharing. In fact, Creative Commons is considered ultra-liberal and progressive!

For the record, I'm not a poster girl for capitalism. I define myself as a social-anarchist, with some centrism leanings (mostly because the human race is not evolved enough yet to become true anarchists successfully). But since we live in a capitalistic society, we have to actually do that: live. And for that to happen, sometimes we have to step into grey areas in regards to our beliefs and convictions. And licensing one's art, is one such grey area, and it has *conditions* that we must take into account before we can deem such an action a "sell out" or not. Again, it's not black and white.

>But I would almost certainly be very disheartened, discouraged, and dissappointed

So we get to judge others and flee from their side without trying to get in their shoes first? Is that it? Instead of trying to understand WHY someone like John, who you already know he has strong convictions, would do something that is so against his beliefs, you have already decided that you would be "disheartened, discouraged, and disappointed". But the thing is, you don't know anything about his situation, neither you seem concerned in understanding his mindset at the time, should a hypothetical licensing of his art occurs. You don't know his financials, his health, his needs, the job offers in his area, his whatever. What if he has weighed in the pros and cons of licensing his music for a commercial, and the pros outweigh the cons in his personal situation? What if he owes lots of money to the wrong people and "getting a job" wouldn't get him out of the hole? What if he has a secret wife and a kid that need to be fed? What if has a health problem and he can't work? What if he has a criminal record and he can't be hired easily? What if his PhD takes over all his time and he can't go to work? Neither you or me know any of that. And yet, you have already decided that you would be "disheartened, discouraged, and disappointed". That's because you have created a mental image of John Maus in your head that is pristine and immune to external forces of life. But nobody is! So I find it premature, or even cruel of you saying these things, when you don't have enough data to justify such negative feelings towards a human being.

[LadyLazarus]

I was up late last night reading about Schopenhauer and Tolstoy (as you do) and there was a lot in it about the denial of the self and the complete renunciation of freedom, pleasure and desire in order to ascend on a spiritual level. As the reluctant nobleman quoted from Matthew 19:24: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." This is all very subjective, and for some, taking up thy mendicant staff is a personal choice.
Tolstoy also said "The truth is that the State is a conspiracy designed not only to exploit, but above all to corrupt its citizens ... Henceforth, I shall never serve any government anywhere." Perhaps the same statement could be directly applied to some aspects of capitalism.
Anyway, going back to the original point: this 'sell out' witch hunt seems completely backwards to me (this sentiment coming from a person who actually knows someone directly in the business of music, and yes, it is a business). It irks me when people enforce their own quixotic set of values on another human without first considering the variables of their situation.

[fieldmaus]

Eugenia, LL, thank you(!!!) both for your meaningful rebukes concerning me imposing my own images, ideals, or anything else onto another being. I hadn’t really thought about that, and it really is wrong of me! THANK YOU!!!

Also, I didn’t make this at all clear with my first post, and so I just want to officially say: Should John ever decide to do a commercial, I will do my absolute BEST!! to be empathetic and understanding of that, and gracious in thought towards him as a human being!




Eugenia, I think I kind of get what you mean by,

If the art was made under no pressure of making a buck, or under pressure by another authority, then that is real art. As such, it does NOT lose value if it's licensed, or sold, or whatever else, because at the time that art was created, it was as pure as it goes. If licensing takes its art value away, then it was never art in the first place. True art never loses value.

But what about like, do you suppose that how the work is employed is completely inconsequential?




-- What I mean by the possibility of future disheartenment(Im sorry, I also did not make this clear!! I’m trying to get better at articulating these things) is about the thought that in a commercial, certain aspects of a song could be silenced in order to not-so-purely articulate something altogether different, than the original, purely intended goal of the work. That’s what I meant about that, as opposed to being disappointed with John.

e.g.:

If I saw an insurance commercial with two people in a white room full of cash, laughing and throwing all of their ‘savings’ in the air while dancing to a disco song, and a vocoded voice sings, “whatcha gonna do with all of that money, whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do, put it in your pocket and you feel like john lennon.” -- Wouldn’t that be so sad and discouraging??? If a radical work, which (IMO) encourages an imagining and a pursuit of something much higher, in the way of love, and that supposes something completely other than global capitalism, would be forced by the those very entities of power to speak and give voice to what they would have it say, as apposed to the opposite of that??? (Again, I would not be disappointed with John of course, as we’d all be hypothetically, totally empathetic and understanding of him as a human being living in our current situation, should he ever choose to do a commercial. What I would be disheartened, discouraged, and disappointed about, is that so great a work would be appropriated in such a negative way, and all the more so in this particular case, due to the rare articulation that the work commands in it’s true context.)