"It's not about the money. It's the principle."

F

Freakaholic

not just an addiction
Just saw this article on Indie rock bands turning down money from Hummer to appear in their ads.

http://www.austin360.com/music/content/music/stories/2006/02/22hummer.html

And I guess this raises a question about selling out, and "principles". Im not actually in a band, but I do Dj and have begun producing. Im not sure I would turn down anyone's money based on "principle". One, reason, I know, is that I have no principles, but i think there is a different issue.

If you have a message, a principle, or just a specific hatred for something, say a Hummer, and they offer you $50,000 plus for one of your songs, are you helping yourself or your cause by turning it down.

In the article, a licensing group operator said: "My standard line is you guys will play a hundred million gigs before you see this amount of money," Hysen said. "Usually they come back with, 'We'll do anything BUT Hummer.'"

Couldnt this result in even more exposure for your "cause"? Or is it hypocrisy to take money from a company that will eventually find SOMEONE that will let them use their song? Couldnt artists use the opportunity to turn that song as a statement against Hummer in their live shows, videos, website?

And does it really matter? Is turning down money helping anything? This article is pretty slim on arguments from the artists, with statements such as:
"How could we go on after soundtracking Hummer? It's just so evil."
"At least I can sleep without nightmares,"
"We thought about it for about 15 seconds, maybe,"

Not really looking like intellectuals there.

Any thoughts?
 
bruno

bruno

est malade
it's simple, you don't take money from something/someone you don't approve of. no need for elaborate justifications! what's at stake is your conscience, nothing more (or nothing less, depending on how much weight you give to it).

a lot of money changes hands every day and you having more or less of it doesen't mean a thing, the world will keep turning.
 
Z

zhao

there are no accidents
Freakaholic said:
are you helping yourself or your cause by turning it down

Couldnt artists use the opportunity to turn that song as a statement against Hummer
Click to expand...

when ever there is a tug of war of meaning, between an artist and a corporation, the advantage always tips in the direction of the multi-nationals. what invariably happens is the song is recontextualized to fit the product, becoming a part of the Hummer universe. NEVER the other way around. the reasons for this are numerous, but suffice to mention here the massive exposure, global brand recognition, and ofcourse the huge ad budgets simply make DAMN sure of it.

and the dynamic is different in every case... Derrick May (was it?) giving his track to Ford is different from MIA giving her track to Honda is different from this band (not) giving it to Hummer.
 
G

gabriel

The Heatwave
confucius said:
Derrick May (was it?) giving his track to Ford is different from MIA giving her track to Honda is different from this band (not) giving it to Hummer.
Click to expand...

how so?
 
D

Don Rosco

Well-known member
Maybe cos Ford is a Detroit company? And, for a car company, they're pretty left wing.

Here's a right wing wanker giving out about all the left wing causes they fund. And isn't their head guy an big Union head?
 
S

SIZZLE

gasoline for haters
I think the question is what are you comfortable endorsing? In my case Hummers are a very clear symbol of american bloat-culture, militarism and anti-environmentalism. They're like an SUV squared, so I can see how endorsing them would be very problematic. I myself definitely wouldn't do it, it's just too blatant. Some other, more fuel efficient, less decadent type of vehicle? Why not?

Although simplistic, saying Hummers are 'just too evil' makes total sense to me and does not make these people seem dumb at all.
 
M

Martin Dust

Techno Zen Master
We've turned down three things this year, mostly because we couldn't live with ourselves if we'd done two of them and the third was so silly we nearly did it for a laugh but thought better of it.
 
Z

zhao

there are no accidents
gabriel said:
how so?
Click to expand...

well Ford is such an integral part of Detroit, and for better or worse, through the years has had tremendous influence on the city's life, culture, music. Derrick May has said that techno in detroit is at the very least partially inspired by the rhythms of the "Motor-City" and its assembly line aesthetic. Also, he has given us so much amazing music and has been poor for a very long time.

MIA is South Asian, went to artschool in UK, flirts with revolutionary politics, etc. Yet Honda is manufacturer of reasonable automobiles, and not a pure signifier of wealth (which Hummer is more of).

I'm not making any kind of judgements, but all of these specific details matter, in the history and background of the artist, the content of their work, the product endorsed, image of the company, etc.
 
N

nonseq

Well-known member
It was Juan Atkins who did the Ford commercial, but Derrick also has his feelings toward the cooperation of Ford in recognizing the city's roots. He feels that the Ford Focus commercials from 2000 that use Model 500 (Juan Atkins)'s "No UFOs" are "...great. I thought it was the beginning of a wonderful future of a new level of communication that should have been established years ago." In regard to use of his songs in advertising, he recalls, "I had a commercial with Nike; I was going to do the music for Shocks, for a new Nike Shocks commercial, when the director, Jean-Baptiste Mondino, decided that he didn't want to fly from Paris. I lost the commercial. But it's alright. The time will come. There will be another day."
 
A

atomly

atomiq one
I think this whole "I'll do a commercial for this corporation but not this other" BS is just retarded. It's one thing to do no commercials whatsoever, but if you're buying into the system at all, then refusing something like Hummer is either just lying to yourself or buying into the rhetoric because you don't want to be stigmatized.

You're either letting your music be used to sell a corporate "message" or you're not, anything beyond that is posturing.
 
Z

zhao

there are no accidents
atomly said:
I think this whole "I'll do a commercial for this corporation but not this other" BS is just retarded.
Click to expand...

couldn't disagree more. the actions of different corporations vary as much as the actions of individuals. there are rapists and murderers and there are those who try to be kind and do good things.

some of today's corporations are investing in ecologically sound solutions; some are evolving or changing their business models with respect to human rights; some are actively engaged in infrastructure building for third world countries; etc.

and some are torturing and murdering protesters, profitting from the misery of millions, have no regard for the environment, etc.

how is it all the same?
 
Z

zhao

there are no accidents
bruno said:
really? which ones?
Click to expand...

Exxon. a year or 2 ago. the report is a bit fuzzy in my mind, but there was a major spill somewhere and Exxon did not want the word to get out... according to Pacifica Radio a few protesters were captured and tortured, and several of them died.

but that's just surface sensational and shocking stuff. the most insidious happens in the open, and is 100% legal.

many around here must know about Monsanto (http://www.monsanto.com), who is patenting the DNA of crop plants, attempting to monopolize grain production. also genetically engineering sterile seeds, to replace the natural self generating cycles of the plant's life, forcing farmers to buy seeds from them every year.

if that's not evil I don't know what is.
 
bruno

bruno

est malade
exxon hired indonesian soldiers to guard its premises and the latter were accused of rape and torture (they do this sort of thing regularly). but murder? come on. i find it hard to believe that a corporation would order or acquiesce to the torture and murder of protestors, not exactly a sound public relations policy. but even if they did, it's a long stretch from there to saying 'some (corporations) are torturing and murdering protestors'. let's hear one more example.
 
D

droid

Guest
And of course theres the case of Shell colluding with the Nigerian Govt to murder Ken Saro-Wiwa. Theres tons of other cases relating to sweatshops in asia, and agriculture in Latin America- but youd have to go and look them up...
 
V

viktorvaughn

Well-known member
atomly said:
I think this whole "I'll do a commercial for this corporation but not this other" BS is just retarded. It's one thing to do no commercials whatsoever, but if you're buying into the system at all, then refusing something like Hummer is either just lying to yourself or buying into the rhetoric because you don't want to be stigmatized.

You're either letting your music be used to sell a corporate "message" or you're not, anything beyond that is posturing.
Click to expand...

Not sure how helpful this attitude is to be quite honest. I think that by endorsing that we also endorse a total polarised opinion of corporations - if you are on the hard left then they are all eveil regardless of cirumstance, and if you are on the right (or perhaps simply anti-hard left, or even just apathetic) then all corporations are the same, here to stay and there is nothing we can do about them. To say either all corporations are evil or they are all fine is just stupid and short-sighted. (Not saying thats what you claim btw!!!)

They are here to stay yes, but like anything else within the category there are the good and the bad. Encouraging people, including musicans, to differentiate in terms of the moral, social and economic ramifications of the actions of the varying corporations must be hepful. We should reward those that do try and be good, and i don't see musicians being selective as problematic.

Just gets annoying when they consistanly posture about it!
 
V

viktorvaughn

Well-known member
Seem to remember something about Pepsi giving financial aid to the CIA aided overthrow of Allende in Chile in early '70s. Can't remember fully though.
 
Z

zhao

there are no accidents
bruno said:
exxon hired indonesian soldiers to guard its premises and the latter were accused of rape and torture
Click to expand...

that's a different case than the one I cited.

and ofcourse we all know about IBM's involvement with Nazi Germany back in the 40s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top