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

[corneilius]

I can tell you one thing it most definitely achieves: if someone hears a tune that artist created, they won't think of (e.g.) Hummers and are more likely to receive the tune as the artist intended.

As a listener that's the thing that matters most to me. I find it really irritating when I hear a song now and seemingly against my control think of the product it was advertising.

What ought to matter to you as a listener is whether or not the music serves the community!

Given the situation in todays world where sales taxes, and income taxes are used to pay for wars anyone who is not aware needs to be brought up to date, and following on from that needs to be encouraged engage in the process of stopping this insanity.

Under the circumastances, it is emotionally blind self-centredness to do anything else with any music that has a wide audience, and ever more craven to be entertaining for profit.

Nero fiddling whilst rome burns!

 

[gek-opel]

I'm intrigued by some of your arguments Cornelius- I broadly agree with your views Re: Marketing as the pernicious enabler of the consumerist "Real" which nullifies all ability to think outside of its own contours. I also agree that there ought to be a limit to how much a given musician can be reimbursed for their efforts. However is there no purpose for music outside of serving the community? In which case why not give up music and become a social worker, or political ideologue, or trades unionist? Would these not fulfill your seemingly utilitarian view of the good far better?

I would add to this that Marley and Kuti operated within political situations which are far from our own. The hardships therein were of a different order, a different nature, one which was to some extent amenable to the effects of popular music. If the very problem is as you describe in our society, tied up in the processes of consumerism, it is almost certain that the methods to resolve said problems exist outside of their own terms. Outside entertainment, product, outside of mere culture which has been peverted into another comodity with which to create a false sense of identity- and narcisistic individuality in the consumer.

Marley and Kuti (and I would add people like the Tropicaliaists) operated under repressive third world governments- hence cultural expression carries revolutionary impact. However, when youth-centred cultural expression has been so assiduously yoked and recuperated by capital, where might its revolutionery portent lay? Given that anything which could give a sense of identity to anyone is liable to recuperation? If you ever did become popular, how would you avoid your ideas from being transformed in this way- how do you prevent your ability to convey identity from being repackaged? Especially now as K-Punk reports so accurately, all the while it is laced with reflexive impotence.

I agree that in the primitivist ideal you describe music would serve such primal functions-- but how to return to that state?

 

[qwerty south]

coca cola was the first corporation to use hip hop culture in advertising according my research:

www.hardrhymesandsoftdrinks.blogeasy.com

 

[corneilius]

I'm intrigued by some of your arguments Cornelius- I broadly agree with your views Re: Marketing as the pernicious enabler of the consumerist "Real" which nullifies all ability to think outside of its own contours. I also agree that there ought to be a limit to how much a given musician can be reimbursed for their efforts. However is there no purpose for music outside of serving the community? In which case why not give up music and become a social worker, or political ideologue, or trades unionist? Would these not fulfill your seemingly utilitarian view of the good far better?

I would add to this that Marley and Kuti operated within political situations which are far from our own. The hardships therein were of a different order, a different nature, one which was to some extent amenable to the effects of popular music. If the very problem is as you describe in our society, tied up in the processes of consumerism, it is almost certain that the methods to resolve said problems exist outside of their own terms. Outside entertainment, product, outside of mere culture which has been peverted into another comodity with which to create a false sense of identity- and narcisistic individuality in the consumer.

Marley and Kuti (and I would add people like the Tropicaliaists) operated under repressive third world governments- hence cultural expression carries revolutionary impact. However, when youth-centred cultural expression has been so assiduously yoked and recuperated by capital, where might its revolutionery portent lay? Given that anything which could give a sense of identity to anyone is liable to recuperation? If you ever did become popular, how would you avoid your ideas from being transformed in this way- how do you prevent your ability to convey identity from being repackaged? Especially now as K-Punk reports so accurately, all the while it is laced with reflexive impotence.

I agree that in the primitivist ideal you describe music would serve such primal functions-- but how to return to that state?

Well put, and I see your point. First of all let me say that much of what I do, and have been doing for over ten years now, on a day-to-day basis, is akin to being a social worker and facillitator. I host events, I encourage and mentor other musicians and also act as a carer/steward at outdoor festivals.

One purpose of music outside of serving the community is to explore one's own joy, the joy of listening (very sensual) and the joy of discovery, both are personal purposes in that they are for the musician. There are others, such as learning to work/play together, of learning and developing empathy. These are tools a musician needs to acquire, and also powerful tools for good human communication and for community facillitation.

I agree with you that the solutions to the problems we see are outside the paradigm that created those problems in the first place. I would also say that the revolutionary aspect of music, as I experience it, is in it's inherent honesty and empathy. In vulnerabilty lies much of our strength.

I feel strongly that the music belongs really to those who like it, who feel it and not to me and thus with regard to 'becoming popular' I intend that if it ever happens, it will be the songs and the message, the content and not the messenger that is central to that popularity.. ..

I will not allow anyone else to repackage who I am or what I have to say. There can be no middle entity between myself and my audience, and if it happens that that audience remains tiny, or grows, either way it's no skin off my nose.

I know there are many, many muscians who inspire people, more than enough to cover all the ground we need to cover in the coming years. I am but one grain of sand on this beach.

I feel a deep seated unease selling my music in plastic or other forms, and would hope in time to earn a basic income soley from performances. You will see, from my gigs list, that I gig extensively and as yet remain unpaid for those gigs. Nonetheless the gigs must happen. I must sing to people, I must communicate and attempt to direct attention towards our common problems, towards possible resolution of those problems.

Therefore I am delighted with the possibility of passing on the music for free via the internet, and at the same time I feel justified in receiving some support in return for those performances, as I would be present, there would be a person-to-person link involved, and I would be giving of my time and energy.

I would like to be able to perform away from pubs and clubs (tax collectors) in an environment where I could enter into a discussion with those who were part of the performance, to share info and inspiration. That mey yet take some time to manifest.

One of my ideas is to ask an audience, prior to a performance, to choose the songs they most want to hear, which would form the bulk of the set delivered.

I perform in order to serve the community, or at least that is what I tell myself! lol!

The only way to return to that state as you put it, would be for a movement of perfomers that see the benefit of gigs that are set up by the community, for the community, to enable those local musicians to perform for their community, and with visiting musicians for the neccessary sharing of ideas, inspiration and beauty and for a wider community networking. The healthy concert series in the UK is a good model.

Does that answer your questions? I hope so, for these are my most cherished ideals in this work. I believe it can work.

 

[petergunn]

I am incredibly fortunate in that I live in the UK, and get 56 pounds weekly from benefits, plus my weekly rent (53 pounds)/council tax(24 pounds) is payed. Iinto the community ....
QUOTE]


by benefits, do you mean like welfare or dole or whatever?

if you're getting money from the british government, is that really THAT different from taking money from Hummer?

me, i'm not sure where i stand on this... my old pre-internet stance, was if some kid in Iowa got turned on to good music from a commercial, great...

i feel like there is so some wisdom in picking your friends (or enemies...) that was Mick Jone's justification when he sold "should i stay or should i go" to Levi's... "hey, they're levi's, they make jeans, they're rock and roll, everyone has a pair, they're not a bad company." same with Henry Rollins and the GAP "if i can take $20,000 from the GAP and put out some records that people wouldn't have gotten to hear otherwise, to me that's good."

 

[droid]

by benefits, do you mean like welfare or dole or whatever?

if you're getting money from the british government, is that really THAT different from taking money from Hummer?

Its better then giving them money in the form of taxes surely?

 

[polystyle]

Good to read these recent Corneilius and Gek-Opel posts and bk and forth on music uses , marketing and all.
They go beyond the original 'music for Hummers for not' discussion , which really is up to the individual artists to decide , case by case.
Also merging into some society's issues , some of those in the very recent politics forum ,
cultures & subculture discussions , Burial's release, dubstep's evolution , rock and indie.
Intersecting with issues past , present and future -
I get the feeling that somewhere past quotes and knee jerk reactions
Dissensus' sometimes nails things well .
Somewhere between thoughts, music , politics and misc. everyone is trying to make their present work out and survive into a future .
Another thread perhaps - the future ( near , mid and far) ?

 

[petergunn]

Its better then giving them money in the form of taxes surely?

well, then couldn't one say it's better to take money from Hummer than to give them money by buying their product?

 

[corneilius]

I am incredibly fortunate in that I live in the UK, and get 56 pounds weekly from benefits, plus my weekly rent (53 pounds)/council tax(24 pounds) is payed. Iinto the community ....
QUOTE]


by benefits, do you mean like welfare or dole or whatever?

if you're getting money from the british government, is that really THAT different from taking money from Hummer?

me, i'm not sure where i stand on this... my old pre-internet stance, was if some kid in Iowa got turned on to good music from a commercial, great...

i feel like there is so some wisdom in picking your friends (or enemies...) that was Mick Jone's justification when he sold "should i stay or should i go" to Levi's... "hey, they're levi's, they make jeans, they're rock and roll, everyone has a pair, they're not a bad company." same with Henry Rollins and the GAP "if i can take $20,000 from the GAP and put out some records that people wouldn't have gotten to hear otherwise, to me that's good."

A good point. It is something I have been dealing with for most of my life, as I have been on those benefits for most of it. If you don't mind I will address your points and others in this posting, so please don't take any of it in a personal way, it is not meant that way. here goes.....

The one period of my life when I worked full-time (13 hour days, 6 days a week) was when my daughter was born. I worked my butt off for 5 years to keep home and family going, and as a result missed out on much of my daughters growing.

I was stressed out a lot and eventually saw that the damage to me, my partner and to our children was not worth the effort I was making. I fell into the trap that our society creates, of making a living instead of living. And in the process my relationships suffered. I was unable to repair that damage, mostly because it takes time to unprogramme oneself, and in the process the family disintegrated.

And this is happening to millions of people, yet there is a great silence about it, we have 2 million children on ritalin in the UK, schools that are failing the children and a very agressive PR industry that targets these children, in full awareness of what they are doing. Ed Bernays knew what he was doing!

So in taking the pittance, in giving up the 'need' for house, car, TV, nice clothes, Holidays etc,. etc., I made room for the people in my life. For me that was a beneficial exchange. I am still in contact with my kids, yet there is a gulf that remains to be bridged.

I fully realise that many people do manage this situation much better than I did, yet I believe that they are the minority. Just look at what is happening in our schools! The predominant conditioning (PR, Advertising, TV etc) encourages this rampant consumerism as almost a duty, certainly using some severe emotional leverage to re-iforce that 'quality of life' and the media will NOT report on the effects of it with any great honesty. Hence the great silence about what our pursuit of 'consumer' happiness really means, in human terms. Apart from the gathering of great wealth, there's the psychological damage.

And this is one of the reasons I compare indigenous peoples to ourselves in my writings, because they have, in general, great relationships with their children, their environemnt and each other. And to me that is the real meaning of humanity - the quality of our relationships is our evolution, not the quality of the products we make.

So with regard to music, the relationship between the musician and the audience is vital, and if it is the typical celebrity type relationship it is the product of mass marketing, a PR exercise based upon manipulating our neuroses and of maintaining those neuroses in place to sustain that relationship. I call that abuse. It is using.

As regards Mick Jones and Rollins statements about Gap and Levi's, that is pure PR and if you can't see it as such then whoa!....those tunes were already well known, and those artists and companies were already making a lot of cash and reaching lots of people - where are they now, are they on TV railing against the Nuclear War in Iraq! Are they supporting serious protest! I don't think so! You see people wearing jeans in Iraq being slaughtered, where is Levi's/Gap in all this - they are protecting their image, their right to make profits- Ani Di Franco has managed to get her music out without that sort of deal ..... if she can do it, so can anyone else who's prepared to work at it. It's called gigging, gigging, gigging.

Finally the money I get from the government is not the governments money - it is OUR money, and thay spend far more of that money on warfare, nuclear power, surveillance, agressive policing, covert warfare and on grants and tax breaks to corporations than they do on benefits or support for their people. THEY do not ask us what WE want done with OUR money and they repeatedly keep hidden how much of that money is going back to 'big business', citing 'commercial sensitivity' - read 'The Captive State' by George Monbiot, and draw your own conclusions.

And if that wasn't bad enough, they use us, the people, as collateral to borrow more money from the banks, and we, the people, the 'workers' have to pay taxes (24% income, 17% VAT, plus more on licences, council tax, inheritance tax and so on - overall total is about 60%!) to repay those loans with interest, profit for the banks - one small example : the cost of the Olympics in London 2012 will be borne by the people of London for 40 years! Thats "two weeks of fit physiques, TV angles and celebrity names" of 40 years of taxation. Not a good deal! Check out my song "Olympics and War" from my site.

I hope that addresses your questions and the points made by others. Please keep asking more, this is a great discussion and I realy do appreciate this flow.

 

[corneilius]

well, then couldn't one say it's better to take money from Hummer than to give them money by buying their product?

Taking money from them so thay can take even MORE money of others? You gotta be kidding!

 

[petergunn]

As regards Mick Jones and Rollins statements about Gap and Levi's, that is pure PR and if you can't see it as such then whoa!....those tunes were already well known, and those artists and companies were already making a lot of cash and reaching lots of people - where are they now, are they on TV railing against the Nuclear War in Iraq! Are they supporting serious protest! I don't think so! You see people wearing jeans in Iraq being slaughtered, where is Levi's/Gap in all this - they are protecting their image, their right to make profits- Ani Di Franco has managed to get her music out without that sort of deal ..... if she can do it, so can anyone else who's prepared to work at it. It's called gigging, gigging, gigging.

Finally the money I get from the government is not the governments money - it is OUR money, and thay spend far more of that money on warfare, nuclear power, surveillance, agressive policing, covert warfare and on grants and tax breaks to corporations than they do on benefits or support for their people. THEY do not ask us what WE want done with OUR money and they repeatedly keep hidden how much of that money is going back to 'big business', citing 'commercial sensitivity' - read 'The Captive State' by George Monbiot, and draw your own conclusions.

And if that wasn't bad enough, they use us, the people, as collateral to borrow more money from the banks, and we, the people, the 'workers' have to pay taxes (24% income, 17% VAT, plus more on licences, council tax, inheritance tax and so on - overall total is about 60%!) to repay those loans with interest, profit for the banks - one small example : the cost of the Olympics in London 2012 will be borne by the people of London for 40 years! Thats "two weeks of fit physiques, TV angles and celebrity names" of 40 years of taxation. Not a good deal! Check out my song "Olympics and War" from my site.

I hope that addresses your questions and the points made by others. Please keep asking more, this is a great discussion and I realy do appreciate this flow.

hey, i don't take anything persoanlly, it's a dialogue... re: Mick Jones and Rollins, i don't care what they do, i was just bringing it up for discussion...

i'm just saying that it seems to all a question of where we draw our lines, and how one justifies these lines to one's self. taking money from the british goverment still being involved w/ the british government.


yes, we don't have a direct say in where our tax money goes. unfortunately, this is part of the social contract one enters into when one becomes a citizen of most western democracys (that i can think of). in return for the benefits of citizenship, one must contribute something to "the common good." if you think you're not getting back what you're putting in, it might be time to move to a society where you are more aligned with the positions of the governing body.

Taking money from them so thay can take even MORE money of others? You gotta be kidding!

it really depends if you actually believe in the effectivess of advertising, and if it makes a difference what silly pop song is the background of a commercial. i mean, a hummer is a big huge beast of a machine. using a indie rock song is not gonna make some emo kid run out and buy one on his bike messenger salary... i think it also depends on the song. i mean, i'd sell some instrumental hip hop beat to hummer in a second, b/c it has no personal meaning to me. but, a song i wrote about the death of a friend, i wouldn't sell to anything but someone i saw as positive (the red cross or something? an environmental group?) tho, i guess in that case i'd just give to them...

again, i think when one lives in western society in this day and age, one is tied in to evilness at all levels (who built the computer i'm typing this on? probably someone getting paid 17 cents an hour...) and it just depends where you choose to draw your lines...

 

[corneilius]

mmmm

Point taken, Nothing was meant personally in my post, or ever is. Nor do I take anything posted in response to me personally.

As for going elsewhere, I have tried, but got deported. lol!

My computer is someone elses throw away pII, most of my clothes, apart from shoes, and underwear are secondhand, and so on. I cannot go out an spend 50 quid on fgetting thrashed like many do (no loss to me there really) and holidays, travel etc., well forget it. I have chosen to be 'poor', it hasn't happened to me, and I know that's unusual.

And as for contracts, social or otherwise, I know for a fact that the average taxpayer in the west gets the short straw in terms of remuneration/tax breaks compared to the industrialists and their elite management class - our health service is ok(ish) but if you put it against the fact that there are so many dodgy chemicals in our food, which are subsidised by us, that cause us many forms of illness, it begins to look pretty grim.

And really the Govt. ought to be doing what we the people want, and need and they blatantly do not. They are supposed to be working for us - that's the whole point of democracy, (public servant!) but I get the impression they think it's the other way around. Especially if you look at how money is created -

And believe me advertising works - thats why it is such an important business, that's why it is everywhere - just look at what happens at christmas time to kiddie adverts and how kids react to it when exposed to it ...... ouch!

laters...