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?
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?