I was asked whether GA covering another bands song was a selling out, after having said that a non sellout band covering another bands song “just for fun” was not selling out. Knowing what their motivations are is the only way I could know for sure.
No I don’t know what anyone else’s *real deep down* motivations are, nobody does. But you can choose to create your own perception of what their motivations are. Bands that I think are non-sellouts may have covered some other bands songs just to get a higher profile or for money and not just because they’d like to play it. I don’t know this for sure. But based on what I know about them, music, interviews, origins etc. I create a perception of them. I don’t believe they will betray that perception they’ve created and I’ve accepted. This is an emotional response. I identify certain ideals/belief systems with certain genres/bands/whatever.
So, basically, it's a circular, self-justifying rationale. You have previously decided that Band X is "a sellout" based on your perception of their motives - based in turn, rather vaguely, on "music, interviews, origins etc." - so all their actions are subsequently interpreted in terms of greed rather than pleasure. That's well and good as long as you're fully aware that it's going on in your head, and has no discernable relevance within a wider context.
Sure I may end up being completely wrong about an artist, being played by them or by the corporate machine without knowing, but I can always change my mind about something when I do find out.
What are your specific criteria, then, for a) deciding a given band is "a sellout", and b) changing your mind about them? I ask because I suspect it boils down to personal prejudice, just another way of expressing whether you like a given band. If you do, you interpret their actions positively; if not, negatively.
What is the objective of “advancing” an opinion? To get other people to accept it? To take it on board? To make it their own? Is anybody on this board seriously open to anybody’s else opinion other than their own? I don’t think so. Besides that’s the last thing I’d want. All I want to do is state it, let people know this pov. Perhaps comment if they want.
Interestingly, this is generally a viewpoint I hear expressed on religious forums: nobody's mind is ever changed by a message-board so there's no point 'debating'. I can't speak for anyone other than myself, really, but I have evolved and changed my worldview on the basis of online discussion. Many, many times. It's one of the main reasons I use message-boards and, indeed, discuss things with Real Life friends and acquaintances. That's a large factor in how I form opinions: the continual act of rubbing my own worldview up against a myriad of conflicting worldviews, adjusting it in the light of convincingly argued or persuasively evidenced viewpoints.
Christ, can you imagine being a hermetically-sealed unit of pristine, solipsistic opinion, utterly resistant to the possibility of change, just here to toss off the occasional uncontaminated "pov"? I imagine it'd be like being dead. Intellectually sterile.
So, yes it is my view. I never claimed it was anything else. Everyone as far as I am concerned has just been poking around in my mind asking my opinion on whatever new scenario they think up.
I'm really really hoping this reflects relative youth on your part. Otherwise, your degree of wilfully rigid self-regard is terrifying.
Are you telling me that everything in this world can be defined objectively?
Nope. Try reading what I've said again.
Physical objects are perhaps easier. Human constructs like the word “sellout” are by nature subjective.
Yes, but, as I've pointed out, within the term "subjective", there's a degree of variability - hence the convention for backing up one's opinion with some sort of evidence. Saying "I think X has sold out because I define 'selling out' in financial terms and look, according to their bank statements, they've made £XXXXXX on that song" may not be a definition I'd agree with, but there's a certain logical consistency that's lacking from "I think X has sold out because when they recorded that song they were motivated entirely by greed". The first statement sets out a definition and provides evidence which makes sense within that definition. The second is merely speculation based on what one imagines went on at the song's recording. The second is therefore less subjective than the first.
What is truth?
What is evil?
Start a HeadShop thread, or search for the threads already there. If you've any interest in what others think on the subject, that is.
I’m telling you what it means to me in my personal context. I don’t believe there is an all encompassing definition for sell-out. Look it up. It varies. If what you wanted is a clear cut definition that you can apply to whatever situation and say “sellout” then sorry, forget about it.
What I'd like is a degree of logical coherence. Naturally you're perfectly free simply to regurgitate the contents of your head onto the screen without having to have it make any sort of sense to anyone else in the world, and without allowing the possibility that your "personal context" might be legitimately challenged. That would seem to obviate the point of a discussion forum, though. If one has no genuine interest in or allowance for the validity of others' opinions, then one might as well fingerpaint, or put jellybeans in one's navel. Or start a blog. |
