BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Radio & Music >

Sell Out?!!!

  
  

Page: 1234(5)678

 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
21:03 / 20.09.05
Well now Stoatfiend, 'Sellout and The Session Bastards' is a great name for a pubrock outfit, but I still stand by 'Breadhead and the Timewasters', for anything from pubrock to jazz ensembles. It just swingz, you know, hepcats, particularly if you read the classifieds in Straight No Chaser

((c)Me, Right Now...fuck with this edict, my people with have very stern words with your people)



Capiche?
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
21:07 / 20.09.05
Actually, they'd make a great double bill:

Sellout and the Session Bastards featuring Breadhead and the Timewasters.

"Fuck that's Good", could be the name of the album.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
21:12 / 20.09.05
BIO K9 has sorted the logo, one page back near the bottom.
 
 
ZF!
15:58 / 22.09.05
I was writing a conversational essay, but I abandoned it after it hit 6 pages and I hadn’t even said half of what I wanted to. Then there was another shorter but more example laden write up, which was swallowed up by Word.  I’ll start again. Hopefully the most summarised version for your enjoyment

Artist. = Musician?
Music = Art?

The term artist can have different meanings, I’ve defined some categories

Creator – produces never before seen/heard original work. New ideas. New sounds
Examples – original songwriter(s), may be a team/communal effort

Adaptor – adapts previously existing music to a new form or version.
Examples – musician using samples of other peoples work, band covering song in their own stylee, maybe producers (are they even musicians/artists? debatable)

Emulator – copies a previous existing work or direction, note for note, word for word.
Examples – session musicians,

I’d define the first two as not being sell-outs where something new or original is being created.

Ok combine that with my main ideas about what is important in art

Originality – creating something that is new
Sticking by your creation - i.e not selling up and losing control
No “untrue” motivations for creating - greed, just being a tool or instrument

Perhaps that makes it clearer? Opens another can of worms?
It really does take too long to explain my reasons.

Ok I’ll throw this in there, there’s probably something I missed.

Maybe y’all still interested?

Apologies for not replying to your posts before Copey, I had actually started ignoring you on the board, and you had just become less insulting, sorry.

Z
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:13 / 22.09.05
Is nightclub dwight around? We could do with the Bach test...
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
08:27 / 23.09.05
Emulator – copies a previous existing work or direction, note for note, word for word.
Examples – session musicians,

ZF - this, I think, is the part that needs the most examination.

Do you know of Andy Gangadeen? Erwin Titre? Any top (world-class, as in, travel the entire planet being hired by the biggest bands and artists for touring and studio work) session musicians?

Even if you don't, what do you suppose it is about them that means they can specify their own rider, to the extent of cherry-picking gigs where they are provided a mobile recording studio to follow them around where they can work on their own material at their leisure in between tour-dates.

Again, your dichotomy is a flase one. Session musician = cannot create. Not how it works, I'm afraid.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
08:28 / 23.09.05
And why do some session players get all the gigs and loadsamoney, while others have to set-up their own gear and take Union rates or fuck off? What separates them?
 
 
ZF!
17:49 / 23.09.05
"Creation" can mean a lot of things.

Just making a sound or making music.

I'm not saying a session musician can't be adept. No sir. I'm not saying they don't love what they do and play with "heart". I'm not saying any musician is forever branded "sellout".

Obviously people can do session stuff and then do original work on the side, I'm just saying that when they're being a session musician they're being a sellout to what I identify as what is important in progressing art/music.

You can argue, they're creating beautiful music that people love, how can that be a sellout? Again, because of what I writ above.

I mean a very valid idea could be to call anyone who doesn't enjoy what (s)he does a "sellout". Not following true love etc. etc. I can see the logic in that idea.

I just don't bring it into this equation. Such a thing..."enjoyment". Really!

:-)

Z
 
 
Tom Paine's Bones
18:35 / 23.09.05
How would the involvement of session musicians in the production of original material fit in with your view of creativity?

Surely they bring something of themselves to the creative process?
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
23:03 / 23.09.05
I mean a very valid idea could be to call anyone who doesn't enjoy what (s)he does a "sellout". Not following true love etc. etc. I can see the logic in that idea.

But...musicians love making music...that's what they do...tell me, zenfroglet, have you ever listened to a tune and thought, "I wish I'd made that"?

Most musicians have. The one's I know, anyway. And to express that love, themselves, well, it's just heaven. You seem to want to disenfranchise them from that engagement with their passion.

Why?
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
23:08 / 23.09.05
Sorry, drunk (again) and not that clear - you seem to be suggesting that a session musician playing something they did not write themselves must be 'hating' or 'not enjoying', somehow, what they are playing. They must, themselves, *know*, that since they did not write the music they are channeling / playing / expressing / creating, that they automatically are adopting your system of values about their skills, artistry and abilities.

Highly questionable. Like, why do you think that?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
07:30 / 24.09.05
And in the case of classical/orchestral music (or indeed any music, really), what's the point of writing something that nobody will ever hear unless you get someone else in to play bits of it? If the creator is relying on the "sellout" musicians to actually make his music real, doesn't this reliance pollute the creative process?
 
 
ZF!
08:40 / 25.09.05
Most musicians have. The one's I know, anyway. And to express that love, themselves, well, it's just heaven. You seem to want to disenfranchise them from that engagement with their passion.

Why?

No no, you've misunderstood what I meant. I only meant that I didn't include the "enjoyment" concept in my little criteria thing. Lots of people enjoy what they do, that doesn't make it art. Well I guess that is debateable huh? Now we can go into a "what is art" discussion. :-)

Z
 
 
ZF!
09:14 / 25.09.05
And in the case of classical/orchestral music (or indeed any music, really), what's the point of writing something that nobody will ever hear unless you get someone else in to play bits of it? If the creator is relying on the "sellout" musicians to actually make his music real, doesn't this reliance pollute the creative process?

I'm actually of two minds about this. Another example of this is the totalitarian band leader who writes all the bands instruments himself.

Is he a sellout because he's taken away the other artists right to create? To me the impotent band members would be sellouts because they've given this up. But is he?

Is he not a sellout, because they are simply instruments that he is using to create, while remaining true to his own creation?

I suppose there's a different level there, and I think I'm leaning towards the latter.

I'm gonna think about that for while.

Z
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
09:53 / 25.09.05
My further point from this is that he (or she) can't do this without them- they are necessary to the process of creation... therefore to label them "sellouts" seems a little unfair.
 
 
haus of fraser
10:56 / 27.09.05
I think you maybe need to address the terminology that you are using zenfroglet.

I can vaguely understand having a value system- similar in a sense to the auteur system in the cinema- ie the value is with the principle creator (director or in your case songwriter), however I don't think those that you rate further down in value should be labeled 'sell-outs' .

The term 'sell out' is derogatory - you are sneering at hard working musicians- this makes me feel pretty uncomfortable. The term also implies that you have given up something to achieve your position- quite literally 'sold out'- forgone a principle skill or talent to achieve wider fame or finacial reward. The problem with your system is you are assuming that all musicians want to write music or do more than just play music.

How can we be sure that the Girls Aloud girls/ Kylie want to write their own songs- what are they selling out?

Why not address these performers as we would do a film director- neither Kylie or Girls Aloud are auteurs in the sense that they control their own output/ write their own songs- unlike say the White Stripes or MIA. Just as say Ridley Scott doesn't write his own movies as a more classic auteur such as Woody Allen does.

We understand that with movies both sides have their advantages- in a ridley scott movie someone else spends their energy writing the script - which in turn is then a collaboration with the director to make the picture- scott gets a better script than he could write and the scriptwriter gets a better movie than he could direct. Woody Allen has full control but that can also lead to duds like the curse of Jade Scorpion- which could have done with some script tweeks etc.

Can you not understand that music is almost identical- with artists from Elvis to Kylie providing their own interpretations of songs written by someone else- and both songwriter and performer benefiting neither of which has given up or sold out anything to achive this- they have just worked together...

Surely if we are going to use the term it would be more relevant when addressing say The white stripes- once refusing commercials money - claiming they weren't for sale then backtracking and taking it when offered by Coca Cola- Jack White said it was due to the product- or could be that extra house/ studio etc that the money will buy...

oh yeah- i've never been 'ignored' before (that i'm aware of) on Barbelith- Something of a novelty- but its not a great function when in the middle of a debate- kind of like sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'LaLaLaLa', but then you know that now.
 
 
Jack Fear
11:08 / 27.09.05
Or, to sum up:

A taxonomy that, like Zenfroglet's, requires so many exceptions, qualifiers, and judgment calls is not a prticularly helpful taxonomy. In fact it maybe actively unhelpful: in any case, it might be worthwhile to re-examine the assumptions behind it.
 
 
Tom Paine's Bones
14:50 / 27.09.05
The term 'sell out' is derogatory - you are sneering at hard working musicians- this makes me feel pretty uncomfortable.

That brings another interesting issue to mind as well. Is part of the sneering at session musicians (and for that matter your average pub covers band) part of the old snobbery against "professionals" as opposed to "amateurs" when it comes to art.

In other words, below the level where people are able to make a living producing their own work, is it really fair to judge those musicians harshly who have to play other people's songs to make a living. In comparison to, say, those who are able to live off a trust fund while they attempt to get recognition.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
16:08 / 27.09.05
So... hold on a minute, am I getting this right? This thread has lately been "led" by someone who's actually had the thread starter on "ignore"? I'm sure that's not correct etiquette...
 
 
haus of fraser
16:38 / 27.09.05
funny though...
 
 
ZF!
22:36 / 28.09.05
Yes the term "sell-out" can be taken as derogatory, but there can be a few levels of selling out.

Surely you can see that there is a difference between someone creating something new, and someone just following someone’s direction?

If I take an idealistic view, and I mostly do, I would want all artists to aspire to original creation. Failing this, to me, is “selling out” their medium.

I feel that creation is one of the most important rights, (maybe even a duty) of an artist (if not human being). Why? Progression, seeing something new. I mean, new ideas are necessary for the continued persistence and evolution of humankind I think. Art is the most aesthetically obvious manifestation of this, and I feel original creation should be encouraged to inspire others. I don’t like the mindset that you don’t have to create anything original. Obviously you don’t HAVE to, but in my mind to progress your medium (and species perhaps) you need to at some point “create”.
Sure you can write this off as just bullshit, but it’s bullshit I believe.

Of course I can accept that everybody won’t hold my views, and I’m not trying to write an “Idiots Guide to Calling Someone a Sell-out”, as I’ve said before this is my personal view, with my personal reasons. Yes people have said that is a poor argument. But how else am I to respond to people criticising my taxonomy not being helpful? I’ve tried to show people how I would classify someone a sell-out. Till this discussion I didn’t have this in such a form, it was more of an emotional reaction. It’s of course been helpful to me to analyse this a bit more. :-)

As for the ignoring bit, it wasn’t just yourself Copey, Moneyshot was ignored for a while there too. Both of your responses for while there, just seemed insulting, without offering anything else. I didn’t see why I had to take any more of that. I did wonder about this when I noticed you were the thread starter.

Mmm, music and film, I’ll try broach that tomorrow it’s late and I’m drunk so I’ve probably not been very coherent.

Must…sleep.

Zzzz
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
05:37 / 29.09.05
Surely you can see that there is a difference between someone creating something new, and someone just following someone’s direction?

I think the issue is the unspoken corollary, "and the the latter of these is selling out", rather than with the idea that there is a difference...
 
 
haus of fraser
12:47 / 29.09.05
Yes the term "sell-out" can be taken as derogatory, but there can be a few levels of selling out.

No it IS derogatory.

What other jobs to you feel the need to imply moral judgement on. Question your terminology- surely to 'sell out' you have to have your own (ie own personal) set of moral boundries to sell out- if you chose to play in a band where you had no input you could be considered a sellout- as you have stated where your own boundies lie- however as i said above- i don't think Kylie or Elvis had those worries about playing other peoples songs. They haven't sold out anything.

Dictionary.coms definition of sell out...

"To betray one's cause or colleagues: He sold out to the other side."

How has Kylie betrayed a cause?

By switching on the ignore facility you have proven in a way your unable to have a reasonable debate- maybe you should re-read everyone elses thoughts on the subject and re-evaluate. as i said before I think you can have a personal value system on the validity of music- but don't belittle those whose work methods are different than your own.

gah!!!!!!

...must try to squeeze some more blood from this.... here.... stone........
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
12:58 / 29.09.05
Mission acomplished, Copey. First sentence of your first post...so said so done.

I prolly didn't help re: the ignore bit.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
13:03 / 29.09.05
Iw ould be *nice* to think that apart from zenfroglet, the debate has been laid to some sort of rest, and by playing devil's advocate, some fairly rational argument in favour of dropping the entire notion has been promoted. I think the main conclusions drawn are that music itself is free of such judgement, while the persons claiming ownership may, by dint of 'extra-curricular' activity around the music, be fairly accused of it. Maybe.

Now, ownership of creativity, that's a new ballgame.

There ain't no copyright in the Taj Mahal.

But that's an entirely new thread.
 
 
ZF!
13:39 / 29.09.05
By switching on the ignore facility you have proven in a way your unable to have a reasonable debate- maybe you should re-read everyone elses thoughts on the subject and re-evaluate. as i said before I think you can have a personal value system on the validity of music- but don't belittle those whose work methods are different than your own.

By switching on the ignore function I switched off people who were being insulting and not offering anything to the conversation. You were basically flaming me (not to try play victim).
By resorting to insulting and childish posts don't you think you were showing a few inadequacies in being "reasonable" yourself?

Indeed if you want a more generally applicable definition of sellout, then toksik's idea of a person betraying their own values (paraphrasing a bit here) is probably the best you're going to get. Again, I'm just telling you what the term means to me, I don't expect or even want people to try apply my "criteria" to anything. I've said it before I'm not trying to promote my view or make it popular.

Ok with me if you want to draw this to a close. I have on the whole found this quite a fun experience and it made me analyse my feelings about the subject a bit more which was good. Was nice to see what other people thought of the whole concept too.

G'night.

Z
 
 
Ganesh
13:43 / 29.09.05
Indeed if you want a more generally applicable definition of sellout, then toksik's idea of a person betraying their own values (paraphrasing a bit here) is probably the best you're going to get.

Which would rather make "sell-out" a term of self-identification only - unless one is claiming to be more familiar with a particular artist's "own values" than that artist himself.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
13:49 / 29.09.05
I think zenfroglet's three principles of "what is important in art" are perhaps the key to understanding hir funny little worldview.

Originality - where to begin? Perhaps with The Waste Land...
Sticking by your creation - the history of writers, artists and musicians actively disowning their past work makes for interesting reading, and that's even before we get onto the other meaning, IE if we interpret this to mean not allowing anyone make a film of your book...
No "untrue" motivations for creating - who can ever know an artist's motivation? Why would you ever care?

In all of these cases, a fairly basic knowledge of the history of various artforms renders all of these concepts problematic to say the least.
 
 
ZF!
14:22 / 29.09.05
Ganesh that is correct. About the self-identification thing. That's all it can be, if you're trying to be objective.

Z
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:31 / 29.09.05
Subjective.
 
 
haus of fraser
14:35 / 29.09.05
By switching on the ignore function I switched off people who were being insulting and not offering anything to the conversation.

Was anything said that was really that bad?

if all it takes for you to switch ignore on is a picture of Rik from the young ones with his v's up then maybe you should re-think the notion of posting here. The post was taking the piss out of your inability to listen and respond rather than sticking your fingers in your ears while sticking it to teh man...

If i came across as harsh or taking the piss a little too far I'm sorry dude- that's what we do here- welcome to Barbelith.

Briefly back to the conversation

unless one is claiming to be more familiar with a particular artist's "own values" than that artist himself.

Maybe a key problem relating to celebrity- fans feel they know the musicians based around the snippets of interview/ lyrics/ public image we are presented with. Therefore feel they can make judgement calls based on their own belief system as to what is/ isn't right/ wrong/ sell out etc.
 
 
ZF!
15:05 / 29.09.05
Umm, objective about being subjective in this context.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:46 / 29.09.05
I think it's pretty clear that any judgement made by person a about person a's motivations is going to be subjective. Do you mean one is objectively aware that one is being subjective? That still seems to me to be subjectivity, just knowing subjectivity.
 
 
Char Aina
16:17 / 29.09.05

if all it takes for you to switch ignore on is a picture of Rik from the young ones with his v's up then maybe you should re-think the notion of posting here. The post was taking the piss out of your inability to listen and respond rather than sticking your fingers in your ears while sticking it to teh man...

If i came across as harsh or taking the piss a little too far I'm sorry dude- that's what we do here- welcome to Barbelith.


i never use ignore, personally.
i also dont mind if someone calls my mother a whore.
see, she isnt, and nothing you say can change that.

saying that, i dont think your insults need be accepted by a member because that's what we do here.
i think a poster has the right to ignore another if they see fit even if you do think that means they should 'get out of the kitchen'.

your mileage may vary.



Which would rather make "sell-out" a term of self-identification only - unless one is claiming to be more familiar with a particular artist's "own values" than that artist himself.


not necessarily.
publicly stated ideals that are then ditched could point to heightened sell out status.
surely one need only be claimiing to be familiar with thier values, rather than more familiar?

i seeit as the same as thinking your resolve weak if you shagged your best friend after spending the day before telling me there was no way you would compromise the relationship that way.
i might of course be wrong; you migt have neglected to share all the relevant information.
 
 
ZF!
17:12 / 29.09.05
Do you mean one is objectively aware that one is being subjective? That still seems to me to be subjectivity, just knowing subjectivity.

Kinda, what I meant was that compared to my criteria which are subjective, we were being objective by acknowledging that by "self-identification", being a sellout could only be subjective.

Well I suppose that is a bit of a given (or not as it turns out), but I was trying to reinforce that, when using my criteria I was not trying to be objective.

Z
 
  

Page: 1234(5)678

 
  
Add Your Reply