BARBELITH underground
 

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


Sell Out?!!!

 
  

Page: 12345(6)78

 
 
ZF!
18:20 / 29.09.05
Originality - where to begin? Perhaps with The Waste Land...

I posted a bit about this a bit further up.

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...

I just mean that I believe an artist has a responsibility to their creation.
Also if they create something in one medium and it moves to another then they should have some say in it. E.g Frank Miller co-directing the film version of Sin City.

No "untrue" motivations for creating - who can ever know an artist's motivation? Why would you ever care?

I do. Perhaps it's easier if you think of these as criteria for myself. How I would judge myself a sellout or not.

Z
 
 
haus of fraser
07:51 / 30.09.05
I know i'm slightly threadrotting but

I just mean that I believe an artist has a responsibility to their creation.
Also if they create something in one medium and it moves to another then they should have some say in it. E.g Frank Miller co-directing the film version of Sin City.


isn't this a perfect example of over indulgence? Frank Miller isn't a director and probably shouldn't attempt it again judging by the farce of Sin city- Style over content- shame it could've been good (i always imagined it to be more blade runner style rainy noir....)

IMHO some people do certain jobs better than others ie Frank Miller- writing comics brilliant- directing movies- turkey! Elvis - singing songs- brilliant- writing songs- turkey...

I still don't get how collaborating is 'selling out' but we're now back peddling over tired old arguements that it seems everyone here (with the exception of zenfroglet) agrees with.

zenfroglet- can you copy the text that you are refering back to re:

Originality - where to begin? Perhaps with The Waste Land...

I posted a bit about this a bit further up.


sorry dude as i said- it makes it easier to follow your argument.
 
 
ZF!
12:31 / 30.09.05
isn't this a perfect example of over indulgence? Frank Miller isn't a director and probably shouldn't attempt it again judging by the farce of Sin city- Style over content- shame it could've been good (i always imagined it to be more blade runner style rainy noir....)

IMHO some people do certain jobs better than others i. Frank Miller- writing comics brilliant- directing movies- turkey! Elvis - singing songs- brilliant- writing songs- turkey…

I liked Sin City, good fun imho, however I agree not everyone can be a Jack of all trades (master of none though?). I think they should have some say in it at least. Alan Moore, doesn't want anything to do with the film of V for Vendetta, won't even take a cent/pence! He doesn't like what they've done with it. Maybe if he had more say initially in the film (was allowed more say?) he wouldn't have ended up dissociating himself from it. I may be wrong, it may turn out to be a fantastic film, but judging by League of Extraordinary Gentlemen... I dunno. We'll have to wait and see no? My point is that a creator usually has a general idea about their creation, and how they want it perceived, some may want people to interpret it differently, whatever, but once it leaves your hands and you have no say in it, it can be warped into something that contradicts your creation. Some creators don't like this. I certainly would not.

I still don't get how collaborating is 'selling out' but we're now back peddling over tired old arguments that it seems everyone here (with the exception of zenfroglet) agrees with.
I'm adverse to "artists" not being involved in the creative process. Collaborating, that would be ideal, everyone offering their creativity to a project, not just acting as an instrument and being told what to do. There are various levels to this of course.

zenfroglet- can you copy the text that you are refering back to re:
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.

Z
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:42 / 30.09.05
What exactly does thhat have to do with the Wasteland, ZF?

I'm adverse to "artists" not being involved in the creative process. Collaborating, that would be ideal, everyone offering their creativity to a project, not just acting as an instrument and being told what to do.

I think is interesting - but it does draw rather firm lines. I'd say that a musician is pretty much by definition involved in the creative process, because the specific things he does affect the created object. Even if a guitarist, for example, is given a set of chords to play, the way he or she plays those chords will change the nature of the created object - the song. You can't pplay in exactly the way another person dictates, even if you want to.
 
 
haus of fraser
13:25 / 30.09.05
I'd say that a musician is pretty much by definition involved in the creative process, because the specific things he does affect the created object. Even if a guitarist, for example, is given a set of chords to play, the way he or she plays those chords will change the nature of the created object - the song. You can't pplay in exactly the way another person dictates, even if you want to.

Exactly! (to be said in a scouse accent like the kid in the Milk/ 'its what Ian Rush Drinks...' ads from the 80's...)

All singers voices are different- in this respect, combined with performance, delivery etc - even a musician that hasn't written a song is being in some way creative- or collaborating on the song...
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
14:08 / 30.09.05
Almost home...finishing line in view...the relief on the faces of these athletes is a tale all of its own...what a spectacular finale...
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:29 / 30.09.05
Yeah, I had sworn off posting to this thread (cards, squirrel), but the unexamined exhaltation of 'originality' always bugs me...
 
 
ZF!
15:04 / 30.09.05

What exactly does that have to do with the Wasteland, ZF?
Nada, I didn't bring it up, that was just (accidentally) included in the quote.

I think is interesting - but it does draw rather firm lines. I'd say that a musician is pretty much by definition involved in the creative process, because the specific things he does affect the created object. Even if a guitarist, for example, is given a set of chords to play, the way he or she plays those chords will change the nature of the created object - the song. You can't pplay in exactly the way another person dictates, even if you want to.
If you want to get technical then yes this is true. Is anything exactly replicable? By this definition you could say absolutely everything in the world is unique, one thing copied from another will never be the same, as at some level something will be different. Even the same musician playing the same chord again will never be "exactly" the same. No?
What becomes important then, is where you're drawing those lines, define new, define "copy". Define "original creation"? And again we will come to something that is subjective. Do we care to go into this?
To me:
One man is told to play a chord at a certain point in song A - he is selling out
In another universe...
The same man plays the same chord in the same place because he thought it went well with the music in Song A - he is not selling out
Difference is that he chose to create and was not told to create.
Z
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:45 / 30.09.05
Is anything exactly replicable?

Maths, for starters.

So, what you're basically saying is that your system for defining who is a sellout and who is not depends on the ownership of information that you cannot have about the circumstances and mental state of any given person, and as such is utterly useless in any sort of real-world application? It can only be used to assess one's own actions, and then imperfectly? So, when you talked above about various artists being or not being sellouts, you were in fact simply making avowedly inaccurate guesses according to a rubric you admit freely is completely unusable for creating reliable measurements?
 
 
haus of fraser
16:18 / 30.09.05
Almost home...finishing line in view...the relief on the faces of these athletes is a tale all of its own...what a spectacular finale...

...only the timequake hit and everyone had to repeat everything from the last few weeks exactly all over again...
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
17:15 / 30.09.05
[homer] Lousy Timequake! [/homer]

DOH!
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
07:25 / 01.10.05
I think it's safe to say that Elvis has left the building.

Let's not get caught up on who was actually driving the car, though.
 
 
ZF!
10:16 / 01.10.05
Maths, for starters.

This was a throwaway line, but I was referring to more the audio-sensory physical world. My fault I should have clarified.

So, what you're basically saying is that your system for defining who is a sellout and who is not depends on the ownership of information that you cannot have about the circumstances and mental state of any given person, and as such is utterly useless in any sort of real-world application? It can only be used to assess one's own actions, and then imperfectly? So, when you talked above about various artists being or not being sellouts, you were in fact simply making avowedly inaccurate guesses according to a rubric you admit freely is completely unusable for creating reliable measurements?

Mmm, not exactly, but probably mostly

I have personal beliefs about music, I have mentioned them. I have indicated why I have these beliefs.

My definition on sell-outs are based upon these beliefs combined with an artists perception/actions in public (some quantifiable), under the full understanding that this may be manipulated information.

I also reserve the right to alter my judgement at any time.

I have mentioned all this before.

Z
 
 
Ganesh
11:46 / 01.10.05
Indeed. Cat/fish, fish/cat.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
12:28 / 01.10.05
It's that bit in Brass Eye with Sunday Sport publisher David Sullivan discussing the death penalty, isn't it? "That's just my personal opinion..."

Anyway, saw the first two posts here and thought of this thread. Lol, etc.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:38 / 01.10.05
My definition on sell-outs are based upon these beliefs combined with an artists perception/actions in public (some quantifiable)

You mean your perception of an artist, rather than an artist's perception, yes?
 
 
ZF!
20:53 / 02.10.05
Ultimately everything is "my perception of..."

But yeah, you know what I mean, the image they create at their gigs/shows, live interviews, mtv cribs, in the NME, heat, tabloids, Coke ads, doing coke, dancing for GAP, documentaries, mocumentaries, semi-biographical fantastical accounts of their lives, sociological/political/cultural/change the world screamings, hugging former starving children on internationally broadcast music fiasco's etc.

Z
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:52 / 02.10.05
None of which has anything to do with whether they write or perform their own music. I think you may want to go back and have another look at your criteria.
 
 
haus of fraser
10:23 / 03.10.05
... the most frustrating thing for everyone involved in the timequake was the lack of free will, as every event, mistake and action had to happen exactly as it had done before.

This was especially frustrating for the Zenfroglet who although he had been convinced his arguements were wrong still had to plough though the same tired old ones as he had done in the weeks previously...

... oh how he longed for his free will to return...
 
 
Seth
10:43 / 03.10.05
One man is told to play a chord at a certain point in song A - he is selling out
In another universe...
The same man plays the same chord in the same place because he thought it went well with the music in Song A - he is not selling out
Difference is that he chose to create and was not told to create.


Aren't they both choosing?

Unless the guy who's barking the orders has a gun to the head of this hapless musician's firstborn... but even that's stilll a choice.
 
 
haus of fraser
11:30 / 03.10.05
Unless the guy who's barking the orders has a gun to the head of this hapless musician's firstborn... but even that's still a choice.

wasn't that Phil Spector and the Ramones?

Damned sellout bastards!
 
 
ZF!
13:07 / 03.10.05
None of which has anything to do with whether they write or perform their own music. I think you may want to go back and have another look at your criteria.

We've already been through the whole artist proclaiming they'll never sell their music out, "we're independant forever", "we won't sign", then signing up to a major, or writing a song for a Coke ad or buying their song from someone.

I can and will judge someone who does this by my rules.

Z
 
 
ZF!
13:09 / 03.10.05
Aren't they both choosing?

Ha ha, yeah, ones choosing to sell out!

Z
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:10 / 03.10.05
OK... so, according to your list above Thom Yorke, although he writes and performs his own music, has sold out. The rest of Radiohead, of course, sold out long years before, because they allowed Thom to write the music and only performed it. Yes?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:16 / 03.10.05
Conversely, Daniel o' Donnell has not, to my knowledge, ever sold out, as he has to my knowledge done none of the things you feel constitute selling out, apart possibly from covering other people's songs - which brings up a question about how well your rules apply to folk music, but never mind. I have never seen him on MTV, I have never seen him doing coke nor have I seen him advertising GAP clothing. Would it be correct to say the Daniel o' Donnell in your view has more credibility than Radiohead, as they have both collectively and individually sold out?
 
 
ZF!
13:23 / 03.10.05
This was especially frustrating for the Zenfroglet who although he had been convinced his arguements were wrong still had to plough though the same tired old ones as he had done in the weeks previously...


You're a funny guy Copey, :-).

I agree it was a bit boring with all the repeating ad nauseam, but I still believe wholeheartedly with what I've said on the subject.

Flattered as I am by the attention, what I don't understand is why it's so important for everyone to convince me that I'm wrong.

Every drop counts and all that?

Z
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:55 / 03.10.05
I don't think anyone is particularly interested in convincing you that you are wrong, ZF. Some may be interested in getting you to apply a critical intelligence to your beliefs, but they are at best the liberal wing. Sometimes one is the teacher, sometimes the student and sometimes the lesson.
 
 
haus of fraser
14:06 / 03.10.05
I can and will judge someone who does this by my rules.



Before you ignore me again Zenfroglet please think why people are disagreeing with you.

We aren't asking you 'what makes a band good' or 'why do you like certain types of music' or even 'why do you value music'.

I have explained why i find the term sell-out distasteful - it is rude and the context in which you are using it is grammatically incorrect- to sell out you must have given up something that you value...

We've already been through the whole artist proclaiming they'll never sell their music out, "we're independant forever", "we won't sign", then signing up to a major, or writing a song for a Coke ad or buying their song from someone.

Yes Zenfroglet... ideas people put to you in the vague hope that you may understand your terminology is wrong. The people playing songs not written by themselves have sold out nothing - unless they claimed they wouldn't ....

gah!!!!
 
 
Char Aina
14:11 / 03.10.05
ah, but if i say they have, then who are you to call me a liar?
my fish is very happy with his new collar.
 
 
ZF!
17:31 / 03.10.05
Thom Yorke?
Well I'd have to investigate his case. I don't particularly like Radiohead, in fact I tend to avoid them. Not because I think they're sellouts, I just don't like their music. But ok, if you say that Thom Yorke writes all the songs and all the instruments. Then the bandmates are all sellouts by my criteria, yes. I'm still a bit undecided about the creator, (dunno if you read an earlier posting, Stoatie (can I call him that?) raised this subject with me).

See either he could be a sellout because he is taking away the right of his bandmates to create or he isn't because he's just using them as instruments and following his creation. Was leaning to the latter.

Daniel o' Donnell? Not really my bag. Again I'd have to find out more about him.

I think you missed my point about the coke snorting, advertising for GAP and being on MTV etc.. Those are just features of the image the artist creates and manipulates. Something from which I draw my opinion of an artist in the public eye.

I don't think people are sellouts just because they're doing coke, or join a major label, or are on MTV.
No, what matters to me is the creation, how and why it is created and how it is handled.
Things that I can never be sure of, but can pick up hints about from various news, interviews and all of that. Artists who are proud of their creations usually are quite verbose about these things.

Does it matter to me than I can never know these things for certain? No. If I don't know enough to make a decision then I will not make a decision. Probably consider them innocent until proven guilty. But my criteria stand. As useless as they may be to the wider world, they are useful to me as boundaries to live my life by, and maintain a set of ideals when it comes to music or art.

Z
 
 
ZF!
17:45 / 03.10.05
Yes Zenfroglet... ideas people put to you in the vague hope that you may understand your terminology is wrong. The people playing songs not written by themselves have sold out nothing - unless they claimed they wouldn't ....

No, now you're imposing your definition of a "sellout" on me.

Perhaps it's the term that's causing such unhappiness. What if I used the term "untrue music makers"? What? That's even worse you say? :-)

I'm saying those people that haven't written their own songs are sellouts because they're betraying their right to create.

What do you call someone who goes and robs people at gunpoint? A mugger? Robber? Thief? What if he doesn't know any better? What if that's all he knows? The only way to get by, doesn't see it as wrong? Is that derogatory now? I don't know about you, but I'm still gonna call him a thief.

I know this is a rather extreme comparision, but whether those people know it or not, or even if they've never heard the term before, they are still sellouts to me.

I dunno, is this some sort of bizarre initiation ritual? We keep going in circles, I get deja vu every day. Are you going to paddle me any time soon?

Z
 
 
haus of fraser
19:06 / 03.10.05
No, now you're imposing your definition of a "sellout" on me.

No Zenfroglet i'm going on the recognised definition....

from Dictionary.com

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

or from the oxford english dictionary...

"a betrayal"

lovely um... er... fish you have there Mr Z.....
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
07:07 / 04.10.05
I'm saying those people that haven't written their own songs are sellouts because they're betraying their right to create.

Of course, this depends on a very specific and rather German Romantic ideal about what constitutes creation - writing a song. If somebody is not writing a song, your assumption is that they want to be writing a song on some level and that not giving in to this urge to create is selling out. This is in itself rather silly and continues to fail to take into account any number of other ways in which one might create and genres outside (indie) rock in which the act of creation functions differently.

You keep assuming that we're trying to change your mind, Zenfroglet. I for one am not; as I said above, you're not the teacher or the student here: you're the lesson.
 
 
ZF!
07:26 / 04.10.05
Of course, this depends on a very specific and rather German Romantic ideal about what constitutes creation - writing a song. If somebody is not writing a song, your assumption is that they want to be writing a song on some level and that not giving in to this urge to create is selling out. This is in itself rather silly and continues to fail to take into account any number of other ways in which one might create and genres outside (indie) rock in which the act of creation functions differently.

Yes that is correct. I believe, I have mentioned this repeatedly. The bit about creation. I do believe everyone wants to ultimately create. Nay, NEEDS to create. I've expressed my reasons for this. Maybe I just haven't exposed myself to enough music theory to see the variety of forms of creation that is on offer. I want to achieve music zen, any reading/listening you'd suggest? <-- Not being sarcastic. Seriously.

You keep assuming that we're trying to change your mind, Zenfroglet. I for one am not; as I said above, you're not the teacher or the student here: you're the lesson.

Yes I'm, the lesson, I gathered from your last posting. Why do I have to be anything? Perhaps you are not trying to change my mind, but a lot of people sure do seem to want to change it.

Z
 
 
Ganesh
07:35 / 04.10.05
I guess when you set out to call your cat a fish, you're going to face a certain amount of quizzical disagreement. That's communal language for ya.
 
  

Page: 12345(6)78

 
  
Add Your Reply