[Powderworks] Sell-outs
GrnVillageGirl@aol.com
GrnVillageGirl@aol.com
Wed, 9 Oct 2002 11:57:29 EDT
--part1_28.2dd7c592.2ad5abe9_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Since when did it become a crime in a capitalist society to make money from
one's work? That's the world we're living in.
I admit that I absolutely HATE hearing Beatles music (and Who music) used to
sell products. If John Lennon were still alive, I think he'd go ballistic. If
Paul McCartney hadn't lost control of the early catalogue, I don't think it
would be happening.
Pete Townshend, though, IS still alive, and therefore has to live with
selling some of his most meaningful work down the river. Yet he seems to be
all right with it.
I will go out of my way to avoid buying, or even stop purchasing, a product
that I found useful, as my own little form of protest. That music once meant
a lot to me, still does, in a pure way that has nothing to do with the overt
manipulation of emotion that is obviously behind its use to SELL SELL SELL. I
(we) bought that music because it spoke to us in a deeply connected way, and
yes, it is cheapened by use unintended by its creators.
I'm personally glad that the Oils choose to withhold their music from
commercial use, even though they've been approached to do so. They could just
as easily take the cash and donate it all to a favored charity (or hey, even
buy themselves a cool toy or two -- they're entitled).
The Oils, bless them, do benefits and give back to their communities. But if
they wanted to play at a cricket match, for whatever purpose, would that then
lessen any of the good things they do? If so, why?
The bands and artists I feel the closest to are those who are 'serious' in
their intent and wouldn't consider allowing their music to be used as a
purchasing ploy, i.e. Springsteen, REM, Oils, Elvis Costello, and so on.
But to criticize somebody like Sheryl Crow for showing up in a commercial --
well, it's not like she ever positioned herself as a Sinead O'Connor.
And I agree about Billy Idol; he never claimed to be anything but an
entertainer. So what's wrong with that?
Two words, people: "show" and "business."
--part1_28.2dd7c592.2ad5abe9_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2>Since when did it become a crime in a capitalist society to make money from one's work? That's the world we're living in.<BR>
I admit that I absolutely HATE hearing Beatles music (and Who music) used to sell products. If John Lennon were still alive, I think he'd go ballistic. If Paul McCartney hadn't lost control of the early catalogue, I don't think it would be happening.<BR>
Pete Townshend, though, IS still alive, and therefore has to live with selling some of his most meaningful work down the river. Yet he seems to be all right with it.<BR>
I will go out of my way to avoid buying, or even stop purchasing, a product that I found useful, as my own little form of protest. That music once meant a lot to me, still does, in a pure way that has nothing to do with the overt manipulation of emotion that is obviously behind its use to SELL SELL SELL. I (we) bought that music because it spoke to us in a deeply connected way, and yes, it is cheapened by use unintended by its creators.<BR>
I'm personally glad that the Oils choose to withhold their music from commercial use, even though they've been approached to do so. They could just as easily take the cash and donate it all to a favored charity (or hey, even buy themselves a cool toy or two -- they're entitled). <BR>
The Oils, bless them, do benefits and give back to their communities. But if they wanted to play at a cricket match, for whatever purpose, would that then lessen any of the good things they do? If so, why?<BR>
The bands and artists I feel the closest to are those who are 'serious' in their intent and wouldn't consider allowing their music to be used as a purchasing ploy, i.e. Springsteen, REM, Oils, Elvis Costello, and so on.<BR>
But to criticize somebody like Sheryl Crow for showing up in a commercial -- well, it's not like she ever positioned herself as a Sinead O'Connor.<BR>
And I agree about Billy Idol; he never claimed to be anything but an entertainer. So what's wrong with that?<BR>
Two words, people: "show" and "business."<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>
--part1_28.2dd7c592.2ad5abe9_boundary--