Midnight Oil

Subject: RE: [powderworks] 'The Break' break for a bit, and why Sir Walter Scott was happy to sell out.
From: Michael Blackwood
Date: 5/04/2011, 9:48 pm
To: Oils Powderworks

Well, if you look at the acts that had no 1 hits in the sixties, along with the Beatles and the Stones you would also find a lot of disposable crap that no-one remembers.  By definition, only the memorable acts of each decade are still important to anyone down the road.  Generally those acts are ones of artistic substance, as per Miron's comments, but I remember back in the 80s seeing Oils videos on Much Music, in amongst forgettable crap like Vanilla Ice.  Now, I do think that the major record labels sabotaged their own industry in the 90s by moving on to gimmic acts (spice girls, boy bands, etc) that were supposed to sell instant hits to tweens.  Once you get an entire generation out of the habit of seeing albums of music as an art form, it's hard for the labels to complain when nobody values music anymore and just wants to dowload the latest single for free.  Gone are the days of bands releasing a series of well-realized albums that slowly break them into the mainstream, as happened with REM, the Oils, U2, etc in the 80s.  The labels didn't have the patience for it anymore, and shot themsleves in the foot by focusing on disposable three-singles-plus-filler albums by acts that performed whatever their corporate masters put before them.
 
Mike
To: powderworks@yahoogroups.com.au
From: tomspencer@eml.cc
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 13:08:27 +1000
Subject: Re: [powderworks] 'The Break' break for a bit, and why Sir Walter Scott was happy to sell out.

 
This is extremely interesting, Miron.  I feel similarly, that mainstream music is less than what it used to be, yet I have several friends who INSIST that, no, there's always been mainstream crap, even back in the '80s.
 
t
 
 
On Mon, 04 Apr 2011 17:48 -0700, "Miron Mizrahi" <mironmizrahi@yahoo.com> wrote:
 

 

this is not unique to the Oils. Neil Young was sued by Geffen in the 80s for releasing un-sellable albums. and Geffen was a buddy of his from the LA days in the late 60s. when Rush released 2112 they believed - at the time - that this will be their last hoorah but they preferred to go down fighting. as it turns out the album was a huge success and the record company butted out since. the music industry epitomizes "money talks and bullshit walks" because the mainstream companies are the AU politics version of the arts world - appeal to the lowest common denominator, spin, god forbid we raffle anyone's feathers, no leadership. so they churn out masses of crap with a half life shorter than Iodine-131 and they wonder why no one wants to pay for it. music used to have a meaning. it was different things to different people but it to be a fan had substance. I guess we can look at it as natural selection. the good ones prevail. Oils, Neil, Rush, Pearl Jam and many others who have had at one point in their career clashed with the recording industry but won without compromising their (perceived) integrity. so even today we continue as an Oils community and this is testament to their staying power. there are plenty of great acts out there but most of them are on independent labels  which sprung out of artists not wanting to be held to ransom. I draw some pleasure from the fact that the internet is at the same time helping new artists while chipping away at the disgrace the industry has become. and I am glad that on this one, the Oils and most of their fans saw eye to eye. I just hope they don't regret it
 
Miron

How could people get so unkind?
 

From: James Warren <jimcwarren@earthlink.net>
To: powderworks@yahoogroups.com.au
Sent: Tue, April 5, 2011 8:37:58 AM
Subject: Re: [powderworks] 'The Break' break for a bit, and why Sir Walter Scott was happy to sell out.

 
 
 
Well, sorry for not being more clear. I based what I said on the "Beds are Burning" book. The way it is depicted there, I wouldn't call it accidents. There was no huge confrontation, but there seemed to be a record company attitude that was unsupportive of the band being as genuine as they were. At one point, someone objected to "Truganani", saying something to the effect of, "not more of that desert crap," as if they are supposed to change what inspires them for the sake of appearances. But the band did their thing anyway, which was a form of telling the company where to go.
 

On Apr 4, 2011, at 2:58 PM, tomspencer@eml.cc wrote:

 
 
Yair?  I thought that was due to a variety of accidents, rather than a direct confrontation.
 
t
 
 
On Mon, 04 Apr 2011 09:00 -0700, "James Warren" <jimcwarren@earthlink.net> wrote:
 
 
 
This is the fate suffered by the Oils post-1993 in the US.
 

On Apr 4, 2011, at 6:01 AM, tomspencer@eml.cc wrote:

 
 
I recall Rob once saying 'The Clash' were a great band that went nowhere because they enjoyed, once, just once, telling CBS where to go.
 
t
 
 
On Mon, 04 Apr 2011 03:58 -0700, "Miron Mizrahi" <mironmizrahi@yahoo.com> wrote:
 
 
Michael Caine once said in an interview: " ... it meant that if I wanted to continue to have a high standard of living, I had to do low standard movies"
 
Miron

How could people get so unkind?
 

From: "tomspencer@eml.cc" <tomspencer@eml.cc>
To: powderworks@yahoogroups.com.au
Sent: Mon, April 4, 2011 5:52:08 PM
Subject: [powderworks] 'The Break' break for a bit, and why Sir Walte r Scott was happy to sell out.

 
 
Interesting point, Miron, and I kinda' agree.
 
I remember when the Oils toured with Crowded House and Hunters and Collectors (1995?), in the 'Breaking the Dry' series of concerts.  Lots of people assumed they were raising money for farmers, but no, even the Oils had to make a living!  (But they still let some folks out the front of one of their concerts collect for charity).
 
Apparently nineteenth-century writer Sir Walter Scott had the view that it was more important to pay his debts if he could, rather than produce high quality art that didn't necessarily sell.  In his diary he wrote of two books 'I think it is the publick that are mad for passing these two volumes. But I will not be the first to cry them down' (Australia Day, 1832, p 213). So 'selling out' in the modern artistic sense was not a problem.
 
But when I posted, I was thinking of Jim M. who posted a link to John Densmore ('The Doors'), on the question of art for art's sake:
 
 
t
 
PS - I just noticed that The Break are taking a breather (after their recent shows, I guess), some of which time will be spent in the studio:
 
 
 
 
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 23:35 -0700, "Miron Mizrahi" <mironmizrahi@yahoo.com> wrote:
 
 
not sure I agree. we seem to subject musicians to a different set of rules and we seem to forget that it is their job and they are out there to make money. being a musician is not like your run-of-the-mill job. how many of us have spent the first few years of their careers working but not making any money? how many jobs are out there where you are only as good as your last performance? how many of us are protected by a slew of legislation - from long service leave to unfair dismissal? how many musicians have pensions and IRAs? would any of us be "accused" of selling out if we took a job for higher pay? or a job with a global company? nearly all of them can be accused of some unsavory, or worse, behaviour. Shell and Saro-wiwa, BHP in PNG, Enron, Apple and HP and Foxconn. yet for us, this is a no brainer.

there seem of be a culture of entitlement which is prevalent amongst fans. as some of you may know, I am a huge Neil Young fan. he has just started touring and as if on queue, the "ticket prices" debate on the list reared its ugly head. "he is charging more than the Stones and when Springsteen played here last month he charged less". he can charge what he pleases and I can decide whether to go or not and we don't owe each other anything.

yes - there are some extreme cases like the Oils who seem to exhibit more "moral fiber" than other contemporaries. but I would argue that most, if not, all of their decisions were done based on what is best for them rather than following some set of noble ideas. the fact that their decision and our view of nobility was often the same is great. but should not distract us from the fact that they knew the consequences and did what they thought was the best for the band.

so the concept of a musician who sold out, is IMO, more often than not, our own fabrication. they are just like everybody else. how howzat for stating the obvious? :)
 
Miron

How could people get so unkind?
 

From: Tom <tomspencer@eml.cc>
To: powderworks@yahoogroups.com.au
Sent: Mon, April 4, 2011 4:13:44 PM
Subject: [powderworks] Selling out

 
http://doonesbury.com/

The Oils only ever 'sold out' stadiums, and a beer barn at Beenleigh (Brisbane) where the opening act, a local diva, asked everyone to stop smoking because it was bad for her voice. And they did! Perhaps even that security guard at the front that Peter Ga. told to turn around, rather than watching the show for free.