Originally posted by §P0oONY
Green Day - American Idiot
Green Day sold out on "Nimrod", almost a decade ago. They were like a new-age Ramones, then went alternative, only to pick back up on pop-punk when it became trendy again. And by "it", I meant hating the president and letting your music speak for you.
Originally posted by Solo
The hate With Teeth gets is ridiculous. Too catchy?
More along the lines of too shit. I listen to Prince, don't be suggesting there's such a thing as too catchy to me.
I'm not one of those who'll accuse a band of selling out simply because I dislike the album. That's not the case with NIN/Trent. Trent Reznor didn't sell out because With Teeth was shit, With Teeth was shit BECAUSE he sold out. If With Teeth was shit, I'd still think it was shit, but I might not have boycotted NIN if he didn't do a complete 180 on everything he's spent his career preaching.
It's none of my business, he didn't owe it to anyone NOT to, nor does any "artist". It's their music. I just don't owe it to them to keep supporting or respecting them afterward.
-AC
Originally posted by The Core
Green Day sold out on "Nimrod", almost a decade ago. They were like a new-age Ramones, then went alternative, only to pick back up on pop-punk when it became trendy again. And by "it", I meant hating the president and letting your music speak for you.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Hating it doesn't mean they sold out.If you don't know the definition, don't use the phrase.
-AC
Originally posted by §P0oONY
Well peresonally I think they did with the album, some of their old music was alright, had significant depth. American Idiot just seemed to scrap all of that depth and shout "**** Bush and his administration because we know they just started a war!" Just to reach a stupid, ignorrant, 13 year old screaming audience.
Considering it's their most musically advanced album to date, I'm not sure you can say they lack depth.
I don't believe they altered their musical style to get more fans at all, and besides, selling out pretty much means that an artist is doing something they don't want to do, because of the money.
I think Green Day were doing exactly what they wanted.
Not liking it doesn't mean they sold out, they didn't. If they ever did, it was with Dookie.
-AC
There's a lot of talk here about the money or the act itself of selling out, but it's a bit more...for the sake of the art or song it just shouldn't be done.
It's kinda weird when you hear one of you favorite songs start playing in the middle of a movie or tv show...
All of a sudden, the spirit of the song, as well as the meaning it had to you (which, granted, might be different from the song's actual meaning), is completely given a new context, and now connected with something different...and a lot of the time it's something that is unrelated to the actual theme or spirit of the song.
I don't understand how an artist could do that...how they could do that to the fans of the song and what it's meant to them, and how they could forever change how they are presenting that piece of art to the world.
Total disrespect for art, even if it's your own.
What business does New Order's "Ceremony" have in Marie Antoinette...really? Even though from a filmmaker’s point of view, I like what Coppola's done using contemporary post-punk music in the film.
And the more intentional connection is made between the movie and the song, the worse it actually gets, and it's because it ends up looking like a shallow attempt at creating a soundtrack for the moment (ie. "Bittersweet Symphony" at the end of Cruel Intentions).
Even having a song in video game, like a boxing game or something, is better, just 'cause it's pretty much a disconnect, and it's there for a different reason than when it's placed in a movie.
Fight Night 3?
Obie-trice in the background?
That's not so bad.
"Teardrop" by Massive Attack at the beginning of "House"?
WT?
Some bands or artists just choose to contribute to a movie or show because they like it and feel it could work well, it doesn't always come down to money, sometimes that contribution to another medium is considered artistic as well.
E.g: Godspeed You Black Emperor! have a song featured in 28 Days Later, but it adds a haunting quality to an already haunting movie. It works.
You are putting too much weight on artists being concerned with us. It's their song or whatever. They don't owe it to us to do anything, quite frankly. Conversely, we don't owe it to them to like it, so the solution is not to have a delusional sense of entitlement here.
For example; Michael Jackson selling Revolution 1 by The Beatles to Nike for a commercial, that is a bad choice because it's contradictory. Simply hearing a song somewhere you dislike shouldn't necessarily ruin things for you.
Jeff Buckley was played on The O.C, so I hear. It doesn't enter my mind while listening to his music.
You seem to be blaming artists for your easily influenced listening experiences.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Some bands or artists just choose to contribute to a movie or show because they like it and feel it could work well, it doesn't always come down to money, sometimes that contribution to another medium is considered artistic as well.
Maybe they even think it's a good idea of having "said" song in "said" movie...do they like the idea enough that they'd give it for free? That's doubtful in most cases I'd say.
It's basically: "Hmmm...'Bittersweet Symphony'...$75,000 dollars. Hmmm...If I say 'no', I'm just throwing away an easy $75,000 dollars...hmmm. All I gotta do is say 'yes', and I'm $75,000 dollars richer...Hmmm.
Can I totally blame them? Not sure, because we're all human and we need to survive...but for the sake of the art itself (and regardless of what it means to the fans), it's just kind of a sad state of affairs.
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I can believe that. But honestly, I'd say that in %90 of the cases I really doubt bands or artists would just freely give up their song or art...it's the money that's making them consider it.Maybe they even think it's a good idea of having "said" song in "said" movie...do they like the idea enough that they'd give it for free? That's doubtful in most cases I'd say.
It's basically: "Hmmm...'Bittersweet Symphony'...$75,000 dollars. Hmmm...If I say 'no', I'm just throwing away an easy $75,000 dollars...hmmm. All I gotta do is say 'yes', and I'm $75,000 dollars richer...Hmmm.
Can I totally blame them? Not sure, because we're all human and we need to survive...but for the sake of the art itself (and regardless of what it means to the fans), it's just kind of a sad state of affairs.
You seem to believe that because it SEEMS a certain way to you, that it IS that was factually. It's not necessarily. You have no grounds for such sweeping accusations. You are speaking factually where you have no right.
-AC