of Montreal Talk T-Mobile: "Selling Out Isn't Possible"
Last Saturday night, while out in Brooklyn, we met a PA who worked a T-Mobile video shoot with of Montreal, also mentioning that Art Brut shot a commercial for the same campaign earlier in the day. oM's went down at Waldorf, while Art Brut filmed at Irving Plaza. Curious, and jumping into reporter mode, we heard from another source that oM's spot would feature two lines of Kevin Barnes dialogue and the band in full Monty attire. Hello, America. We were curious about the logistics and the band's decision-making process, especially considering some of the flak they received for their Outback campaign, so we reached out to see what was what. Kevin Barnes, master lobster handler, kindly stepped to the plate. Of course we weren't asking the man to defend himself (we certainly prefer oM to Mellencamp during Office breaks); nevertheless, Kevin's presupposed a "Band Of Whorses"-style backlash and titled his essay to 'Gum readers "Selling Out Isn't Possible"...
Selling Out Isn't Possible
by Kevin Barnes
Are you a sell out? Yes. Don't let it bother you though, cause apparently I am also a sell out, and so are your parents and everyone you've ever known. The only way to avoid selling out is to live like a savage all alone in the wilderness. The moment you attempt to live within the confines of a social order, you become a sell out. Once you attempt to coexist you sell out. If that's true, then selling out is a good thing. It is an important thing. If we didn't do it, we'd be fucked, quite literally, by everyone bigger than us physically who found us fuckable.The pseudo-nihilistic punk rockers of the 70's created an impossible code in which no one can actually live by. It's such garbage. The idea that anyone who attempts to do anything commercial is a sell out is completely out of touch with reality. The punk rock manifesto is one of anarchy and intolerance. The punk rockers polluted our minds. They offered a solution that had no future. Of course, if the world would have ended before Sandinista! was released then everything would have been alright. It didn't. Now we have all of these half-conceived ideas and idiot philosophies floating around to confuse and alienate us. I think it is important to face reality. It is important to decide whether you are going to completely rail against the system or find a way to make it work for you. You cannot do both -- and if you attempt to do both you will only become even more bitter and confused.
When I was younger, and supported my parents, I chose to float between the two. A lot of people choose to do this. There are so many confused young people running around now polluted by this alloyed version of the tenets of the punk rock manifesto. Of course they're confused. It isn't possible to be in chorus with capitalism and anarchy. You must pick one or the other. Very few people are willing to do it, though. The worst kind of person is the one who sucks the dick of the man during the daytime and then draws pictures of themselves slitting his throat at night. Jesus Christ, make up your mind! The thing is, there is a lack of balance. When capitalism is working on a healthy level, everyone gets their dick sucked from time to time and no one gets their throat slit. It's impossible to be a sell out in a capitalist society. You're only a winner or a loser. Either you've found a way to crack the code or you are struggling to do so. To sell out in capitalism is basically to be too accommodating, to not get what you think you deserve. In capitalism, you don't get what you think you deserve though. You get what someone else thinks you deserve. So the trick is to make them think you are worth what you feel you deserve. You deserve a lot, but you'll only get it when you figure out how to manipulate the system.
Why commercialize yourself? In the art industry, it's extremely difficult to be successful without turning yourself into a cartoon. Even Hunter S. Thompson knew this. God knows Duchamp and Warhol knew it. Some artists are turned into cartoons and others do it themselves. I prefer to do it myself. at least then I can control how my cock is photographed. Why should it be considered such an onerous thing to view the production of art as a job? To me, the luckiest people are the ones who figure out a way to earn a living doing what they love and gain fulfillment from. Like all things in this life, you have to make certain sacrifices to get what you want. At least most of us do. If you're not some trust-fund kid or lotto winner, you've got to slave it out everyday. People who wanna be artists have the hardest time of it 'cause we are held up to these impossible standards. We're expected to die penniless and insane so that the people we have moved and entertained over the years can keep us to themselves. So that they can feel a personal and untarnished connection with our art. The second we try to earn a living wage or, god forbid, promote our art in the mainstream, we are placed under the knives of the sanctimonious indie fascists. Unfortunately, there isn't some grand umbrella grant that supports indie rockers financially and enables us to exist outside of the trappings of capitalism.
The thing is, I like capitalism. I think it's an interesting challenge. It's a system that rewards the imaginative and ambitious adults and punishes the lazy adults. Our generation is insanely lazy. We're just as smart as our parents but we are overwhelmed by contradicting ideas that confuse us into paralysis. Maybe the punk rock ethos made sense for the "no future" generation but it doesn't make sense for me. I like producing and purchasing things. I'd much rather go to IKEA than to stand in some bread line. That's because I don't have to stand in a bread line. Most people who throw around terms like "sellout" don't have to stand in one either. They don't have to stand in one because they are gainfully employed. The term "sellout" only exists in the lexicon of the over-privileged. Almost every non-homeless person in America is over-privileged, at least in a global sense.
Obviously, I've struggled with the concept. I've struggled because of the backlash following my songs placement in TV commercials. That is, until I realized that the negative energy that was being directed towards me really began to inspire my creativity. It has given me a sense of, "well, I'll show them who is a sellout, I'm going to make the freakiest, most interesting, record ever!!!" ... "I'm going to prove to them that my shit is wild and unpolluted by the reach of some absurd connection to mainstream corporate America."
I realized then that, for me, selling out is not possible. Selling out, in an artistic sense, is to change one's creative output to fit in with the commercial world. To create phony and insincere art in the hopes of becoming commercially successful. I've never done this and I can't imagine I ever will. I spent seven years not even existing at all in the mainstream world. Now I am being supported and endorsed by it. I know this won't last forever. No one's going to want to use one of my songs in a commercial five years from now, so I've got to take the money while I can. It's the same with pro athletes. You only get it while you're hot and no one stays commercially viable for long. It's not like Michael Vick is going to be receiving any big endorsement deals anytime soon. As sad as it may seem, one of the few ways most indie bands can make any money whatsoever is by selling a song to a commercial. Very very few bands make enough money from album sales or tour revenue to enable themselves to quit their day job.
Next time you see a commercial with one of your favorite bands songs in it, just tell yourself, "cool, a band I really like made some money and now I can probably look forward to a few more records from them." It's as simple as that. We all have to do certain things, from time to time, that we might not be completely psyched about, in order to pay the bills. To me, the TV is the world's asshole boss and if anyone can earn some extra bucks from it and they're not Bill O'Reilly, it's a good thing.
The commercial airs sometime on Sunday, so perhaps will find out then. Clip to come...
of Montreal - "Disconnect The Dots" (MP3)
of Montreal - "So Begins Our Alabee" (MP3)
of Montreal - "Heimdalsgate Like A Promethean Curse" (MP3)
UPDATE: Should have guessed that "sometime on Sunday" meant during the American Music Awards (the T-Mobile Text-In Award suspense is practically unbearable, no?). We're ushered into a faux Montreal band meeting, in a Waldorf-Astoria hotel room, with a smarmy agent guy trying to orchestrate an oM reunion tour on his most excellent Sidekick. (Says Kevin: "Reunion tour? We haven't broken up!"). Aside for a big band cheer for Düsseldorf, pretty uneventful. On the way out we get "Gronlandic Edit" for a few seconds: "I guess it would be nice / to give my heart to a" [CUT TO BLACK]. Guess T-Mobile's got no love for god. Watch:
Posted at 6:20 PM in Commercial Appeal, MP3, Video
Tags: Art Brut | Band Of Horses | of Montreal
really good for him. someone needed to say that.
Score = 1
Kevin an incredibly talented songwriter and deserves to make a living at it, which is especially difficult now that so many folks believe recorded music should be available at no cost.
Score = 0
[Most importantly, i]t's not like Michael Vick is going to be receiving any big endorsement deals anytime soon.
Score = 0
I agree with James on this one. Just about any way that Kevin Barnes and Co. need to go about making more records and touring more I'm all for it. What speaks more for of Montreal is that Barnes is open to speak to the community openly about so-called "selling-out" (In essay form, no less). I love this band, I love their music, and things like this make me enjoy them and music today in general that much more.
Score = 0
I hear you KB!
You make a similar argument to that of my pimp. He says to me, "You've only got a few good years left in you before your tits sag and your teeth fall out, so you might as well let 'em fuck you in the ass!"
Who needs integrity anyway?
Score = 1
LET'S GO OUTBACK TONIGHT!!!
Score = 0
Kevin,
Don't let the haters get you down. I love commercial jingles and I'm not alone. You should be proud of your work in this field. Outback has outdone the P.C. Richards whistle or even the Sleepy's anthem with its classic didgeridoo groove.
This is snapshot neo-art for the 21st century. Face it, hipsters! Times have changed. This isn't the '90s when people cared about what the "cool kids" at the "coffee haus" thought! Get with the program.
By Mennen...
Score = 0
I used to criticize sell-outs too. As I finished my last year of law school, I was presented with my first opportunity to sell out, and I took it. Anyone who talks shit about selling out doesn't have anything anyone wants to buy.
Score = 1
"Outback has outdone the P.C. Richards whistle"
Let's not get crazy now.
Score = 0
Kevin Barnes is such an economic badass.
Score = 2
I just saw the outback commercial the other day and was super excited and cranked up the volume on the tv, I'm actually glad the music's getting more into the mainstream and I really don't know why all these people are calling them sell-outs. It's a shame really.
Score = 1
I think the bottom line is not to support something you think is evil. For instance if you sold your song to Google or some similar corporation no one would bat an eye, where as Band of Horses sells one to Walmart and people wig out. Why? Because they are letting someone use your catchy art to sell a product or idea of which people have opinions. Because we're making a judgment about them selling a song to that corporation specifically, not a corporation in general.
Some people think corporations are universally evil. These people are usually foolish and/or (usually and) hypocrites. They are also the same people who prattle on about selling out. Anyone who pays their cellphone bill has sold out to telecommunications as much as Kevin Barnes ever will.
Score = 0
I love Of Montreal, T-Mobile, AND The Bloomin' Onion, so naturally I am okay with this decision. I feel that what Kevin is doing is okay beacuse, as far as I can tell, neither of those two companies have questionable buisness methods unlike some other recent Indie-rock enlisters. Luckily Band Of Horses came to their senses and pulled from Wal-Mart.
Score = 0
Every time some dipshit complains that the only way they can continue to make music and provide for themselves is to sell their music to some taco commercial, I think Fugazi. You don't need to sign onto some giant conglomerate record label, you don't need a fucking video, and you don't need to take a check from Nike just to continue to record music. Don't give me a fucking recitation of some dipshit capitalistic theory to justify yourself. All I hear is an admission your music is fucking weak, no one buys your shitty albums, and this is the only way you can make a buck. No one's going to want to use your songs in a commercial in five years: exactly.
Score = -7
there is nothing wrong with making money off your music, and in the current industry, licensing is where the money is at. go kevin.
on the other hand, artists can still choose who they "sell out" to, and should do so carefully. the associations made by advertising are indelible.
Score = 1
Ok, that's a whole bunch of reasons you don't HAVE to sell a song to a commercial, can you give me a good reason NOT to, assuming the company isn't inherently immoral?
Score = 1
"Kevin an incredibly talented songwriter..."
Kevin is just an incredibly talented person and got insanely fucked on the Outback deal. I feel bad for the guy. If this means he can keep making records for me to enjoy while protecting his creative rights, then more power to him.
Score = 2
atta boy... wanna open for KISS?
Score = 0
nothing wrong with getting paid. still... I used to love oM and the Outback spot ruined Wraith and the band in my mind if not forever then for a good long time.
Score = -3
My friend and I went to see oM perform in SF on tuesday. Before their set began, she and I stood, somewhat in awe, right in front of the stage, staring at the giant three-tiered light-up set, the projection screen showing real time footage from the cameras attached to the mike stands, and the roadies' trippy and fantastic costumes.
"this must be where all the Outback money went," she said to me.
of Montreal sold their soul to the steakhouse devil, and the result is one of the best live shows I've ever seen.
Plus, that commercial is really catchy.
Score = 5
I think there's a distinct difference between allowing your song or part of your song to be played during a commercial and re-recording/changing the lyrics of a song to promote whatever product the commercial is selling. In the first instance, you're briefly lending your art to commerciality; in the second, you're letting commercial-interests impose upon and reshape your art. I think the second scenario is problematic. After all, all art exists within a larger cultural context. And it's naive to think that a song won't adopt new connotations depending on its public usage. Hence, "Wraith Pined to the Mist" is now "That Outback Song"
Score = 1
“It is kind of hard for kids to be upset
about this kind of thing, they have never had a child or had to pay bills or do anything, which
is basically what it came down to you know. Kevin wrote the song, so it is actually his money,
but, it wasn’t even that much money, but at the time he had a wife and a kid, and it takes a lot
of money to support a family. He kind of felt weirdly pressured I think. So that’s how it worked
out. But the kids who are upset about it, you know, if I was sixteen, I’d be upset too,” Poole says
and adds: “But we don’t even play that song in America anymore. It is just ruined. We are very
sad about it. But the worst thing was that Outback Steakhouse didn’t even use the original song.
They made their own version of the song, and it ended becoming this kind of mockery of the art
that of Montreal created.”
Score = 0
Mostly agree with Barnes on the selling out, but forcing a choice between anarchism and pure acceptance of capitalism is bullshit. Capitalism is exploitative. It has its benefits, and there isn't a better system, but that doesn't mean we have to pretend it's all flowers and lollipops. Some artists stand up for principles or change without falling back on mindless support for anarchy. Some find ways to live within capitalism that resist participating in and being victim to its most exploitative elements. It's not an either/or situtaiton.
Not that music always has to be that place. Not that Of Montreal has to be that band (really, how would they ever be that band and make the particular kind of awesome music they make?) or shouldn't make money. And I DO like when I hear a song I like in a commercial, actually. I'm much happier to be hearing songs I like in commericals than songs I hate. But the subtext here is that artists with principles are hypocrites, and that's bullshit. Barnes, you don't have to take every other artistic stance down with you just to ease your conscience for being in a commercial. And when you start talking about social Darwinist bullshit like "You're only a winner or a loser," I lose a bit of respect.
I suppose "I fell in love with the first cute girl that I saw that could appreciate George Bataille" was always supposed to be ironic. But I thought maybe only half ironic, have nostalgic. Maybe I was wrong.
Score = -2
Oops. I left out the other part of that quote.
The last few months have seen of Montreal fans have become actively critical of the band,
after one of their songs appeared on a TV commercial for the Outback Steakhouse restaurant
chain. “Yeah, that was a learning experience,” Poole says. “Kevin didn’t read the contract properly,
and didn’t have a lawyer look at it, so he thought it was one thing, and it turns out he was
signing something else,” he explains. “Once he realised what it was, maybe an hour later, they
wouldn’t let him go back.”
Score = 0
I'm just kind of amazed that, given his points, he's concerned enough about it for write 1000+ words.
Score = 0
Wal-Mart is awesome-- what's wrong with supporting it? Some say it's evil, I think they do more good in this world than any of the posters who say its evil will ever be capable of.
Score = -3
Thats all fine and well but just don't ever go around waving your penis again where I can see it. I fucking mean that, Kevin Barnes.
Score = 0
I really like this guy! I'm gonna hafta give his music a listen...
Score = 1
Kevin Barnes is a whiny little prick and I wanna beat his ass. He has no fucking idea what punk-rock ethos is b/c he doesn't have a clue what The Ramones, Sex Pistols, The Clash, Joy Division contributed to mankind! Without the punk-rock movement, there would BE no Kevin-freaking-Barnes! Ya dig?!
I'm all FOR artists who are able to find a bigger audience (even if through commercial means), if they keep their musical integrity. Kevin says he would "never" change his music to fit commercial needs, but that's EXACTLY what he did when he RE-RECORDED his own freaking song to FIT THE ADVERTISER'S NEEDS! He inserted "Outback Steakhouse" into his own song! What's wrong with you, twerp?
Newsflash to Kevin: There ARE indie-rock bands (like AUDIOCRASH from FL) that only play music because it's their PASSION, and NOT to make a buck. There ARE pop/hip-hop artists like the hot new kid, J. MELLO (aka JUSTIN SMITH) from NJ, who are extremely TALENTED lyricists and would never DREAM of, say, rappin' about Starbuck's Coffee. (Unless of course, he MEANT to rap about Starbuck's Coffee when he recorded the track!)
With ELECTRONIC/DANCE music DJs/producers -- like PAUL VAN DYK, PAUL OAKENFOLD, BT, MOBY, FATBOY SLIM -- it's a GREAT thing when their music gets LICENSED for commercial use in TV spots, film, video games, etc. because it means the artists are getting paid and exposing their music to a wider audience. The difference is, Paul Van Dyk LICENSED his track titled "Connected" to Motorola. He did NOT re-record "Connected" using only DIAL-TONES from a fucking MOTOROLA PHONE in place of the original SYNTHESIZERS in the track! Am I getting through to you, Kevin, you dipshit?
Get over your fucking self, Barnes. You're certainly NOT the only artist having his/her music used commercially. But you ARE the most annoyingly sanctimonious prick whose rants I've read today. Now, go get your dick sucked.
Score = -9
"Selling out, in an artistic sense, is to change one's creative output to fit in with the commercial world. To create phony and insincere art in the hopes of becoming commercially successful. I've never done this and I can't imagine I ever will."
.....you changed your song's lyrics into a company jingle. Help me out here.
Score = -3
desree- outback bought the song, used the melody and they set their own words to it. he didn't rewrite it.
Score = 4
^^^ troll
Score = 0
after reading your post, Des'ree, all i see is AUDIOCRASH! and J. MELLO!*!&@ barf
Score = 2
Yo, way to spit some Ayn Rand shit, fucko. You think people getting fucked by capitalism are just lazy? You think 12 year olds in a third world country making shirts that you shill are just lazy? Go to hell, boy.
You can justify a lot of what you're saying, but dont applaud the system while you're at it. I will gladly steal your next record as you so willingly separate the music from the business.
Score = -1
God, I'm so tired of ppl bitchin about sweat shops. No, it may not be easy living, but every time 'do-gooder' fuckos force them to close those laid-off children end up looking for other ways to make money... like prostitution and criminal activity.
Score = 0
A lot of people need to calm the fuck down and realize that Kevin did not rewrite the words to his own song. He did not realize what Outback was asking for when they asked him for the song, he has explained that if they had used the song as is he would be ok with it but it angers him that they changed the words but there's nothing he can do about it now. Yes, he probably should have understood what they were asking for clearly before signing the contract but he didn't and now it is too late. Please shut the fuck up and understand the situation before you go on your RARARRARA HYPOCRITE tirades.
Score = 1
selling a song for a commercial is a one time handjob. bring back the major label cultivation.
Score = 0
WHO. FUCKING. CARES???
when will everyone finally learn that of Montreal are among the (if not the) most overrated bands to come out of... anywhere. ever.
honestly, unless im higher than the current pound/dollar ratio i cant enjoy a single one of their overly hyped, boorish excuses for pop music.
i wouldnt listen to them if someone payed me. and i AM a sellout.
Score = -5
"It's a system that rewards the imaginative and ambitious adults and punishes the lazy adults."
I really have no problem if artists when to sell their work to a commercial interest. Its their music, they can do what they want. I'm in no position to judge their motivations. But I really wish people would drop the completely false assertion that capitalism has built this perfect meritocracy where the "hard-working" succeed and the "lazy" fail. As others have pointed out, capitalism, or more accurately corporate-powered capitalism in America, has messed up the lives of millions of people.
When an industry is outsourced to a different country leaving hundreds of thousands of people out of a job (and with sparse replacements of equal value) is it because those workers were too "lazy"? Or is it because the attainment of ever-better profit margins have become truly mercenary. If it were all about "hard work" why are so many hard workers doing so badly?
"Almost every non-homeless person in America is over-privileged, at least in a global sense."
Compared to starving children in the third world, or political dissidents in China, sure. But is that a fair comparison to make when critiquing the level of "privilege" in America, by comparing it to the very worst cases in the world? Why not compare it to the very best cases in the world? With all our affluence why are so many millions without health care? Why is our infant mortality rate plummeting to third-world levels? Why are corporations almost completely unchecked and given legal status equal to a living being? This line of argument seems very close to "you don't know how good you got it, so shut up". A defense of American capitalism that the ever-growing ranks of working poor are most likely fed up with. But then, perhaps they are too lazy and uncreative to deserve success.
From my experience, the best defense against cries of "sell out" is to make transcendent art that renders such criticisms meaningless. If you can't manage that, perhaps you aren't working hard enough.
Score = 0
Music comes with persistent associations: the place you first heard it, who you were with, how you were feeling. I'd rather not have companies buying into those memories.
Score = 2
it's pretty clear that kevin barnes doesn't have a very good understanding of what anarchism is.
Score = -2
for someone who doesn't think he did anything wrong, he sure spent a lot of time defending himself.
Score = -1
"...discussing 'Story of the Eye'"
Score = 0
I like this guy even more now. Go Kevin, you're awesome :)
Score = 1
Exactly, Chase. This essay reads like he's desparately trying to convince himself of something.
Score = -1
some terrible points and some incredible points. the incredible points remind me of this dave eggers essay:
http://www.geocities.com/temptations_page/eggers.html
Score = -1
Dear Kevin,
Hey, remember me? We used to have it pretty good together, I thought things were all right. I hope you like the money Kevin, I miss you.
Sincerely,
Your Soul
Score = -1
you guys really watch too much tv. secondly, if you're ranting about using discretion before you sell you art, i hope that you are also using that same discretion in researching every store you ever walk into. hipster-crites.
Score = 1
@a: thanks for that link. i thoroughly enjoyed it.
Score = 0
What a slut....
Score = 0
Of Montreal - keep making the cheese!
We interviewed these cats last month and they mentioned the Outback deal helped buy and build the massive tour setup and production, so sounds like everyone wins.
For your next stunt please make the entire state of NY smell maple syrup at the same time.
http://www.butterteam.com/2007/10/bt-interview-of-montreal-interview-talk.html
Score = 0
While Kevin (and his Adam-Ant-by-way-of-Rufus-Wainright outfit in the photo above) makes some good points in defining selling out as compromising your art in order gain marketplace advantage, he sidesteps the issue of artistic intent.
If your overall goal is to be a famous rockstar (hello, Ryan Adam), it's not possible "sell out" or compromise in pursuit of fame or economic/material success. When your creative efforts are in pursuit of gaining the approval of the largest number of people possible, that's not an artistic pursuit -- that's marketing. Is it possible for a marketing executive to sell out? I think not.
In contrast, being an artist, I believe, is a matter of intent. If your goal isn't rockstar glory (to show up all those kids in third period who laughed at you -- show them good!), or merely getting laid on Saturday night, but to express a point of view, to get a message out to people (to wake them the fuck up, perhaps), then it is indeed possible to sell out, and sell out hard.
Michael Jackson's Pepsi commercial may have opened the floodgates on musicians licensing their current hits (as opposed to oldies and dusties) to commercials, but a Black musician actually collecting millions of dollars for his music was a semi-revolutionary cultural statement 20 years ago. A bunch of white boys doing so today is not (although I sympathize with how hard it is to make a living in ANY artistic pursuit these days. It DID used to be easier in the recent past, and it could be again, if we want it to be.).
I should wrap this up here before I digress too far:
If your goal as a musician is to be among the lucky 0.0001% who become rich and famous, you can't possibly sell out in pursuit of this goal. But if your goal as a musician is to make an artistic statement or express a point of view, well then yes, it is possible to sell out.
Whether selling a song for use in a commercial (or allowing the Corporate Death Machine to, in some other way, wrap it's arm around your shoulder for the photo op and pass as your cool amigo, while still performing heinous acts in private that undermine artist's interests) constitutes selling out, well that's up to you -- and no need to get defensive about it because that's your business, not mine.
Score = 0
Interesting Eggers piece, although I feel it's really talking about a different context of selling out than the one we are here. While he chooses to discuss "selling out" in the context of simply doing a job and getting paid for it (akin to, let's say, getting paid by the local supermarket for gathering shopping carts, or in his case writing an article for Time magazine), what we are actually discussing is taking a pre-existing piece of art and re-contextualizing it as a sales pitch. So while it's one thing to be a paid-by-the-word freelance writer and create an article from scratch, it would be quite another if, I dunno, Exxon Mobil took a paragraph from "Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius" and used it in print ads to talk about what a great, hip corporation they are because gosh, we've read Dave Eggers too! Co-optation and work for hire are not the same thing. Ask him about selling out in that context and you'd probably get a different answer.
Score = 0
my wife disagrees, but I fuckin' agree. plus, Hissing Fauna: hands down the best record of the year, so who cares-- let's dance to the weirdnesses!!!
Score = 1
I think having control over where your music goes after you made it is a bad idea. It's the reason sampling's gone through a huge legal fiasco, and now many have to be cleared, and aren't. If I were a musician I would let anyone who wanted use my music, it's not anyone but the persons choice on how to use it. Once it's made it should be able to be played anywhere if someone feels it's fit.
I only selling out as making music just to make money, or having that be your primary goal. If a band sold out it would require them changing their sound or making a record or songs just for the sake of selling them. As long as you're still making music for the pleasure of making music I think that's the only thing that should matter.
Score = 0
On the Flaming Lips point that Eggers brings up: does a band that agrees to allow a song to appear in a film/TV constitute selling out? I'd say no. I'd classify that as artistic collaboration/collage, unless we're talking about any song in any Michael Bay film.
Score = 0
criticism of licensing songs to commercials by "sanctiminous indie fascists" is something that really gets my back up, especially if it's a band like of montreal who are sort of in the shaky area between day job and full-time musician. this applies to the outback commercial (which i thought was quite funny) and band of horses. but if this really is as described, a sort of alan partridge-style "hi, i'm kevin from of montreal!" endorsement spot, then it goes past boundaries of dignity and integrity that nobody in their position has broken before. nah brah
Score = 0
Thanks, KB. I love listening to "Hissing Fauna" on the ol' iPod when I'm out hunting bucks.
Outback steakhouse and its founders are major contributors, via the Outback Steakhouse PAC, to the Republican Party, contributing $303,015 and $334,197 for the 2000 and 2004 election cycles, respectively.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.asp?strID=C00253153&cycle=2004
Score = 2
Tell this douchebag with my love and a kiss that if he had half the integrity or genius of Bruce Springsteen or Neil Young-- artists who do, in fact, refuse to license their work for commercials and do think that it matters-- he would have reason for pride. He wants to sell his song as a UPS jingle? More power to him. But don't come with your anti-snobbery snobbery (which is the worst kind) and sanctimonious garbage against artists who don't feel the same way you do. He mocks this idea of sanctimonious indy kids, but of course, he's just picking a different kind of sanctimony. He's also making a purity statement. He's just making it from another side. Garbage.
Score = 0
freddie, i think comparing of montreal with bruce springsteen and neil young is a bit unfair. both those artists made so much cash from the old music business model that they never needed to sell their material. for example, both bruce and neil broke out when radio was a viable marketing tool. that's no longer the case, so bands have to look for alternatives to promote (i.e., make money) themselves.
one last thing...don't be so naive. bruce isn't working shift work in jersey these days.
Score = 0
Kevin Barnes is like the Unabomber. That was a fucking a manifesto he wrote there on selling out. LOL. That thing was long.
Score = 0
spliting hairs aside....i think any reasonable realistic intelligent person would agree with what kevin said
Score = -1
I wouldn't do it. I'm worse off than they've been for years. How much do you need?
Score = 0
Even though I don't think Kevin has ever clearly stated that he made a mistake with the Outback thing (perhaps it would violate the contract or whatever), it was a mistake, but lesson learned. They still got paid, and last time I checked, they've been nonstop touring for the last 3 years pretty much, their music has blown up but a ticket to see them is what, $10-20 at the most, and their live shows are visually and of course musically among the best I have ever seen.
Outback steakhouse was a mistake, it's fucking obvious Barnes and everyone else in the band know it, but you learn from it and move on. we all could have made the same mistake, especially with 1 million dollars in front of us, so lets not crucify them for learning a lesson.
Score = 1
I guess the beatles sold out when they did their songs in German..
Selling out is kewl!
Score = -1
Do you like their music?
Great, shut up!
Score = 1
"Even though I don't think Kevin has ever clearly stated that he made a mistake with the Outback thing (perhaps it would violate the contract or whatever)"
He has.
Score = 0
.... GO KEVIN!
Score = 1
Hey great blog!
I’d love it if you checked mine out, just started it a few days ago. I will be posting Mon-Thu every week, hopefully!
http://nmsles.blogspot.com
I write mostly blurbs and ramblings about music every day, and I want to start doing some more album/song reviews when the time comes. I would really appreciate a comment or some feedback! :) thanks!
Score = -1
i think if your band is good enough, you don't need to sell the songs. you don't see arctic monkeys hawking tmobile, and he seems to be trying to convince himself with his little article
Score = -2
When you think about it, the internet represents the sum total of all human/corporate organization. Now imagine that economic-organization as a wave of gathering-momentum. The technology and resources required to fuel the internet is at the very crest of that wave.
I guess I'm just suggesting that if you are wasting time and energy bitching about others "selling-out" --- via the internet --- maybe you should reconsider your medium for bitching.
Score = 0
one last thing...don't be so naive. bruce isn't working shift work in jersey these days.
I know he's not. And, as I said, if someone wants to sell their songs for advertising, that's their right. But I don't like the fact that he attacks by implication artists who don't, and what's worse, he makes his piece a referendum on musical sanctimony when he is, in fact, taking part in the same.
Score = 0
Geez...all anyone can do is bitch about how they can't make a living. Indie bands didn't use to have this sense of entitlement: you toured, maybe sold a few albums, and then maybe you could pay your phone bill with what you brought home from the tour and your next paycheck from 7-11. Even the Replacements had day jobs.
Yeah, the old business model is dead, replaced with something much more efficient: with the internet, bands now have the widest distribution platform any artist has ever had, with near instantaneous delivery to any customer in the world and the opportunity to cut out the distributor entirely and make five times as much cash than being signed to any record label, but no one except Radiohead seems to have worked it out.
Score = 0
Even if Barnes feels like he got screwed by Outback when they changed the song, he still knew who he was selling it to.
And now it is time to use Google:
Hutch Harris/Thermals: "It was a really easy decision. How could we go on after soundtracking Hummer? It's just so evil."
Tom Waits: "If Michael Jackson wants to work for Pepsi, why doesn't he just get himself a suit and an office in their headquarters and be done with it?"
Ian Mackaye: yeah just pick one
Three artists that have been able to make music a full time job without ever selling out.
I've tried to justify selling songs to ads, but in the end, I just can't get behind it. Since Kevin is so fond of either/or statements, let's throw one out: It's either art or a jingle, Kev. Make your choice.
Score = 1
what ever.
Score = 0
Well, yes, I think Kevin Barnes just wrestled away "Indie Douchebag of the Month" honors away from that naked guy at the Girl Talk show.
Score = 0
I really don't see why it matters whose songs are in what commercials. You like the music on the cd or you don't. That's all anyone should care about. As long as Kevin is making music I love he can be in any commercial his pretty little heart desires. Why should I be mad if he wants to license a song to feed his daughter or to provide for a kick ass stage show?
Score = 0
I can't believe Mr Barnes would use his music in an advert and then write a big long piece like this trying to justify himself. I'm all for 'selling out' to corporations, it's brilliant! But Barnes has really sold with this 'selling out' statement. What a pussy!
Also, to take issue with this :
"It's a system that rewards the imaginative and ambitious adults and punishes the lazy adults."
and...
"i think any reasonable realistic intelligent person would agree with what kevin said"
Reeeaallly? Hmm....
Score = -1
Kevin was rigth when he said that selling out is "changing your creative output to fit in with the commercial world." Maybe Jenny Lewis is reading this...
I've never had a problem with bands selling their music to big companies. I love hearing The Shins and Rogue Wave on the new Zune commercials, I love hearing Dntel on car commercials, and Mates of State on AT&T commercials. It's better than mainstream music any day!
Granted, this may mean an onslaught of 15-year-old girls skank-dancing at the next Of Montreal show, but I'm glad that the band is making money.
Score = 0
art is suffering. art is sacrifice. this guy forgot that.
"wahhhh"
Score = -1
I think a lot of valid points were raised here.
Someone mentioned that as long as you enjoy the music a band makes, why should you care who they sell a song to? I absolutely agree. I think its been a while since people focused merely on the music bands make and not on style, business deals, and other things that simply shouldn't matter and are besides the point. Intentions? Who cares? Are you enjoying their music, do you get something out of it, does it make you happy? Good then. That's more than enough.
While I disagree with some points brought up by Barnes (primarily the whole idea that capitalism is a perfect system in which only the lazy get screwed over, because with outsourcing of labor to other countries this isn't quite true anymore), I still think he's made a good point overall. There's nothing wrong with selling a song to a corporation for a commercial because they need to make a living too. We all do what we have to (as long as it's not immoral) to stay afloat, don't we?
Score = 0
hey look, heres another quote:
"people can bitch about my principles and ethics while they're spending their parents money or washing dishes for some asshole." - isaac brock
i like to think after saying this, isaac yelled "SO LONG SUCKERS" and drove off into the sunset, the tires of his truck creating great plumes of dust that rose and fell in the glow of the evening. but he probably didnt
whats wrong with jingles anyway? i read an interview with corrine bailey rae (stay with me) where she said "someone once asked if i could write and sing a jingle selling cheese in israel. i could never do something like that." you dumb bitch, i would fucking LOVE to write a jingle hawking israeli cheese
Score = 1
Punk is garbage? ''The pseudo-nihilistic punk rockers of the 70's created an impossible code in which no one can actually live by. It's such garbage.''
I don't think so. It's reactionary cr@p like this essay that's garbage. Why don't you just whore yourself to the Bush administration and the US Army and do the soundtrack for the next military recruitment campaign. You can even play an Iraqi insurgent in the next Army-sponsored videogame and get your head blown off by gamers. That would advance your career in commerce, right?
Score = -1
I'm guessing the real problem here is, music fans usually associate the identity of the music along with the music itself. So, if the music is associated with Outback Steakhouse, then it's as if they are directly supporting that place when they really are supporting the band.
Score = 0
As a conflicted and confused youth, I suppose I can agree with him. If I ever make it big, I promise I'll be choose-y with the corporations I make deals with.
The bottom line is that I love of Montreal and that I couldn't care less what they do as long as they don't kill and/or rape any babies and continue to make good music.
Score = 0
Dave Eggers' piece resonated with me. Yes to saying yes. But if this were a live conversation, I'd want to put the following to him: what about the implicit contract an artist or entrepreneur (when still early and small) makes with his or her viewer, reader, listener, user? I think Dave doesn't acknowledge that there is an intimacy to the relationship between an emerging artist and audience/fan, more imagined than real, and full of unrequited passion and adolescent fantasy perhaps, but that is no less visceral to the early fan or the early adopter of a new technology for that matter. When the artist or entrepreneur gets big, this notion of monogamy, albeit illusory, is shattered. So the young person, early adopter, explorer/discoverer, president of a fan club of 3 feels an inexplicable sense of betrayal and moves on to support the next underdog. Remember "you were working as a waitress in a cocktail bar, when I met you. Now 5 years later, you've got the world at your feet. Success has been so easy for you. But don't forget it's me who put you where you are now and I can put you back down too. Don't you want me baby?" Creepy, yes, but kind of a hard-to-ignore part of the psyche of fan-hood. And this goes beyond the arts. Mike Arrington, tech guru, writer, investor wrote a sad post about the state of silicon valley now vs. a number of years ago. http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/05/22/silicon-valley-could-use-a-downturn-right-about-now/
Small is beautiful, big can be devastatingly gorgeous and infinitely renewing, but the journey between the two is by definition a relationship between creator and experiencer and therefore inherently fraught with negotiation.
Score = 1
He probably spent 3/4's of the money on the shirt he is wearing in that picture.
I like OM for the most part but Kevin Barnes is so lame. I hate shit like this. He is such an attention whore.
Score = -1
if kevin barnes wants to fabricate a bunch of flimsy logic to excuse his tasteless business decisions, fine, but his essay also manages to insult the scores of bands that DO have ideals and DO manage do function outside of the despicable capitalist machine. for that, he can go fuck himself.
Score = 0
I really don't get why anyone thinks Of Montreal is any good, and the dude needs to lay the heck off the clown attire... but he is essentially right. Get over it, indiedom.
But what's with the parting jab at Poppa Bear?
Score = 0
when he's on the cover of NME I might say he's a sell out, but until that day they remain my 2nd favourite band
Score = 0
Thank you Kevin Barnes for your Capitalist Manifesto. Your rational of either/or-ness is the same sort that our nations leaders have used to justify their atrocities. The longer your spewing got, the more pathetic you sounded. I know that it can not be easy to dream up all those rationals to why compromising your integrity is good for art. As already stated by many comments above, there are artists that have NOT sold out and managed to live through their music. But I understand, money has a powerful pull. I guess one of the differences between you and them(the non-sellouts) is a matter of vertebrae......
Score = 0
"Selling out, in an artistic sense, is to change one's creative output to fit in with the commercial world." - Kevin Barnes
Ummm...by allowing Outback to change the lyrics to his song, didn't Barnes essentially do the preceding?
Score = 0
someone earlier had it right. art is suffering, art is sacrifice. If you want to sell your art to whoever to make a living that is great. There is much to consider about the integrity of the artist, and the function of art. Is Kevin Barnes a sell-out? Who really cares. There is a bigger question and problem at stake. I think a bigger problem is people adjusting to the change of "undeground" or "indie" music becoming so popular. I'd like to think everyone would agree that using "indie" to describe music is pointless. I don't really think indie was a term ever invented to describe the way music sounds at all. But it's become associated with elitism, fashion, underground, less popular music that is "cool" and that is an issue.
"Art" can be a vehicle for socializing, but how are we to decide that the socializing has become the sole function of the "art" or music? I'm not sure myself.
This may seem like an aside, I don't know who will really read this or connect with it, but I feel this is an underlying issue with the topic at hand.
I believe there is very little honest art being created today. Art wasn't always trendy and cool. That didn't really start take it's roots until maybe in the 1920's, but mostly during the 40's, 50's, and 60's when art took drastic turns in abstract expressionism and pop-art.
To me this is the question. I'm tired of the term art being tossed around. Bukowski sums up my ideas nicely with his poem "So You Want To Be a Writer."
http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/16549
Score = 1
heres my essay:
kevin barnes is a dick
by me
Hey kevin barnes, youre a dick. I honestly dont care that you sell out. thats fine, everyone needs to make a living. but youre "to sell out is to live" argument is a cop-out. you dont have to have your music used for commercials. you dont. not all bands do this, and some do. you do, and that is fine. its that you dont understand the distinction, and try to make the argument that youre not doing anything different than anyone else. but you are (you do it to the point where you let a company change the lyrics to one of your songs to better fit their slogan - that personally i think is shit, but as for generally selling your music to be used in commercials, thats fine). let me tell you kevin barnes, you are not above it all, and that is fine. just dont try to act like you are and be a dick. to respond with this essay is a defense tone shows your colors on the issue.
i like you music (honestly your band has crafted one of the best albums of the year). and i take no offense when you use your songs in commercials. but to take this stance on the issue seems ridiculous and you seem like a dick. thats all
Score = -1
no matter how ironic and cool it may seem to support the commercialization of music over those who suffer to avoid it, it isn't. this guy has crafted one of lamest, awful, mis-informed essays i've ever read and its great that so many people are openly supporting it as if he is helping things. kevin barnes is not an artist. nobody is expecting you to die penniless and insane kevin. you are just scared of that fate, so you've lost touch with the art you would like to make. the reason many artists die penniless is not because they did not know how to succeed in a capitalistic society but because they were more dedicated to what they wanted to do than someone else telling them how to live. thats dedication. thats integrity. you know neither of these things kevin. i would not have to say these things if you would accept your own way of thinking, retire from music, and get another profession instead of depreciating the importance of the field in which you work, one which people look to for comfort from outback commercials and people who tell them that the homeless artist has lost the game of capitalism and the man shopping in ikea has won. fuck kevin barnes and the blind followers who agreed with this essay. its okay to accept your position as a corporate slave. most of us have. but its not cool. we are sell-outs.
Score = 1
"Here's the deal, folks. You do a commercial - you're off the artistic roll call, forever. End of story. Okay? You're another whore at the captialist gang bang and if you do a commercial, there's a price on your head. Everything you say is suspect and every word that comes out of your mouth is now like a turd falling into my drink."
Score = 1
who the fuck is Of Montreal anyway?
seriously?
is this the guy previously seen with his cock out onstage?
Score = 0
"I realized then that, for me, selling out is not possible. Selling out, in an artistic sense, is to change one's creative output to fit in with the commercial world"
you changed your creative output to fit with the commercial world when you chaqnged your lyrics to "make it outback tonight" so by your own definition you are a sellout. and swearing doesn't make you not a republican.
Score = -1
Totally agree with Kev on this one. I grew up only listening to punk rock and hardcore....then I "grew up". Seriously, punk rock gives you an ideal and identity as a youth but what 30 year old is still exclusively rocking out to the same 3-chord juvenile mess they were listening to when they were 15 years old. I will still listen to punk on occasion, but now I really care for of Montreal over the Business....Broken Social Scene over NoFX, etc, etc. It's called evolution! Do I still read the same books I read as a teenager? Do I still only eat what I ate at 17 years old? NO! Selling out is not a concern if mine anymore....listening to good, creative music is! If you can make a buck while still producing great music, go for it!
Score = 0
Yeah, well I'm 33 and I ain't buying it. The guy had one of his songs transformed into a bloody jingle for a steakhouse. Let's call a spade a spade.
Score = 0
I think the Eggars says its best, when it comes to artistry: "What matters is that you do good work. What matters is that you produce things that are true and will stand." Artistic integrity is being true to yourself, is not dictated to by the the push and pull of the marketplace.
I also think that commercials can sometimes be artistic. The use of Jose Gonzalez Heartbeats to illustrated color in the Sony TV ad is a good example - nobody even knew who Jose Gonzales was at the time, so how could that he be characterized as a sell-out?
Score = 0
hey - the first 'o' is lowercase. It is 'of Montreal'. they set that shit straight with the Kennedy look-um-like./
Score = 0
Who Out Sells Wintersox
http://wintersox.blogspot.com/
Score = 0
Does anyone know the name of the band who re-recorded the oM song for the Outback commercial? I like their version more and would like to support them and buy their records.
Full disclosure: I also really like steak.
Score = 0
I'm not an Of Montreal fan at all but I gotta say to Mr. Barnes "Right-Fucking-On."
Score = 0
"The only way to avoid selling out is to live like a savage all alone in the wilderness. The moment you attempt to live within the confines of a social order, you become a sell out."
His initial argument is wrong here. I think it was John Locke who said that by living in a society you tacitly agree to it's laws & morays. I don't think there are any laws or morays in the Western world that says you have to "sell out" in order to survive.
Even though the basis of his argument is wrong and is a somewhat misguided attempt at justifying the commoditization of his work, I don't think it's particularly wrong for him to use his songs in anyway he sees fit. He's no less of an musician because of it.
We expect the Nickelback's of the world to do this, but get up in arms when the oM's of the world do it. Why? Becasue they're supposed to have more "integrity"? They're more "real" because they speak to a smaller segment of society? BS on all accounts.
They're his songs, he can do what he wants with them. The fact he feels the need to explain himself illuminates his lack of trust in his fans. Why is it so wrong to the indie set to make money or to have any kind of ambition? I've never understood that. No one plays music for the art of it. They do it to get paid, to get laid to get recognition etc. Unless of course they never play live or release a recording in any kind of format. The moment you do release anything, you're striving for something, whatever iIT may be. oM isn't doing anything wrong per se. They made their own choices.
Score = 0
Selling out for letting someone change the lyrics to a song for commercial use? Give me a break. If the band is going to survive they live in the same world you and I do - I haven't see a band survive yet that didn't have $$$ coming from somewhere. If you believe that Of Montreal produces "art" then whatever they do to continue to produce it is reality not selling out. Just keep the message pure.
I was at their concert in Pomona and SLC last week - they haven't sold out and have a different sound and message that the near garbage we saw on the music awards last night.
Score = 0
Somebody mentioned it before (way before, come to think of it), but there was some serious Ayn Rand philosophizing in this piece.
Ultimately, from an economic perspective, you can't argue with Barnes' logic. They're his songs; he can sell them to whomever. What's wrong about this isn't the selling out issue but, rather, the fact that Barnes is negating all of his hard, creative work by putting his song into a commercial.
Think about it: Even if you're not a fan of Barnes' work, you can at least acknowledge that he strives for sonic density and thematic complexity. If Barnes is going to work so hard to become a sonic architect and to create mind-blowing conceptual worlds about his alter egos, then why negate all that work so you can have people think of your song when they buy a cell phone?
Score = 0
are Steak-ums still produced?
Score = 0
The real difference between the "punk rock ethos" of the "no future generation" and the hundreds or thousands of bands after them was that for years and years, being in an independent band was done purely for self-expression, art, the experience, inspiration, some burning desire, etc despite fairly gloomy prospects. Being in an indie band did not come with a promise that even if you were talented and devoted to your music that you'd be able to quit your day job.
I wouldn't begrudge anyone a living, or any money, credit or added promotion that might be gained from having their music used in a commercial but I think its incorrect to connect an artist's choice to license their work for a television advertisement to their ability and inclination as artists to write and record "a few more records."
I appreciate Kevin's eloquence but his essay was a tremendous oversimplification that is more a defensive attempt at justifying of Montreal's decision rather than examine the process of how they came to make it.
I would have preferred an answer that was more honest and explained how they came to the decision to do something that maybe they "weren't psyched about."
Score = 0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQmCkDR0dHw
Score = 0
for what it's worth, i just want to remind everyone that great film directors have a history of doing commercials and music videos (even for non-hip, envelope pushing bands). also, it's a tricky thing with corporations. you want to save the world, locally and globally and this whole thing, and you don't want to sponsor terrible corporations (like Staples, the environmental polluters, or union-leader killing soda companies). then again, so many corporations are "evil" in some ways, even the holier than thou types. That siad,things like the glorious NPR can be problematic in developing concensus ideas/positions/points of view for progressive people. Well, what do you do? Of Montreal do deserve a check, and are pretty great at keeping their artistic integrity (the key point, as did the Beatles in all their work, especially the post '66 remove from boy-band status albums). i guess that's the key part. try not to get a check from the worst company. don't be deluded in thinking that many of us (not all) aren't perpetually selling a version of ourselves, whether we're tres "indie" or "progressive," or otherwise. Explore your artistic integrity, a true and public/advertised version of yourself, and try to make decisions that you could live with, and thrive from, for the rest of your life. okay, back to eating my ration of two peanut butter sandwiches and one meal a day (which is living it up, compared to global quatlity of life).
Score = 0
oh, and lest we forget that Of Montreal and many other indie pop bands do use the structure, style, history, lexicon, posturing-- whatever you want to call it-- of pop music, a populist for of music. yes, they have prettied it up, dirtied it up, Elephant 6'ed it up, obscure vinyl banded it up, but they're still in conversation with the history of a popular/populist genre.
not a good or bad thing, just a part of the music. a part i love, and am taken by aesthetically intellectually and moved by, otherwise, but just so we remember that part.
baroque pop is still pop. indie pop is still pop.
so is yo la tengo and all of other heroes.
Score = 0
How does the song appearing in a commercial negate his previous work? I'm not trying to make a point; I honestly don't understand the reasoning here.
Score = 0
Now that I've actually seen the commercial, I change my mind. Selling out is totally possible. That commercial sucks. It's a good thing for Of Montreal that their music is still really awesome...
Score = 0
that's what i mean. i am more cool with it than not because of montreal have kept their integrity. though outback steakhouse is a bloodmouth chain (and i am a non-vegan/bloodmouth), it could be a hell of a lot worse. that said, it sucks that this is now a speciesist issue.
anyway, i'll keep listening to of montreal and put them on mix tapes.
Score = 0
It doesn't "negate" anything. But it shows us that he's willing to let his work be used for reasons that ostensibly have nothing to do with why it was created. And what fills in the gaps of the artist's intentions...I don't know if Outback Steakhouse has given you any transcendant experiences lately...
Ordinarily, that would send the signal that his songs aren't worth all that much to him. But personally, I understand that selling out is a necessary evil, especially today...it's something he probably has to do.
And I realize that Kevin Barnes does express a little dissatisfaction with the way things are. But I was a little disturbed so read just how OK with it he is...at times, he seems gleeful about the whole arrangement. Just because selling out appears necessary right now doesn't mean we should forget about it and all the distasteful elements that go along with it. Let's not forget that "evil" is as much a part of "necessary evil" as "necessary" is.
To bring another much-discussed band into the picture, one of the big lessons in the Radiohead story is that creativity doesn't stop when the record stops spinning (and you can look at the *Amnesiac* packaging, or the website, or webcasts or whatever to see that too). Artists have to be just as creative and resourceful in figuring out ways to overcome 'selling out' in promoting themselves as they are when they're making music in the first place, so that they don't have to devalue what they made in the end.
Score = 0
This guy is so impossibly full of shit. Just a few points:
"The only way to avoid selling out is to live like a savage all alone in the wilderness."
Clearly, the only alternative to turning your songs into insipid jingles for a low grade food franchise is to run bare-ass naked through the woods.
"Of course, if the world would have ended before Sandinista! was released then everything would have been alright."
A world without Sandinista! would not be worth living in. Period. And I don't even like the Clash that much.
"If we didn't do it, we'd be fucked, quite literally, by everyone bigger than us physically who found us fuckable.... The worst kind of person is the one who sucks the dick of the man during the daytime and then draws pictures of themselves slitting his throat at night. Jesus Christ, make up your mind!... at least then I can control how my cock is photographed... The thing is, I like capitalism."
You like capitalism, yet write a few hundred words comparing it to rape and prostitution. Maybe you need to make up your mind. Or work out some deep seated issues.
"I like capitalism. I think it's an interesting challenge. It's a system that rewards the imaginative and ambitious adults and punishes the lazy adults."
Like Paris, Nicole, Lindsey, Blackwater, Halliburton, radio, McDonalds, Outback Steakhouse... Innovators and visionaries all. Triumphs of the market. Britney over Nick Drake. Fall Out Boy over Fugazi.
What a colossal asshole.
Score = 0
"The only way to avoid selling out is to live like a savage all alone in the wilderness."
Quite simply, this comment is absurd. No one argues that you must live "like a savage" (how colonially cute) in order to not sell out. Selling out is an action, not the absence of action. One must "sell out" to sell out, you don't just innocently become "sold out." It isn't puberty.
Kevin Barnes rewrote his lyrics so they could be featured in a commercial for a pseudo-Australian Steakhouse (it's based in Tampa) peddling big portions of poor beef at bad prices. Has Kevin Barnes no sympathy for independent steakhouses? Or Australian culture? Now our boy is going to prance around and subscribe a particular type of mobile phone to an impressible and increasingly younger audience? This, despite the fact he may have never used it before and despite the fact that, hey, kids, you could probably get a slightly better if they didn't budget me and my brethren a few hundred grand in ad revenue.
But seriously, that earlier statement's crazy. I think Barnes own alien popularity has created a deluded confusion over what "punk" or "independent" is. Changing the lyrics to a song and creating a marketing persona certainly isn't (read: David Bowie and the Beatles are not "punk.")
Score = 0
Thanks Kevin! I appreciate your candor on the subject. I think it boils down to two things...
For the fans, do you like their music or not. Whether it is in a TV commercial is really not germane to your musical tastes.
For the band, can you live with the "seeming" endorsement of a company or corporation. I am not saying that the band necessarily endorses, uses or even likes the company that uses their song, but there is a perception of endorsement. In the case of Band of Horses, they obviously felt uncomfortable with this "seeming" endorsement of Wal-Mart. That's ok... it's personal choice. Similarly, of Montreal is comfortable with being associated with Outback and T-Mobile.
I for one will not withdraw my support for of Montreal.
Score = 0
When I listen to music I often associate my own images, memories, dreams, etc with that music (at least the music I like).
This is why I love music so much. It engages my imagination and makes me feel things. THIS is what I am paying for when I buy music (maybe that's my problem? ;-)...
But when a song I dig is used in a commercial, my imagery is replaced by whatever product is being sold (or at best, my imagery has to share space with said product or service).
(as an aside, you better believe this is why music is paired with ads in the first place... because together the intended message is made much more powerful)
But you know what? I don't want to be made to feel deeply about any product or service.
The thing I love about music and what brings me to spend money on it in the first place... Is lost (or at least de-valued significantly) when used in this way.
Sure, not ALL sync placements are "evil"... I think it's up to the artist to navigate these waters... but lets not pretend there's no damage being done... and lets not insist that we the listeners just shut up and deal.
When yr song comes on and I'm immediately thinking of VWs, Chalupas, or Phone Bills, I'm gonna bitch about it... Cuz you've essentially taken something from me.
Score = 0
"The only way to avoid selling out is to live like a savage all alone in the wilderness."
Savages? Really? This sounds like the rhetoric that Christopher Columbus used on the Native Americans when he 'discovered' America.
"There is nothing wrong with capitalism, you evil savages that criticize us! Now give us your land while we rape your wives and ruin your cultures."
Score = 0
To Meat Lightning, you echo my thoughts exactly.
The band can do whatever they want with their music, it's their right. And maybe it's not "selling out", but becoming a glorified jingle writer, with modified lyrics and all, certainly doesn't make you a band I want to listen to.
I guess it's all about the short-term (get paid now for commercials) vs a long-term legacy.
Score = 0
"I think the bottom line is not to support something you think is evil."
Amen.
Score = 0
trevor said:
""The only way to avoid selling out is to live like a savage all alone in the wilderness."
Clearly, the only alternative to turning your songs into insipid jingles for a low grade food franchise is to run bare-ass naked through the woods."
i can't stop laughing
Score = 0
Whether Kevin Barnes meets the definition of a "sell out" by anyone else's standards is irrelevant to me - he's a fucking pathetic writer of belles lettres that needs a kick in the face. Selling your song to a fucking strip mall steakhouse chain that is making middle class pricks all over the USA fatter and fatter is depressing beyond words. Yes, Kevin, it's not punk at all, and neither are you. I remember your mediocre band playing in my town about eight or nine years ago. That you're still around today I can only chalk up to the feeble-mindedness of the college kids in this country and the tv zombies that actually get informed about what bullshit pop music to buy by watching commercials. Please stop making music, you prick!
Score = -1
DUSSELDORF!
I think that commercial is hilarious.
I have long been an advocator of supporting the band, whether that is buying thier albums or not letting a commercial change the fact that I like thier music.
If anyone hates the commercial so much then STOP WATCHING TV. Advertisments are there to grab you, and you are well aware of that before you click the on button.
I love Of Montreal/Kevin Barnes
and it says, if the creativity is not being sacrificed for the commercial world, what's the problem?
Score = 0
"The only way to avoid selling out is to live like a savage all alone in the wilderness."
Theres been a lot of argument and dispute over that line.
And I'd like to point out that we can't just judge that line out of context as I see so many people doing.
It makes so much more sense in the essay and rather than diessecting it word for word and discounting it, look at the whole essay and see what makes sense.
We're missing the forest for the tree...once again.
Honestly who cares if this band makes a few extra bucks?
We're just selfish aren't we? I know that I want to keep Of Montreal all to myself and pretend I'm the only one who has emotionally connected with the songs and that I am the only true Of Montreal fan. And I know you probably think that and want that too, don't we all?
I'd rather support the band then put in a bunch of negative energy over something that I'm not going to change.
Score = 0
If anyone still listens to the petulant adolescent viewpoint of early punk and hardcore on the absolute morality of selling out or not, they just aren't thinking. But then again for anyone to say, "The thing is, I like capitalism. I think it's an interesting challenge. It's a system that rewards the imaginative and ambitious adults and punishes the lazy adults." Well they just aren't thinking far beyond their small world either. Capitalism is an international system, with impact far beyond "making adults less lazy." Sure maybe for the white american middle class it serves that healthy purpose, but people don't become a vegetarian, try to avoid buying things produced in sweatshops, and try to avoid participation in corporate consumerism because they are worried about their artistic integrity. I am troubled that the implications of corporate cooperation is looked at by many of my generation only in the terms of personal corruption. Its about the effects of your actions in the world at large, not about making or not making bad art. Maybe thats the ultimate misguided message of punk-rock narccisism, forgetting the bigger picture. I still like Of Montreal, and don't consider them sell-outs, no big deal, but Barnes should probably shut the fuck up when pontificating about political issues, he's about as farsigted as that asshole Bill O'Reilly.
Score = 0
Dusseldorf! Honestly, I'm ecstatic that of monty's gotten their name out more, and so should true fans who really want to promote oM. And it's not as though they're doing anything that isn't of Montreal of them; Kevin Barnes is still wearing glitter make up, BP's wearing wings... selling out, I think, would have been to have a commercial where they made themselves out to be something they're not, and they really kept it oM in my opinion. and besides, we could all use more BP Helium on tv.. he's so beautiful...
Score = 0
who cares this band sucks anyways :(
Score = 0
Who doesn't like steak? This thread is full of hypocrites.
Score = 0
In my world, I call selling your song, complete with modified lyrics to shill for a chain of steakhouses selling out.
Can you imagine the furor if Arcade Fire sold "Keep the Car Running" to Wendy's Late-Night, complete with altered lyrics? Oh, the blog posts we would see....
If instead of writing a multi-paragraph manifesto on why they weren't "selling out", he just said "Look, we're flat broke, couldn't pay our rent and needed the money", I'd have a little bit more respect for their stance.
Yes, these guys can do whatever they want with their music to earn a few more bucks. But it's lazy and certainly doesn't make me want to listen to them. If they view their music as pure product to sell shit, then so do I.
Score = 0
He sounds pretty reasonable and level-headed to me at least.
Indie rockers don't make a whole lot of money. If they get offered a huge sum to license one of their songs, of course they're going to do it.
Of course, if a record exec walked up to Of Montreal, and offered to give them an astronomical sum of money, but only if the next 3 records are radio-friendly pop-punk, THAT would be selling out.
Score = 0
maybe he thought rewriting the lyrics for outback steakhouse was funny? i did
cmon...if arcade fire reworked keep the car running for mountain dew or something it would be hilarious. and brilliant self-iconoclasm. and it would piss off douchebags. i wouldnt be at all surprised if dylan licensing times they are a-changin to a goddamn bank commercial was for these very reasons
Score = 0
maybe he thought rewriting the lyrics for outback steakhouse was funny? i did
cmon...if arcade fire reworked keep the car running for mountain dew or something it would be hilarious. and brilliant self-iconoclasm. and it would piss off douchebags. i wouldnt be at all surprised if dylan licensing times they are a-changin to a goddamn bank commercial was for these very reasons
Score = 0
Even though I agree with some of the statements Kevin makes, my idea of selling out is when I turn on a TV and hear an Of Montreal song. After that, I cannot think of anything but Outback Steakhouse when listening to the band...so I can no longer listen to Of Montreal the same way.
Score = 0
Feeling defensive much?
Yeah, that speech really sounds like he's 'ok' with it. As ok as he can sound with cock in his mouth and spare change thrown at him.
Score = 0
Methinks he doth protest too much. Go ahead and sell your shit, I don't know why you think anyone cares. If it's not a big deal, why write such a long rant justifying it? Shit, I don't blame you. Neil Young can look down on you, maybe, but it's easy when you have Neil's money.
Score = 0
aktar, youre an idiot. i dont think he changed the lyrics to be funny. did you even think about what you were writing before you typed it?
<3 KB - "Honestly who cares if this band makes a few extra bucks? We're just selfish aren't we?"
I dont think thats why people are complaining. For the most part, I think most people in this thread have stated that its okay to get to make a living this way. I think people have the problem with how kevin does it, and then with how he tries to justify it. Get over yourself dude, and stop getting so defensive about it. If youre fine about, then be fine about.
Gia - "and it says, if the creativity is not being sacrificed for the commercial world, what's the problem?"
Ummm, but isn't this exactly what happened with the Outback commercial? He allowed his lyrics (his creativity) to be changed (sacrificed) for a jingle (for the commercial world).
That's what makes this letter even worse. Fine, its okay to sell out. Just dont try to act like youre better than it...ESPECIALLY when you seem to be one of the worst offenders allowing your artistic creation to be altered to fit the message of a shitty corporate restaurant.
Score = 0
If you understand where Kevin is coming from, read this too:
http://www.working-minds.com/money.htm
Score = 0
I don't care what you do with your music--it's yours and yours alone and none of my business. However, a paranoid, ultra-defensive rant like this is pretty pathetic. Stick to music--politics and economic theory are not your forte.
Score = 0
Dammit. If only he could've found some discount eyeliner we wouldn't be in this situation.
Score = 0
doing commercials is tacky.
plain and simple.
there are plenty of indie bands who have gone mainstream ( the decemberists, rilo kiley, etc.) while maintaining their ARTISTIC INTEGRITY.
it is possible to sell out- kevin barnes and of montreal did it.
i still love them to death, but it breaks my heart to see such a great band hocking cell phones.
i will hold my judgement until ofmontreal releases their next EP- i just hope that their music doesnt disintegrate as quickly as their dignity.
Score = 0
Actually, Kevin, there is another option: Get a "real" job, and do your art on the side if you're so unsure about the merits of your art for its own sake. Where was it ever promised that you should be able to quit your day job and make money off of music? I know I took some American history in high school, but I must have been out sick that day. Buying into that "You can be whatever you want" lie, huh? Well, I wanted to be a squirrel astronaut, but I've come to terms with the fact that no one's willing to bankroll that dream.
This guy needs to wake up to the fact that it's a rare individual who can make money off of their artistic merits without selling out (selling out being only possible, but quite common). If you want to take the route of making money through liscensing your music, go right ahead, but don't pretend that you had no other choice. And don't pretend you're somehow better for it than all of the people who aren't willing to sell their material for ads.
As others have noted, his deep throating of the concept of capitalism is not only moronic, it's also highly offensive to the people out there who get crapped upon daily working low-paid service jobs while "artists" like Brittney Spears are able to spend thousands a month on clothes. If he truly thinks that he deserves to be paid more than your average burger slinger, or even your avarage office drone, for his amazing musical contributions to humanity, he's completely insane. If he thinks he should make a mint for allowing the music to be used as a sales pitch, fine, but don't pretend that it was inevitable/noble.
I found the Outback commercial mildly offensive, but didn't blame the band. All this diatribe did was make me hate the writer, which put a worse coat of filth on the music than any dumb commercial could have done.
It appears being an arrogant twit who can barely write and yet still gets lucrative commercial deals is also only possible in a privelidged society.
Score = -1
Nice article, from what I read. I had to stop because it was so fucking gay. Try writing an article that doesnt reference cock sucking so much.
Score = 1
you know, if he'd just responded with 'well, i like steak', this would've blown over so easy.
Score = 0
i respect his decision, but i guess i am more of the tom waits-takes-on-frito-lay school....
Score = 0
"Go ahead and sell your shit, I don't know why you think anyone cares."
Uhh did you see the ridiculous amount of backlash this band received when the Outback commercial came out? It is clear that a lot of people who really shouldn't care do. It is even stranger to me that most of the people who care so much aren't even in love with this band. Most of their hardcore fans don't care as much as you all do.
It's clear that 80% of the people who are writing these comments aren't too big of of Montreal fans and don't really understand Kevin or his situation at all so reading a lot of these comments is just kind of frustratingly funny.
Score = 0
And another thing.. as long as this stuff isn't affecting the music he makes on record in a negative way why does it matter? I don't give a shit if Kevin is featured in commercials as long as his music stays good and neither should anyone else who calls themselves a fan.
You guys must be some real impressionable idiots to have a commercial blur your view of something you used to like.
Score = 0
^SL, I don't think you actually understand what's going on here in the comments.
I'm not allowed to comment because I'm not a diehard of Montreal fan? That seems unfair. I read what Kevin wrote, and most of the comments, and I have an opinion. I can't share it? Isn't the comment section partly designed for that?
I don't get why I have to be a huge fan of the band to understand Kevin's position.
Also, you might not care if his music is in commercials, but maybe others do. Actually, scratch that. If you read the comments, you'd see that actually most people aren't upset that his music was in a commercial, but they are upset about the position he's taking. He's trying to act like he's better than selling out cause we all do it. Actually Kevin, we don't all do that, so get off your high horse.
I also think that it's understandable for people to get upset when they see an artist compromise their work (Outback commercial) for a dollar, and then act like they're not compromising their work.
Score = 0
I'm not sure who Duff Montreal (about 10 comments up) is, but he's our new hero. Somehow, in the last decade, it not only became acceptable, but actually "cool" to have your song in a commercial. The obvious fallout: that song is forever tied to the product it is endorsing. If your art means that little to you, then it means that little to us as well.
Score = -1
Of course you're allowed to weigh in on what Kevin wrote whether you're a big fan of his or not.. but many people do not seem to understand what went into the Outback decision.. many people think he himself rewrote the song or OKed Outback's rewriting of the song, etc when it's not true. You can be against his essay but what he wrote and what went down with the Outback people are two different things.
And like you said, yes of course people should be angry when an artist they like compromises their work for a buck.. but where was his work compromised? Wraith Pinned to the Mist when you put in that CD is still Wraith Pinned to the Mist. If the music on the album is changed for a buck THAT is compromising. Telling a company they can use your song after the fact has little/nothing to do with the music you've already made.
Score = 0
I will always associate Wraith Pinned to The Mist as "that Outback jingle". Thank god it's not a song that I actually care about, or have any attachment to.
I would be incredibly disappointed if a song I actually had some emotional attachment to was co-opted to sell some product I don't want or need.
Do you ever think back to a song you like, and in your head, try as you might, all you can visualize is the video for it vs. your own prior interpretation? It's kind of like that, except now you're thinking about the product it's shilling.
Anyway, let's stop all the fussin' and the feudin'. Let's go Outback tonight; this blog will still be here tomorrow.
Score = 0
Yes and I think this is where it matters to me if you are a real big fan or not probably because personally that would only happen to me if it was a band I did not give a rat's ass about either way. If I have an attachment to a song prior to it's commercialization, the commercial should have no bearing on whether I still like that song or not or think of a it in a different way etc. I still love Wraith and have never associated it with Outback and no serious fan of this band that I know has either.. the only people I've seen that think of it as "that outback song" or who are angered by this commercial stuff are just random people who post in blog comments.
Ah well.
Score = 0
sex pistols, the clash and the ramones and such presented a ridiculous view of anarchy
but other bands like crass, conflict, and such all prestented a reasonable view that most people dont seem to be taking into account here..
besides, i dont think its a real black and white choice between capitalism and anarchy, you can like within a capitalistic system and still live by anarchist values
Score = 0
I don't necessarily mind bands lincensing their music for ads- But this was not the way to do it. I'm not angry with Kevin Barnes for giving the deal some thought, but the fact that he did not do enough research about what he was signing for- that does not reflect a guy who particularly cares how his music is used. He should have known exactly what they were going to do with the song before ever even giving the deal his time. At least when Wilco gave their music to Volkswagon, the company not only preserved the original songs, but also helped promote the album- which I think was a fucking brilliant move on Wilco's part. Yes, band should get paid for doing their work, and if ads are becoming the best way for bands to support themselves that reflects more on the general public than it does to the band. But if Wilco could find a way to preserve their music while also getting a little recognition for it, I'm pretty sure Kevin Barnes could have known what the hell he was signing.
Score = 0
"M'm, M'm, of Montreal!"
Hey man, there need be no embarrassment in writing theme songs and commercial jingles. Mike Post, Warren Pfaff, and Jack Waldenmaier all make (or made) good livings doing so. Hell, I think Aaron Copland even originally penned "Rodeo" specifically for the "What's for Dinner?" meat spots. Oh, wait, this just in, ...
Kevin:
It's me Jerry Bruckheimer. I need an opening theme for C.S.I. Montreal. Let's talk.
No, really, "Wraith Pinned to the Mist" was a mediocre oM song any way. It makes a great (Solid, you might say. "Like A Rock," Bob Segar might say.) 'beef house' jingle.
Keep on Whining!
Score = 0
I just want to point out again the problem here is not whether the song now makes you think of outback or not, or whether Barnes cares enough about his art or not. This is not the relics of christ here, its a goddamn pop song. Who gives a fuck if the song now reminds you of steak? If watch so much TV that its a problem, you are no one to talk about being corrupted by commercialism. Bands who don't sell out do so out of a social conscious, and the idea that commercialism causes bad things in the world, real injustices like poverty, and imperialism. Which ultimately is their personal choice to be that person in the world or to be a different person in the world. Whatever you do you are making a statement, independent culture used to be about that, not bored white kids with unfufilling lives and the need to act like they are better than everyone else because they read Pitchfork and they communed with Kevin Barnes' eye makeup at Bowery last year.
Score = 0
Actually, the issue isn't that he sold his song to a steak company (and apparently wasn't smart enough to read the contract stipulating they were free to change the lyrics...yeah, sure Kevin), but that he wrote a 1000 word essay justifying it. Don't try to have it both ways you putz....
Score = 0
I could not agree with Kevin more. My personal belief is that as a selfish fan i hate what he did with Wraith Pinned to the Mist and other Games and the Outback ad, cause I, ME a dedicated listener had to hear a great song tarnished. and THEN when i introduce people to that band and they hear it, it's all HEY it's that Outback song. Yeah bad move for me Kevin, but really now... can you blame the guy? I would have done it and then run out to shop in a heartbeat.
As for the T-Mobile ad I thought it was rather hilarious that they were, in fact, making fun of big label ACTUAL sellout type bands...while promoting T-mobile which is, indeed a corporate powerhouse. Kind of ironic and I bet the band had a good laugh while they were out partying and shopping on the money they made.
I see no reason at all why they shouldn't reap the benefits of their efforts while they can. to me, selling out is A. largely a teenager/immature concept and B.someone or a band that is more molded and controlled by their label, etc than vice versa, which is why so many super talented indie bands CHOOSE to stay, well, Indie. After The Sunlandic Twins Of Montreal made what is to me, their best album yet, Hissing Fauna. Seems there was no problem with creativity and they weren't answering to anyone even after the "outback tragedy". As a fan i'm just happy to see a band I like on shit American TV instead of Britney Spears or something. It is the stupidest controversy ever. Nearly.
Score = 0
Carmen, I think most people here aren't so much taking offense to his actual licensing of his songs/commercials, but rather his multi-paragraph diatribe rationalizing why he did it.
Either shit or get off the pot Kevin.
Score = 0
Dear Kevin,
Tristan Tzara, even in the early days of capitalism, those industrial times of 1918, got it right with Dadaism:
"We must sweep and clean," he said.
That is the job of the artist. Unfortunately, most of the time hoeing this row is penniless, back-breaking work. Reaping the rewards, though, are godly: timeless messages accepted by an audience.
"Affirm the cleanliness of the individual after the state of madness, aggressive complete madness of a world abandoned to the hands of bandits."
God, Tristan. If only you had Garage Band back then, but you didn't and the art movement, that ship of fools and pirates and geniuses, thanks you for it. Those "bandits" he was referring to were/are capitalists, dear Mr. Of Montreal. Those bandits are us, natural-born consumers and artists, duplicitous roles this 21st fast-track century affords us. One thing is for sure: When Tristan Tzara was arguing for Dadaism and the function of art, he was arguing for the implosion of a mad social order. America is a great example of a mad, social order, and artists are the ones pushing that big black button on that idea. You, me, and all your fans know a social norm in America is consumerism. Artists do not embrace consumerism. They dissect it.
In your essay you asked and then answered: "Are you a sell out? Yes. Don't let it bother you though, cause apparently I am also a sell out, and so are your parents and everyone you've ever known. The only way to avoid selling out is to live like a savage all alone in the wilderness. The moment you attempt to live within the confines of a social order, you become a sell out. Once you attempt to coexist you sell out. If that's true, then selling out is a good thing. It is an important thing. If we didn't do it, we'd be fucked, quite literally, by everyone bigger than us physically who found us fuckable."
Wrong. You are a capitalist by birth. You are an artist by choice. You don't live within the confines of our social order. You sing original songs while waving flags and dressing up as the Blue Man Group. You are not a sell out. Selling out involves compromising your principles for money. Since we all must do this to survive, I'd say it's the propensity of doing this that would make you a sell out. How often and how much do you, allegedly, sell out? I prefer to call us (you, me and every indie hipster from Athens to L.A.) negotiators.
We negotiate our creative endeavors with consumerist pursuits everyday of our lives. We must eat. We must pay our mortgages. We must buy the band new platform boots. It is a case by case basis that we fight, Kevin. Please don't generalize the complicated issues of making art in a pro-industrial society.
You steal my fry box idea, and I might change my label. But, for now, we are all not sell outs. I am requesting you strike that from the record.
You, Kevin, are aspiring to be an artist — a being who strives to express, to create, to convey ideas. Stravinsky would argue that you are trying to create beauty. Danto would disagree when it comes to art in the 21st century.
"Beauty had disappeared not only from the advanced art of the 1960's but from the advanced philosophy of art of that decade as well."
Oh, philosophies of art. We could go on for hours, couldn't we? But, why bother. You know what art is by what it is not, namely your bloomin onion melody. So let's move on.
You asked, " Why commercialize yourself?" and your answer baffles me.
"In the art industry, it's extremely difficult to be successful without turning yourself into a cartoon. Even Hunter S. Thompson knew this. God knows Duchamp and Warhol knew it. Some artists are turned into cartoons and others do it themselves."
Hunter S. Thompson did not caricature himself. Neither did Ralph Steadman, when he illustrated his stories. What Hunter S. Thompson did, for the literary world, was close to what Duchamp and Warhol did for the art world. He, like Tom Wolf and Truman Capote looked an audience straight in the eye and told them the truth about American nonfiction writing at the time: It was all passive. To make it active, Hunter employed some very cartoonish antics, yes, but it was not for commercial purposes. When Andy Warhol and Marcel Duchamp slapped those renditions of mass-produced items into a gallery — those paintings of Campbell soup cans and readymades— it was an irreverent, playful, humorous and questionable stab at the state of industrial affairs and production in America.
Why do you think Andy called his art house The Factory? To mass produce pretty pictures of popular consumer items? Fuck. No. Andy Warhol and Marcel Duchamp (respectively) placed those items in the context of art (i.e., the art gallery) as an act of rebellion. To satirize. Money was made along the way, and they were categorized, both the artists and the art. It was the categorization that was monumental, not the fact that companies were ready, willing, and overly able to mass produce cans of soup and toilets.
With this in mind, are you expressing the idea, by licensing a melody to Outback Steakhouse, that consumers will consume and consume and consume …blooming onions? No. You are feeding your family (with the paychecks, not the onions), and there's not a thing wrong with that. Just don't call it art, Kevin. You are right that we all must support our selves and our families. As a writer I do this, too. I work as a reporter and I freelance. I also teach ballet. However, I place my butterfly dance and my spot news stories in different categories as I do my literary pursuits and my open letters to you.
Either way, Duchamp, Warhol, Thompson and you (I know this in my heart of hearts. The one that buys your albums and drives to Athens to see your shows when you are in town) care not about the pandering opinions of the masses, so stop it. Stop the justifying! Writers write. Actors Act. Rock gods rock. Audiences decide.
Your final question: "Why should it be considered such an onerous thing to view the production of art as a job?"
And your answer, again, baffling.
"To me, the TV is the world's asshole boss and if anyone can earn some extra bucks from it and they're not Bill O'Reilly, it's a good thing."
TV is not the Boss, nor is it the bitch-slapping pimp of the artists. It is the sometime lover and/or fuckbuddy when you gotta do what you gotta do. It is a necessary evil, just like sex. Just like glossy magazine covers, concerts, book signings and artist's receptions. Just like Wes Anderson in bed with American Express commercials and Bob Dylan (he wished, literally) in bed with Victoria's Secret. I could go on. For days. When a creative (I think it is vain to call yourself an artist. Sorry, but that's not your call. It's your audiences.') plies his creative trade for some moolah is it wrong? No. But it ain't art, baby. It is promotion. It is a good, good fuck. And sometimes, it ends with multiple orgasms that pay out for decades. You, me and marketing makes three. That's all. Your choice to license out your music on a commercial platform is an act of (relative) survival and (relative) pleasure. Alabee needs a post-secondary education. Kevin loves attention. This is human.
Reading your book, singing your song or giving your heart to an audience is an act. Of liberty. You do it because you have to. That is all the artist knows.
As far as the naysayers and your public justification? They don't deserve it, Kbra. And the ones who do, don't care anyway. They are too busy listening to Sunlandic Twins while typing out their own beautiful ouvres.
So, OK. Let's go Outback tonight. And TMobile tommorrow. But will you go to the studio after that? For art's sake?
I look forward to purchasing your music, but not bloomin onions forever,
JH
Score = -1
This is not the relics of christ here, its a goddamn pop song.
I'M JEWISH
Score = 0
im very let down by kevin, hes a wlaking contradiction. but i guess going through this is just an experience. he realises the most important thing in life and decides he still wants capitalism?? shame on him.
Score = 0
didnt read the contract my ass. thats just bullshit. he knew exactly what he was doing. especially if hes such a well-to-do capitalist.
Score = 0
i enjoy hearing the wilco tunes on TV :)
Score = 0
I'd sell out to any company that I'd buy a product from. But I try to be conscious consumer, so I think that artists should be conscious "sell-outers". Capitalism is great, but Wal-Mart's treatment of their workers is not. I don't think it'd be right to support them, either by selling them my music, or by buying stuff at their stores.
Score = 0
anyone who thinks capitalism is "interesting" should really take a look to see what american capitalism has done to the thousands of children living in guatemala city whose parents have to dig through the city dump to find barely wearable shoes for them (i'm currently down here spending the little money i have trying to help educate some of them). plus, anyone who thinks that capitalism has changed since last century can talk to similar children in rural china, india, africa, or eastern europe, or pretty much anywhere in the modern world.
sorry to be a downer, k. barnes, but the priviliege that an american has to make tens of thousands of dollars selling a song to an international communications corporation means that that you are now complicit in requiring some tiny asian boy to slave away in a sweatshop for years to come, making plastic phone buttons and being compensated maybe twenty cents a day. spin that however you want. to think that modern american popular culture is not as much built on the back of slavery as this entire nation was since it's creation is the kind of cultural irresponsibility that is manifest in much of contemporary media, and perhaps even more so in the our "indie" music world. oh, but we need music, right? an artist's job is truly necessary and valuable to everyone's lives, right? that's the kind of self-important cultural view America has of the arts, and it allows Americans to blind themselves to the way art has become comodified and manufactured, and what this says about the true value art once held (it also allows Americans to ignore the fact that the total amount money they spent on the new of Montreal album this year could have helped save the lives of thousands of extremely impoverished people with tuberculosis in Peru, or malaria in Haiti, or AIDS in much of Africa, for example).
capitalism continues to kill culture around the world,and you just got paid. i'm sure you can give money to some great charity to allow yourself an opportunity to squeal that you are in fact giving back to the people, unlike some other more socially irresponsible musicians, and that is helpful to be sure, but you as much said yourself that you are a part of the system (just to make sure you don't get fucked in the ass, right?), and this system is ensuring that Africans can't afford medication to prevent the transmital of AIDS from pregnant mothers to their unborn children. this is who you're working with. this is who you're defending.
yeah, i know this is super intense, and i sound crazy, and the fact definitely is that many sad and insane and ignorant people in this country just don't care about anyone outside our brand-new fences, but i've heard too many popular musicians try to take a backseat to their culpability (the whole "maaaan, i just want people to be able to hear my music" angle) in what is physically required of (and also what is denied to) the rest of the world to allow Americans our totally awesome popular culture. to me, it's not worth it. i'd be happy to only hear music sung from the mouths of my friends if it meant that much less money going to feed the capitalist monster.
what's comforting to know is that Of Montreal is completely replaceable. sure, i enjoyed some of your tunes in the past, and i think that your latest one pushing the faux wannabe-queer-edgy, glam-top pop was pretty fun listening. but it's elevator music now. i can hear that shit on the tv. it's a jingle. if you think that's cool, then maybe you should jump straight into advertising. the money would probably be better.
so listen, you can continue doing what you apparently enjoy so much, which is playing by the music industry's rules to get some more hype, making some bank while bumming out fans that have been down since day one, pointing the finger at people in the music world who aren't self-deluded enough to avoid noticing the connection between third world suffering and first world self-privilege, and i'll just teach the kids here how to write their own fucking songs so they can spend their money on anti-biotics, water that's actually mostly human feces-free, or food that wasn't pulled out of a garbage can instead of dropping a year of savings earned from shining shoes or selling plastic on whatever cool shit pitchfork is currently rockin (en espanol, that would be "horca", which, interestingly enough, is the same word for gallows).
incidentally, all that booger sugar I know you're so fond of? your continued support of the cocaine trade means that my kids here are about a hundred times more likely to die of gang-related violence than anywhere in the states. couldn't you at least try something homegrown? all i'm saying is, you didn't used to be an asshole.
(inevitably though, i'll just get dismissed as a hater by someone because they like listening to glittery dudes sing about chemicals, and don't wanna hear about african babies with AIDS from some informed american living abroad)
Score = -1
Hmmmm. I don't know quite how to respond to this. How did we go from Outback steakhouse to this??
Score = 0
Not to agree with his essay but the Outback decision came at a time when his life was in shambles and he was very depressed. I wouldn't doubt it if he was confused about all that and thought maybe the extra money would help him out personally and now that he is in a mentally better place he is trying to justify all this in retrospect.
Score = 0
ranting...must...continue...!
Score = 0
Dseven said: "If instead of writing a multi-paragraph manifesto on why they weren't "selling out", he just said "Look, we're flat broke, couldn't pay our rent and needed the money", I'd have a little bit more respect for their stance."
I agree absolutely. KB has to be the most self-deluded person in the world. We've seen this before too in other contexts. Don't show your cock in on stage, and then call it art. Just say, "I just wanted to let people know, including maybe a prospective groupie or two, that I have a big dick." That's it. Be honest with yourself, Barnesy.
Score = 0
I was just really happy to see my favorite band on television. Im happy for them. They are getting more mainstream and noticed. More fans. More money. More albums for the fans. More opprutunities for the fans to see them live.
I don't care if they are sell outs or not, my personal opinion on of Montreal, and Kevin will always be the same. I love em.
Score = 0
does this mean we can officially stop labeling of montreal as an "indie" band?
Score = 0
They're still managed by an independent label...
Score = 0
I think dismissing people's hurt feelings as some misinterpreted leftover punk rock idealism is way off. These people are your fans, fans who found you treading water on a small label in a sea of corporate pop culture that does nothing but sell them shit. They connected with you because they where looking for something with more substance and depth. Their commitment to you was paid for in tickets and cds and in exchange they where given a jingle for outback. A jingle you wouldn't have been asked to record if it wasn't for the fans now being derided. I understand why this happens but you don't have to be a dick about it.
Score = 0
Very interesting... as always! Cheers from -Switzerland-.
Score = 0
I'm late to the party here, but I just wanted to throw in my kudos.
Kevin, congratulations on doing what it takes to reform yourself into a practical human being. It is a blessing that you have come to terms with the fact that the world runs on money. All we can do is admit that our lives are a tiny fraction of a massive aggregate of buyers and sellers, haves and have-nots, users and the used, store managers and their employees, so to speak. Who wants to be a have-not? Exactly. It's an elegant and fascinating system. All you have to do is be mature enough to look at it the right way.
Guys like you and me, Kev, we've got the facts. It's time for everybody else to face them. Where's your old buddy Jeff Mangum now, for instance? I bet he can't even afford a car. Same goes for all these bands the kids are so nutso about these days, and all this insubordinate crap they are talking. Give them a few years, and they too will be giving interviews about how smart their parents' generation was all along. Logic wins out in the end.
I would hold your story up as a textbook example of the redemption that a serial self-indulgent malcontent can achieve, through the judicious application of SSRIs, management secrets, successful habits, and a burning desire for rationalization and compromise.
P.S. Having listened to Hissing Fauna, I can see that the words don't come as easily as they once did, now that you've been properly medicated. That's to be expected. However, now that you're free from the shackles of that old oppressive idiosyncratic worldview, you're sure to appeal to a far broader audience. And remember, it's not the poets who make the world go round. It worked for Isaac Brock, and it will work for you, too. I expect to see your face on a Best Buy gift card someday.
Score = 0
Do you like music? If you do, then why do you care about what selling out is or is not or even who wrote the fucking song. If it makes you feel good or comfortable in some way, then let your own ideas about it take over. Go up to 5 or 10 people and ask them what their fav. oM song is and maybe one will even know who the hell they are. So, how much "selling out" could they have done when the average music listener who is not some hipster or annoying "this is what art is" asshole has never even heard of them. I dont know what selling out is, but I do know what it is not- Getting paid to do what you do. Am I a sell out because I cash my paychecks? Hell, no. I worked for them right. If you dont like the outback jingle, turn off the damn tv or change the station.
Score = 0
Whatever Clean...the people who just "like music" tend to be the people who will buy the new Celine Dion, Eagles, or Carrie Underwood CD from a Big Box store. You are correct, they probably won't give 2 shits about this story, because they just "like music" as background musak for their cooking, cleaning, etc.
I think it's a safe assumption to make that people who read and post on Stereogum et al are a bit more passionate about music, that it means more to them than simply background music while you're cleaning the house. I don't mean that to come off as snobbery, but it is a reality. To make an analogy, it's like the sports "fans" who only follow teams when they are in the playoffs, vs. the rabid fan who knows all the stats, follows all the stories, and yes, reads and posts on sports blogs. So yes, in the grand scheme of life, this is nothing important. That being said, it is fun to read the debate going on and see the varying viewpoints, AS a music fan.
I don't think the majority of posters here begrudge oM from making a living off his music. The guy's gotta pay the bills. What rubs myself, and a lot of people on here the wrong way is the fact that if he was so comfortable licensing his music, why does he feel the need to write a multi-paragraph essay defending it, and dare I say it, looking down on other artists who choose NOT to license their music?
Just license the music as you please, and keep your mouth shut instead, if you're so comfortable with the idea.
Score = 0
to the last poster: i can't help but wonder at the impact of the last backlash from fans when he did the outback thing and his probably anticipation that it would happen again. faced with the same situation, i cant say that i might not have written just such an article. it's one thing to say, yeah well i don't care what people think of me, etc... but apparently kevin barnes is human, and does, indeed, care what other people think of him as a person and therefore felt the need to share his motives for the ad. big deal.
Score = 0
So maybe I should have written 'love music' instead of 'like music'. Whatever. I do not own one Carrie Underwood CD. I know she was on "American Idol" only because I'm not a caveman. I think its safe to say that posting a bulletin to the same webpage which is dedicated to a group which is not mainstream such as you have, mr. or ms. 'dsven', that you would understand that. You really did not say anything which counterpoints my comments, however. Obviously I like the discussion as well (I posted, right?!?), and like you just said- to paraphrase; In the grand scheme of things, its no big deal. As for KB writing an essay defending it. . . You just wrote an arguement begrudging it, which is the negative side of the same topic, so. . .
Look, I am not trying to start a war of words with you. You seem informed and passionate which is a good thing. I'm just saying, I listen to oM as background music sometimes. I listen to all kinds of artists/bands that no one has ever heard of or appreciates like they deserve all the time (sometimes as background music). Am I supposed to set a side an hour every day to get the headphones ready and close my eyes to listen to music to 'really appreciate it' and respect it every single time I want to hear music? Trust me, anything I find interesting I give myself time to really savor.
So, AS a music fan, I just wrote an essay defending my own opinion. Dont care. My bills are paid. I am an artist also. If someone bought one of my paintings for the same price as the royaly that oM got, I would love it. I would like to think that I would help others with the $$$ I made. I would hope oM would do the same as well, but thats a differant discussion.
p.s. I definately would not- as a music fan, compare music to sports. At least not in the context of your rebuttle.
Score = 0
It doesn't matter at all.
But I would like to make a point that people actually striving to live and work full-time as artists probably see this from a much different view point than everyone else. Try to see this issue from that perspective.
Think about this: I assume there has been a band or musician whose music has changed your life or impacted you in a great way. You hold this music dear to your heart and love it very much. Now say this band licenses their song to some company and maybe even allows a reworking to better fit a commercial. But imagine you never knew they did this. You never heard about, never saw the commercial. Five years go by and you continue to love the albums they put out. Then one day you come across a clip from this commercial online and see that your favorite song ever by this band has been sold to help sell a steak or a phone or a vacuum cleaner or whatever. Does the music released after they did this commercial lose meaning? It was still great. You loved it. How could this fact change that? What if you had never found out ever? What if you just continued listening until you died? Do you find out in hell and consider all those purchases of great songs a waste?
So just don't worry about it. Nobody's using these songs as anthems to raise armies of child-slaves in Africa or anything like that.
Score = 0
It doesn't matter at all.
But I would like to make a point that people actually striving to live and work full-time as artists probably see this from a much different view point than everyone else. Try to see this issue from that perspective.
Think about this: I assume there has been a band or musician whose music has changed your life or impacted you in a great way. You hold this music dear to your heart and love it very much. Now say this band licenses their song to some company and maybe even allows a reworking to better fit a commercial. But imagine you never knew they did this. You never heard about, never saw the commercial. Five years go by and you continue to love the albums they put out. Then one day you come across a clip from this commercial online and see that your favorite song ever by this band has been sold to help sell a steak or a phone or a vacuum cleaner or whatever. Does the music released after they did this commercial lose meaning? It was still great. You loved it. How could this fact change that? What if you had never found out ever? What if you just continued listening until you died? Do you find out in hell and consider all those purchases of great songs a waste?
So just don't worry about it. Nobody's using these songs as anthems to raise armies of child-slaves in Africa or anything like that.
Score = 0
AMEN.
Score = 0
^yes, chris, if you live in an acultural cave, then it doesn't really affect you. Unfortunately, nearly all of us don't.
I think the argument against "selling out" is precisely that music and art does NOT exist outside of the culture. It's naive to think that a song won't adopt new connotations depending on its public usage, that somehow the brilliance of art transcends any commercial associations. "Wraith Pinned to the Mist" is now inextricably "That Outback Song." Don't believe me? Try introducing the original to a new listener and see how long it takes for them to make that association.
Score = 0
Of Montreal should be free to do what they want with their music. If they can make money through commercials and mass media marketing, all the better. Really, it's what you and I do every day - we look out for ourselves, even in the simplest ways of eating, drinking, and sleeping. Its a hard fact, bands need money.
Score = 0
I completely agree with kevin on the only way truly sell out is to change your creative output. putting a song in a commercial just gives the band more tour money and studio time. but even though i still support them and have been to 5 shows in the last 2 years he contradicts himself.
"selling out, in an artistic sense, is to change one's creative output to fit in with the commercial world."
Well, kevin i guess you sold out when you compromised and changed the LYRICS to say "let's go out back tonight" if you keep the original art no problem but changing the lyrics is changing your creative output to fit in with the commercial world.
Score = 0
I'm coming to realize I don't care how art is marketed. All I care about is the quality of the art.
Score = 0
of montreal is my favorite band in the world and has been for a while now and i think that essay was really balls!
and i lost a little respect for old k.b. because i'm sensitive and silly. but i am really cool with him selling his songs to commercials, i mean come on he needs money for his daughter and etc and i think they are funny anyway, but really saying things about how capitalism rewards the hard working and punishes the lazy, i mean what right do you have to criticize bill o reily if you're going to start talking like that?
and just the essay in general seemed kinda poorly thought out. i always imagined him as a really smart guy who really you know put more thought into his opinions than a 15 year old boy on an internet message board if you can understand what i'm saying.
i don't know about all these people talking about "ART" and giving pretentious definitions and everything, but i mean, i think everyone can agree capitalism is a bummer sometimes, even though i agree shopping at ikea is fun.
but their music is still good!! i am still full of love for oM and i feel better after writing this haha.
Score = 0
i'm glad i discovered in my teenage years that there was no way to beat "the system" and that i was better off enjoying things in life that make me happy and finding my place in what we call the system. i think everyone can find their groove, and it doesn't mean you have to start working for a firm and wearing expensive clothes, it just means you have to accept the world as it is, keep doing what you love and stop worrying about everything else.
of montreal, please hurry up and come to australia.
Score = 0
What can't be ignored from the debate is that music exists in the realm of conciousness. Beyond the feeling you get while hearing a song, its value lies in what it does for you while it bounces around in your memory.
Songwriters give an alley-oop to their listeners' conciousnesses. The rest is up to the listener to slam home the imagery. Part of what makes a song work, is all that we associate that song with in our minds.
The reason a song has the value of association with the listener, is the same reason it has value to a corporation. They're banking on the association to carry over onto their product.
So a song that I loved, that I had associated with Springtime, and good times with old friends in various "bizarre celebrations", is now pushed out with images of huge slabs of dead cow, suburbanites rationalizing their dinner splurging, close ups of glistening bloomin' onions, and 37 pieces of flair.
The association has been sold. Maybe if it weren't so ubiquitous, it wouldn't be branded into our collective conciousness this way, but commercials are made to be ubiquitous (like pop singles). This same argument was made with the advent of music videos. You're creating a set of images that suggests what the listener should conjure while hearing the song.
When you sell your song to a company, you're basically giving the company license to make a video for your song. I don't think there's anything really evil or wrong about that--just understand the risks going in. You're letting a company completely control your image, and commandeer the meaning behind your work.
If I could "unsee" the steaks and soccer moms and bloomin onions in my head every time I heard that song, I would. That's the price KB paid for selling his song. He didn't sell his soul. Just the amount of it that he put into expressing himself, and hoping to connect with others through that song.
The essay on the other hand, is the biggest bunch of black/white, rationalizing, BS I've read--and it's EXACTLY the same talking points that every frat-boy, Rand thumper has used in the sell-out argument. There are things in between "insane and penniless" and "sell-out". Between homeless and spoiled. Between ambitious & rich, and lazy & poor.
I'm sure no one ever put a gun to Kevin Barnes' head and told him to try to be an avant-pop songwriter for a living. He seems smart enough, and certainly compliant enough to pull down at leat $40k a year in the private sector. Just because he opted not to do so, doesn't mean he's entitled to make up for that lost income by selling his songs WITH NO NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCE.
Score = 0
"The thing is, I like capitalism...It's a system that rewards the imaginative and ambitious adults and punishes the lazy adults."
This comment is ignorant and assy in my opinion.
The very nature of this economic system increases the wealth of capitalists by controlling workers and keeping wages as low as possible. It allows a small elite to control the vast majority of income, leaving a relatively small share to be divided among everyone else.
The luxury of obliviousness that is inherent in that statement takes away from any valid point you may have been trying to make about the uneasy relationship between art and commerce. The system benefits some AT THE EXPENSE of others.
Dynamics of capitalism have played a key role in the trouble surrounding privilege, especially in relation to race and gender.
Score = 0
Kevin Barnes has managed to make himself one of the most hated people through this essay. I'll agree with the fact that he is not a sellout. He isn't, given the reality surrounding that Outback situation (for the record: I hate those commercials with a passion). But, to say that capitalism is a good system is a complete insult to the people of Bangladesh, Laos, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Haiti, etc. A lot of people in America don't benefit from the capitalist system.
His blind acceptance of the system along with the assumption that people who fail in it are "lazy" is shocking in addition to being highly offensive. As well, if he were so comfortable with his situation, why did Barnes feel it necessary to talk at length about the concept of selling out and why capitalism is the best system ever? Sounds like indie guilt to me.
Also, when did punk rock say you had to fuck the system? Most culture jammers and others just want to not be inundated with the constant sponsorship and corporatism that we all suffer through everyday. Additionally, they want the government to do their job and support the indigent. Additionally, I live within the corporate system; a corporation pays me for work. But, I don't live by the values which it extols. Unfortunately, Barnes does, buying things he most likely doesn't need like furniture from IKEA.
Score = 0
Well, I believe one piece of this, which is that if you sell your music you have, in a way, sold out. The moment you've put your art out there and expected payment in receipt, you've changed the art to product... And that's just how it is.
There are degrees of such an exchange that keep it from being galling and abhorrent, but down in amongst it all, the difference between Justin Timberlake and, say, Neutral Milk Hotel is essentially how many copies get sold. The actual mechanism remains the same - play for pay.
And if it isn't that way, then the artist that works strictly for the pleasure of performance, and makes no money, quickly goes broke and is forced to do something else.
Of course, Kevin could have phrased it a lot more diplomatically.
Score = 0
Kevin Barnes didn't rewrite the outback song. Some other band did, thats not even his voice singing in the commercial. He thought they were just going to use the actuall song in the commercial, but they swindled him. Swindled! That is a great skit on Human Giant.
Score = -1
This guy is clearly a fucking moron of the highest order, and in severe need of a good fucking kicking.
Score = -2
Mr. Barnes has only displayed his complete ignorance of the effects of industrialized, capitalistic societies on third world developing countries.
Mr. Barnes, stick to jumping around in panties and entertaining the 13-16 yr. old set.
You may want to keep statements on economics and culture to a minimum. Mr. Barnes, you are embarrassing yourself.
Score = -2
I used to go to Outback. Now I don't because they clearly promote the gay lifestyle.
I'm gonna stay home and cook my own damn steak like a real man!
Score = 0
What the fuck? Why does he take so much time / space to state the obvious:
When you're getting your 15 minutes you've got to cash in every which way possible 'cause when you're not the flavor of the month and the 15 minutes are up nobody wants to use you to sell bad food to fat douchebags.
Get it while you can, dude! It'll all be over soon.
Score = 1
Wow...some of these comments are pretty harsh, jeez.
BOTTOM LINE:
They are his songs that he wrote -- he can do whatever he pleases with them.
It's not a difficult concept to grasp and I think it is pretty childish to insult the man. Goddamn. He is an amazing talent who has written so many great songs and has given a lot of good music to the community. Cut him some fucking slack.
Score = 1
I hope that anyone who disagrees with Kevin's points in this article didn't find out about the commercial through subjecting themselves to the capitalism-inspired quintessence of consumption that is the television. Or actually, used a computer and internet to type a negative response. Or have ever received a paycheck. You should probably live in the woods, gather nuts and berries for food, read by candlelight, sew your own clothes out of leaves and animal hide, and live in a homemade tepee. We have all "sold-out" in one way or another, and maybe its not so bad, because otherwise... well, the woods aren't that vast anymore.
Score = 1
I've always wondered why artists donn't just offer to write a song for a commercial.
that way, they make the shitload of money, and don't seem like sellouts in the process.
Tom Waits should write a song for a sprint commercial.
Score = -1
"well, I'll show them who is a sellout, I'm going to make the freakiest, most interesting, record ever!!!"
Hmm. I suspectet that this was the reason for the weirdness of the new record. He's trying to make a weider album to prove he can make non-mainstream music. Too bad, I loved Hissing Fauna. The new album is OK, but it's annoying that many of the tracks are half great and then turns into half uninteresting stuff. Too many songs put into one track.
Score = -1
Give me a fuckin' break- are you guys serious? This dude makes a mint off a huge corporation by selling one of his fresh songs, then has the unmitigated audacity to say, and I quote: "Selling out, in an artistic sense, is to change one's creative output to fit in with the commercial world." This is EXACTLY what he did when he made a contract with Outback Steakhouse. The guy is in complete denial, and so are all of you blockheads if you swallow his line of T-Mobile cock and bull. Let's Go Outback Tonight! This is the shittiest, most insipid and banal music I have ever heard in my life. Utter pap.
Score = 0
stop saying that he changed, rewrote, or rerecorded for outback!!! he did NOT! check your facts. outback did all of that. it is not kevin singing or the band playing. and they were duped from my understanding. kevin gave an interview on sirius saying that they were told it would be a small, regional advertisement that probably only aired over the radio. they had no idea it would be a national radio and tv ad.
Score = 0
I liked hearing of Montreal in the movie Cloverfield right before all hell breaks loose. It was that movie's only saving grace.
Score = 0
Hey Kevin,
Just thought I'd say hey. We really don't know each other very well. We are related. Seen your mom at aunt Harriet's funeral. Drop my a line sometime okay.
Later,
Denny
Score = 0
The concept of selling out doesnt require this much of an essay. Its simple
when an artist's music appears in a commercial, it is essentially like the old days when a celeb would just stand in fron of the camera and say "try this, its good"
So if Kevin Barnes enjoys eating at Outback Steakhouse and likes T-Mobile for his phone usage then there is no issue here. Now i have no idea whether this applies to him. But for me and my hopefully music filled future this is what I will live by. 1st it has to be a product i actually use/enjoy, and second the company has to be an ethical one that makes good choices. and thats it
Score = 0
I have to disagree with the essay only for this one reason. He did not address what selling out is. Obviously he does not know what selling out is because he hasnt done so in my opinion... Well I'll just get to my point. When an artist sells out they stray away from a sound that their fans would like only to capture a more primitive and commercial audience. I wish there was a way to not sound so pompous about it. Selling out is not selling a bunch of records on a commercial mass. It's when you change your sound and sell yourself to the record companies.. I understand that a style may evolve... however most bands noted as sell outs garner a poppy sound out of no where or perhaps they dumb down their music...their lyrics may begin to slip... i don't know...
Score = 0