The Music/Money Compromise

[charlie brown]

Well, boys and girls, here's a subject we can all debate.

Music for money, music for fun, music for others, music...for one?

In other words, when (at what point) does money compromise integrity, in one's

music? Or, does it?

 

GO!

 

CB

[gibiphone]

Don't know if I should be in my Dennis Hopper or Cheech Marin character for this, but "far out man, really heavy"

[cujo]

Intergity is one of those things that you either have it or you don't. I see no middle ground there, I guess it would be like being a little bit

pregnant. Money dosen't bring on loss of integrity, that sort of character flaw would have been there long befor the money got big.

[Bill V]

We used to call that going commercial. It seems to me that this usually happens right around the same time when a group or artist is suddenly liked by the Top 40 crowd (if you follow my meaning). What follows then is they lose their edge and then I lose interest in said group or artist.

 

Case in point: Def Leppard after the ouster of Pete Willis, post "High and Dry".

[charlie brown]

So, Cujo...you never compromise your musical "integrity," for others? In other words, you play exactly what you want to play regardless of audience expectations (those who pay to see you, buy your records, or go to your concert/dance), whether it pleases "them" or not? Never bend or bow to a record company, promoter, agency, to get a gig?

 

CB

[Tukinator]

I was just thinking this the other day while watching Some Kind of Monster, (Metallica).

 

I balied out on Metallica after Master of Puppets. It wasn't so much because they 'sold out' or whatever, the music just wasn't doing it for me anymore.

 

In general though, I did cop the attitude that they did, in fact, sell out. I thought it basically proven when they went after Napster.

 

But, back to watching the movie, something else occurred to me. They're old. They were punk, pimply faced kids when they did Kill em All. They still had the hunger and the edge when they did Master of Puppets.

 

By the time of And Justice for All though, they were ~10 years older, had seen the entire world one or three times, likely become jaded with the business side of music, and worst of all dealt with the lost of Cliff.

 

I don't think they sold out as much aged and matured. Different things were in their heads then when they were young and hungry, and it had a direct effect on the music.

 

When I think of sell-out, I think of all the musicians, (cough-cough STING) who sold out during the punk scene in the late 70's. When I think of all the good, even great musicians, (Vivian Campbell, Billy Sheehan, even Vai) jumped on the hair metal bandwagon to make a few bucks I think sell out.

 

I don't necessarily think though, as most people seem to, that selling out is bad. We live in a capitalist society, so I guess the goal is to make money.

 

In a perfect world though, the music would come first.

 

I'd like to think that, for myself, I would always put the music or the art ahead of anything else. I enjoy the music I make and that's good enough for me.

 

Someone chuck a million dollars at me though, and lets find out. ;)

[cujo]

I play because I love the music . Do I make compromises? Sure I do, but that dosen't indicate lack of integrity. I never "play what I want to play regardless". It sounds so much better when I play what needs to be played. There's nothing worse than an egomainiac trying to out/over play everybody. As for the audience I try to always give them everything I've got.

[charlie brown]

Cool!...I wasn't "flaming you," or anything. You just seemed pretty "unbending" in your assessment, of "integrity." I guess I

was thinking more in terms of musical integrity, and not so much moral, or personal. But, that can be a factor, for sure...

in ALL of us, musical or not. Anyway...thanks, for your post/input. Always appreciated.

 

CB

[cujo]

I didn't think you were flaming me. I was looking at this business from the greed angle.

[charlie brown]

By the way...this subject is meant only for a healthy discussion, and not as a judgment, or any "right or wrong" thing.

"Life" is full of compromises...so, music is bound to be, too. I'm just interested in (IF/When) folks here, decide there might

be, for them, a compromise they are not willing to make, just for "money?" John Lennon once said the best Beatles music

was never recorded...it was what they did, in the strip clubs, and dance halls, in Hamburg. He felt they "sold out," when

they got suits, and the whole "Beatlemania" thing went nuts. And yet, that amazing success,

let/allowed them to DO what they did, later...in the studio..."Rubber Soul, on... So, it happens, to the best, and isn't

necessarily, a bad thing, as well.

 

Keep it up...

 

CB

[layboomo]

Well' date=' boys and girls, here's a subject we can all debate.

Music for money, music for fun, music for others, music...for one?

In other words, when (at what point) does money compromise integrity, in one's

music? Or, does it?

 

GO!

 

CB[/quote']

 

Any time Midi is involved instead of real musicians for the sake of making money it's a Bigtime compromise IMHO!

[TheX]

Selling out always reminds me of Journey when they were forced by management to have a "Steve Perry" in the band. They needed to be on the radio and popular. The first three albums without Steve were freakin incredible. Songs like Kahoutek and Of a Lifetime are still playing on my iPod in the car.

 

It's a fact of life but sometimes the impact is damaging to the music, other times it's just a bit of a negative enhancement.

[Parabar]

There's no single answer. There are some artists whose own preferences coincide enough with what's commercially successful that they don't need to compromise. I get the feeling that Justin Timberlake enjoys the hell out what he does, so good for him! Others have popularity that waxes and wanes through the years and they just ride the waves, still others cash in while they can, then do what they want afterwards. My high school stage band director knew many serious jazz players who played in Lawrence Welk's TV band for a year or two because it paid well enough for two months of taping that they could do whatever they wanted (or not work at all) the rest of the year. Nothing wrong with that, in my book. Some of the artists who are respected for their "uncompromising" choices actually may not have had a choice --- there are brilliant but limited artists who may not have the range to function in more "commercial" settings even if they wanted (or were willing) to.

 

As for me, the music I've been the most passionate about always seems to be completely out of fashion commercially. I eventually gave up on the music business (it's the most "un-businesslike" business I've ever seen) and decided that I'd rather have a well-paying day job and do music that appeals to me for whatever reasons outside of it. I still do paying gigs and recording sessions, but since I'm not dependent on them for survival, I can be a lot more picky. For me to accept a gig now, it has to offer some combination of 1) lucrative remuneration, 2) a really good learning opportunity, 3) good exposure/contacts, or 4) big fun (not necessarily in that order).

 

Most business fields have a progression from entry-level to "honcho" with lots of levels in between. Not so with music (or other showbiz fields). You're either in the top 1 percent or so earning mega-bazillions, another few percent with well-established careers and loyal fanbases who earn middle-class type wages (even without a recording contract), or you're scuffling to get by.

[charlie brown]

Well, yeah...MONEY/Greed, is compromising us ALL, in just about every aspect of our existence, anymore. BUT, that's

a WHOLE NUTHER SUBJECT/Discussion. LOL!

 

CB

[RobinTheHood]

I think Tuk's post pretty much says it all. I think that for the most part, selling out is in the eyes of the fans. If a band plays thrash metal and somewhere down the line decides that is not what they want to do anymore and start playing rock/metal, then the fans cry foul. But if that is what the band really wanted then how can that be selling out? Now, if its something mandated by the record comanies saying "change your style or we're dropping you" and the band says "yes sir, how high sir" then I would feel that that is selling out.

 

Also, i feel this would apply if said band changed thier music style just to garner new fans because they havent quite "made it" yet or need to support a certain lifestyle.

 

As for Metallica, Tuk got it right. Age/maturity/not hungry anymore. I think that people forget that as you age, you cant pull off two straight hours of screams, gurgles and growls - and the fingers dont move as quickly and freely anymore. Most casual players (and non-players) dont understand what it takes to keep up those chops. Practicing for an hour a day every day is just a warm up for a pro. Its just like a real job. 8 - 10 hours a day, every day...and you burn out. Just like in real life.

[CodeMonk]

We used to call that going commercial. It seems to me that this usually happens right around the same time when a group or artist is suddenly liked by the Top 40 crowd (if you follow my meaning). What follows then is they lose their edge and then I lose interest in said group or artist.

 

Case in point: Def Leppard after the ouster of Pete Willis' date=' post "High and Dry".

[/quote']

 

I thought he had great style, sort of Angus Young-ish in at least one song (Saturday Night (High and Dry) I think). And "Rock Brigade" has one of the coolest rhythms around.

 

What does it for me is if someone changes their style drastically just to satisfy the populous.

I don't mean a normal progression of a group's or artist's style, just a sudden change purely for commercial purposes.

Now I'm not a big fan of Kid Rock (he has 1 or 2 tunes that I actually like), did a country duet recently (ok, maybe 1 - 2 years ago), I kinda felt that was a sell out sort of thing to do since where I live, country music is really popular. But I do have to admit, he sang DAMN GOOD.

[garyelcrrt1281733995]

Compromising with musicians to make music is good.

Compromising the music is...not so good.

Fans don't make music, but they pay for it.

Fans are only important if your goal is money or fame.

If the goal is make money, play what sells; take the money and use it however you like.

If the goal is to make music, the hell with money, fans, wives, girlfriends, parents and anything else that gets in the way.

Management doesn't make music, but they ACT like they do, even though I've never gone to see "Manager appearing at a club near you!", or bought one of their records (CD's, MP3's, whatever).

[Dave]

Most of us will never have the opportunity to make the big time, and even more of us will never make as good a living playing music as we could with a day job. I played 20 years of weekends when I was much younger and the money was part of the reason. It boosted my salary considerably, by almost a third. But, love of playing music was what kept me showing up every Friday and Saturday night. I missed a lot of social gatherings, but then, I was always at a social gathering...behind my guitar.

 

There was a time when I might have tried making it in music, but the thought of being on the road 250 weeks out of the year promoting a CD never appealed to me. I think that's one of the reasons why there are so many successful regional bands playing today. Most people value a home life and being 100 miles or less from home makes it easy to be home several days a week and still play some high paying gigs.

 

As far as selling out your integrity to music, I think any job is going to have some rules and guidelines that aren't negotiable. A fledgling star isn't going to be in a position to make the rules, those with the money and power do that. You can make the rules when people will pay $200,000 for a performance. Until then, you have to play the music they want you to play and play it the way the handlers want it played. After all, there are 1000 guys who are just waiting for you to screw up so that they can take your place. Hopefully, you write and perform music that will satisfy yourself, the fans, and the management types.

[flyingfrets]

I'm proud to say we never compromised artistically, but we certainly made concessions in terms of scheduling, venues, etc.

 

The people who liked us, liked us for the music we offered, so we never saw a reason to "sell out" if you want to put it that way, BUT, we saw every reason to play when and where it was convenient for them, not us.

 

I liked the first 3 albums by Kiss. Great straight ahead rock and roll. Everything after "Destroyer" was pandering to the masses when they got a taste of success. "I Was Made For Loving You"? Please...

[Lerxst1281733995]

Kiss (and Gene Simmons in particular) are a text-book example of the big sell-out... Simmons freely admits that himself.. He's made no bones about it.. He's in it for the money.. Which isn't such a crime, considering Gene Simmons and company will never be accused of being musical geniuses..

[charlie brown]

I'm reminded, too, of a tune the "Bryds" wrote, called: "So You Want To Be A Rock & Roll Star," and the reason

being, they were disgusted, by the rank commercialization, of "rock & roll," even back then, with "thrown together"

groups, like the Monkey's, etc. So, it's been around, as long as the music, itself. "Payola," in the '50's, was

just another (albiet underhanded, unethical, and illegal) way, to get one's artist(s) on the radio, to be sure they sold records.

One of the great things, about "technology," is that there are so many other (better?) ways, to get your music "out there,"

tha "Record Companies," are dinosaurs, save distribution. But, with the inter-net, YouTube, MySpace, etc., a lot of opportunity

exists, for up and coming, and even established acts. But, there's nothing better (to me) than live music, with a real band,

even on the local level! Getting out there, off one's duff (and, from in front of, the computer screen), and going out to support

good local talent!

[bluesstringer]

CB, the Beatles for me, were the perfect example, as you described in exploring my thoughts on the matter.

 

I believe that alot of artists may make compromises regarding modifications to the music they actually want to make and perform in order to acheive commercial success. It's normal to want recognition and to be compensated for your efforts. While often correct, I do believe that compromise is possible without sacrificing your integrity, although not always the path people take. As you pointed out, it worked for the Beatles because it provided them the means, i.e. funding, popularity, noteriety, and power in the industry to take the time to produce all the great music they did in the studio. It's also not a bad bet to get people to actually listen to non-conmmercial or a deviation from your norm efforts that without the popularity and to some degree respect earned through commercial or popular works, people wouldn't take seriously. Clapton has also done this several times. You can't successfully reinvent yourself or your music if people don't respect your music well enough to listen to new and often very different styles.

 

Other artists have taken the path of walking out on contracts, when asked to perform in a certain box by producers with varying results. Hendrix comes to mind. Many people think that his music suffered when he left the Expierience for other subsequent efforts, some prefer the "newer" style of the Band of Gypsies, etc.

 

For me, when I was regulary playing out in bands years ago, when it got to be more work than it was fun, I opted out. When I had to play top forty in the early seventies when I wanted to play Cream, Steppenwolf, J Geils, Allmans, Skynyrd, et al, just to make money, it wasn't fun anymore. There weren't venues in the D.C,. area back then for paid covers of what now is considered Classic Rock or original music. If you wanted to play out, you joined one of the area talent agencies, primarily WTA, and played top forty covers. The only local home grown bands that were exceptions were Angel, Grin, Danny Gatton, Root Boy Slim, and Mike Radcliffe at the time.

[charlie brown]

Yeah, can't disagree...one person's integrity, is another one's cop out, sometimes. And, I do agree about The Beatles, obviously.

What I had a problem with, especially with regards to record companies, was the seemingly endless "sameness" of sound, that so many bands, in the 90's had. I know "I'm OLD," but...there were a lot of times, I couldn't tell who was doing what!

In the time I grew up (the '60's), musically and otherwise, our parents may have said that "it all sounds alike" but, then...bands had a very distinct sound (to me, anyway), and you knew right away, "Who" it was...(pun intended). But, later...It seemed to me, like the record companies were putting out the same band, over and over...sometimes even the same song, with different screaming (or, was that different songs, with the same screaming??!...LOL!), just trying to capitalize on a previous success?! But, it may BE...that I'm getting old, and don't "Get it," anymore. But, that's cool, too. "Rock" defies convention, and always has. And, lack of integrity, or "selling out," is hardly limited, to just the music industry, anymore. ;>b

[layboomo]

Yeah' date=' can't disagree...one person's integrity, is another one's cop out, sometimes. And, I do agree about The Beatles, obviously.

What I had a problem with, especially with regards to record companies, was the seemingly endless "sameness" of sound, that so many bands, in the 90's had. I know "I'm OLD," but...there were a lot of times, I couldn't tell who was doing what!

In the time I grew up (the '60's), musically and otherwise, our parents may have said that "it all sounds alike" but, then...bands had a very distinct sound (to me, anyway), and you knew right away, "Who" it was...(pun intended). But, later...It seemed to me, like the record companies were putting out the same band, over and over...sometimes even the same song, with different screaming (or, was that different songs, with the same screaming??!...LOL!), just trying to capitalize on a previous success?! But, it may BE...that I'm getting old, and don't "Get it," anymore. But, that's cool, too. "Rock" defies convention, and always has. And, lack of integrity, or "selling out," is hardly limited, to just the music industry, anymore. ;>b[/quote']

 

Well I'm old too by your standards...and I agree......back in the day it wasn't such a "formula based" industry as it has become. BTW it's a dying industry thanks to greed and the digital age.

[tulsaslim]

I started playing 'professionally' in 1966 playing rhythm guitar in Chicago for a black blues man. Sometimes I'd only make 5 or ten bucks a night but I had a terrific time. The last band I played in was a cover band for which I was paid $500 week (not bad for the early '80s) and hated every minute of it.

 

During the Disco days (when most clubs trashed live music in favor of djs) I played a year in a cover band at a Holiday Inn. I hated it so badly I damn near quit altogether.

 

The most fun I ever had was back in the early '70s when I played in a 'jam band' in NYC. Some nights I'd make $20, some nights I'd make $150 but I would've gladly done it for free because I had the best time of my musical life.