what's the question about graphic designers?

art-vs-job

there is a wide spectrum and many things that flirt with it, but by and large graphic design is not art.

Jesus. Get over it.

I remember an article with the Drive By Truckers that they've always made little to no money from their albums even to this day. They make their money from touring and merch sales.



Also, wasn't it Iggy that said something like, as long as I know the music wasn't conceived for the purpose of being used in a commercial what the fuck do I care what they do with it once it's out there. You wanna pay me, fine pay me.

Or something along those lines.

Well put! And a whole lot more balanced/diplomatic than I could do it.

What do you mean by my take? Are you asking if I think it's art? or if it's "selling out"?

by "your take" I mean do you think graphic design is art or not

I think a lot of where Cats (and others with his views) is coming from is the belief that people in recognizable bands like Wilco are just rolling in money because lots of people know their name and they've sold a decent number of albums, so they don't need the money and this is just a meaningless sellout to them. The truth is, they're still dealing with shitty label deals that leave them with the crappy end of the deal making very little by the time their pay rolls around. Sure, they sell a lot more than most truly indie bands, but these guys aren't millionaires. Commercials like this are just a good way for the band to secure some money for their future so they can keep making music for us and themselves. I'm sure they've had far more disgusting offers to use their music in completely inappropriate, whorish situations, and turned them down. VW is very respectful of how they use music in their commercials and these are no different - Tweedy obviously knew that.

When you've got a family and the kids have college looming in the future, the thought of letting someone use 30 seconds of some songs to help pay off those ever-blooming tuition fees doesn't sound as crass as it might to some single, early 20s kids who have no real financial fears while they sit and bitch about decisions like this that have no effect on their own lives on message boards. These guys aren't as rich as we want to think they are.

It's one thing for Led Zeppelin to license a classic song like "Rock and Roll," a song that had existed for 30+ years and meant something to people, to Cadillac so they can destroy that song. They didn't need the money or the exposure and I'll never understand why they did that and, frankly, I'll probably never be able to listen to that song again simply because of all the Cadillac ads over the many years that pretty much stamped that song as a commercial. But it's another entirely for Wilco to license these brand songs for a short time to VW to use tastefully. I see nothing being destroyed other than the hearts of people who made assumptions about Jeff Tweedy. I think that's probably a good thing.

Billbozo is yawning in his grave.

well it can be

im a graphic designer
and most of what i create at work at my day job is not art...
or at least it's not great art

graphic design work inherently has elements of visual art in it...
perhaps more than most occupations
but technically i create advertisements for someone else's "art"

any occupation could be art

cooking can be art
football can be art
farting and fucking is all kind of artsy if you want it to be
and a commercial can be art too

and it can all be fantastic art even

but for me
i only consider what i make outside of work
(and a little bit of the performance i do at my day job)
to be my art

Art is awesome. Paying the bills and feeding your kids is even awesomer.

how is "getting the music out there" a retarded way to look at it? i'm talking from a RECORD LABEL'S perspective - not MY perspective.

don't you think the "art" was wrecked when the artist signed to a major? sorry but in the overall scheme of things, wilco isn't "independent" anymore. nonesuch = subsidiary of warner, warner = major label, major label = loss of creative control and marketing dept pitching the music to corporate brands, etc; hence licensing their music to commercials.

how else is the label going to market the record? by depending on record sales? sure, there is advertising and digital marketing and blogs and all that jazz, but who really buys a record anymore. by creating 'awareness' and 'buzz' by licensing a song on a major brand, the music does get out there to people who may not know the artist; thus creating 'awareness.' granted there are music geeks like us who post on messageboards, blog, etc... but think about the MASS appeal, not the indie appeal. from a label's perspective, selling 10,000 units in the first week ain't shit so they need to look elsewhere to get the music out there and sell more records.

sync & licensing is where the artist can actually make money... not by "selling records." (granted through touring & merchandise as well, but licensing can also make $ for the artist).




totally.

I am so alone here

awesome.

i like to get sick of songs on my own terms. I don't care if commercials besmirch songs that already suck, but I'm going to wear this album out all on my own . . .i don't need TV's help.

hey man, I'm with you, but ultimately it's up to the artist and them alone. I'm not going to boycott purchasing something because of an appearance in an ad, but it'll annoy me. But then, pretty much everything annoys me, so it seems a lot more insignificant in my eyes.

Tweedy is making a ton of money.

yeah, wilco makes serious bank on the road while they still may not make a ton off of their records. it's not like he lives in a $1M+ home because he's a nice guy.

well ....even if wilco was poor ... would that make using their songs to sell cars more artistic?

no, but it would make for a nice lack of dead kids in the lawn and/or opportunity to make more albums.

those poor tortured musicians have to do something to keep their kids from starving and that something is obviously sell their music to huge corporations

On what do you base this? It's a pretty common misconception that people have that "successful" bands instantly means "rich band members." I highly doubt he makes that much. Robert Fripp had a pretty grueling description years ago, like Steve Albini, of how being in a long-time, "successful" band, including those supposedly lucrative tours, didn't amount to taking home huge amounts of pay, but might make for a comfortable middle-class lifestyle if you were very lucky, which is why he does so much session work and allowed for some King Crimson material to be used in a couple of commercials in Europe/England. It's only the Beyonces, Madonnas and Paul McCartneys, etc. who are actually rich in this business.

I think we should shut the hell up about how it's no longer art because they've used it in commercials. These guys signed contracts to make music for huge corporations to begin with. You could easily make an argument that they stopped truly being real artists when they signed those contracts because the music is no longer for themselves. This is a bunch of bullshit. Shut up and enjoy the music. Change the channel when the commercial comes on if it offends you so much. Turn off the TV. This is dumb.

bur aren't we here to talk about and debate stuff?

Robert Fripp, lol. he deserves to be poor.