Honestly, I really don't care how much the band puts itself in the public eye through aggressive marketing campaigns. I think they're well aware by this point in their careers that the best marketing tool they can utilize is writing some f-ing scorching songs and putting them out.
I know "things were different then," but I seem to remember Yellow Ledbetter and Black being an examples of radio catching on to songs that weren't even officially released as singles, and subsequently playing the heck out of them. Not that they're f-ing scorchers, but they illustrate the bigger point which is that if you put out something that is truly fabulous and original, people will catch on and start spreading appreciation organically.
The picture that link takes you to doesn't sit right with me, but not because the band is in it. It's because that "flag" in the background was produced and displayed (not by the band) without any sense of irony. The marketeers that came up with it were not artists looking to push any envelopes or challenge people's concepts of symbolic representation or psychological attributes. No, they really thought it was a good idea and effective marketing to replace the symbols of sacrifice (stars) that represented people/states and the rights/ideals they fought for in the Revolutionary War.
Had it been done with a sense of irony or intent to challenge people like the story in this National Review article: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n7_v41/ai_7518687/ the PJ picture would barely elicit a response from me. Agree or disagree with the artist's choice of medium or their goals, that's damn good execution.
"A lot more people are capable of being big out there that just don't give themselves a chance." -Stone Gossard
Adios people of the porch. Been fun debating with some of you, but things have gotten way out of hand as of lately regarding topics of conversation on here.
I'll be in the M&G section.
*nice touch*
*Edit* here's the article, curse words removed, pictures removed, link removed.
Right And Wrong
By Skwerl, June 9th, 2009
RT @antiquiet: Right And Wrong
This morning I find myself somewhat fascinated by what we can- and can’t- get away with posting online. We exist to nurture the art of recorded music. We’re a small group of hardcore fans, supporting a larger community of like minds. We are the consumers of music. We buy the albums. We buy the concert tickets. The t-shirts. The deluxe box sets. Yet we have to toe a line, because if our methods of support ever dare conflict with a marketing scheme, we’re hauled out as traitors and thieves.
The other day we got some really cool **WORDS DELETED**from the recording sessions for the **WORDS DELETED** Pearl Jam album. But we’re not going to post them or talk about them, because some lawyers somewhere think… Well, who knows what they think? They’ll take away from the impact of the new album’s marketing efforts? Maybe it would cut into sales? We know that neither of these are likely; The fans would talk about them incessantly (right through walking into Target on release day), while the casual passers-by would simply ignore them. They’re really rough demos. And any internet buzz it might incite would only raise awareness for the album among a bunch of people that haven’t been aware of a new Pearl Jam album since before Axl started working on Chinese Democracy.
But we’re not posting them, for at least two reasons: First, of course, I still await sentencing for “promoting” / “damaging” the aforementioned GNR album, and a new criminal charge would likely send me straight to federal **WORDS DELETED** prison.
Second, we’ve come to respect the artist’s right to determine how their art is presented.
See, we can post these **WORDS DELETED** photos of Britney Spears from the Gimme More video shoot, and no one gives a hoot. Does posting these photos of Britney’s **WORDS DELETED**, at the height of her 2007 psycho breakdown, not disrespect her right to present herself in her own way? Of course it does (not that this right hasn’t already been taken away from her by her omnipotent handlers), but no one really cares, because it doesn’t threaten any marketing plan.
The times, they are confusing. What we know to be promotion is occasionally called betrayal, by parties that we know know better. We know it because we’ve caught them faking it. And when they’ve done it “by accident,” with noone but themselves to blame, what happens? No one gets fired. The album debuts at #1 but… well… it would have sold even more!
If only less people heard it…
That’s just the political side. I suppose I’d “get it” if I was in spent more time in the Industry. But I’ve been an American citizen my whole life, and I’m still struggling with the First Amendment.
Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails recently went on a well-publicized tirade on double standards:
“Wal-Mart went on a rampage years ago insisting all music they carry be censored of all profanity and ‘clean’ versions be made for them to carry… NIN refused, and you’ll notice a pretty empty NIN section at any Wal-Mart…
My reasoning was this: I can understand if you want the moral posturing of not having any ‘indecent’ material for sale- but you could literally turn around 180° from where the NIN record would be and purchase the film Scarface completely uncensored, or buy a copy of Grand Theft Auto where you can be rewarded for beating up prostitutes. How does that make sense?”
And that’s how we feel every time we have to make a judgment call as “bloggers,” as journalists. We have to weigh apples against ostriches, every single time. Rough demos are a violation of discretion, but stolen photos of an artist **WORDS DELETED** naked are perfectly fine. Last week, we got a scary cease & desist order for posting a fan recording of a band that “welcomes” fan recordings!
We weren’t the only ones confused by that one.
We’re doing our best to play along according to rules that seem to change daily. We don’t understand how the record industry would prefer that we operate. Not that we’re waiting on them to tell us- They’re clearly still trying to figure out how to operate themselves. But it’d be nice to know the common ground from the battlefront. Because as it stands, we don’t.
Just don’t listen to the new Mars Volta album, or the new Clutch album, or the new Incubus album. Don’t play them for your friends. Because they aren’t on sale yet.
bottomline...intellectual property (art, music, literature, etc) belongs to the artist, the creator, and sure...to whomever they choose to 'share' said rights with, be in record companies, publishing houses, art galleries, etc. it is UP TO THE ARTIST and/or their representatives, to decide when/where/how to release their OWN ART. period. the end.
i honestly do not understand, how people....especially fans....do not understand this. all the other smoke and mirrors......don't matter. it really is THAT simple. their work, their release, on their terms. just b/c of the damn of the internet does NOT negate an artist's rights.
(btw - all that britney BS...firstly, don't know much about it honstly...don't pay much attention to such shit. however, if whatever went down was theft, illegal, i am sure she had her lawyers all over it. sure, damage is done and all that...but you bet, you have to protect yourself and all else.)
oh, and as to the whole NIN/wal mart thing...i agree, overall. wal mart has the right to refuse to sell a product if they so choose....and an artist has every right to say no, and not have their work for sale there. as to the film comparison, difference is....films have ratings on them, music does not....at most, 'warning labels'...so not quite the same thing. while i think wal mart is all BS, bottomline both the retailer and the artist had the right to make those choices, for themselves, and they did. exactly as it should be. someone leaking an artist's work....that is TAKING AWAY the right of the artist/promoter...to release their work as they want. that is WRONG, plain and simple. and just b/c it does happen, doesn't make it right.
Comments
I know "things were different then," but I seem to remember Yellow Ledbetter and Black being an examples of radio catching on to songs that weren't even officially released as singles, and subsequently playing the heck out of them. Not that they're f-ing scorchers, but they illustrate the bigger point which is that if you put out something that is truly fabulous and original, people will catch on and start spreading appreciation organically.
The picture that link takes you to doesn't sit right with me, but not because the band is in it. It's because that "flag" in the background was produced and displayed (not by the band) without any sense of irony. The marketeers that came up with it were not artists looking to push any envelopes or challenge people's concepts of symbolic representation or psychological attributes. No, they really thought it was a good idea and effective marketing to replace the symbols of sacrifice (stars) that represented people/states and the rights/ideals they fought for in the Revolutionary War.
Had it been done with a sense of irony or intent to challenge people like the story in this National Review article: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n7_v41/ai_7518687/ the PJ picture would barely elicit a response from me. Agree or disagree with the artist's choice of medium or their goals, that's damn good execution.
bottomline...intellectual property (art, music, literature, etc) belongs to the artist, the creator, and sure...to whomever they choose to 'share' said rights with, be in record companies, publishing houses, art galleries, etc. it is UP TO THE ARTIST and/or their representatives, to decide when/where/how to release their OWN ART. period. the end.
i honestly do not understand, how people....especially fans....do not understand this. all the other smoke and mirrors......don't matter. it really is THAT simple. their work, their release, on their terms. just b/c of the damn of the internet does NOT negate an artist's rights.
(btw - all that britney BS...firstly, don't know much about it honstly...don't pay much attention to such shit. however, if whatever went down was theft, illegal, i am sure she had her lawyers all over it. sure, damage is done and all that...but you bet, you have to protect yourself and all else.)
oh, and as to the whole NIN/wal mart thing...i agree, overall. wal mart has the right to refuse to sell a product if they so choose....and an artist has every right to say no, and not have their work for sale there. as to the film comparison, difference is....films have ratings on them, music does not....at most, 'warning labels'...so not quite the same thing. while i think wal mart is all BS, bottomline both the retailer and the artist had the right to make those choices, for themselves, and they did. exactly as it should be. someone leaking an artist's work....that is TAKING AWAY the right of the artist/promoter...to release their work as they want. that is WRONG, plain and simple. and just b/c it does happen, doesn't make it right.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow