Cochise
|
Re: Merrick....
Nov 02, 2005, 17:56
|
|
Yes agreed, good article. Tom Waits is also an artist who has never caved in. In "the Nation", Tom Waits wrote a letter in praise of Densmore - Corporations "suck the life and meaning from the songs and impregnate them with promises of a better life with their product. Eventually, artists will be going onstage like race-car drivers covered in hundreds of logos."
|
Merrick
|
Re: Merrick....
Nov 02, 2005, 18:48
|
If the musician is bankrupt it's certainly more understandable. After Willie Nelson got hit with a $30m tax bill he had to bend over and sell anything he could.
Like I said in the article, Cope's offers must've been tempting because, whilst not bankrupt, he had no grounds for being certain he couldmake a living from his music.
I do go in hardest against people - like Eno, like the two Doors who want to sell - who don't need the money at all, yet still do it.
I don't question their right to sell their music at all, and I can't see where you would be able to infer that from.
What I do criticise is the integrity of those who sell their work for adverts who made art for good reasons. I think it's a pretty clear distinction.
|
PlateOfFood
|
Re: Merrick....
Nov 03, 2005, 15:03
|
I went on the London Underground yesterday for the first time in years. I always hated the amount of advertising down there when I lived in London, it’s a bombardment of psychic pollution, like being screamed at by thousands of lying cocksuckers who all seem to think that you are an idiot.
Anyways...
I couldn’t fucking believe it, the damn things are alive now, all the posters down the escalators had become plasma screens, flicking and flashing and insulting me. I thought that was pretty bad, until I got to the platform and saw an ad for carlsberg or carling or some shit lager. It was about the system that the Underground had in place for buskers. That they were now licensed and approved, that they weren’t being paid so please be generous, and how this scheme was brought to you by carlsberg. Somehow... I can’t believe that it’s gone this far, but, somehow people who are singing for pennies have become branded and used as promotional tools. Without payment. Fucking hell.
What always rankles is when people who make adverts hark on about talent and the quality of their work. It’s like they haven’t realised that if you have a shit and you tell yourself that it’s a really good shit, then that’s all well and good but it’s still a shit and always will be.
For me the whole problem of advertising is that it has crossed the line from telling people about a product, to trying to stimulate a non-existent desire for a product in people who don’t want or need it, by exploiting and increasing their psychological insecurities and fears. As the Buddhist would have it, true happiness only comes from freedom from desires, so the artificial creation of desires is, by definition, a source of misery.
(pardon my ranting)
|
Merrick
|
Re: Merrick....
Nov 03, 2005, 16:51
|
|
No, I don't know that for sure. I made clear in the article anything I don't know to be hard fact, and the reasons for assumptions.
|
Vybik Jon
|
Re: Merrick....
Nov 03, 2005, 16:52
|
The previous posting was brought to you courtesy of...
Seriously, I'm with you mate.
|
mojojojo
|
Re: Merrick....
Nov 03, 2005, 17:03
|
Destitution, brought to you by Calsberg. I think it's powerful and provocative and raw and new and exciting and edgy. Like Benetton.
Fuck all those Nathan Barley cunts.
x
|
Vybik Jon
|
Re: Merrick....
Nov 03, 2005, 18:19
|
"let me know if I've crossed the lime anywhere."
Must resist temptation...
|
Merrick
|
Re: Merrick....
Nov 03, 2005, 18:46
|
You are, in point of fact and as you probably well know, having a go.
You certainly *can* assume things about people, provided you have a basis for that assumption. I gave the basis for that assumption, I made it clear it was assumption, which parts were hard facts and which were presumed and why.
|
Popel Vooje
|
Re: Merrick....
Nov 04, 2005, 13:01
|
|
That;'s true, but .. strangely enough, the more ubiquitous advertising becomes, the easier I find to ignore it and shut it all out, thus defeating its object. Do you think this a common reaction, or an atypical one? The optimist in me hopes it's the former, but the realist in me suggests otherwise.
|
Rolling Ronnie
|
Re: Merrick....
Nov 04, 2005, 13:08
|
I think your spot on PV. It's like background noise. When it first happens your very aware of it but after a while your brain just filters it out. I think that for a lot of people advertising is just background noise.
Also Sky + renders it easily skippable. When an ad break comes on I pause the TV and do something else for 4 minutes, then fast forward to the next bit of TV.
|
