doctorwho
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
I hate the term "sell out".
Haven't we all "sold out"? We got a job. We exchanged our skills, services or talents for $$. Isn't that "selling out" by some definition?
If a painter sells his painting for $20K, is that selling out?
If a person has tons of $$ and then does an ad or speaks up for something or someone he/she believes in, is that selling out?
I was in a chat room and people were saying how they like the new U2 album, but they "sold out big time" due to the iTunes/iPod ad.
This annoyed me to no end. When I stated my views, I was accused of being "biased". Oh, so I can't see the truth any more? If I like U2, then clearly I can't see the truth.
Why is it O.K. for Bon Jovi to do a battery commercial? Why is it acceptable to see Lenny Kravitz doing GAP Jeans commercials? When Madonna, Michael Jackson and Britney Spears all did Pepsi commercials, I heard no one scream "sell out!" Yet, for U2, the argument has dogged them their entire career.
In 1987, U2 came across all pious and holier than thou, and people loved them. Still, I heard "sell out" back then as U2 were suddenly popular and thus "too commercial". But those who loved U2 in '87, come 1992, with ZOO TV, suddenly these people screamed "sell out". Why? Because U2 acted like rock stars. Because they had U2 condoms. Those who dared to accept the ZOO, then screamed "sell out" when U2 announced the PopMart tour at a K-Mart. And if they didn't scream "sell out" then, they yelled it with ATYCLB, as U2 dared to sound like U2.
Now, of course, U2 are doing an ia Tunes/iPod commercial - and this must be selling out. Because why would U2 use their own music to advertise their own single/album that you can buy at a digital music store? Clearly that must be selling out. And why would U2 use their own music to advertise their own music-listening device? Clearly that must be selling out. No $$ exchanged hands, yet clearly U2 "sold out". U2 found a way to advertise their music at a music store. But wait, U2 have done this before - what's the difference? Seems that it's selective memory. Best Buy ad featuring U2? No problem. iTunes ad featuring U2? How dare they?!
If this is the definition of "selling out", then haven't all artists sold out? Any artist that had his/her/their work advertised in any medium most have sold out. If they appeared on a TV or radio show promoting their music, they must have sold out. If their music appeared in a movie, they must have sold out. Yet, I don't see or hear this argument. All I see/hear are people screaming that U2 "sold out" because of iTunes.
So I ask the die-hard fanatics here. Are U2 "sell outs"? Would the JT era U2 do this commercial?
Seems to me that U2 sold out during the JT era the most, with their more accessible music, their image, their magazine articles, their "giving the public what they want" attitude. U2 wanted to be cool - look cool and sound cool - so they said all the right things and acted the right way. Yet I can't help but wonder how much of that JT-era U2 was "real". Seems to me that the U2 we are seeing now is the most "real" U2 ever. And yet now it's deemed U2 are the "sell outs". Hmmm...
Haven't we all "sold out"? We got a job. We exchanged our skills, services or talents for $$. Isn't that "selling out" by some definition?
If a painter sells his painting for $20K, is that selling out?
If a person has tons of $$ and then does an ad or speaks up for something or someone he/she believes in, is that selling out?
I was in a chat room and people were saying how they like the new U2 album, but they "sold out big time" due to the iTunes/iPod ad.
This annoyed me to no end. When I stated my views, I was accused of being "biased". Oh, so I can't see the truth any more? If I like U2, then clearly I can't see the truth.
Why is it O.K. for Bon Jovi to do a battery commercial? Why is it acceptable to see Lenny Kravitz doing GAP Jeans commercials? When Madonna, Michael Jackson and Britney Spears all did Pepsi commercials, I heard no one scream "sell out!" Yet, for U2, the argument has dogged them their entire career.
In 1987, U2 came across all pious and holier than thou, and people loved them. Still, I heard "sell out" back then as U2 were suddenly popular and thus "too commercial". But those who loved U2 in '87, come 1992, with ZOO TV, suddenly these people screamed "sell out". Why? Because U2 acted like rock stars. Because they had U2 condoms. Those who dared to accept the ZOO, then screamed "sell out" when U2 announced the PopMart tour at a K-Mart. And if they didn't scream "sell out" then, they yelled it with ATYCLB, as U2 dared to sound like U2.
Now, of course, U2 are doing an ia Tunes/iPod commercial - and this must be selling out. Because why would U2 use their own music to advertise their own single/album that you can buy at a digital music store? Clearly that must be selling out. And why would U2 use their own music to advertise their own music-listening device? Clearly that must be selling out. No $$ exchanged hands, yet clearly U2 "sold out". U2 found a way to advertise their music at a music store. But wait, U2 have done this before - what's the difference? Seems that it's selective memory. Best Buy ad featuring U2? No problem. iTunes ad featuring U2? How dare they?!
If this is the definition of "selling out", then haven't all artists sold out? Any artist that had his/her/their work advertised in any medium most have sold out. If they appeared on a TV or radio show promoting their music, they must have sold out. If their music appeared in a movie, they must have sold out. Yet, I don't see or hear this argument. All I see/hear are people screaming that U2 "sold out" because of iTunes.
So I ask the die-hard fanatics here. Are U2 "sell outs"? Would the JT era U2 do this commercial?
Seems to me that U2 sold out during the JT era the most, with their more accessible music, their image, their magazine articles, their "giving the public what they want" attitude. U2 wanted to be cool - look cool and sound cool - so they said all the right things and acted the right way. Yet I can't help but wonder how much of that JT-era U2 was "real". Seems to me that the U2 we are seeing now is the most "real" U2 ever. And yet now it's deemed U2 are the "sell outs". Hmmm...
Last edited:
)
