I am humbly in awe of the smart comments my contentious commentary on rock sellouts have gotten. You can read them all here. I’m going to discuss them in a series of posts.

Says Maura Johnston:

[Quoting Hitsville] “I’m willing to debate what exactly rock music is, but I’m pretty it doesn’t involve helping sell crap on TV.”

so does ‘lust for life’ not count as rock music anymore, then? or ‘won’t get fooled again’?

i’m not trying to lead a horde against dissenters or anything. there was something about the criticism of santogold’s statements, which i thought were pretty matter-of-fact, that seemed very knee-jerk and really rankled with me. it’s not 1991 anymore, but the concept of ’selling out’ is still the norm among a *lot* of rock writers and i think in an era where fewer and fewer people are willing to pay for music it needs to be rethought, if not thrown out entirely. assuming that music (not to mention music that will be aesthetically pleasing!) will just happen without financing assumes a lot of privilege and it’s something that is rarely talked about.

as far as the idea that an appalled kid is preparing some cobain-style world-changing “thunderclap”… i’m pessimistic about the possibility of that happening because of the sheer amount of noise out there, the subcultures, the fact that fewer and fewer people seem to *want* to look outside their little bubbles, even in the face of tragedy and upheaval. at the very least, i don’t think any tremors this new artist causes will resemble a thunderclap … it’ll probably be more like a slowly gathering snowball rolling down a steep mountain.

I think three things are true: “Lust for Life” is still a great rock song; Iggy Pop is a loser for selling the song to a cruise line (If he did; for all I know he doesn’t control the rights); and this once proud, tweaky, perverted demimonde anthem is ruined for at least one listener, me.

There aren’t clear lines here: art is a continuum; all sorts of things create it, or create the impression of it, and make it last or not last. “Selling out” is a continuum as well. Sure it’s fine if a cool song adorns a movie soundtrack or a TV show, but I think we would all be shocked if “With or Without You,” say, turned up in a Halliburton commercial.

If you disagree with that, then, well, we disagree. The question is why it’s wrong. Let’s go back to art. Who can define it? But if there are any things about it all that are special, it has to do with the artist starting from some place based in honesty and forthrightness and independence. (I have my own theory of rock, that at any given time the most potent strain of it is the sound of a new generation talking to itself, which would require those three characteristics.).

So in talking specifically about young or new or vibrant bands selling their songs, it’s bad because it compromises those origins. Sure, you can create a great song out of pure art … and then sell it. But the next time you write a song, you’re not an artist any more, you’re a potential jingle creator. I’m sorry, but McDonald’s mediates the Shins, and VW mediates Wilco. Maybe it’s corny or romanticized to think that Jeff Tweedy is singing just for me. (And of course the lines of communication were mediated in the past by the label.) But for some part of the band’s audience, in some way, it does, and the band will pay the price, in some fashion, down the road. Moby is a good example. I’m sure he’s living large, but no one’s buying his albums any more.

It comes down to this: At a certain point, you have to decide whether you’re creating music for yourself, or for a Big Mac.

There is a side issue here of honesty. The Shins don’t get up on stage and say, “Hey our songs are for sale for any fast-food operation that will have us. Pass it on!” And bands rarely get quizzed about these things in the press.

Now, as for the economic argument, that’s a side issue as well. Bands never made money from record sales. The idea that all of a sudden they have to get money from Campbell’s soup is crazy. In fact, there are a gazillion new income streams that don’t get talked about—ringtones, iTunes, Rhapsody-style services, and so on and so forth.

This is doubly true for big bands: If you’re a successful artist, you’re making more money than ever before from these new income streams. Adding TV ads into the mix is just being greedy. The Rolling Stones, back in the day, would always be quoted by credulous tour chroniclers “Oh, we need the sponsorship to make the tour profitable.” Bullshit. It made it more profitable. Sting doesn’t need money, and neither does Elvis Costello or Peter Townshend.