Why do you think that some jingle writers employ sound-alike singers? Why do you think that these same people get sued just for hiring someone who sounds like a celebrity to sing a commerical song? If that same singer were to record a single instead, there would be no lawsuit.
It really rankles you for me to call Moby out for what he did, doesn't it?
Beyond "backyard" painters there are graphic designers who labor on their own private artworks for the sheer pleasure. Robert Crumb has maintained sketchbooks since his high school days. He draws on the placemat while waiting for food in a restaurant and he continues drawing after the meal while everyone drinks their coffee. He is not drawing all of those drawings so that he can have even more drawings to sell (each of those drawings is worth $800-2500).
The artists who are in it for the cash cheapen their works. Salvador Dali did by signing blank pieces of paper that were later printed with "fine art prints". Andy Warhol did by mass producing silk screened "art" in a factory. These people didn't even do any of their own art themselves after a point, it was just another brand name.
An artist can sell his work (or find a sponsor) without being a "sell out". Capitalism is good and earning a dollar is well and good. I know enterprising artists who have sold their works themselves, published their own books, staged their own gallery openings. When finding the next buyer (and crafting works specifically for that audience) is the overruling consideration before "creating" something, then the commerce has taken priority over the art.
Graphic design commercial art and soundtrack music can be nice but it is forever tied to its sponsor. Moby's album is elligible for a Grammy even though all 18 cuts were used for ads. The artist who painted all of those Coca-Cola ads will never get his day in an art museum because he was a "hack". He could have been a modern artist like those who splattered paint (Pollack) or scribbled on chalk boards (Twombley) but he was too busy chasing that dollar (at least according to the art world). Of course he was more honest to his craft and never made nearly the dollar of Pollack or Twombley.
Real artists create because it is a part of their personality. It is how they communicate and there is a psychological release from "creating".
I'll let you in on a dirty little secret: the artists I've known personally who've been able to isolate the commercial and creative influences on art let their wives manage their career. The artist never has to be the one to break the "bad" news about how expensive something is and does not contemplate "well if I do more like these, I can charge more money".
"Pre-existing" is the qualifier that you're hanging your argument on. Sure, some songs are used to appeal to nostalgia. Other songs are chosen to appeal to a sense of "hipness." Or because the song's lyrics are a natural fit for the product ("Like a Rock" was hardly an oldie when Chevy licensed it but it said exactly what Chevy wanted to say about their trucks). Or because it's just innocuous and goes with the pretty pictures. Doesn't change the fact that they've been chosen because the advertisers want to appeal to emotions.
Why do you think that some jingle writers employ sound-alike singers? Why do you think that these same people get sued just for hiring someone who sounds like a celebrity to sing a commerical song? If that same singer were to record a single instead, there would be no lawsuit.
Huh? I've read this paragraph four times and still can't connect it to the argument at hand. Yes, if you license a song, you're less likely to get sued than if you just steal it and hire a sound-alike to record it. What's your point?
It really rankles you for me to call Moby out for what he did, doesn't it?
I don't know if "rankles" is the word I'd use. I just think you're deluded if you think making money through your music via route A is more virtuous than via route B. Once you take dollar #1 for your art, you've sold out. The rest is just negotiation.
Yes, Crumb doodles in a notebook. I could probably make a case that for Crumb, at least, his constant drawing in a notebook or on placemats is a sign of OCD. Given his brothers, I'd say there's a good chance that he's a bit "touched." But instead I'm just going to say that enjoying making art and making money doing it are not mutually exclusive.
Re: Dali and Warhol. Dali was a sick old man surrounded by vultures during the time he signed all those blank sheets, and Warhol...well, Warhol's a discussion for another day. But I'll concede everything you said, and it did have the effect of cheapening his art (good piece in Vanity Fair a couple of months back about the lucrative and controversial business of "authenticating" Warhols). It was kind of an inevitiable outgrowth of his whole theory of Pop Art, a splashy dead-end in art history.
When finding the next buyer (and crafting works specifically for that audience) is the overruling consideration before "creating" something, then the commerce has taken priority over the art.
Ah, well, there's the rub. I doubt Moby made his album (unlike Eno's "Music for Films") thinking exclusively of selling products with it. That was just a happy outcome. And don't forget, "Integrity Sells."
Graphic design commercial art and soundtrack music can be nice but it is forever tied to its sponsor.
Quick, what was Alphonse Mucha selling? And contrarily, given that most art prior to, say, 1700 was either commissioned by church and contained religious themes, or was commissioned by royalty and contained portraits of themselves, wouldn't you say that that's pretty tied to it's sponsor?
The artist who painted all of those Coca-Cola ads will never get his day in an art museum because he was a "hack"
Hey, I just picked up a book of paintings from those "Men's Adventure" magazines of the 50s and 60s.
Real artists create because it is a part of their personality. It is how they communicate and there is a psychological release from "creating".
Absolutely. No argument. Doesn't mean that they aren't looking for places to make some money with it, whether their wife is handling the business end or not.
Ultimately, what "rankles" me is the whole notion of "selling out," which has long been the accusation of the less commercially successful artist against the more successful.