Just what is "Selling Out"?

[Randall Roq]

The very definition of selling out was Roman Holiday. Remember they had that song Motor Maniac or whatever the title was. At that time they looked like the Bowery Boys.

Then they come back with that song One Foot Back in Your Door or whatever ONLY NOW they are a giant hair band!!!

I have been searching for a picture of their newer look because it was hysterical- big hair and lots of leopardskin.

I'd loved to have talked to the band and ask what they were thinking-or weren't thinking.

[mygreen]

[quote][i]Originally posted by Dan Coogan[/i]
<br>Just saw a Payless shoesource TV ad with New Order's "Bizarre Love Triangle" -- it was sung by a female singer. My wife saw it the same time I did and just about cried, thinking that her favorite band of all time has given in to this.

---------------------------
"Photography with a Vision"
http://www.cooganphoto.com
[/quote]


Are you serious? New Order has succumbed to a Payless shoe commercial? That is just wrong in every sense! Why ruin a good song with bad shoes!

[Borneojimy]

I always thought that a band was selling out when they completely changed their look & style of music to whatever the current trend is. While I do appreciate bands that I listen to constantly evolving & changing their sound, I think there is a difference between that & selling out. For instance: I'm not the biggest Metallica fan in the world, but I think when they started to play power ballads & all got their hair cut at the same time for the "Load" album, it was an attempt to sell out. Granted, they were hugely popular to begin with, but I guess it wasn't enough. I'd also agree with Kiss & the Stones putting out disco albums as an example of selling out. Much as I like the result, Alice Cooper's attempt to cash in on new wave was a sell out too. I think the key here is in every one of these cases, the bands abandoned their "new direction" for what they had been doing all along.
I can think of other bands such as Devo & the Clash who became more commercially acceptable as their careers progressed, but I think in a lot of cases, it's just the fact that these bands could finally afford to really play around in a major studio & ended up with a more polished product. I mean, I hate the last few Devo records, but I wouldn't call them a sell out. A cop out maybe, but I digress.
Finally, I will never understand why people get upset with a band that gets popular through hard work & years of building a following. I personally don't care much for REM, but I think they deserve their success & have worked for it. I sure as hell wish that I could make a living doing something that I love, don't you?

[Randall Roq]

[quote][i]Originally posted by Borneojimy[/i]
<br>I always thought that a band was selling out when they completely changed their look & style of music to whatever the current trend is. While I do appreciate bands that I listen to constantly evolving & changing their sound, I think there is a difference between that & selling out.
[/quote]

Which is why I mentioned Roman Holiday...I didn't recognize them in their later incarnation.

[Panorama]

I just saw an ad for Fidelity Investments, using "Band on the Run" and a lot of home movie type imagery -- I wouldn't reall call the ad a sell out, but I wonder if Paul needed the money (yeah right [;)] )

-- anyway after a simple Google search it turned up some relivant links including the following which includes a much better explanation than my feeble attempt:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2126568/
Paul McCartney? Is That You?
What he's doing in that Fidelity ad.
By Seth Stevenson
Posted Monday, Sept. 19, 2005, at 1:23 PM PT

Listen to this story on NPR's Day to Day.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=4857606

See the ad here: http://img.slate.msn.com/media/52/THIS_IS_PAUL-2.wmv

[i]The Spot: It kicks off with a photo of a very familiar face. "This is Paul," says the announcer. Cut to other snapshots of Paul McCartney's iconic mug through the decades—along with some home-movie footage—as the announcer tells us that Paul has been a "Quarryman, Beatle, Wing, poet, father, frontman, producer, business mogul, painter, and—if that weren't enough—a knight. The key is: Never stop doing what you love." Eventually, we find out what's being advertised here. "Call us today. We'll help you plan for the next part of your life. Fidelity Investments. Smart move."[/i]

This ad debuted during the NFL's season opener a couple of weeks ago. Immediately, the British press was all over McCartney (even though the spot has not run in the U.K.). The Brit tabloids roasted "Macca" for tainting his legacy with vile commerce. Several stories trotted out a 2002 statement in which McCartney claimed, "We're not in the business of singing jingles. We do not peddle sneakers, pantyhose, or anything else." The headlines ranged from "Rubber Sold" to "I Am the Ad Man, Goo Goo G'joob." American papers were a tad more restrained, but the Miami Herald titled its piece "Sir Paul Sells Out."

I'm not sure that the concept of selling out has much traction anymore. The battle is over, and the sellouts have won. At this point, about 97 percent of Who songs have been used in automobile ads. The Rolling Stones appear in ads for Ameriquest, a mortgage-services company. Bob Dylan made a cameo in a spot for Victoria's Secret underwear.

Those are all geezers, you protest—not fierce and uncorrupted young bucks. But when I talk to younger people, the sellout label seems not to exist anymore. They expect TV ads to introduce great new music. They don't care when Oscar-winning actors turn up in spots for Diet Coke. To them, endorsement deals just seem like a natural byproduct of fame, and nothing to get worked up over.

I'm not quite post-integrity, yet. Part of me continues to wince when artistic heroes get sucked into the marketing machine. It makes me wonder what their work really means to them. It makes me contemplate the force of greed. Bottom line, it's just sort of a bummer.

Paul McCartney seems to recognize this. It's not like the Fidelity ad shows him talking into the camera about how terrific his IRA is, or about the great returns he got on some municipal bonds. The ad doesn't even bother to say that McCartney's a Fidelity client (and Fidelity will not disclose whether he is or isn't).

Paul doesn't speak at all here, or appear in any new footage shot for the purposes of the ad. The home-movie clips do serve to make the spot more intimate, and more compelling and watchable. (My favorite scene is of bearded Paul a-gallop on a horse. Also, I love any moment where he makes that patented "O" with his mouth and then breaks into laughter.) But they also serve to distance Sir Paul from the pitch. The grainy clips are over and the screen has gone black before the word "Fidelity" is mentioned for the first and only time.

The question lingers: Why would he do it? When Dylan http://slate.msn.com/id/2098635/ popped up in a bizarre lingerie ad, it seemed to be in large part just an impish provocation, in tune with Dylan's well-known penchant for mischief. But there's nothing impish about index funds.

No doubt Paul is pleased to be paid for his endorsement. While Fidelity won't release any figures, they surely offered millions for the ad. Still, Paul has a net worth of $1.5 billion; can money really have been his core motivation? Yes, Fidelity is also sponsoring his tour, but I'm willing to bet he'd sell out every show if he publicized them with flyers tacked to telephone poles.

I think Paul's driving desire is for relevance. This is a way for Paul to say: Remember that bloke in the home-movie clips? The guy you loved so much? I'm still here. I've got a fresh new album. I hope you'll actually listen to it. (McCartney plays all the instruments on several tracks of this latest release, Chaos and Creation in the Backyard, suggesting the work might be especially close to his heart.) It's odd that one of the most famous figures of the 20th century is doing mutual-fund ads just to stay in the public eye. But that's showbiz. And can we really consider it selling out when what you crave above all else is to put your new art in front of your audience?*

As for Fidelity, it's a no-brainer to associate yourself with Paul McCartney. Baby boomers retiring means lots of business for financial-planning firms. McCartney is the ultimate boomer icon. And I can't think of any celebrities out there who are more loved or less controversial.

Grade: B. It's pretty hard to distinguish among the massive financial-services firms, and this ad does help set Fidelity apart. But there's a gaping disconnect here. How did we go from marveling at the life of a billionaire genius … to setting up a retirement account? Fidelity advises that "the key" is to "never stop doing what you love." That sounds like an awesome retirement strategy. I will never stop playing squash on weekday afternoons, taking lazy beach vacations, and watching baseball on high-definition television. Now can I spend my golden years in security and comfort?

*Correction, September 20, 2005: As the result of some miscommunication with Fidelity, this piece originally said that the company used two different McCartney songs in a single ad. In fact, there are two separate ads, each using a single McCartney song. The ad shown here uses "Band on the Run." Click here to return to the corrected sentence.

http://content.members.fidelity.com/Ins ... 45,00.html
Paul McCartney and Fidelity Investments Announce Marketing Partnership

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050907/peo ... idelity_dc

---------------------------
"Photography with a Vision"
http://www.cooganphoto.com