sigh (1 Viewer)

[taubstumm]

i still feel let down and dejected by these sorts of things. oh well. gang of four, you make me sad.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[jonah]

I just found out that a girl I live with's Dad used to be in a band with two members of Gang of Four... I know this isn't really relevant to the above, but I'm in shock!

 

[taubstumm]

I just found out that a girl I live with's Dad used to be in a band with two members of Gang of Four... I know this isn't really relevant to the above, but I'm in shock!

really? any idea what the band was called?

 

[jonah]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Swamp is one of the bands, apparently there were a couple with different variations.

 

[Scientician 0.8]

Those Kinect ads make me wanna get a Kinect and an Xbox 360 even though I know they'd probably be stupid.

 

[St. Fechin]

Gang of Four? What is this, 1979? 2004?

 

[kthozoid]

*shoulder slump*

 

[xsteox]

So, this thread isn't about

awww

 

[taubstumm]

*shoulder slump*

the most angular shoulder slump die ich je gemacht habe

 

[Scientician 0.8]

It was sometime in the late '90s when it stopped being cool to not sell your music to advertisers. I dunno what hastened the change.

 

[GO]

It was sometime in the late '90s when it stopped being cool to not sell your music to advertisers. I dunno what hastened the change.

I wouldnt say Gang of Four are that well off to be turning down a wage from wherever.
I actually would'nt be at all surprised if they were skint tbh.

 

[MilanPan!c]

Honestly, caring about musicians selling their songs for an ad is so 1998... I mean, sure, wouldn't it be great it we all just got paid for being creative, but we don't... As long as it's not advertising something offensive to me and the people involved are cool with it, why shouldn't I be cool with it?

 

[ann post]

not watching tv might help. I like it, gives the tunes a new lease of life.

 

[taubstumm]

Honestly, caring about musicians selling their songs for an ad is so 1998... I mean, sure, wouldn't it be great it we all just got paid for being creative, but we don't... As long as it's not advertising something offensive to me and the people involved are cool with it, why shouldn't I be cool with it?

i'm well aware of the supposedly passé nature of giving a shit about these things. we're all hypocrites in our own ways.

that said, the general line of reasoning you're giving was not something i found convincing in 1998, and i still don't. if anything, it insults the intelligence of all concerned -- it's a cynical, flimsy, disappointing line of reasoning. but, each to their own.

 

[taubstumm]

I wouldnt say Gang of Four are that well off to be turning down a wage from wherever.
I actually would'nt be at all surprised if they were skint tbh.

maybe so.

to be honest, if there's any explanation of this that casts gang of four in a good light, it's the fact that e.m.i. own the rights to the music used in the ad, and it may well have been used without gang of four's permission.

i'd like to think that's true, but i don't know.

the fact that the song's lyrics are about consumerism just gives the whole thing a slightly surreal feel.

 

[Lepra]

So, this thread isn't about

awww

an ex-flatmate of mine did the artwork for their last album, "i wish you all had one neck..."etc etc.

 

[Lili Marlene]

maybe so.

to be honest, if there's any explanation of this that casts gang of four in a good light, it's the fact that e.m.i. own the rights to the music used in the ad, and it may well have been used without gang of four's permission.

i'd like to think that's true, but i don't know.

the fact that the song's lyrics are about consumerism just gives the whole thing a slightly surreal feel.

Ah sure it's your own fault for watching tv. We're supposed to be living in our own world of art, sex and smugness, not viewing the idiot box.


Incidentally i've never listened to gang of four although I did see them live that time.

 

[MilanPan!c]

i'm well aware of the supposedly passé nature of giving a shit about these things. we're all hypocrites in our own ways.

that said, the general line of reasoning you're giving was not something i found convincing in 1998, and i still don't. if anything, it insults the intelligence of all concerned -- it's a cynical, flimsy, disappointing line of reasoning. but, each to their own.

I'm not sure how you get "cynical" out of a band making money with their music?

I think, if you just look around you, you'll see no one is turning down these opportunities these days because if your band is a professional band, it needs to make money to survive.

I think, in fact, that 99.9% of bands are pretty willing to sell there music and gain exposure to a whole new audience. Even if that means helping sell videogames.

But like you said, we just disagree.

I used to agree with you by the way, but I changed my mind when I realised that the artists themselves are almost always onboard with this practice.

So.

 

[taubstumm]

I'm not sure how you get "cynical" out of a band making money with their music?

'making money' is mentioned here like as if there is only one way to make money.

a band can make money by doing a tour. or a band can make money by hawking its legacy to microsoft.

if these two activities seem identical to you, so be it; that's a cynical view. i'd view them as qualitatively different.

I think, if you just look around you, you'll see no one is turning down these opportunities these days because if your band is a professional band, it needs to make money to survive.

I think, in fact, that 99.9% of bands are pretty willing to sell there music and gain exposure to a whole new audience. Even if that means helping sell videogames.

But like you said, we just disagree.

without wanting to sound like a stuck record: i find this take on things completely unconvincing and self-serving. so, yep, we disagree. don't get me wrong: gang of four are welcome to do whatever they want with their music. but, if what they want to do is sell their music to microsoft, there's no way that's not just a sad, grubby, disappointing decision.

I used to agree with you by the way, but I changed my mind when I realised that the artists themselves are almost always onboard with this practice.

So.

i was curious about that in this case. after googling around, i emailed a writer called roy christopher, a friend of dave allen, gang of four's former bass player. according to roy, dave had nothing to do with this and was 'nonplussed' about the whole thing. however, he's had nothing to do with the band since 2008.

maybe the others were in on it. i'd like to think they weren't, but i don't know.

 

[egg_]

without wanting to sound like a stuck record: i find this take on things completely unconvincing and self-serving. so, yep, we disagree. don't get me wrong: gang of four are welcome to do whatever they want with their music. but, if what they want to do is sell their music to microsoft, there's no way that's not just a sad, grubby, disappointing decision.

I'm wavering a bit on this now myself. Not that anyone is ever going to offer me money to use my music in an ad, but ... well, I'm finding it harder to see the distinction between selling different kinds of labour. I sell 8.30-5 Mon-Fri to my employer as it is (plus 1.5 hours commute each way) - the majority of my waking hours in the prime of my life. I can still feel the difference between that and selling 3 mins of music to Microsoft in my heart, but I'm finding it harder to see it in my head

Not that I don't feel disappointed too, but for me it's more about ... well, the fact that the rest of the world just didn't care about the compelling logic of my arguments, and I've been the one that's had to adjust rather than it