Are you saying the actual anachronism is that artists are even associated with credibility, integrity, or authenticity to sell out in the first place? If so, I guess that's a more precise way of saying why selling out isn't a thing anymore.
Personally, I think it's more a change in how artists view themselves in relation to the market—and how audiences view them as well—and that artists can still stay true to that understanding and have it be a kind of ethos... just a very different one than we had when I formed my opinions on music.
What I'm saying is, artists can still perform acts of betrayal, and lose their credibility to their audience. So, they must have some to lose it. It's more that licensing their music is not one of those acts anymore.
> Are you saying the actual anachronism is that artists are even associated with credibility, integrity, or authenticity to sell out in the first place?
ska can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what ska is saying is that the focus of the population is currently on artists who don't value their authenticity.
There remain many artists who are associated with authenticity, but they've lost the focus of the general population (for now).
Yes, that's close to what I had in mind. I don't think it's even so much that the (popular) artists don't value their authenticity is that it isn't part of the conversation as much because it's not in tension with the work they are doing. At other times, there is more tension.
Their personal view of their authenticity is not at conflict with selling the sound track to a commercial is all. I would bet largely it's quite the opposite, they wouldn't be the authentic them if they didn't take the payout.
There are certainly some genres where the audience values this sense of authenticity of course. That and people like Waits who actively cultivate this as part of their public image. Otherwise I wouldn't expect it as a norm.
Personally, I'm still waiting to see Maynard sing Hooker With a Penis on a Coke commercial.
I think we're saying roughly the same thing. Authenticity is a potential red herring anyway, but essentially something like licensing a track to a mainstream commercial isn't in tension with either how they present their music, or how their fans think of their music and other output. No tension there means no problem.
For some artists, embracing commercialism is more authentic than pretending not to care about money.
Being a successful businesswoman is part of Taylor Swift's artistic identity, where it wasn't for Loretta Lynn. Selling sneakers is part of Kanye West's artistic identity, where it wasn't for Tupac. It doesn't make any of them less authentic.
Meanwhile, I can't imagine any band in the punk or metal genres making it very far if they leaned into commercialism. That would not be authentic at all.
Selling out isn’t a thing anymore because everyone has sold out long ago.
It’s just common to have no integrity and often even celebrated (get that bag)
Personally, I think it's more a change in how artists view themselves in relation to the market—and how audiences view them as well—and that artists can still stay true to that understanding and have it be a kind of ethos... just a very different one than we had when I formed my opinions on music.
What I'm saying is, artists can still perform acts of betrayal, and lose their credibility to their audience. So, they must have some to lose it. It's more that licensing their music is not one of those acts anymore.