selling out is not selling out?

From Pitchfork, whose opinions I take as a little grandiose, usually. An article about musicians working for The Man (aka corporations.) Begins talking about Wilco & VW's marriage of convenience and moves on from there. Coupla interestint points, if you're into that kinda thing.

Pitchfork Feature: Column: Get That Out Of Your Mouth #36: "There's something wrong with Wilco's new deal with Volkwagen-- and it ain't the money. Sure, some of their fans are crawling around message boards yelling "SELL OUT," but I don't have a problem with a band taking a check from a car company. The problem is what they expect to get out of the deal. Wilco's licensing not one, but up to half of the songs on their new record Sky Blue Sky, to air on TV commercials and on a cross-branded section of the Volkswagen site. As Wilco puts it on their own site, "With the commercial radio airplay route getting more difficult for many bands (including Wilco); we see this as another way to get the music out there."

Wilco hopes to get mass media exposure. And they're not the only ones. Paul McCartney's new disc, Memory Always Full, debuted at #3 with his best sales in years thanks to Starbucks and their Hear Music label-- which means he's doing better with a coffee giant than with Capitol Records. And the other day I got an e-mail from a new band, the 88, telling me that they just signed to Def Jam-- but just as important, they landed a song in a Sears commercial. With CD sales tanking and the record moguls cowering in their cubicles, that Sears ad could be the best exposure they get.

...

At first I balked at this. Licensing a song to a corporation used to mean a quick buck; when did artists start leaning on non-music companies to keep them afloat? But then I tried to take a Wired "rock band 2.0" perspective, where everything's rosy and corporations can be hip and good for society. And now I'm a convert: I think corporations should do even more for musicians. They should put them on their payroll. And there's another problem. While we tell ourselves that in the digital mediasphere, artists have the power to 'own their careers,' I'm starting to doubt that's true. Sure, artists can run their careers as a business. But do they 'own' anything, beyond (sometimes) their copyrights? Or are they more like freelancers, selling their culture and ideas to any willing bidder-- and starving when the phone stops ringing?

In digital media today, corporations are regaining their power as the arbiters of your long-term ambitions. And forget about the disruptive power of the internet: all those get-famous-quick schemes only make this more true. Sure, you can kickstart on MySpace or YouTube. But nobody wants to stay there. The newcomers quickly turn to corporations for recognition and start-up cash; and career artists turn there for stability, and the steady cash that they feel they deserve. Nobody can live hand-to-mouth forever, especially if they resent it. So if they can get a payout -- hell, a partnership-- like the Wilco-Volkswagen deal, they should take it. Working for the man is good enough for the rest of us. Shouldn't it be good enough for rock stars?"