The Music Slut Editorial: Music and Ethics
As much as I can, I try to extend this sense of social responsibility to all aspects of my life. This is something I believe very strongly in. Music is, obviously, also a large part of my life so lately, I’ve begun to ask myself: should I be leaving my ethics at the door when it comes to the music I listen to? In other words, should I stop listening to artists who take money from socially corrupt corporations, or perhaps stopping my financial support of them is enough?
One musical group where the question of ethics is particularly disturbing for me is The White Stripes. In case you didn’t know, Jack White wrote a song for a Coke commercial. I find the Coca-Cola corporation to be morally despicable. I refuse to support their products not only because of the murders in Colombia but also because of their marketing strategy. Advertisements convincing children that sugary, unnatural drinks will make your life better in a time when children’s diabetes and obesity has skyrocketed is simply irresponsible. These same advertisements are plastered all over countries where the average income is less than a dollar a day, where people need rice more than they need coke.
I like Jack White’s music. No, I LOVE Jack White’s music. I think he’s a brilliant singer and songwriter and I lamented hard when I didn’t get Raconteurs tickets. But if I buy his concert tickets and albums, then am I condoning something I am so vehemently against? Someone recently commented that perhaps Jack White gave all the money to charity. I can’t say for sure but, regrettably, all evidence points to no. The list of artists selling their music to mega-corporations is a long one however. Recently, M&M used an Iron and Wine song in an advert, Robbie Williams wrote a tune for Pepsi, Badly Drawn Boy sings in a Target commercial and then there’s My Morning Jacket, Papas Fritas’, Sting, James Blunt, Cat Power etc. etc. I wonder if Robbie Williams felt at all bad when he sang at Live8; Pepsi out sells Coke worldwide.
This debate was probably first raised to the public conscience with Moby and his Rover commercial in 1996. When Moby let his song ‘God moving over the face of the waters’ be used in the car commercial, many people labeled him a sell-out. This strong opponent of the auto industry took money from Rover and people called him a hypocrite for it. Moby had this to say in his defense:
"There's something perversely satisfying about taking money from a car company and giving it to organizations which work to protect the environment. I figured that they were going to make the commercial with or without my music, so why not let them use my music and in the process help out some worthwhile organizations?"I understand the logic behind this statement, I don’t agree, but I understand. My problem is this, how much more money did Rover make because they used a Moby song at a time when he was really popular?
I guess I’m writing this because honestly, I don’t know the answer. I don’t know whether it is all right for me to buy the new Robbie Williams album or if I should have allowed myself to go see the Raconteurs- the decision for which came after 10 hours of debate by the way. I suppose the worry is this: if I compromise when it comes to music, what else will I be willing to compromise on?
I would like to make this perfectly clear before people go into overdrive about this. I do not think myself to be better than you because I believe in what I said. Everyone is allowed to their own opinions and may choose to live their life in any manner in which they see fit. And even if you eat at McDonalds, I'll still love you- I'll just wait quietly outside.
Labels: coke, politics, social cause, the white stripes
19 Comments:
The Music Slut encourages all you lovely people to go out and buy records. That's why we post music here - it's because we want you to hear the songs that are making our day, and want you to support our favourite acts so that they can keep making music (and don't have to go back to waiting tables). If you like it, buy it - don't let the artists go hungry!
Let us know if you're a copyright holder who's pissed at us for posting a song - we'll remove it ASAP!
Shouldn't there be a qualifier in that statement?
"Only if the artist doesn't support evil corporations"
I believe Jen's logic is similar to mine as regards to Nestle Milky Bars:
Skye loves Nestle Milky Bars. Their white chocolatey goodness makes Skye very happy.
Skye disagrees with Nestle's corporate ethics. So Skye (following the dictum so beloved of libertarians to "vote with his wallet") decides not to buy Nestle Milky Bars, depriving himself of that tasty treat, but in so doing, trying (and often failing) to follow his own personal ethics.
Sometimes someone gives Skye a Nestle Milky Bar. Often, he tries to resist. But at other times, he figures that the money's already been spent, and he scoffs the fecker.
Jen is more or less asking about whether we should try to do the same with music. Just replace "skye" with "jen" and "Nestle Milky Bars" with "Jack White" (even if just for the amusment value).
Thankfully, Nestle make it really easy to boycott/exercise the right of choice not to buy the rest of their products by making them taste like poo. Not something that can be said for Mr. White.
I'm not sure about how we draw the line as far as this is concerned; if an artist's work is used by a corporation otherwise unconnected to the artist, then what level of responsibility falls to consumer/artist? I don't think there's an easy answer here, but I do think that the question Jen raises is a valid one, even if I myself amn't pricipled enough to boycott music I love listening to.
I also think that I get Moby's point, and in a way it's how I feel about a lot of so-called ethical consumerism, anyway. I mean, Converse (ethical trainers) is owned by Nike; the Body Shop by L'Oreal, and so on ad infinitum for a whole variety of so-called independent and ethical corporations. So is it better to buy from someone who raises awareness and does something for "causes" despite their connection to big business (i.e. Chris Martin), or to stick to small scale and local indie bands and labels?
I guess for me personally (and ever-so-slightly going off the direct topic), the biggest problem is the way that "choice" is discussed. If you make a "choice" not to purchase a product or service on the grounds of service or taste, then you fit into the libertarian market; but if you exercise choice on the grounds of ethics, you're all too soon derided as a lunatic trying to foist their views on others. And yet all to often, there is no real "choice". Pepsi or Coke? They both taste mingin' anyway (actually, at least in Scotland we can choose Irn Bru, so that's all good).
Jen's had some criticism because she's chosen to make the reasoning behind her ethical choice public on this site. Fine. Criticism is usually good, it makes us re-evaluate et cetera, and ideally that's what boycott and protest attempts: to use criticism as a tool in order to enact change. Since Jen is making a criticism of Jack, then it's only fair that return-fire criticism is acceptable, and knowing Jen, I'm sure that she's relishing the debate. Attacking comments, though, are usually less useful (not aimed at you Laura, rather at some of the other commenters on Jen's previous post). However: on the Music Slut, we make choices based on taste all the time; we've never been flamed as a result (except once when someone disagreed violently following a comment I made about the artwork to Cat Power's new record). Jen's made a choice here based on ethics rather than taste - and isn't that just as valid? And, given that this is a site that comments on music, and, moreover, is one which wears it's ethics on it's banner if not it's sleeve (check out the make poverty history logo in all it's majesty), it is entirely relevant for Jen to post these reasons here. For the life of me, I don't see why we should be constrained into only making choices based on criteria acceptable to big business. And if Jen wanted to give the context behind her reasoning, then that's only right and proper. Without that context, it would be a lot harder for us to respond to Jen's reasoning whether we agree with her or not.
Two points for Anonymous: Yes, I suppose that's a caveat we could add - if all three of us were making the decision not to deal with music made by major artists on huge labels; or even small artists on small labels that are part- or wholly-owned by major labels. That's not strictly the case here. Regardless of whether or not we all agree on this point (and it's not guarenteed that we would), Jen's decision allows her to open up a debate asking whether or not we should extend our ethical consumer choices to the music we consume (since that's the way that the industry seems to see us anyway). And if she wants to convince others to join her, and those people then manage to make enough noise to make J.W. change his position, well, isn't that her right?
I don't think that this is a debate that will come to any kind of easy answer, since when it all comes down to it, these are artists whose music we love; and it's the music that we often feel embodies a certain way of looking at life. The artist, it might be argued, has done something musically that doesn't appear to be commensurate with how we feel about the rest of his work, and it's for all of us as his fans to decide how we deal with that. And one way of dealing with it, is to make it clear that we don't think that writing a song for the Coca-Cola company is a good thing.
Second point: Yes, it is 'rock and roll'. But it is not 'only'; it's important because music, like all art can and should challenge and uplift us. Maybe this is my background as a doctoral student working in Latin poetry coming through, but I find it very difficult to think of music as a form that does anything other than affect the way we think. So in answer to your question - I give a fuuuuuuuck - and I suspect that regardless of any differences in opinion, all of us on the site fall into that bracket.
Had this been about anyone other than White I have a hard time imagining that Laura would be so indignant. The power of unabashed fandom? Yes, I think so.
To say that Jack White has nothing to do with this is absurd. If it wasn't Jack White you wouldn't care and you wouldn't be taking offense to it.
Nothing ever makes 100% sense to everyone.
So, this is the first time you've ever heard someone make a similar claim about not supporting something/someone because of their practices? I take it as soon as you've gotten this out of your system we won't hear about it again until The Strokes agree to do a Boost Mobile Ad.
To make it clear: I wrote the editorial two days before I was offered a ticket and thus two days before I posted why I turned it down. It was not a response to Laura's commentary whatsoever.
Also: I didn't know that information about getting listed tickets, I just started doing this a few months ago you must remember so I apologise for being ignorant. If I had known that the record company buys tickets from the venue then I probably would not have come to the decision that getting on the list was any better than purchasing a ticket. I haven't come to a decision about if my mere presence there counts as participation, that is why I opened it up to debate. To say that I am hypocritical though is not only a comment on the choices I make but also on my character. Disagree all you like, I welcome it, but I would never knowingly be a hypocrite. I struggle everyday with the choices I make on things like this. But after some thought, this concert came under the category of, I don't NEED to drink soda and therefore I don't NEED to see Jack White (and I don't NEED to drink Nestle hot chocolate either).
Anyway, thank you all for reading and taking the time to comment.
What about your computer? Your internet service provider? Your employer? Do you use gas? Smoke? Drink? I don't see how you can compare music or any form of artistic expression to candy, but to each his own. I'd rather give up my computer and ride a bike every day than give up my favorite music.
All good points, Anon. (please use a username, especially if you're making a number of comments - it makes it easier for us to know where an argument's going!), and I'm sure that you yourself also know that in some things you just have to grit your teeth and go along with things. In many ways, 'choice' is the modern shibboleth, given that most companies only offer 'choice' according to criteria that they themselves choose. For instance, here in the UK, if I want power from mainly renewable sources, it's not really possible - it's not an option from most utility companies, and there certainly ain't a whole heap of choice in remote parts of Scotland, although I can choose when it comes to price (personally? I'd rather use less and pay more, but instead I content myself with being *fairly* economical as far as energy goes - but we could all do a whole lot better).
Why do I draw comparisons with a chocoloate bar? I do agree with you absolutely, Anon., about artistic expression being much more than a product (see my final paragraph above); the problem is rather that the record industry tends to see us as consumers of music as a product. Music is sold to us as if it were a disposable candy bar, hence the proliferation of 'candy bar' pop music (which, if I'm being honest, I do tend to enjoy... although I do maintain that crafting a good pop choon is an art in itself, and that the majority of what we're fed by the industry is still sugary, synthetic moosh); and even, to be honest, some of the derivative and phony rubbish we're fed as being 'alternative' and 'indie'.
Jack White et al. may indeed rise above this to produce music that is much more than a candy bar or a sugary soft drink; but I'm not sure that his employers would be in such agreement that this is what matters. What matters is that he sells, and he comes out with new product reasonably quickly, keeping the shareholders happy. If his record sales were to take a tumble do you think he'd last longer than New Coke did? In addition to this, JW has more or less positioned himself into the corporate consumerism corner with this jingle, and if anything, that is what makes me disappointed - the music is connected to the artist, and this act kind of cheapens his talent and his previous work - not to mention that of Brendan and the others.
As for the wider point about services, employers, products, et cetera... well, yes, you're right. But it's not possible to be absolutely perfect, and sometimes the *choices* we're offered don't allow us to make the decisions we want to. But if we were to say that this renders us hypocrites (I realise that's not what you're saying, Anon., but it can be a fairly common accusation levelled at protesters, etc.) would deprive us all of our ability to make choices that we believe will improve the world in which we live. Nobody can live in strict accordance with all their beliefs; and change has to start somewhere, it has to start small, and it has to fit into the wider context of our lives.
Oh, and my ISP is my university, who are currently in the throes of putting together an ethical investment policy, after several years of student protest, so I guess that's a positive change...
Jen why in this discussion/arguement has so little space been devoted to coke's doing in columbia? I don't think on either of your sites you have mentioned exactly what you believe coke did wrong. If the point is to raise an issue and bring it before your audience so far the only issue that has been raised is one of individual choice/morality, as opposed to the actual issue that started this: the alleged murder of workers at coke's plant in Colombia for trying to form a union. I think all of this would have gone far more smoothly if instead of writing soley about your decision not to go, you had simply stated in your initial post, we here at music slut care about things beyond music and recent events have made me think about issue X. Instead lots of bandwidth has been devoted to talking about your post and nothing has been said about what coke actually may have done. I for one would be interested to read a post in which you lay out the evidence of what coke did and let people come to there own conclusions, because if there is compelling evidence (i have only heard allegations about murders) than that might help elevate the level of debate beyond what we have seen here so far.
I'm the Anon above you, skye. That was my first and only comment here. I will use my name from now on.
I'm not trying to play the "hypocrite" card and I agree that change has to start somewhere, but if I were to take your approach I could just as easily boycott this band because Brendan Benson smokes like a chimney. On stage, in photo shoots....he might as well be a walking advertisement for Marlboro. I could have said the same for Jack White a couple years ago. The tobacco industry has been proven in courts to be a corrupt business directly responsible for the deaths for millions of people. Should I feel guilty for indirectly supporting them, not to mention all the kids who see their favorite musicians smoking and pick up the habit because they think it looks cool?
How about the corrupt record industry you describe? Should I boycott all their products, even though they put out some good music?
I understand how all the Jack White fans can go on saying this post doesn't make complete sense, but I'm also jealous that someone can be so righteous and wish that I had the determination to stop buying coke and start buying fair trade coffee.
My problem is this, how much more money did Rover make because they used a Moby song at a time when he was really popular?
...You honestly believe people buy cars because of the music they use in the commercials?
If music wasn't important they wouldn't have used the song right?
Someone recently commented that perhaps Jack White gave all the money to charity. I can’t say for sure but, regrettably, all evidence points to no.
JK do you mind providing us with this evidence? So far I haven't seen any evidence that points to anything he has done or plans on doing with the money. The Gillis family seems to have been pretty active in the community for years. Several members donated money to well construction in a Liberian village:
http://www.lifewater.ca/2003-6.htm
http://www.lifewater.ca/2005-19.htm
Considering how close-knit this family is I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Jack donates a fair share of his money to charities as well. If he has, then I applaud for him doing it behind the scenes instead of using his charity work for publicity purposes like so many other celebrities.
Dear Jay,
Thank you very much for your well thought out and provacative comment. I hope some people out there read it and sought out more information about Coke and the atrocities in Colombia. Instead of discussing the situation there, I chose to link that sentence to the killercoke site where one can read a more erudite commentary about the situation than I could ever write. For me, the issue of gorilla marketing that Coke uses is one that if often overlooked and that is why on this site I chose to highlight it.
Dear Nicole,
In the day and age in which we live, unfortunately any good deed done by a celebrity is rarely gone unnoticed.
http://www.luxist.com/2005/09/06/more-celebrity-donations-for-hurricane-katrina-relief/
I don't blame that on the celebrity. Publicists do their job by promoting the good deeds of their clients. (We all remember that Tom Cruise saved someone from drowning- twice.) Likewise, companies love to publicise any charitable things that their clients do. I'm not saying that Jack White could not have donated his money, but in a time where publicists rule, I do not see this to be true. In addition, I've read a lot of comments about this commercial and I know a fair amount of people- none of which has told me 'he donated the money to charity'. But like the Moby argument, I believe that Jack White has enough money not to do the coke commercial and still donate the same amount he received from it to charity.
Jack White is not Tom Cruise. I just had to say that. I still wish someone would explain to me how doing music for a Coke commercial is different from acting like a walking advertisement for Coke, Marlboro or any other product from a rotten corporation.
^That was me, Janet. I used my name but it didn't work.
Hey Janet, sorry I didn't get round to replying to what you said before. It's a combination of your good points and my supervisor's request for me to 'actually do some bleedin' work'.
Okay, so maybe this will make sense, maybe it won't - I'm thinking on the hoof here, while I avoid working:
Smoking, excessive drinking, taking drugs are all percieved to be bad things, and in addition to this, many good things come from rotten corporations as you point out; and they're all things that many pop and rock stars (allegedly in most cases, I'm sure) do or publicise. For the record, I despise smoking and don't use drugs, and for sure I've got concerns about drink culture, particularly here in the UK - although I have to admit that I'm not 'good' enough to be able to say that I don't get drunk fairly regularly (I'm not trying to be self-righteous here, I just want to situate all this in my own context). So yes, I think it's a pile of crap that you see chain smoking celebrities (Brendan!), et cetera, because in my experience it does influence people, especially the youngest and most impressionable (at least as far as the kids I used to teach went, in that they wanted to emulate those who were rich, famous, and cool).
Where do I think the distinction might lie? Why is it "better" to smoke and "worse" to write a song for Coca-Cola? Well, Jack White hasn't written, or been paid to write, music for a Marlboro ad. He has written music for a coke ad, even leaving aside the matter of whether he's been paid or not, or whether he donated money to charity. Perhaps the thing that's irking people (and it's not just Jen!) is that he's now made a clear link between his music and a huge corporation. But in smoking, or using a product, he hasn't quite gone that far (plus, he may be smoking, I dunno, fairtrade brand happy hippy cigs). It's the link that's been established between the music and the corporation that's problematic. In addition to this, he's particularised it: he hasn't endorsed all colas (although I'd love to see him do an ad for Panda Cola) by wandering on stage with a glass of fizzy pop, he's contributing to a campaign designed to sell more coke (and helping to perpetuate an image of Coca-Cola as everybody's friend when it doesn't look like that's the case).
This is perhaps compounded by the mixture of a big-name, global brand and the 'alternative' nature of the music that Jack's produced, which, despite it's appeal to a much wider audience these days, is still seen as being something edgy and counter-cultural. So it looks like there's a contradiction between what Jack's done in the past, and what he's doing now... (note that I'm saying 'looks like', and not that there 'is'). If he was endorsing a fairly traded soft drink produced by a small, independent company, then there'd (obviously) be no issue at all.
Plus, I guess that there's always the 'ironic' potential... I mean, if Jack walks on stage wearing a Coke t-shirt, and you happen to think Coke are a bunch of wankers, you can always tell yourself that he's being ironic; an alternative icon mocking the mainstream. Or, if you're a foppy aesthete like myself, you can reflect on his appreciation of the logo (which is, whatever you think, pretty fabby), or you say that he's establishing a link between a belief in his own iconic status and that of the brand. The thing is, it's still possible to make a distinction between the two. But when he actually starts pedaling coke, then it's harder to seperate the man and his music from the product and the corporation - and its actions. Harder to make this one work with smoking though; I guess that if someone was actually daft enough to smoke 'ironically', then they'd still end up sick 'n' dead.
I don't know if any of this makes sense whatsoever. I'm not even sure if what I'm saying would be fair, to be honest. We're all contradictory people, which is why we can all get away with being critical of each other even if we're not perfect ourselves; for myself, yes, I do try to avoid dodgy companies and to shop ethically. I don't always manage. I don't always care enough. Sometimes my priorities are wrong; for instance, Janet, you talk about the music industry. To a fairly large extent, I find the music industry to be pretty horrific (although I'm not sure I described them as corrupt; what I mean is that like most other corporations, they look to shift 'product', often without a great deal of thought as to what makes it special), especially the majors, particularly in their treatment of their 'product' and its 'consumers', and I'm sure that there's some real doozies in the way that they produce the physical element of records. Celebrity endorsement, a la Jack White can be a problem for me. But I love music, and I buy it, and I go to gigs. Usually I don't think twice, because what I care about is the music. But what Jen and others have done here is to raise my awareness of something truly terrible that is happening, and now I have to think a little harder. Nothing may come of it - I listened to the Raconteurs record yesterday and quite enjoyed it - but I'm grateful to her for kick starting this debate (and to yourself for some great replies).
And here at the Music Slut, we hope that people are happy to be critical and to be criticised, as long as everyone remembers to play fair and be nice to each other.
Sorry if this makes no sense; I've been editing the thesis all day, and it's getting no better... my brain's turned to mush (although some would say that it began mush, is mush, and will stay much of a mushness forevermore...)
Oh, and something that I meant to add; and perhaps this is unfair... but celebs like Jack I think do have some responsibility in terms of what and whom they endorse. For plebians like ourselves, less so, and we don't have to live with our contradictions in the public eye (well, you know, we on the music slut are pretty much celebrities ourselves, so I guess we should watch out!!!) And they have to make sure that they don't appear to contradict themselves (or aren't percieved to be contradicting themselves) - i.e. the counter-culture versus mainstream as noted above.
Now this might be unfair; but perhaps it is just the price of fame? That when you end up on a pedastal, you're exposed to being knocked off the damn thing?
Post a Comment
<< Home