5 ms·

Tom Waits did some advertising work when he narrated a dog food commercial [1], but I think his artistic integrity is still intact considering all he did was a

Tom Waits did some advertising work when he narrated a dog food commercial [1], but I think his artistic integrity is still intact considering all he did was a voiceover (no singing). In true Tom Waits fashion, when he was asked about why he did it, his response was "I was down on my luck and I like dogs". One of the things I love about Tom Waits is that his interviews are just as entertaining as his songs. [1] https://youtu.be/8h6TYV3Tz00?si=hT51w3JvdGsJTPmW https://youtu.be/8h6TYV3Tz00?si=hT51w3JvdGsJTPmW

chefandy 2y ago
Yeah. I agree that voiceover work is way different than having some amalgamated version of your primary artistic output and advertising copy get slapped on corn chips.
karaterobot 2y ago
> The advertisers are banking on your credibility, but the problem is it's no longer yours. I think nowadays, the idea that doing a commercial damages your artistic integrity is considered sort of an anachronism. For better and worse, I guess, and largely driven by the consequences of technology in any case. But, a similar lawsuit today would probably be about damaging the monetary value of the artist's brand, rather than about damaging their artistic credibility per se, as it was with Waits at the time. It used to be a truism that taking money from sponsors changed your allegiances, and changed the nature of your art. For the worse. Whether time has been proven that true or false is an exercise for the reader. Point is, that's where Waits seems to be coming from. It's not about "they didn't pay me first," it's about the commercial diminishing his credibility because it looks like he might have agreed to do it in the first place.
- ska 2y ago
  > is considered sort of an anachronism. I'm not sure this is true. It was always the case that these things were contextual and based a lot on how the artist/musician/author presented themselves. The whole idea of "selling out" is predicated on the assumption you have some high ground to give up, or at least that the action you are taking would undermine strongly held beliefs of your fan base. When popularity swings more to (obviously) commercially driven output, there is plenty of selling, but less selling "out", as it were. The pendulum will likely swing again.
  - karaterobot 2y ago
    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.
    - kerkeslager 2y ago
      > 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).
      - ska 2y ago
        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.
        jfyi 2y ago
        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.
- m463 2y ago
  > I think nowadays, the idea that doing a commercial damages your artistic integrity is considered sort of an anachronism. Scarlett Johansson might beg to differ. I think some people just happen to create art. I think others make it part of their personal definition, and to those integrity is part of it (if they choose to have it)
_yb2s 2y ago
His interviews are the best… I love how the interviewers are usually bewildered and don’t know what to do with him.
pwillia7 2y ago
I keep a LogSeq page just for Tom Waits interview quotes
justin66 2y ago
> One of the things I love about Tom Waits is that his interviews are just as entertaining as his songs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NMjA2FqRjs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NMjA2FqRjs

chefandy 2y ago

Yeah. I agree that voiceover work is way different than having some amalgamated version of your primary artistic output and advertising copy get slapped on corn chips.

karaterobot 2y ago

> The advertisers are banking on your credibility, but the problem is it's no longer yours. I think nowadays, the idea that doing a commercial damages your artistic integrity is considered sort of an anachronism. For better and worse, I guess, and largely driven by the consequences of technology in any case. But, a similar lawsuit today would probably be about damaging the monetary value of the artist's brand, rather than about damaging their artistic credibility per se, as it was with Waits at the time. It used to be a truism that taking money from sponsors changed your allegiances, and changed the nature of your art. For the worse. Whether time has been proven that true or false is an exercise for the reader. Point is, that's where Waits seems to be coming from. It's not about "they didn't pay me first," it's about the commercial diminishing his credibility because it looks like he might have agreed to do it in the first place.

ska 2y ago
> is considered sort of an anachronism. I'm not sure this is true. It was always the case that these things were contextual and based a lot on how the artist/musician/author presented themselves. The whole idea of "selling out" is predicated on the assumption you have some high ground to give up, or at least that the action you are taking would undermine strongly held beliefs of your fan base. When popularity swings more to (obviously) commercially driven output, there is plenty of selling, but less selling "out", as it were. The pendulum will likely swing again.
- karaterobot 2y ago
  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.
  - kerkeslager 2y ago
    > 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).
    - ska 2y ago
      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.
      - jfyi 2y ago
        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.
m463 2y ago
> I think nowadays, the idea that doing a commercial damages your artistic integrity is considered sort of an anachronism. Scarlett Johansson might beg to differ. I think some people just happen to create art. I think others make it part of their personal definition, and to those integrity is part of it (if they choose to have it)

_yb2s 2y ago

His interviews are the best… I love how the interviewers are usually bewildered and don’t know what to do with him.

pwillia7 2y ago

I keep a LogSeq page just for Tom Waits interview quotes

justin66 2y ago

> One of the things I love about Tom Waits is that his interviews are just as entertaining as his songs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NMjA2FqRjs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NMjA2FqRjs