You won't see me out there advertising

[quote]I think that david bowie is one of those admitted sell-outs - like u2. I think the fact that he acknowledges it redeems him.[/quote]

It's not about 'selling out'. It's about gladly receiving blood-money.

I think Bowie is more capitalistic than you're attempting to convey: he is a savvy investor, which is why he has accumulated the wealth he has- Bowie's albums have never sold brilliantly (his riches have little to do with the number sold).

Not necessarily. Doing a commercial doesn't automatically make you a corporate whore, especially when the majority of your career has been spent producing albums that are intentionally not mainstream. If Bowie were a corporate whore, Low and 1.Outside (to name two) would never have been even considered.

There can be many reasons for doing an ad besides corporate whoring or money. For instance, perhaps Bowie really likes Pepsi and that is why he did the commercial. Not likely, I admit, but you never know. Then there's the current XM satellite radio commercial--I don't think Bowie did it entirely for money; seems quite likely to me that a. he likes the idea of satellite radio (VERY likely there), b. he thought the commercial had a really clever and funny idea behind it (which it did), and c...okay, I don't have a C.

At any rate, no, I don't think it's as cut-and-dried an issue as Hicks puts it. But it's kind of subjective. Basically, and this just goes for me personally, I don't intrinsically have a problem with an artist doing ads, and especially, if I like the artist in question, I don't mind it at all. But if I don't like the artist in question anyway, it's just another small point to hold against them. Biased? Sure, but isn't everyone?

Not necessarily. Doing a commercial doesn't automatically make you a corporate whore, especially when the majority of your career has been spent producing albums that are intentionally not mainstream. If Bowie were a corporate whore, Low and 1.Outside (to name two) would never have been even considered.

Low and 1. Outside are artistic endeavors. "Drink Pepsi!" ain't.

There can be many reasons for doing an ad besides corporate whoring or money. For instance, perhaps Bowie really likes Pepsi and that is why he did the commercial. Not likely, I admit, but you never know. Then there's the current XM satellite radio commercial--I don't think Bowie did it entirely for money; seems quite likely to me that a. he likes the idea of satellite radio (VERY likely there), b. he thought the commercial had a really clever and funny idea behind it (which it did), and c...okay, I don't have a C.

I don't care so much about the other ads as, well, the Pepsi thing. I don't care if Bowie downs gallons of the stuff daily: it is a huge corporation earning money off a dumb society through advertising.

At any rate, no, I don't think it's as cut-and-dried an issue as Hicks puts it. But it's kind of subjective. Basically, and this just goes for me personally, I don't intrinsically have a problem with an artist doing ads, and especially, if I like the artist in question, I don't mind it at all. But if I don't like the artist in question anyway, it's just another small point to hold against them. Biased? Sure, but isn't everyone?

I guess so. But I can definitely be driven away from an artist due to their political beliefs or work in advertisements; I am naturally drawn to musicians with similar interests to mine.

But, hey, when I was at that stage where I'd buy a Bowie album just 'cause it's Bowie I guess I didn't give a damn about his Pepsi cola commercial either.

Okay. Personally, it really doesn't matter to me whether someone does ads or not. I really don't see the big deal. UNLESS, of course, an artist has spent their career railing against those who would do ads, said he'd never do commercials, etc., and then turned around and did a commercial for some corporation. That might bug me. But, as far as I know, Bowie never did that.

I'm not really one to throw around the sell-out label much anyway. So long as his doing a commercial doesn't coincide with his career going to shit, I don't care. (Yes, I am aware some would say just that; and I'll admit that his 80s stuff was pretty much sell-out crap, but his 90s work redeemed him in my opinion.)

Oh, forgot to mention...Bowie may well be worth somewhere around a billion dollars. BUT you have to consider that very, very little of that net worth is liquid. Remember, he owns all his songs. It cost him millions of dollars to do so, but he owns them, and THAT is probably where most of the money is. So it's not like he's got a savings account with 970 million dollars in it. I can't imagine he would easily be able to produce more than a few hundred thousand dollars in cash. If that.

I can't imagine he would easily be able to produce more than a few hundred thousand dollars in cash. If that.

I bet you my non-existent trillions he could.

I dunno. There are a lot of people who are extremely wealthy or worth a lot of money but who don't really have that much cash. Take Michael Jackson, for instance. The guy's amazingly rich. But all his money is in things like his house, his ownership of the Beatles' catalog, etc. Jackson would have a TON of money if he SOLD everything, but as it is, it's all net worth and not actually MONEY. And I think it's pretty much the same with Bowie. It's that way with a lot of pop stars, actually, I think. I had a girlfriend once whose father was pretty rich, but actually had very little money. He was rich because he owned a lot of land, not because he had hundreds of thousands of dollars in the bank. So wealth isn't always measured in available moneys.

Let me just take this moment to say I love your icon. :)

Haha, thank you. I saw yours and was like, aww, I'm not the only one with that idea. :)