VR section

[stolat]

To answer your second question: "Why shouldn't an artist be allowed to do a favour for a record company if they ask for one?"

Let's take the words "record company" - a record company is a money making business. In asking an artist for a favour, depending on what it may be, the company may be exploting the artist for their own greedy needs. ARTIST EXPLOITATION.

On the other hand, the artist and record company may be on good terms. In accepting the offer, the artist may indeed see it as a favour or the artist may have his/her own agenda such as publicity, money or some aother reward. SELL OUT.

That being said, let's look at the word "artist". True artists by nature tend to be creative, sensitive souls, often with a message to tell. Many artists would rather starve than compromise their talent. In the case of the "true artist", the bohemain, if you like, if he or she decides to do a favour for a record company it tends to be FROM THE HEART.

[Skeba]

To answer your second question: "Why shouldn't an artist be allowed to do a favour for a record company if they ask for one?"

Let's take the words "record company" - a record company is a money making business. In asking an artist for a favour, depending on what it may be, the company may be exploting the artist for their own greedy needs. ARTIST EXPLOITATION.

On the other hand, the artist and record company may be on good terms. In accepting the offer, the artist may indeed see it as a favour or the artist may have his/her own agenda such as publicity, money or some aother reward. SELL OUT.

That being said, let's look at the word "artist". True artists by nature tend to be creative, sensitive souls, often with a message to tell. Many artists would rather starve than compromise their talent. In the case of the "true artist", the bohemain, if you like, if he or she decides to do a favour for a record company it tends to be FROM THE HEART.

Am I to interpret this in the way that since Slash is doing work (and I really do believe that the correct and key word here is work) to a record company as a guitarplayer for money, he is selling out? My question is that if a guitarist such as Slash or Richard as guitarists who if not directly, but at least indirectly are under a contract from a money making business (in this case the record label), do some _work_ outside their primary projects (bands where they act as artists), are they selling out or is there a reason why they couldn't be seen as doing work just like every one else who contributes to the society in their own field of expertiese?

[stolat]

I don't think that the issue is clearly that black and white.

Yes, work is work, that may be one motivating factor.

Money can also be very motivating. This is indeed an ethical issue. Ethical issues are never black and white.

We know that Slash is a muliti-millionaire. We know that some young people see Slash as a role model. He has the power to influence the young. In this world where greed often reigns supreme, what do we want the next generation of artists to learn about money?

Two lecturers at uni came up with a model to help students when discussing ethical issues. It is called the CURF model.


C is for circumstances.

You must take the circumstances particular to the situation into account.

U is for the Utilitarian principal.

When taking into account the circumstances you have to anticiapte the consequences. Wiil the action bring more harm than good? Who will the action hurt the most? You must also have empathy for the situation.

R is for Reasoning.

Think about the situation rationally. Dialogue with people (as we are)! Call it a Community of Inquiry.

F is for facts.

It is important that the facts and consequences are put "straight".



As an artist myself, I can discuss this issue with empathy. I can act, sing and dance. I have worked professionally. I could most certainly use my skills to make easy money as an 'exotic dancer', for example, but I won't.....

(Though I did do singing telegrams for a while there........shhhhh.....)

[Skeba]

Not a very popular model from the results google (and google scholar) gave me.. I found no references to any published articles what so ever.. What UNI, and when? Smells a bit like bullshit.

But ok. Lets test this model.

One interpretation in this case of the usage of the model could be as follows:

Circumstances: Slash is a guitarist in a band. Doesn't need the publicity, likes the cash in it. Propably feels no way or the other about the song in question. The artist that is doing the song likes the fact that bringing Slash in helps him/her get some more publicity for her song, and maybe getting some substance to the song. The record company likes the increased sales.

Utilitarian principal:
   Harm: The world has another pretty irrelevant song not to listen to. Both of the young fans that are still influenced by the actual actions and not the music itself of an artist read that he's done something for money (almost as bad as some sportsmen endorsing products they sometimes have no intention of using). I relly don't see the harm here. His work with artists like this has gotten very little publicity when compared to the publicity his primary projects have had. If you're buying a cd just because it has Slash on one track and you know to look for that, it's propable that you know what kind of a track it is, or can look for a sample before buying it.
  Good: Slash gets paid for what he did, record company gets a few more records sold, the artist gets the little solo to the song and a bit more cash from the few more albums sold. Nothing good in a creative sense though.

Reasoning: I honestly don't understand what this means... Talking to other people about what they think the utilitarian principles, facts and circumstanses are?

Facts: I think the facts are pretty much there in the first two... 


I'm propably not using the model right, but I don't see where the problem is. He has a bad influence on the next generation's concept of money? Really? You don't think that's a bit of a stretch and that there might be other things that may have a bit more concrete effect on younger people? Big corporations making more profit at the expense of the normal worker just off the top of my head.

[stolat]

The CURF model was devised by Dr Sue Knight and Carolyn Collins (2000) and is part of an unfinished thesis. They are lecturers at the University of South Australia, Magill. I have permission from Dr Knight to teach the model.

You seem to be ignoring an aspect of the circumstances that I raised in my previous post - Slash is a multi-millionaire.
But yes, you have pinpointed that the record company would probably like the increased sales and yes, Slash must like the money. Fair enough. It depends what value you place on money over art and integrity. One must also consider certain truths about money being a corruptor.

The harm factor: some artists consider that it is not right to compromise one's ideals and talents just for money. Real artists must struggle for their art (I know it sounds corny). Do we tell the next young talented female that it is ok, to do nude work, for example, beacause it will help her get more work. That road often leads to ruin.

The reasoning factor is just that. As this is not a clear cut issue, it is important to share your ideas with other people. Sound them out. Other people may bring another facet to the argument. A reasonable discussion certainly is not one where people use the terms 'that's bullshit' or 'how stupid' for example. If that happened in my classroom, I would ask the student to leave.

You raise the point of big corporations making money at the expense of the normal worker - when discussing facts therefore, one must fully understand the impacts/facts to do with large corporations and worker exploitation......


Emapthy is vital when using the CURF model. Are you saying it's ok for big companies to make money off normal workers even if it can lead to exploitation of that worker? For me, in the world of show business, artists are exploited a little too often and easily for my liking.

I guess in the end, the question is - would you do it?
You can only answer for your own actions.

[Skeba]

The CURF model was devised by Dr Sue Knight and Carolyn Collins (2000) and is part of an unfinished thesis. They are lecturers at the University of South Australia, Magill. I have permission from Dr Knight to teach the model.

Ok...

You seem to be ignoring an aspect of the circumstances that I raised in my previous post - Slash is a multi-millionaire.
But yes, you have pinpointed that the record company would probably like the increased sales and yes, Slash must like the money. Fair enough. It depends what value you place on money over art and integrity. One must also consider certain truths about money being a corruptor.

I don't think it's about what value _I_ place on money and artistic integrity. It's about where _he_ does, and how does he see the piece he's doing work on. If he looks it as just work and doesn't even try to put it off as his finest art. Just says like in the case of Chris Daughtry that it was no biggie, just done as a favor to the record company. Who's to say what the correct amount of money one must have after it becomes forbidden to do anything just for work and the money in it.

The harm factor: some artists consider that it is not right to compromise one's ideals and talents just for money. Real artists must struggle for their art (I know it sounds corny). Do we tell the next young talented female that it is ok, to do nude work, for example, beacause it will help her get more work. That road often leads to ruin.

No we propably don't go telling next young talented females to go do nude work.. But I really don't think that's comparable. You're making comparisons between a young person and a guy who's seen the industry, is very capable of doing his own decisions. And I really don't think it's compromising one's ideals if the piece the guest is working on isn't even his. It's just an ordered piece of work. Surely some people think that artist should only do art, and not just work for the money. But again. I don't think it's a harm factor. Nothing gets taken away from the purists who'd rather eat dogshit than work just for the sake of getting money. But again I think in this case Slash for example is in a place where he can pretty much do whatever he wants. He doesn't have to reach a certain status by pleasing the public or any of that.

You raise the point of big corporations making money at the expense of the normal worker - when discussing facts therefore, one must fully understand the impacts/facts to do with large corporations and worker exploitation......

Emapthy is vital when using the CURF model. Are you saying it's ok for big companies to make money off normal workers even if it can lead to exploitation of that worker? For me, in the world of show business, artists are exploited a little too often and easily for my liking.

I'm not saying it's ok for them to do that. I was saying that those are more legitimate problems (when talking about the value of money and the ethics behind it) than an artistic integrity over one solo which is put on a song by a guy who can choose the people he works with from pretty much anyone. But let's not get into that example as that's beside the point. But again I do feel that all the facts can be found in the circumstanses and the good/harm categories if covered well. But I'm not the maker of the model so I don't get to decide what's relevant to it.

I guess in the end, the question is - would you do it?
You can only answer for your own actions.

Yes, and you only answer to yourself.

[norway]

Why shouldn't an artist be allowed to work for whoever he wants? Why shouldn't an artist be allowed to do a favor for the record company if they ask for one? Why are those things selling out? How does that make a guy at a VR concert enjoy Slash's solos or riffs any less than if he hadn't performed on a song that deviates from the stuff he generally does. Why is working with N'Sync gay if it's a job and you get paid for it? Maybe his ego doesn't shatter from doing something that isn't concidered by a bunch of no face 'fans' as being 'cool' and 'rock' or whateverthefuck category you feel like pushing them into. Again, I feel like there's something I'm not getting 'cause I don't understand why the guitarists should be compared like it's a competition. The one can never be the other. For so many reasons. So why even try and make your own, and everyone else's life more difficult because of something as fucking trivial as this?

Again.. This is not an attack on anyone in particular.. Just an observation and a bunch of questions that I would like someone answer me.

Because people are brainwashed by the way the media choose to portray the bands

I know I wouldn't work on a tobaco-fabric, regardles of the money...some feel that way about art.
Some places they guard art (paintings etc) with armored guards, how fanatic is that...it's a little the same idea's when artists lend out their talents.

Fortus is/was guitarist for hire or an professional that worked within his own parameters of his intergrity. Then peeps says they're opinions.

[stolat]

Ok, Skeba good discussion. Your reasoning is relevant, you provide explanation to make your opinion understandable, and your reasons for your opinion now sound more credible....(don't take that the wrong way)!

Just some minor points -

Lets go back to your original question: Why shouldn't an artist be allowed to do a favour for a record company if they ask for one?

In attempting to answer the question I considered the obvious money aspect that is pertinent to the situation. In applying empathy to the situation - one must put oneself in the other's shoes - so a consideration of what value I place on money is valid here, if it helps one understand the circumstances better.

Also, in considering these circumstances, we must apply what we honestly know about Slash's behaviour - here, we need not attach any value judgement to his behaviour.......just the facts.

A way to cross check ones reasoning when using the CURF model is to apply that reasoning to a similar situation and see if it still fits. If it doesn't, well then more discussion of the 'grey areas' is needed....

With the utilitarian principle - the right action is the one which brings about the greatest balance of good over harm in the group as whole. There is no room for fence sitting here, it is either right or wrong.

And yes, in the end, ?you can only answer for yourself. A big aspect of the Reasoning part of the model is the ability to think for oneself.

When teaching this model in the classroom, we teach students the thinking skills involved in the CURF model -
consider the circumstances, anticipate the consequences, show empathy, get the facts straight..........
so that eventually students are capable of thinking for themselves.

[BlowUpYourVideo]

This discussion on the Velvet Revolver section sure has gotten intellectual.