http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=8069463&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&fullscreen=1
I wish I could have observed the Scion meeting where they decided not just to be a car company, but also a lifestyle brand.
Auto marketing is tied to lifestyle (“sport,” “green,” “luxury,” etc.), but Scion have taken this concept to new heights. They’re sponsoring free metal shows (see, e.g., commentary on Wolves in the Throne Room show; remorse by the band afterwards), they put on a huge free metal festival, and now they have an A/V arm that’s sponsoring remixes (Boris, Redman, etc.), with a fancy website whose main tabs are “ART,” “FILM, “LIFESTYLE,” and “MUSIC.”
The A/V arm even has its own iPhone app. It contains radio stations of many genres (including metal). I deleted it, though, because (a) AT&T;’s network can’t handle streaming content, and (b) the app can’t run in the background behind other processes — a basic, fatal flaw.
I wonder if Scion sees its A/V arm as a viable commercial enterprise and not just advertising. This stuff is serious. And a little curious. Presumably the point is to make Scion seem “hip.” Featuring hipster-hot artists like The Juan MacLean and Acid Girls makes sense. But metal? Do they picture metalheads running out to buy Scion cars? Admittedly, they favor hipster-ish metal (Hydra Head, Southern Lord); it’s not like they’re featuring Krisiun or Watain.
Now Scion has hired directors to do videos for bands. Above is the one for Torche’s new song “King Beef,” from their upcoming split with Boris. The song and video are both great. I’ve never been a fan of Torche, but this song sounds different for them, and I’m digging it. Scion-sponsored directors have also done videos for Pelican (here) and Acrassicauda (here); those are less interesting.
 |
I don’t know what to make of all this. In the latest issue of Decibel (#64, Testament/Megadeth/Slayer cover, buy here), J. Bennett asks Hatebreed’s Jamey Jasta about the ethics of accepting major corporate sponsorship. Jasta answers, “They’re doing things that the labels aren’t doing.”
On one hand, I agree with Jasta. If labels can’t support artists properly, artists should be able to pursue other means of getting their music out there. If that involves an ad or corporate logo — hey, consumers can make their own choices, right?
On the other hand, underground labels might as well close up shop. Corporate resources blow those of labels out of the water. Labels are good for four things: branding, financing, distribution, and marketing. Money takes care of the last three. As for the first — Scion’s brand probably opens more doors than that of any metal label. With proper A&R;, which Scion has shown it is capable of doing, a major corporation could run a street-legit label.
What do you think?
Would you buy an album by your favorite band if Scion put it out? What if Scion treated the band better (no artistic compromise, more money for recording and touring) than the underground label your favorite band is on? What if Scion sponsorship enabled your favorite band to make a living from its music?
I don't see any particular reason why people would take great offence at bands supported by corporate interests, over the longer term. A similar situation exists with professional sports, and while there may have been consternation in the early stages of this arrangement, the marriage of convenience is now generally accepted. The early adopters may suffer some backlash, of course – the WitTR interview hints at some dissatisfaction without giving much away.
I realise some listeners are very picky about the labels on which the music they choose to listen to is published, but I am not among these. I am grateful for any arrangement that allows the bands I love to create their music and get it to my ears (and if it results in touring, even better).
a major corporation could run a street-legit label
Back in the 80s and early 90s I remember a discussion about how indie/alt-rock acts, most of whom were reliably anti-war in their politics, could justify signing to EMI, which owned Chrysalis and Virgin Records at one point but was also merely one division of the gigantic defense contractor Thorn EMI. The Scion issue seems less ethically thorny (pun intended) than that.
I wouldn't buy a Scion, but I'd buy an album they put out without a blink.
I don't care who releases albums by my favorite band – I'm buying it.
Only thing I'm really interested in is how/if Scion is actually making money off aligning itself with "metal" for people who don't like Metal (e.g., WITTR: BM for people who don't like BM, etc.).
Per marketing standards, that Scion is doing what it's doing says more about the consumer and less about Scion. ("Tuning into tunes that are tuned into you" is an unspoken product slogan, right?)
The off-road vehicle never gets off-road: It sits in metropolitan traffic. The body wash doesn't enable threesomes: It keeps some drone from smelling like the fast food he/she vacuumed up during "lunch" at his or her desk.
Products are pitched on fantastical possibilities instead of humdrum realities and they're pitched that way b/c consumers identify themselves with what-they-want-to-be, not what-they-are. It's success all around…
Scion is, in part, financing videos for Pelican and Acrassicaud? Both already make records than sound like collections of jingles in search of product(s).
The fantastic reality is lots of people make choices to support "Scion sanctioned" music, regardless of the connection between the music and its corporate sponsor.
I suppose the humdrum aspect is the music itself continues to be more of the same homogenized, disingenuous schlock preening from the apexes of the "Best of" lists.
It's not the question whether I'd buy something that was corporate-backed, it's how likely it would be that whatever was corporate-backed would happen to appeal to me. It doesn't happen often, least of all in Heavy Metal. If against all odds it did, I would, or perhaps I'd download it and send the applicable money to the artists directly.
its hilarious. we all steal music from bands and labels, basically destroying the label/band relationship. then we are fine with corporate sponsorship of bands and tours. us as listeners are causing this and forcing the selling out of bands, we are our scenes worst enemy.
"On the other hand, underground labels might as well close up shop. Corporate resources blow those of labels out of the water. "
This statement could easily have been made 2 decades earlier if you replace "corporate" with "major labels", and really, I don't see a difference. Scion isn't out to discover new artists, they're out to piggyback on the scene surrounding existing bands, which is little different from the way major labels have viewed independent labels in the intervening decades.
"we are our scenes worst enemy."
"they're out to piggyback on the scene"
What are scenes? What is the relationship between a listener and a scene? Does supporting a scene help good music? Is it the same to support an artist with ones patronage and to support a scene? What is the obligation of the metalhead towards these scenes?
Honest questions.
I think a band's ultimate concern from a marketing standpoint is exposure. If a band has no label, signing with a known indie is a chance for them to get, well, at least somewhat more known. It's a better likelihood that they'll come up in more conversations or be visible more places. If a band licenses music to be used in a commercial, they'll actually get paid and their music will be used on television leading to at least a handful of folks going, "What is that? I'd like to hear that again."
My point is that there will always need to be tiers. I think the "flattening" (I'm borrowing that from NYT asshole Thomas Friedman) of the playing field that we've seen with web 2.0 gives us the false impression that we're always moving towards one unified model. There's 1000s of ways to promote music right now and since there's such a crazy proliferation of artists with as many musical agendas, they ought to all have a place. A band like Hatebreed is way too big for an indie and are playing a style of music that probably acquires them fans wherever they're exposed (as long as the right people are listening, i.e. the kids). I mean, they're a relatively easy sell and stand to gain a lot from as much random exposure as possible.
The same can't be said for bands like Watain, Cobalt, Krallice, and even Isis (as a few disparate examples). These bands have more exclusive appeals and will never be a big TV spot away from fame. But they still need their music to be available. Indies can't be obviated by corporate money because corporate money won't be interested in the music beyond a handful of hopefuls…
Matt – Music differs from professional sports in that the former carries some expectation of purity (whether justified or not) that the latter doesn't have. (Then again, the great classical composers depended on royal patronage – were they accused of "selling out"?) In fact, the point of the latter is to get as many corporate sponsors as possible.
Phil – That history is interesting, given that indie/alt-music is so intertwined with major labels these days. Thanks for sharing.
Stew – Good points. Scion, however, does occasionally align itself with metal for people who like metal – High on Fire, Brutal Truth, Trap Them, Revocation, and a good chunk of the Scion Rock Fest (1349, Cryptopsy, Septic Flesh, TYR, Alestorm, among others) come to mind. That is even more baffling choice than featuring metal for people who don't like metal.
adam – Major labels two decades ago acted a lot differently than how Scion does now. As you point out, piggybacking on the underground is nothing new. But for a long time, major labels wanted to turn underground acts into overground ones, with almost uniformly disastrous results. I don't see Scion twisting bands' arms to write "hit singles." The music landscape has changed, the underground is more viable now, and Scion recognizes that. They don't want to change bands' music; they just want to put a Scion logo behind them.
Helm – Those are very large questions, but, yes, it's good to think about them.
ylvag – The people at Scion love music, but Scion is a division of Toyota. I doubt Toyota would tolerate money funneling into artistic stuff merely for enjoyment. Cost/benefit calculations were involved.
Alee – Exposure is a big concern, but it's only one concern for bands. Maybe they don't want to lose their street cred with fans. Maybe they don't want their music used to sell consumer goods. As you imply, every band will weigh those aspects differently.
In the right context, a lot of underground music could work on TV. To use your examples – Cobalt has passages with tribal-sounding drums: Lost. I could see the intro of Isis' "20 Minutes/20 Years" in a car ad taking place at night, denoting luxury and a smooth ride as the car passes through a tunnel and light washes overhead. Watain and Krallice are tougher sells, but one could always use them in short bursts to denote "extreme."
unfortunately this is exactly what you get when so many people think recorded albums should be free.
If a band can't make money from the most honest thing possible- the music itself – the money has to come from somewhere else.
it is NOT cheap to be in a band that produces music seriously, not to mention the cost of touring.
this is what leveraging fame on the free-ternet is all about.
I am strictly concerned with the art. I see no reason why the opinions of others, who may see corporate sponsorship as a form of the unbearable "selling out" or some other loss of street cred, influence what I enjoy so much. The only scenario I see influencing the bands I listen to, as it concerns corporate sponsorship, is if the money came with incentives that ultimately influenced or altered the art. if a band can remain uncorrupted by the money and still operate with their original intent while they make a profit, more power to them. I think we would all be jealous of such an arrangement.
I don't know about you guys, but I think I'm gonna have to buy a Scion now
read this one a while ago, about indie bands, though:
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/feature/116256-selling-out-to-survive/
It makes me sad to see Scion next to Brutal Truth's name.
Anon4 – That PopMatters piece was a great, thought-provoking read. It's applicable to all kinds of music. Thanks for sharing.
The difference between sports and music is not that in music there is an expectation of purity. The ongoing debate about doping within professional sports is about exactly that – purity. The difference between sports and music is that music is art.
When you refer to music as product and talk about the quality of said product, you're reducing it to a business venture. Which is fine, as long as you're honest about that. Bands that play for Scion, and fans that attend Scion Fests, are supporting various manufacturers that have agreed they will sell more product if they combine forces.
Supporting that is a personal decision, and some people are just interested in getting their drink on and being entertained, regardless of the venue.
For WitTR to play Scion Fest… given the PR they've put out in the past, I don't see how that could be read as anything other than a repudiation of their previously stated values.
Big corporations will always try to latch on to the underground, and will always destroy the elements they manage to snag, but the underground will continue burrowing down, as it has for the past 40+ years.
I've got 2 scion xb's. Not the new shitty PT cruiser look a like body styling. The boxy toaster utilitarian xb's. So good for hauling gear. I should be fucking sponsored. In fact between the members of our band we have 4 scion xb's.
Weird. It's probably not a bad idea as far as advertising goes, as I imagine that making music videos and putting on festivals would be far cheaper than running a print or TV ad campaign and far more likely to actually get through to a younger demographic that is somewhat more resistant to traditional forms of advertising–but at same time it just doesn't make sense that a car company would consider "Brutal Truth listeners" to be a target market.
Not sure the talk above of "scenes" and "the underground" is really relevant anymore. It's not like when I was first getting into music and the underground stuff took some effort (ie seeking out the local record stores that carried this sort of thing, mailordering, tape trading, etc…and of course you first needed a way to find out about these bands in the first place) to even hear the music. Now it's all easy to find.
Underground doesn't mean hard to find. Obscurity in times pre-P2P, I think, was a side effect of the limitations of the postal system and the cost of buying magazines, records, and tapes.
There are at least two types of underground bands – bands searching for mainstream success using the underground of necessity as a jumping off point, and bands making music for the sake of music. Corporate sponsorship will eventually lead to the dilution of a band's musical vision. It's inevitable. For the first type of band, this is not an issue.
The underground isn't a scene, it's a collection of individual ventures that might have similar initial motivations. If 100 HM artists around the globe consciously avoid the wider consumer public for whatever reason, that's an underground aspect to an otherwise generally overground metal industry. It doesn't mean these 100 artists are a scene. It doesn't even if some of these artists are friends and respect each other nor do I think it would matter so much even if some of these artists were located in the same geographical place (although that'd be a notable coincidence).
What makes a scene are the hangers-on, promoters, merchants, journalists, labels, fans, of bands. If you hold one or more of these identifiers, when you say 'support the scene' you are saying 'support me and others like me' and it would also best follow a honest assessment of your own motivations behind this because I suspect they've little to do with the propagation of good music (if anything that'd be a byproduct). Often musicians are also scenesters, but not all musicians are scenesters. Heavy Metal will continue to thrive without any scene around it in the next decades because what it takes to make are a few dudes with guitars and a computer, so if the records are good they'll be around forever. In the past this wasn't so, but in the future it'll only become increasingly easier and less costly for people to record their metal magnum opus so ask yourselves again, are outmodded concepts of support structures and 'scenes' useful to the music you love anymore? Perhaps they're detrimental to them instead?
The draw in these scenes I expect, is the allure of the artistry itself, being close to something magical that is happening. The groupie effect. The benefit is of course, a sense of extended family and belonging. It is disconcerting how large branches of HM stand opposite to these desires fundamentally and how often the 'scenes' around them directly contradict them. A lot of black metal for example I'd expect would cruelly laugh while you and your extended families all melt in armageddon fires, but yet, they put their bands on myspace and have got goth girls in their friends lists.
A lot of scenesters call themselves underground and say they will never sell out and then some of them do when the opportunity arises. But what is selling out, is it just going for the money? It might be watering down the scope and aesthetic of their art so as to have a larger fanbase. It is a fundamental concept in art that the more individual and esoteric it becomes the less of a chance it has to appeal to the masses. My personal opinion is that the best HM is usually of the individual and esoteric type. It only makes sense that when bands of that type become increasingly generic, their motivations need be reassessed. Money might be then, a motivation to sell out but also more importantly just social avarice. It's very difficult to continuously explain to your mom that you've been making these strange records that 50 people listen to for 20 years on. Much easier to explain what this HM hobby is if you can show her a myspace with 2,000,000 views of your band.
Selling out doesn't much have to do with how much money a band has made but how detectable it is in their new material versus older material that they are pandering for a wider audience. If for example, Negura Bunget had made 10,000,000 euros for the record OM, I don't think there'd be as many cries of 'sellout!' as many would expect because the record itself remains a masterpiece.
With all due respect to the artists, I love no band enough to find it acceptable to support a capitalist corporation, least of all one that produces cars. This may seem tight assed, but I put my principles before my aethestic tastes, and so shall they remain. No scion metal for me, thank you.
corporations use music for product identification/customer targeting all the time–everybody went apeshit when VW used nick drake's songs. We're innoculated to it now. I feel it's a slippery slope. They'll take my money, but they'll buy my information, especially if i fit that 18-35 demographic. Well, fuck that. And fuck Scion. Any corporate sponsored festival can eat shit too. I'd rather starve than eat/listen to what they offer. My guess is some former metalhead works in the a/r dept, and came up with a gimmick, just like every other microschtick corps come up with. Fuck off.
I don't understand how the artistic value of a concert is compromised (reduced to a business venture, as todd asserts above) by playing at an event sponsored by scion or another corporation. By that logic, when you play a conventional show, you're reducing your music to a business transaction with some asshole club owner/promoter, and these guys just as set on the bottom line as any corporation. The art, music, magic, however you want to put it of a performance happens in the link forged between the audience and the band during the performance. At that moment, everything else?venue, promoter, sponsor?is background noise.
The original justification of the existence of independent labels was to release music that the major labels wouldn't touch. The idea being that if a band switched to a major they would have betrayed the indie ethic, or more realistically, softened their sound for greater commercial appeal.
This is actually pretty logical for Scion, since their inception they've been an automotive lifestyle brand, focusing on factory custom options.
I don't feel that there's an underground now like there was in the 80s and early 90s, the internet has made the major label hegemony largely irrelevant to anyone who doesn't rely on Best Buy as their major source of music.
If any recording artist sets out with the goal of reaching as wide an audience as possible, they'll need to get a deal with whoever is going to spend the most money promoting them. If they don't, then they can sell CD-Rs from their MySpace account. This is the era where it seems like artists are in the most control of how they want to pursue their careers as professional musicians.
I'd buy a Scion release if the album was good, that's what it's about right?
(personally, I don't see this lasting long, this strikes me as a Hail Mary play to hold some ground in a period of rapidly diminishing auto sales.)
To be fair to Napalm Death, I read an interview with Barney where he stated that the band was unaware they were playing a Scion show until they got there. At that point they felt it would be unfair to disappoint their fans by not playing. Barney says that although they have played large festivals with corporate sponsorship, they probably wouldn't play a smaller show like that again
Napalm Death played a free South by Southwest day party, which was also sponsored by Vice magazine, at Stubb?s with Motorhead, Enslaved and High on Fire. Free Motorhead sounds awesome (and it was), but vocalist Barney Greenway claims that he wasn?t aware of the Scion connection until he arrived at the venue. He and the rest of the band are extremely skeptical about corporate-sponsored events.
?Corporations are always quick to jump on things where they think they can find a market,? Greenway said. ?I don?t want to be anyone?s corporate spokesman.? (From The Daily Texan, the day after the show).
napalm death. interesting. i find it hard to believe that the contract that they signed to appear at this event did not mention Scion, as Scion was the producer of the event, as sponsored by Vice. wow. talk about trying to cover his ass and not standing up for what HE signed up for. i hope accenture signs them for the next endorsement.
It is totally possible that the ND show was entirely arranged by Motorhead's management without the other bands knowledge. I think Matt Pike said something to that affect as well since HOF was on the bill. Plus, touring over 180 days a year, arrangements can be made without the keenest eye to detail. Oh well… I don't hold it against ND for playing the show and then having qualms about it afterward.
@whateverman:
I consider it highly likely that Greenway/Napalm Death did not recognise that the name Scion indicated an automobile manufacturer, if they saw it as a party involved in show promotion. I believe it is a U.S.-only brand – people outside the states would recognise it only if they have an interest in international automotive development.
If a band can play there music at a venue, uncompromised,(think Rolling Stones "lets spend some time together" instead of "lets spend the night together"…Ed Sullivan style) who really cares?
All I can make of it is that traditional makerting is not working like it used to. We DVR television and the internet is even more specific then magazine advertising… what was once considered a marketing dream to reach a "well defined demographic" has probably turned into a nightmare as they are always second guessing whether they penetrated the the right "demo." From this standpoint, sponsoring a concert event is probably a drop in the bucket in terms of marketing budgets. At the very least they can walk away and say that the majority of the people in the crowd fit description "X"… and that they did their job to get brand exposure.
How many Scions were sold to break dancing, fast and furious style hipsters given there first ad campaign??? My guess is not enough, so they have started branching out into what can be considerted other "youth cultures." I really don't think its a grand plan to take over the record industry… I think they are trying to hustle cars the best they can and traditional methods have broken down.
Oh yeah… they are owned 100% by Toyota just like Lexus… if Toyota is willing to pay $1 million+ for a single super bowl ad… dropping some coin on a "free" festival is probably nothing to them.
Looking at the total investment.. you are comparing apples and oranges when looking at the marketing budgets and free cash flow of a major auto company compared to a record label.
Scion doesn't care that much, they are glad we are talking about it and they want us to at least think about buying a Scion next time around.
In the meantime I am still trying to grasp 1349 rollin' in a cube looking Scion… are we supposed to put flames and skulls,. and have white leather to mimic corpsepaint to customize as the "metal edition"… oh no… I probably just gave them another idea!