"One for me; one for Hollywood" - the economic dynamic of creativity...

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

A brief conversation with a friend who's a film lecturer reminded me of this dynamic, as carried out by the likes of Soderburgh & Clooney, Guillermo Del Toro, and various other film-makers / stars - the idea of making a films for Hollywood (Hellboy, Blade 2, Ocean's 11/12) sandwiched with films for yourself (Pan's Labyrinth, Devil's Backbone, Syrianna, Solaris).

It strikes me as being a pretty obvious economic and creative dynamic to follow, and probably pretty satisfying too, so why can I not think of a single musical artist who works within it? Why are film makers allowed to but not musicians? Do any musicians use it?

― Scik Mouthy, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 15:06 (nineteen years ago)

Isn't that pretty much what the dudes in Wilco do?

― Hurting 2, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 15:09 (nineteen years ago)

With Loose Fur? Interesting idea; side-project as "one for me".

― Scik Mouthy, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 15:11 (nineteen years ago)

erm, Mansun were kinda forced into doing this. Their first album, although excellent, was commercial Brit-pop, their second was genre-destroying mind-melting bizarre brilliance, and then their third was commercial drudgery (after, I assume, their label had a little word in their ears). Then they split.

― unfished business, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 15:15 (nineteen years ago)

They may have tried (or been coerced) but they kind of failed, cos the third didn't sell well and enable them to make another album "for me", as it were.

― Scik Mouthy, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 15:18 (nineteen years ago)

...and Blur would do the "one for me, one for Hollywood" thing within each of their albums, on a song-by-song basis.

― unfished business, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 15:18 (nineteen years ago)

xpost: Well, maybe that demonstrates why so few artists have managed to do this. Once the creative bar is raised, any returns, any retreats, alienate the core fanbase which has essentially been fostered by the superior musical venture.

― unfished business, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 15:19 (nineteen years ago)

thom yorke? (let's say for argument's sake that Radiohead represent the bankable 'Hollywood' side)

i don't know if the neptunes did much of both 'c.l.o.n.e.s.' and 'fly or die' just because they wanted to pick up more indie-pop/rock fans seeing this as commercial booster - or just out of pure personal desire. maybe the latter given how they returned to what they were doing before (skeletal hip-hop and sleek sexy rnb pop) after that and this stuff sold more.

― blueski, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 15:21 (nineteen years ago)

With Loose Fur? Interesting idea; side-project as "one for me".

I think they're all involved in a bunch of different projects, many of which are commercially un-viable, and I've heard them say in interviews that Wilco is sort of their bread and butter that lets them do all their other stuff.

But I think it's pretty difficult for an artist to do this under a single name/project, because the name of the artist is much more directly associated with the work in music than the name of the director is in film. It's not like most people going to see Blade 2 or Ocean's 11 are saying "Let's go check out the new Guillermo De Toro film."

― Hurting 2, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 15:22 (nineteen years ago)

you might argue that 'unkle' was dj shadow's hollywood venture, dunno about yorke, though.

― unfished business, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 15:22 (nineteen years ago)

Scott Walker

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 15:23 (nineteen years ago)

Hmmm - he's not really made a Hollywood one in a few decades though, Marcello...

― Scik Mouthy, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 15:27 (nineteen years ago)

He did a song for The World Is Not Enough so strictly speaking that should read "decade."

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 15:29 (nineteen years ago)

I guess it's down to how an act wishes to be perceived. It's harder for them overall if they alienate their fanbase.

― the next grozart, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 15:30 (nineteen years ago)

you might argue that 'unkle' was dj shadow's hollywood venture

Did it sell better than Endroducing?

― Hurting 2, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 15:35 (nineteen years ago)

It charted higher but ultimately sold a lot less.

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 15:37 (nineteen years ago)

The interesting point is that the film audience seem more accepting of (or at least resigned to) directors doing this - why are the music audience less so? (Though maybe it hasn't really been tested)

Maybe there's a narcissism of small differences thing - or a fear of same - the idea that the "one for you" and the "one for The Man" wouldn't actually end up terribly different.

― Groke, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 15:37 (nineteen years ago)

sonic youth? the sy series seems to be a seperate entity to their albums "proper".

― acrobat, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 15:39 (nineteen years ago)

I guess in shops we look for music by artist name and films by title... are we afraid of being ambushed by "one for me" albums unexpectedly?

― Scik Mouthy, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 15:40 (nineteen years ago)

& maybe audiences resist it because they're worried they will like the Hollywood stuff more!

Literal answer to the question: Randy Newman. Except I dunno if he does the ones for him any more in between the Pixar theme songs.

― Groke, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 15:40 (nineteen years ago)

The interesting point is that the film audience seem more accepting of (or at least resigned to) directors doing this - why are the music audience less so?

Sorry, but I think the answer is really obvious, as I said above. Film audiences aren't mostly going to see a film based on who directed it, whereas music audiences are buying music based on the artist.

― Hurting 2, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 15:40 (nineteen years ago)

Well, like I say, what seems to be showing is that the 'Hollywood' ventures are of their time, don't age well, and tend to meet with ultimate disdain rather than celebration, which is probably why this system doesn't prevail in music: it just doesn't work.

― unfished business, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 15:40 (nineteen years ago)

Yes, sorry Hurting, I meant "the film audience who care about who directed a film" i.e. the audience for the 'for me' stuff, not the wider audience for the Hollywood stuff.

― Groke, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 15:41 (nineteen years ago)

They might meet with "ultimate disdain" but they also meet with lots of cash, which is their main point, really. So they're a success.

― Hurting 2, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 15:42 (nineteen years ago)

Common?

Some country artists follow the Francis Ford Coppola model--do many for Hollywood & one for me every now & then. I'm thinking of when platinum artists do their bluegrass or gospel albums.

― Joseph Kallinger, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 15:42 (nineteen years ago)

xpost Ah I see, like why does the fan of x great director not care that he also made y shitty hollywood movie.

― Hurting 2, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 15:43 (nineteen years ago)

Oh and another really obvious point - it matters much more to music fans (specially if there's a big show-going context to their music fandom) who ELSE likes an act. The "me" fans aren't always going to be especially enamoured of the "hollywood" fans in the context of a gig.

― Groke, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 15:43 (nineteen years ago)

xpost: They don't meet with lots of cash in every case; take that Mansun album, for instance, which flopped horribly. As Marcello said, Psyence Fiction was a superficial success, but it didn't last.

Movie equivalents meet with far more cash, but I'm not talking about them.

― unfished business, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 15:44 (nineteen years ago)

with music the artist rather than the album istself is the hook, the band = the brand. with film it may make more sense, as a straighter comparison of consumption rather than production, to talk about actors in this regard. george clooney seems to do the "one for me", "one for hollywood" thing. maybe some portion of his fanbase select which "george" is their "george".

― acrobat, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 15:48 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.