U2 vs. John Mayer, and the Bogusness of Purity

Kevin Maney warbles: U2's manager, Paul McGuiness, gave a speech at the Music Matters conference in Hong Kong, and told the crowd that sponsorships and advertising are emphatically NOT the way musicians should make money. At the same time, John Mayer's summer tour is sponsored by Blackberry. Who's right? Who's more pure?

McGuiness is quoted saying he does not want to see "artists reduced to the status of employees working for glorified ad agencies." Which, certainly, is the tried and true rock and roll sensibility. No great artist would sell out to "the man" -- which worked when a band could actually make money selling albums and singles. That's less and less the case anymore, and in an essay I wrote for Portfolio magazine, I argued that artists have to move to a model of making money on sponsorships and live performances -- and figure most consumers will get recordings for free.

Anyway -- how does McGuiness explain that U2 iPod that Apple announced in 2004? What, like no money changed hands?

Mayer's Blackberry deal hasn't sullied him, as far as I can tell. Tim McGraw has a Jeep sponsorship. I got an email from Lindsay Friedgood, who works for Mac Presents, the company that landed those sponsorships for Mayer and McGraw. "It is so great that people are starting to recognize the true importance and impact that music sponsorship can bring to the artists and the companies," she wrote. 

Even Beethoven had sponsors. That Archduke Rudolph got 11 major dedications out of it. 

Photo Credit: Larry Busacca/WireImage/Getty Images