At 12:38 PM 4/26/2003 -0700, skip Heller wrote:
I cut a lot of slack in a lot of directions, as I think most of us do. Randy Newman doing a Ford commercial is less offensive that the Clash doing a Jaguar commercial, laregly because Randy never presented himself as the only songwriter that matters, nor did he pose as anyone's moral watchdog. Zorn using his music for commercials, no problem. Radio isn;t exactly beating his door down, here's a way to get the music onto the airwaves, and to fund records by people like Mark Feldman.
But it's doubtful that someone like Newman actually needed the money. He does nicely with soundtrack work. The Clash did set themselves up as anti-corporate but they were on a major label from the start. I don't see a clear distinction here where a band/performer is OK to do a commercial just because they've never seemed to flaunt integrity explicitly. I think what's more upsetting to most people about this is that a whole musical style itself which seemed to scream again corporations is now being co-opted- the fact of the matter is that it was almost right after it began.
Devil's advocate time: Remember that a lot of the people with say in advertising-land are people born in time to have been impacted directly by punk rock, and they finally have control over advertising budgets. Instead of spending it on generic crap or even Moby (whose fan I am not, but he sure makes a decent record for that style), they want the chance to hobnob with their heroes -- Iggy, the Buzzcocks, whoever -- plus the chance to be the guy who got the Buzzcocks more money for the use of one song than they ever made off all their record royalties put together. And I don't think that's a nefarious thing on the part of the advertiser. I think it's even noble on his part.
Maybe but the cynic in me tells me that it's their job to sell products and that they're trying to reach a younger demographic when they do these things. I don't know that they themselves are fans of these groups or if they just did some research and found out what might appeal to 'the kids' or be such a kick in the pants to old fans that it would still up attentions and discussions like we're having right now. Remember, advertising is all about getting noticed.
I've done gigs that cost enough money that the club had to have a corpo tie-in. Lucky Strikes cigarettes was one -- which, since that's my brand, I was fine with it. Skyy vodka, on the other hand, I wasn't really pleased with, since I don't drink (at all), and, when I still did, I didn;t care for the product. But I had musicians to pay (and ten of them, at that), and I kind of had to look the other way as to who was paying the bills. When you've got a payroll to meet, sometimes your most valued ideals (pay your band before all else) have to be enabled by backing down on the ones that practicality has a say in (who sponsors the event for the venue).
You know what, Skip? I don't begrudge you of any of this at all. Honestly. And to hell with anyone who does. I think this does point out again that there are not clear dividing lines between when this is good or bad practice. Art and commerce have been butting heads since way back when and so it will be onward... Best, Jason Perfect Sound Forever online music magazine with warped perspectives perfect-sound@furious.com http://www.perfectsoundforever.com