RE: [off-topic] using songs for commercials
Hi all, Kind of a slippery slope considering this kind of thing, eh? I think most peoples' gut reaction when hearing that an artist has a song in a commercial is that they 'sold out' somehow. The fact that many artists license their music for record promos, video games and now ring-tones usually doesn't get them the kind of finger pointing as they would for having a song in a commercial (that's not even mentioning how they license merchandise to a variety of companies). Not to mention all the corporate sponsorship that's being done for tours. As someone pointed out here, I do think there's a difference when a multi-platinum act does this. Does Sting really need to be in a car commercial? He probably doesn't need the money, right? Madonna and Michael Jackson probably didn't need the money from soft drink companies (but look what happened to them for their trouble). If John Zorn does music for a commercial, I don't begrudge him that at all, especially if this is used to fund his own work, Tzadik and other things that he's then able to do. Also, some performers realize that the perceived integrity of their work takes a knock when they do this sort of thing. That's why there was such an out-cry when the Beatles "Revolution" was heard in a Nike commerical in the 80's. Nowadays, you'll hear not just the Who or Led Zeppelin in commercials but also the Stooges and the Buzzcocks. Somewhere in the ad world in the last 10 years, there was a sea change where they thought 'we can hook boomers and their kids in with this stuff.' This was also reflected in the phone-answering services which recently implemented a choice for 'classical rock' in addition to the muzak we're used to hearing when we're on hold. I think that in all, because this is becoming more and more pervasive, people are getting less inclined to get upset about it. I also remember when they started including commercials in movie previews a few years ago- at first, people in the theatres would be booing at the screen but by now, everyone realizes that this is just an annoyance they have to sit through until the previews and the feature come around. Best, Jason Perfect Sound Forever online music magazine with warped perspectives perfect-sound@furious.com http://www.perfectsoundforever.com
on 4/26/03 9:11 AM, Perfect Sound Forever at perfect-sound@furious.com wrote:
I think that in all, because this is becoming more and more pervasive, people are getting less inclined to get upset about it. I also remember when they started including commercials in movie previews a few years ago- at first, people in the theatres would be booing at the screen but by now, everyone realizes that this is just an annoyance they have to sit through until the previews and the feature come around.
Best, Jason
Jason -- While I agree with you on some levels throughout your post, I wonder if it's a bad sign that people are getting less upset -- "desensitized" might be the better word. When I encounter old punk rock songs used in the service of selling cars -- high-end cars, no less -- I really feel like someone has sold the formation of my ideals up the river. I asked Jello Biafra why he wouldn't let "Holiday In Cambodia" be used in a commercial. "That's not what those songs are for," he said, " and what it would cost me in terms of my word would be a lot more than money." He didn't really go into past that )and for the week he stayed here, it was about the only thing he didn;t go into in depth). he didn;t need to. It was pretty simple for him. Even after it set off a chain of lawsuits that will likely, in the end, deprive him of any right to make any judgement call about the use of his owrk in Dead Kennedys. Do we really want to see Gang of Four's "I Love A Man In Uniform" being lip-synched by a bunch of Pamela Anderson types for an army recruiting ad? (voiceover -- "THE ARMY. AMERICA'S FIRST ALTERNATIVE LIFESTYLE. NOW WITH CHICKS.") skip h
At 10:15 AM 4/26/2003 -0700, skip Heller wrote:
While I agree with you on some levels throughout your post, I wonder if it's a bad sign that people are getting less upset -- "desensitized" might be the better word.
When I encounter old punk rock songs used in the service of selling cars -- high-end cars, no less -- I really feel like someone has sold the formation of my ideals up the river.
Hi Skip, I totally agree with you. Before, I was just trying to share some observations and not necessarily making judgment calls about this. I don't think these are good trends and I think that they may degrade the quality of this music in peoples' minds. When I heard stories like the one mentioned here about Eleventh Dream Day (great band), you really have to wonder. When an artist enters the marketplace, be it on a major or indie, they're engaging in the business of music at some level. I can point to certain instances, as I was trying to do before, where I think some artists have stepped over the line of going from reasonable promotion to media whores but I don't know that there necessarily can be any hard and fast rules for saying 'this is good practice' or 'this is bad practice' which applies in all/most instances. If someone disagrees and has a definitive road map for this, I'd love to see it! Best, Jason Perfect Sound Forever online music magazine with warped perspectives perfect-sound@furious.com http://www.perfectsoundforever.com
I can point to certain instances, as I was trying to do before, where I think some artists have stepped over the line of going from reasonable promotion to media whores but I don't know that there necessarily can be any hard and fast rules for saying 'this is good practice' or 'this is bad practice' which applies in all/most instances.
Moby Play. Media whore like none other. Not a single song on that album was spared from being used on a commercial of some sort.
At 01:21 PM 4/26/2003 -0500, you wrote:
I can point to certain instances, as I was trying to do before, where I think some artists have stepped over the line of going from reasonable promotion to media whores but I don't know that there necessarily can be any hard and fast rules for saying 'this is good practice' or 'this is bad practice' which applies in all/most instances.
Moby Play. Media whore like none other. Not a single song on that album was spared from being used on a commercial of some sort.
Tis true. He did license every single song on that album out for commercial use. It's a great record and it obviously paid off for him in more than one way. Still, that's a bad precedent for sure. Maybe even a worse one is what I heard about Stevie Winwood in the late 80's. Supposedly he was giving his material to the beer companies he'd do ads for before even his record company would get it...? best, Jason Perfect Sound Forever online music magazine with warped perspectives perfect-sound@furious.com http://www.perfectsoundforever.com
on 4/26/03 10:56 AM, Perfect Sound Forever at perfect-sound@furious.com wrote:
I don't know that there necessarily can be any hard and fast rules for saying 'this is good practice' or 'this is bad practice' which applies in all/most instances.
If someone disagrees and has a definitive road map for this, I'd love to see it!
Best, Jason
Believe me, if you're looking for an artistic moral compass that operates on foolproof wrong/right turf, musicians are far from your purview. 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. 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. 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). sh
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
on 4/26/03 2:43 PM, Perfect Sound Forever at perfect-sound@furious.com wrote:
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.
Do you have any idea how rich the Clash are (take it from someone who dated an ex-wife of a bandmember)? And I really do see the distinction between people who use their integrity as a selling point and people who make it clear that their integrity is based on the fact that they are a high-level craftsman for hire. I'd put Moby in the second group. The fact that, in the end, the Clash really were the kind of people who'd sell what purported to be a protest song to Jaguar (not a car affordable by working-class standards)... well, I took it personally. I felt like my youth had been sold up the river.
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.
A) If it's something like the Go-Go's, or other people who had hits, you're generally right. (B) I've met people who have been involved in those deals, and they really had to push for some of these more obscure choices. The Buzzcocks, for instance, sold such a small amount of records that in order to use "What Do I Get" for a national ad campaign, someone with power who loved them, loved the song, and really wanted it to happen for the band was in there pitching because it was a "side of the angels" thing to do. In fact, likely the ad agent would have had to avoid any mention of an existing Buzzcocks demographic, just because their record sales were so scant.
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.
Truth -- I lost sleep over it. I really did. But the greater evil would have been to bounce checks to musicians who have been loyal to me. I stopped doing shows at that venue (Luna Park) soon after, and the sponsorship issue was one factor.
MEEP! Perfect Sound Forever wrote:
This was also reflected in the phone-answering services which recently implemented a choice for 'classical rock' in addition to the muzak we're used to hearing when we're on hold. If you work in a good-sized office, you should find out who is in charge of choosing (and paying for) the music that is played when somebody calls your company's main switchboard and gets put on hold. (If it's not a feed from a local radio station, that is.) My last company paid for a service that offered about two dozen particularly heinous themes at any given time, ranging from holiday music and muzak'd classic rock to the so-called "cutting-edge mix of urban beats and rhythms" and "ethnic sounds from around the globe". I'd love to know who, if anybody, gets paid for the material used in these mixes (or if they're all purpose-written wallpaper developed in-house by the phone service).
I think that in all, because this is becoming more and more pervasive, people are getting less inclined to get upset about it. The last time my current company put me on hold, I actually asked the girl I had called to put me back on hold for a while because I really liked the version of some Mozart concerto they had been playing... it sounded like it programmed to play on a Gameboy.
-me
participants (4)
-
Perfect Sound Forever -
skip Heller -
Taylor McLaren -
Zach Steiner