The John Densmore issue is one that ought to make people stop and think for a moment before proclaiming the fundamental righteousness of the man for holding out against the Empire, as was reported in an LA Times story by Geoff Boucher. That Densmore is unrelenting in his resistance to allowing The Doors music to be used for ads—despite the fact that the other two remaining breathing members of the band, Ray Manzarek and Robby Krieger, want to increase their income through the sales of the commercial use of the band’s songs—may seem laudable, but is not such a simple matter.
Fundamentally, the music of any band or performer tends to be sold in some way, shape, or form, whether it is a piece of ticket for a concert or in the price of a bottle of beer in a bar where a band is playing. Or it is the price paid via iTunes or at a music retailer (bricks and mortar or otherwise). When you’re listening to music on the radio—even satellite radio, in some instances—you are also hearing the advertisements, which is the price you pay to listen (and if it is satellite, there is a price on top of that price). So while it is seemingly a far, far better thing Densmore does to keep Cadillac from using “Break On Through (to the Other Side)”—which would have made more sense for the carmaker’s campaign, which uses “Break Through” as its tag line, than Zepplin’s “Rock and Roll,” which has nothing to do with breaking through anything (if they wanted to use Zep, then why not “Livin’ Lovin’ Maid”: “She’s cool around town in her aged Cadillac”)—for $14-million, what, really, is the point? When the music was first heard on FM stations, those stations were selling their time to advertisers for everything from Great Shakes to Falstaff (ads for them done, respectively, by The Who and Cream), so is there some sort of purity here? I don’t think so.
By the time that Morrison gave it up in Paris, he was about one waist size away from being the Fat Elvis of Vegas; somehow, the opening for Strauss’s “Thus Sprach Zarathustra” would have been more appropriate for the Lizard King. Can there be any doubt that he’d have taken the money and waddled? Trust me: I love their music and have vivid memories of a fabulous concert in Cobo Arena in 1970 (a legendary event when Morrison refused to leave the stage, houselights up notwithstanding). But I’d also like to think that the band members earn what they can from what they’ve done.
I’d like to think that the people making ads are clever enough to come up with ideas that don’t require them to use what some people consider to be “sacred” music. I’d also like to think that filmmakers could do the same thing. But guess what? They can’t, apparently. How many soundtrack albums are nowadays chock-a-block full of what’s been played and what’s now playing? There’s less music being broken in those venues and more being shilled for the purpose of selling seats in theatres (and popcorn, sodas, etc.).
The state of affairs is simple: Money matters to musicians just like everyone else. You’ll notice that there are ads on the page you are reading this on. Yes, we too could be considered whores for our art, except we aren’t being paid for it.
Ah, well, ditto. See my comment over here: https://gloriousnoise.com/arch/005396_doors.php
I generally agree that the state of the music industry today has been so bought and sold that the anti-commercial stance of artists like Tom Waits and Neil Young now seems rather quaint. But your basic premise is wrong. Dead wrong. Literally dead wrong with regards to Morrison. I didn’t know him or even see him perform as you obviously did, but I don’t believe it is a foregone conclusion that Mr. Mojo would have “taken the money and waddled.” He walked away from the music business in disgust, grew a beard, got fat and offed himself rather than suckle the safe, corporate teat. Had he lived he might have sold out down the road and embarassed himself as Manzarek has continued to do for decades…but who’s to say? Nothing he did while he was alive suggests this.
More importantly, I completely reject your premise that the medium you choose to listen to your music-Ipod or satellite radio-is in any way the same as hearing a song via a soft drink or shoe company spot. Hearing ads between the songs is NOT the same as hearing the song and the ad together. Do you really think it’s the same thing? I applaud Densmore and anyone else who continues to reject having their art completely co-opted by marketers. We’ve gotten so used to this stuff in the last 20 years that we rarely think about it anymore. We give indie bands like Apples in Stereo a pass on selling their music because we like them and they are struggling to be heard (not to mention eat). That’s fine, lot’s of those bands really do need the money. They aren’t rich dinosaur rockers who are just selling songs they no longer care about… but it’s still kind of a slimy deal. Those songs will forever be tied to those products in the minds of anyone who sees them. Selling that song to a tv ad is not the same as selling a song via a record or a concert ticket. It just isn’t.
Bob
In the LA Times article Manzarek comes off as such a dipstick. It’s like these sixties hippies — and yes, The Doors are only loosely hippies — used to believe in something then and now it’s only money. Yeah, $15M isn’t something I could turn my back on and I can see why the other Doors are pissed at Densmore, but it’s obviously something he’s put a lot of thought into. This goes a long way towards preserving the integrity of the music than “raising awareness” through commercials or whatever. The hook of the LA Times story seemed, to me, to be “sixties hippie not interested in cashing in on his childhood. WTF?”
Bob: While I appreciate your stance, I (surprise, surprise) disagree. To be sure, we don’t know what Morrison would have done. But just think about “Touch Me,” and it isn’t all that far away from a Vegas stage. But let’s let that go.
I don’t think that anyone who truly likes a given song, or for whom it is something related to a formative moment, would feel any different about it if it was used in an ad to sell toothpaste or detergent. To be sure, the context that one hears the music in is definitive. But let’s say that they’re playing “Break On Through” at a health club. How is that any better than a commercial? (Cue some jackass in Spandex yelling out to the assembled exercisers “Sweat, people! Sweat! C’mon!”)
And let’s not make a distinction between the bands who are trying to get run and the dinosaur rockers. With few, notable exceptions, those who may be selling their music to Madison Avenue actually need the money: Face it, in a country where there is no national health insurance, the premiums for those who are older are awfully damned expensive, so if they have an asset that can be deployed for that or whatever else they may want, then why should some notion of “purity” keep them from getting it?
It may be damned ugly, but that’s how it is.
You are suggesting that employing a horn section for a song like “Touch Me” is one step away from a Celine Dion-like residency at Caesars Palace? I don’t get that at all…apples & oranges.
More importantly, I still vehemently disagree with the rest of your premise. How the hell is listening to a song via a radio station in a health club the same as that song being used IN an ad for the health club? It’s two completely different things. A public place choosing to pipe in music by an artist is not the same thing as an artist choosing to sell his song directly to a company for a products radio or tv spot. It just isn’t.
I will agree with you on your point about the high cost of health care however. My whole point on this part of the arguement was that bands like Apples DO need the money. Artists at that level are generally struggling to pay the rent. You damn well should make a distinction between artists at this level and the dinosaur rockers like the Stones who can afford health care for thousands of lifetimes worth of coverage.
Bob
Mac, while I respect the crap out of your writing, and know (from Jake and Derek) that you’re a great guy, I have to respectfully but vehemently disagree with your following assertion:
I don’t think that anyone who truly likes a given song, or for whom it is something related to a formative moment, would feel any different about it if it was used in an ad to sell toothpaste or detergent.
Um, for me, seeing “Won’t Get Fooled Again” in a car commercial, the overture from Tommy in an ad for a prescription allergy medicine, and frankly, “Lust For Life” in a cruise line commercial most definitely changes the way I listen to these songs once I’ve heard their usage in the context of a commercial. In fact, your Madison Ave. is COUNTING on that change to have occurred; he’s expecting that the next time I hear Roger Daltrey scream his nuts off, which was once a triumphant scream to me, that I’m gonna think of German automobiles in a controlled slomo spinout on wet pavement. And the next time I hear the overture from Tommy, I’m gonna think the same thing I did last time I heard it: “That goddamn prick Townshend; why the fuck did he have to go and sell out a cherished piece of my musical life for some loose change?”
Now granted, I might be hardcore about this issue; I’m willing to concede that. But that’s why I post to GloNo; we’re all a bunch of folks who feel that music IS worth getting this passionate about. Your typical Madison Ave. ad exec usually doesn’t share that passion for music; his/her passion is typically directed at ca$h. How much can we make for our client, and how much can we make for us? Purity of art or keeping people’s memories sacred doesn’t even register a blink in their synapses.
DJ: Seems to me that if the song in question tatooed itself on your synapses, then it doesn’t lose whatever special nature it has for you. Don’t get me wrong, it pisses me off when I turn on “CSI” and hear The Who; but that won’t make my memories of the band any less important to me.
A question: Why should there be a differentiation between something “in” the ad and something “between” the ad(s)? Let’s face it, folks, if we are hearing (or watching) something that is cast broadly (radio, TV), then it is a commerical endeavor.
And Bob, who is going to be the one who is going to do the accounting to determine whether an up-and-coming band has made a sufficient amount of money such that its music can no longer be used for an advert without them being deemed “sell outs”? Strikes me as a moral calculus that is far, far too complicated.
We won’t get fooled again, right guys?
Mac.
I think the difference for me, Mac, when a song is sold for a commercial, is that I perceive that the band in question doesn’t hold their art (and its usage) to the same standard that I once did. If they’ve brought the commodification of their own creation down to this level, and in doing so cheapened it (in my eyes, at least), I perceive it to be the band saying, “We certainly don’t give a crap about where and how our art is being used, why should you the fan care?” By using it for allergy commercials, they’re pissing on a portion of their legacy. In doing so, I react by revising the image I have of the band, and wonder, have they always felt that way about their music, and I just didn’t see it?
So a question I ask of myself: why does the Who’s opinion of their own work affect my own so much? I don’t have a good answer for that. Maybe since I got into them at such a young age (8 yrs old), and formed opinions based on that first exposure which have probably woven throughout my entire listening experience, being forced to re-conceptualize a song which meant so much to me as being “just another pretty song in the background of just another commercial” is a concept I’m having a little trouble with.
At the same time, the fact that a Minutemen song was used in a commercial and Watt & Co. were completely above board with the fact that the proceeds would be donated to charity, I’m totally cool with that. That was a classy thing to do, and if the Who were to do likewise, I’d probably have no problem with it. It’s just that without that built-in altruism, the whole thing just sounds like a sleazy back-door deal. For baby bands who choose to do it, it’s a shame that the current machine is so rigged that this is the only way they’re gonna get widespread exposure (what with major-label endorsed payola still happening and ever-constricting terrestrial radio playlists). I don’t begrudge them their right to make money; I just wish that it didn’t have to come to that. Because even for them, they always have that asterisk on their resumes/chronologies: sold their music to be used in an ad campaign for Acme Widgets, Inc.. If I were a musician, I wouldn’t want that asterisk on my resume.
The trouble that I have with your argument vis-a-vis the example of the Minutemen, DJ, is that without that contingent knowledge (i.e., that the cash was going to charity), you’d not know whether this was a sell-out or not. In other words: you have inside knowledge. So what of the person who doesn’t? In this case, it is no different than the Who selling out. Or Whomever. The Market is a hungry Beast.
Look: as soon as a band decides that it is going to put something on disc and out in the market, they are “selling” their product. Brutal, but there it is.
Great debate. THE REVOLUTION WILL BE MONETIZED!
Regarding the following (and the pros/cons around it): I don’t think that anyone who truly likes a given song, or for whom it is something related to a formative moment, would feel any different about it if it was used in an ad to sell toothpaste or detergent.
My personal opinion: I think the commercial attached to a song kind of fades away. When I hear “Start Me Up” or “Revolution,” Windows and Nike are far from my mind — if present at all.
The Who, I think, raises everyone’s temperature because they were once upon a time these monstrous “rebels” (sorry, lack of a better word). It would be like having a Rage song in a Chevy ad. The Doors, to me, were always sort of schlocky, so the commercial appropriation of their music would never bother me. Sorry — I’ll wait for angry responses.
Read a great story once — though I can’t verify it. Chumbawamba apparently let a song of theirs be used in a commercial for a car manufacturer and then gave all the proceeds to a non-profit that was some how at odds with the same manufacturer. Pretty cool. But, as someone commented above — would you know that when you saw the commercial?
Funny thing about the Who is they used to write jingles and ad music and it wasn’t a big deal. The cover of the Who Sell Out isn’t so much a post-modern ironic statement as a cheeky acknowledgement of fact. Pete changed his writing style specifically to fill the larger arenas the band was playing, that in itself is making a change for commercialism. I love the Who but they’ve ALWAYS been a commercial endeavor so let’s not get too pissy about their music being used in ads.
As for Densmore, it’s his right as a partner in the Doors (LLC) to reject these offers. I don’t so much care what the reason is. He feels Morrison would not have wanted his music used in ads and Densmore’s opinion is as valid as the others’.
As for the topic as a whole, I am split. Not every song is a piece of art, you know. Some are just catchy little ditties. Does anyone here put “Silly Love Songs” on the same pedastal as “Hey Jude”? Would anyone really be offended if the Archies were used in another commercial? I applaud Tom Waits for his stance because he clearly considers his music art and wants to preserve what’s associated with his vision, but if someone wants to give me $100,000 for my dopey “Little Bit O’ Worry” you can send the check to Derek Phillips C/O Glorious Noise Records.
What if a ticket broker wanted to use “Little Bit O’ Worry” in their ad campaign?
In other words, does the product being advertised matter? To the fans? To the artist?
To me it matters just because I don’t want any association with an industry I think is responsible for killing live music in America. Ticket brokers are scum and I do draw the line there. In this instance it’s not the song’s association (because let’s be honest, it’s just a silly little song with no emotional depth), but my association.
That said, would I allow Bush to use it as a campaign song? Given the subject matter and title, I’d give it a hearty thumbs up with a shit eating grin.
another spin on it. . .
We are putting all of the pressure on the musicians who sell out. But what about the people working at the ad agencies? Presumably, these are people who may actually be fans of the music in question and who think it rather clever that they’ve managed to write the song into their spot. I’m fairly confident that when Page and Plant visited with the people at GM HQ there was more than one suit-wearing Zep fan in attendance. Aren’t these people and those like them more complicit than the musicians who have all of that filthy lucre dangled in front of them?
Mac, I think one big thing that you’re assuming in this argument is that the people who are cheering Densmore’s decision are the ones who equate selling CD’s of your music with selling it to a commercial. It’s not that simple.
I’ve made the point here a few times before that most ad execs are not as evil as they’re made out to be: usually they’re just twenty or thirtysomethings that think it would be cool to involve the music they grew up with into something that they love. I’m a little jealous that they get to do it, really.
But it’s also a matter of what’s in good taste and what isn’t: there’s no rulebook that clearly says “Okay, maybe you shouldn’t make dick jokes or bash Republicans in front of your co-workers like you do with your friends,” it’s just something most of us know to be inappropriate. Likewise, while it may be okay to use a Buzzcocks song to sell Toyotas, I’d like to think most people would know better than to rip off a Minor Threat cover to sell Nikes. There is a line, and the while the former kind of straddles it, the latter is firmly over it. Same goes for the braod spectrum between making money off shows or records and selling your music to hock detergent.
But it all comes down to the artist, really. Moby licensed plenty of songs to car commercials, and in turn donated much of the money to environmental organizations. So good for him. Densmore decided he wasn’t comfortable doing that. And since it’s partly his music, we should respect that decision. As for the reunion tour, I don’t know why he’s being such a hardass about that, but that’s also his decision. Idealistic yes, impractical maybe, but you can’t fault him for sticking with his beliefs.
Steve-O: No, I think that people who are cheering on Densmore are (in part) those who don’t equate selling a CD and selling the rights to an ad. And it seems to me that the former is overlooked with some idealism like pixy dust that makes it all better. The commerical realm is, well, the commercial realm. One of the things that has to be taken into account is the fact that once a musician signs up with a label–whether it is Sony or [gasp!] GloNo–the purveyors of said label want to get as much return on their investment/commitment as they can in the market. The artist in question has become, in effect and in actuality, a commerical artist. I’m not suggesting there is anything wrong or evil about that. I am saying that people ought to recognize that.
And if nothing else, at least things are getting lively on the site. . .and those of you who have chimed in here are providing a great service with your insights: You all are the true artists because you’re doing it for the love of the music. (Hmm. . .of course, maybe there are some ad execs lurking in the wings, thinking of picking up some hip talent. . . .)
Chumbawamba did let Renault (i think) use Tubthumper and gave the money to an italian anarchist group
say what you will anout ray manzarek…remember he helped get X to the world
I think Mac raises a good point about context though. Why should we allow hearing a song in an ad to spoil/override our prior associations with the song? Are our memories so fragile that they can be eradicated by a 30-second spot that runs for a few months?
And why aren’t these delicate associations spoiled when we hear the song in other new contexts? Like if the song was playing on my headphones as I was getting mugged in an alley, would that spoil the song? Maybe.
I don’t know. But it seems awfully wimpy of us to whine about having songs ruined for us by seeing them in ads. Shouldn’t the songs be strong enough to hold up despite the context they’re played in?
Is it that selling your song to an advertiser is just too crass? And the other ways of selling songs are more acceptable because of…something?
And where does “The OC” fit into this argument?
OK, let’s not go crazy here. Ruined is way too strong of a word; I’d use tainted.
“And where does the OC fall into this argument?”
Believe it or not, I don’t have an issue if a song, regardless of the song, is used in any other movie or TV show. Art with art, etc. But commercials is another story.
And I know, the Who’s 3rd album was called The Who Sell Out; I should have seen this coming. The difference back then that they created totally different pieces of music for the commercial, and their songs were kept separate. It’s a nuance, but for me an important one.
Jake, re:
I think Mac raises a good point about context though. Why should we allow hearing a song in an ad to spoil/override our prior associations with the song? Are our memories so fragile that they can be eradicated by a 30-second spot that runs for a few months?
Yes, in some cases. I remember how offended I was when I saw The Cure’s “Pictures of You” being used to sell HP Printers (as if the morons at HP were so obtuse as to not understand simple fucking symbolism). That still bothers me. Other songs, not so much, but that one really rubbed me the wrong way.
Part of it is that most people tend to have some kind of visual association for the music they enjoy, whether it be a memory of a particula place they heard it, or from the music video, or something like that- personally, I can’t listen to “The Killing Moon” anymore without picturing the scene from Donnie Darko. That said, I would much rather my visual association for certain songs (such as “Pictures of You”) not consist of flashy detergent boxes and dancing iPods.
“And where does the OC fall into this argument?”
Believe it or not, I don’t have an issue if a song, regardless of the song, is used in any other movie or TV show. Art with art, etc. But commercials is another story.
I agree with most every other point you’ve raised, DJMurph. But I’m not sure I’d classify the OC as more legitimate art than your average commercial. And I would definitely prefer my favourite bands to profit from advertising something warm and cuddly – like say, an NGO, or sweatshop-free teddy bears – than doing a gig at that bait shop place.
I love the Doors. I have no opinion about Buick cars. So, is Buick trying to buy my love by associating themselves with the Doors? The Doors made passionate music, but I don’t believe their intent was to impassion me into buying a Buick. I think they wanted to increase a sense of poetry and personal freedom,if they were trying to sell Buicks all along, I totally missed it. Most people who love a band, do so because their music is not made to suggest what crap they need to buy.
Advertising is evil. Co-opting rebellion to make money is evil. Yes, I’m a culture-jammer who thinks we should deface billboards and such. Because advertising takes anything and everything it can move product with and homogenizing it, diluting it, pumping it full of high-fructose corn syrup and putting it in a baby bottle so we can suck it up easily.
The whole point of rock is rebellion – when bands are young and angry, they write songs that are a big ‘fuck you’ to the status quo.
The best example of this I can think of is the criminal use of CCR’s ‘Fortunate Son’, where they neuter the song to make it mean the exact opposite of what it’s really saying. By clipping out the pissed off, ‘fuck you’ lyrics, we’re left with the idea that CCR was writing an anthem of love to America, and by association, Ford trucks. So a great protest song ends up as a patriotic marketing tool. It’s cheapened, and much easier to disregard.
And I don’t really blame the bands – hell, if Sony wanted to pay me 10 million bucks to use my song in an ad, I wish I could say I’d tell ’em to blow me. But it would really depend on my financial circumstances.
And you can’t blame the advertisers, in a way – if using rock to sell cars didn’t work, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
We’re the ones to blame because we let it happen and don’t do anything about it. We go right along with the agenda. Stop buying cars, everybody! ;)
As someone who is an “evil ad exec” and works at a large agency, I can tell you that a big reason you hear bands like Apples in Stereo and The Walkmen and whoever in ads is that you have music fans that work in agency positions and are in a position to help out their favorite acts financially.
It wasn’t some 50-year-old marketing director at Saturn that thought the Walkmen would help him sell more cars. It was probably some 25 year old kid that loved indie rock, knew he could help more people hear a band, and did something about it.
The problem, Shecky, is that for better or worse, what the “status quo” these days is not so clear, nor is the reason why one would say “fuck you” to it.
And before the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights movement, the only “cause” was saying, “Hey mom and dad, you can’t stop me from swinging my hips down at the juke joint!”
I’d be very interested to hear you define the reason/necessity of “culture jamming,” why advertising is “evil,” and what/who the status quo represents.
Even defining “rock” can be problematic these days. We know it’s a wanton release of youthful energy, maybe a “release from” social mores? A modern dionysian experience? Maybe a quasi-religious experience when done right? Sure. Dionysian revels were considered necessary in the ol’ days. But don’t forget the Greeks followed their dionysian fests with their tragic plays….
It’s NEVER a moral question. It’s not even a question of “selling out.” It is ONLY a question of having good taste and judgement not to ruin a song for your fans. And that depends on so many litle things.
Travis,
Contact me asap. I have a shitload of catchy songs that would definitely move units: [email protected]
I think my previous post sums up why I think advertising is evil. Advertising works hard to create needs that their products can fill – emotional needs that have nothing to do with the merits of their products. They sell us a lie – if you drive this car, drink this beer, wear these clothes, but this product, you will become the person you envy.
Frankly, I don’t think the burden of proof falls on me. Show me why advertising is good.
And why is it hard to define the status quo? The ruling class is pretty much the same as they’ve ever been.
Also, I don’t think the example of a kid in advertising trying to help a band he loves is quite the truth. I’ve worked in advertising and marketing for awhile, too, and I seriously doubt their motivations were so pure. And anyway, why would a 20-something want to use CCR to sell trucks?
Here’s why advertising is good, Shecky: Let’s say that one morning you get up and are enormously hungry. You check the fridge and the cupboards and come up blank. Then you turn on the TV and see an ad, an ad for something that just may hit the spot. An ad featuring a surealistic king*. And so you get right over to the local BK and pick up a Meat’normous Omelet sandwich. MMMMMM! Just think: a mere 770 calories, of which 420 come from fat, and a mere 345 mg of cholesterol.
Don’t you feel good just thinking about it? Yum is the word and the word is Yum.
*Gee, now that Jefferson Starship is getting its cut from a financial services ad, maybe there’s some way that Surealistic Pillow can do something for the Airplane.
I never thought of it that way, Mac. I heart advertising!
Shecky: the ad that bastardized CCR’s “Fortunate Son” was for Wrangler jeans, not Ford trucks. And [url=http://web.archive.org/web/20021024222625/www.calendarlive.com/templates/misc/printstory.jsp?slug=la-et-baker23aoct23]Fogerty had nothing to do with it[/url]:
FYI.
Was sort-of watching the Cardinals game last night and was presented with Kansas’ “Dust In The Wind” for a Subaru (I think) ad and The Cars “Just What I Needed” for Circuit City. And it struck me — does the perceived “Importance” of the band/song impact how angry we should be if it’s appropriated for an ad?
“does the perceived “Importance” of the band/song impact how angry we should be if it’s appropriated for an ad?”
Absolutely. The use of “Fortunate Son” to sell trucks is ridiculous, given the disconnect between the message of the song and the message of the commercial (very much a “Born in the USA” situation there). In Fogerty’s favor, that song is so damn good, that commercial could never erase the power or message of that song.
Whereas using a more lightweight pop song like, I don’t know, “Walking on Sunshine” (great song by the way) doesn’t hit as close to home.
Shecky, I’m tweaking you because I don’t see life through a Marxist lens. I still think if you work hard enough and have the talent, you can be “the ruling class.”
As far as advertising, it’s outward effect is certainly disproportionate to its product (a toaster is not going to change your life), but here’s why it’s not evil. Your grandpa comes up with a design for a great toaster. He takes out a huge loan and leverages all his capital to invest in producing it. Now he’s got a bunch of people on his payroll. The toaster comes out. Problem is, there’s a lot of toasters out there. So he has to get the message out of why his is “better.” His profits allow his company to grow. Now he’s incorporating to keep up his production. His risk was a big success. It gives hundreds of people livelihoods and it puts you through Harvard. During a game of golf (naturally) you meet Dick Cheney’s nephew and go to work for him. Next thing you know you’re invading a third world country and plundering its resources–
Wait a second, this story isn’t going where i wanted it to…
“Shecky: the ad that bastardized CCR’s “Fortunate Son” was for Wrangler jeans, not Ford trucks. And Fogerty had nothing to do with it:”
Jeans, trucks, same thing. I’m glad Fogerty disapproved of it. It was absolutely shameful.
And barabajagal, if I don’t approve of the current state of capitalism it doesn’t make me a Marxist. I have no problem with rewarding the winners – I just don’t think we should punish the losers.
MMS,
I’m not sure what to tell you about people in advertising having good intentions….other than you’re wrong and/or misinformed. I won’t name which one, but I work at a big agency (it did north of $1B last year) that has the resources to get a song out into America via advertising. Doesn’t make me any better – I’m just trying to say that it takes $ to do these ads you’re referring to, and many little agencies don’t have the resources. So basically, if you’re rebelling against The Man with regards to advertising, I’m working for said Man.
Anyways, there are about 20 of us that get together every month and put together a mix CD of songs that we circulate internally for people looking for songs for ads. Almost everything is new and/or underappreciated artists that could use the money. Your occasional Wilco song or whatever slips on there time to time, but more or less, it’s bands new and and old that never made it over the radar.
99% of the songs don’t make it into ads for one reason or another, but what it’s doing is twofold – one, it’s planting seeds into the minds of these writers and art directors for music that’s out there the next time they’re writing and concepting a spot. Secondly…well, a lot of times people will hear something and go out and buy the album. A much smaller victory, but still…$ for the artists that created the work.
Regardless – calling advertising “evil” is bullshit. If you’re not smart enough or strong enough to resist purchasing something that you don’t want or don’t need because you saw 30 seconds of TV, then I’m not sure that’s anyone’s fault but your own.
MMS,
I’m not sure what to tell you about people in advertising having good intentions….other than you’re wrong and/or misinformed. I won’t name which one, but I work at a big agency (it did north of $1B last year) that has the resources to get a song out into America via advertising. Doesn’t make me any better – I’m just trying to say that it takes $ to do these ads you’re referring to, and many little agencies don’t have the resources. So basically, if you’re rebelling against The Man with regards to advertising, I’m working for said Man.
Anyways, there are about 20 of us that get together every month and put together a mix CD of songs that we circulate internally for people looking for songs for ads. Almost everything is new and/or underappreciated artists that could use the money. Your occasional Wilco song or whatever slips on there time to time, but more or less, it’s bands new and and old that never made it over the radar.
99% of the songs don’t make it into ads for one reason or another, but these CDs still do two things – one, they plant seeds into the minds of the writers and art directors about music that’s out there the next time they’re writing and concepting a spot and need something. Secondly…well, a lot of times people will hear just hear a song and go out and buy the album. A much smaller victory, but still…$ for the artists that created the work.
Regardless – calling advertising “evil” is bullshit. If you’re not smart enough or strong enough to not purchasing something you don’t want or don’t need because you saw 30 seconds of TV, then I’m not sure that’s anyone’s fault but your own. But don’t cry foul when a Devendra Banhart fan offers him a sum of money to use one of his songs for a New Belgium beer and he takes it.
Travis – again, I’m not necessarily referring to unknown indy artists getting some $ to have their song fit to an ad. CCR, the Ramones, Devo, etc. weren’t the result of a few cool guys in an agency trying to get airplay for their unknown indy bands. Even if the bands themselves okayed it, that doesn’t make it any better, IMO.
“Regardless – calling advertising “evil” is bullshit. If you’re not smart enough or strong enough to not purchasing something you don’t want or don’t need because you saw 30 seconds of TV, then I’m not sure that’s anyone’s fault but your own.”
I do ultimately blame the consumer, but still – if advertising didn’t work, how could your agency bill over 1b$ last year? If your firm couldn’t show increased sales to your clients, you’d have no business.
Anyway, I stand by what I said about advertising. You sound like you’re ok, so don’t take it personally. I just think you’re in a (generally) evil business.
(Deep breath) Ok….
Aside from the aforementioned points–the consumer is ultimately responsible for his actions, why should bands deny themselves the chance to make money, et al, I think that the people who resist music in advertising or call advertising evil are adopting a holier-than-thou stance. I understand you love the songs in these commercials, I do too. But let’s not get our respective underoos in a wad about where we hear them. The art-for-money debate is well-worn territory, but in the end, what more is art then something we enjoy? It is not a royal, sacred entity. If you enjoy the song any less because it is in a commercial, well, that’s something I don’t understand. And maybe your attachment to the song wasn’t as strong as you first thought. But it doesn’t “corrupt” the song in any way. The song, as they say, remains the same. It’s only your perception that has changed. And that’s why this is such a debatable topic–it is entirely about perception. The perception that commercials ruin music is one I just don’t follow.
Some context–most of you who know me know that I’m a youngin on the board, and much like The Who song that you fell in love with in high school or college or whenever, the new generation of music that I have the same attachment with is being used in commercials more frequently now–Iron & Wine (in an M&M ad), The Shins (McDonald’s), etc. Although the time I’ve spent with this music isn’t as much as the 30 years some of you have spent with your respective music, I still feel a strong attachment to them. When I hear the songs in commercials, I’M GLAD. The more I get to hear the song THE BETTER. Right? And it isn’t just because the aforementioned bands are indie bands, that’s besides the point. Exposure is exposure, right? And, I hate to break it to some of you, but peek outside of the music-loving bubble we all exist in and, hey, not everyone’s heard “Dust In The Wind.”
To go back to the advertising is evil argument for a second–I can’t point any fingers, because I don’t know any of you, but isn’t it a little bit of a hypocritical stance? Sure, there are injustices in the corporate world. But you’re wearing jeans, right? Or driving cars? It’s easy to take the moral high-ground when it comes to music being used in a commercial, but if you’re that passionately against the advertising industry, move to an island, make your own clothes and live in happiness listening to your cherished music on your iPod. Or, forget that iPod bit.
Agree with pretty much everything you said, Tom.
One thing that I am wondering about here: why is it that many of us are treating “pop”–or maybe that should be “not-so-pop,” given the fact that once something that we once revered becomes tainted once it becomes popular–songs as “Art” (yes, cap “A”)?
Look: by and large, the music that gets produced and released is the music that is deemed the most likely to sell. Strikes me that more often than not, visual artists, for example, don’t say, “Gee, I think I’ll do a painting of ____________ because it is likely to sell” [excepting, of course, people like Thomas Kincade and Jeff Koons], nor do they necessarily have intermediaries who make the decision of what gets released for purpose of the biggest positive financial odds.
Getting back to The Doors: Morrison’s poetic pretentions notwithstanding, I’ve got to believe that there are more than a few cuts on the band’s discs that were essentially known more because of their potential popularity than because of their intrinsic artistry.
hey, not everyone’s heard “Dust in the Wind.”
Hot damn! Maybe there’s hope for the next generation after all!
QUOTE: hey, not everyone’s heard “Dust in the Wind.”
You haven’t HEARD D.I.T.W. until you’ve heard Will Ferrell’s version from “Old School”. Brought tears to my eyes…..
Yeah Herb, that version definitely owns the original in my book.
Mick Jagger, soccer mom.
I know this may be a dead thread, but anyone still interested should check out page A9 of today’s (midwest) Wall St. Journal.
There, in full-page glory, are the Rolling Stones, gathered smilingly around a Mercedes. And it’s not some wicked sporty Mercedes whose power and engineering inspire awe. Rather, it’s some sort of wagon/minivan. Charlie Watts looks like the infirm grandpa that the family just picked up for a picnic. Ron Wood looks like he stole it. Keith Richards looks like, well, an idiot. And Mick Jagger — no kidding — looks like a soccer mom, with feathered locks and an Ann Taylor-esque pink top.
The autographed car will be auctioned off to support Big Brothers, but still…. the photo …. ick.
For a different, slightly less nauseating photo, and more about this promo, you can visit http://www.rockther.com.
Streetfightin’ Men, indeed.
The Stones are actually the godfathers–or grandfathers–of tour sponsorship, so those guys have made shilling a family tradition. So one can imagine that they don’t have the R garaged at their various castles/estates, but, tricked out S-Classes.
as a songwriter, a musician… and artist. i more then just write i paint these songs and they are fully as part of me as my soul and mind.
i dont think i would like to have my face, my image, to be made by advertisement,
let alone do i feel that you seem to miss the point, that sometimes its more about the music then it is about the money…
music is a lot heavier then money, money comes and go’s
music stays.
Yes, and sometimes the repo man and the bill collector just won’t go away.
Consider: any band that signs with a label is subsidizing a commercial venture, plain and simple. If the band distributes its own music, that’s one thing. But as soon as you hook up with someone who is looking for an ROI, then all of this quibbling is tantamount to the “little bit pregnant” argument. I fail to see why it is somehow OK to get a paycheck from a multinational media corporation and not nice to take money from Burger King or Chevy.