OK ... tried to start my own thread and was turned on to this thread by a mod. So I'll repost here ...

Normally, I treat the whole thing about bands selling out, and all the talk about it by music fans, as bunk. As far as I'm concerned, if band X wants to sell a song to Nike or tell the world "I'm Lovin' It" for thousands of dollars, they can go for it.

But for some reason, my back went up today when I read Jack White (of the White Stripes) is considering penning a song for a Coke commercial. I didn't flinch when U2 appeared in the Ipod commercial - heck, the Ipod ads broke Jet in North America. As much as I don't like Jet, that gives Ipod some cred in my books. I also haven't really cared when I've seen artists I like in Gap commercials (which Jack and Meg apparently declined to do a year ago).

But I still can't watch the VW ad with Nick Drake's 'Pink Moon' playing without feeling dirty. And the mere thought of Modest Mouse selling Nissan cars gives me the willies. And now, the Stripes.

So I just thought I'd ask everyone's thoughts on 'selling out'. What do you find acceptable? Where do you draw the line? And why?

Your question spans many aspects of music and art in general. Here’s my two cents…

Art is suggestive. It’s open for your own personal interpretation. You associate art with something you like and then it becomes special to you. Without that connection, it fails to become art to that particular person.

For example, when I listen to Craw… I’m reminded of my younger days when I lived near the university and used to sit in on my friend’s radio show. Those were the days. And sometimes a song doesn’t invoke any connection to an event, but perhaps it’s simply emotional. It makes you feel good… it makes you sad… it makes you ANGRY! ;-)

However, when music is associated with a product… it’s pure marketing. And when that happens, if you don’t appreciate the product, you won’t appreciate music… and sometimes that feeling transcends to the entire band. I don’t like Coke. I think all pop is evil… except when mixed in drinks. ;-) If I were to see that commercial too many times, I would be annoyed… and thus, the music would annoy me... and potentially, the band.

You obviously find iPods to be cool… that’s why you don’t mind U2 shouting about them. Imagine if U2 were advertising SUVs… would that change your opinion of them?

We are fickle creatures, aren’t we?

"Strawberryfire" by the Apples In Stereo was featured in a Hewlett-Packard ad (I think it was HP).

There's been dome really great music used in commercials in recent months, but one thing I've noticed is that I tend to remember the songs more than what the commercial was actually for.

I know Jaguar used Spoon's "I Turn My Camera On", but I don't remember who used Bloc Party's "So Here We Are" or The National's "Secret Meeting". Either way, commercials are probably the best place to hear good music on TV.

I've heard Hem's "Half Acre" on some insurance commercial a bunch of times. I love that song. Easily their best.

I also heard an Explosions In the Sky song on a commercial, though I don't remember what it was for.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ericg75:


I know Jaguar used Spoon's "I Turn My Camera On", [QUOTE]

Ooo, that was really cool.

One practice I find really egregious and which I don't think anybody's mentioned is that of changing the lyrics to a classic song in order to hawk the product. I've heard it done twice- with The Supremes' "The Happening" and with my all-time favourite Beach Boys song "Wouldn't it be Nice?"- so there are probably lots of other examples.

Cadbury butchered WIBN to sell their chocolate. I haven't bought any since.

I write for a trade magazine that focuses on advertising. I'm probably in the minority here, but I appreciate a well-crafted commercial.

Some might scoff at the suggestion, but ad creatives are essentially filmmakers (Hell, Ridley Scott was an acclaimed commercial director before making it big in Hollywood). Both rely heavily on music to create emotional resonance. Yes, their motivations are different: One wants to entertain, one wants to inspire people to buy (and, yes, entertain as well). But while a guy like Tarantino or Wes Anderson is lauded for creating a perfect blend of music and visuals, advertisers aren't given the same latitude.

There was a great VW commercial from a couple of years ago. It featured an exterior shot of a guy sitting inside a car in a parking lot, silently making a series of odd faces and strange robotic gestures. After a few seconds, his friend returns to the car and opens the door, and we hear Styx's "Mr. Roboto" blasting from the speakers. I think it's pretty funny.

I'm also willing to bet that few people voiced any concern about advertisers "tainting" the legacy of a critically derided band like Styx. But if a commercial features a critical favourite like The Clash (Levi's) or the Beatles (Nike)....well, people are probably going to be quick to bemoan those "evil" advertisers.

A couple of years ago, VW used the Buzzcocks' What Do I Get? in a commercial. I'm still able to disassociate that song from the ad and appreciate it on its own merits. (I can't say the same thing about Bob Seger's "Like a Rock" unfortunately)

And speaking of the Buzzcocks, their song Why Can't I Touch It? was also used in a commercial here in Canada (can't remember the advertiser). I guess their songs possess a quality that advertisers admire. I eagerly await the use of "Orgasm Addict" in a Viagara commercial.

quote:

Originally posted by Arthur2Sheds:
I write for a trade magazine that focuses on advertising. I'm probably in the minority here, but I appreciate a well-crafted commercial.

Some might scoff at the suggestion, but ad creatives are essentially filmmakers (Hell, Ridley Scott was an acclaimed commercial director before making it big in Hollywood). Both rely heavily on music to create emotional resonance. Yes, their motivations are different: One wants to entertain, one wants to inspire people to buy (and, yes, entertain as well). But while a guy like Tarantino or Wes Anderson is lauded for creating a perfect blend of music and visuals, advertisers aren't given the same latitude.

I agree with you on all counts. I used to work in the video production industry (the company I worked for used to do most of the Dodge commericals in the late '90s), and I can say for certain that creativity is a prime motivating force for just about everyone making a commercial.

I love a well crafted commercial, whether it be humorous (the Burger King commercials) or just plain cool (the Jaguar commercial featuring "I Turn My Camera On")

What e. said, A2S. You put it really well and I couldn't be more in agreement with you.

Oh, and if I'm going to dig on Nike (whose commericals are a more often than not an example of what's right in advertising), I should be fair and give them props for this recent spot (WARNING: May not be a good watch for the squeamish).

I can remember watching quite a few of those events live and I think the pairing with song selection is entirely appropriate and well done.

Now Playing: "Paradise" The Ronettes Back to Mono

I was born in '84. In the USA. The year MTV was launches. How do you think I feel? The first time I heard key songs of the '90s, coming of age-- "Closer," "Smells Like Teen Spirit," etc.-- it was ACCOMPANIED WITH THE VIDEO. Both were introduced at the same time. Do you know what a mindfuck of a difference that is compared to people who were born even ten, twenty years earlier?

I will forever associate the Smashing Pumpkins' "1979" with that video. It was a brilliant video. "Coffee and TV"? Yup. "Closer"? You bet your ass, I will. That video was soooo scary to me at 12 years old. "Are You Gonna Go My Way"? Who doesn't?!

Associating visuals with music is nothing new. Smart, creative people have been scoring films for a long time (and if you diss Ennio Morricone or Bernard Hermann, I swear...) and their movies or their respective trailers are, by my MTV generation mind, ostensibly music videos. That leap of perception isn't exactly a huge one to take. Where does "Thriller" begin and John Landis' "An American Werewolf in London" or "Twilight Zone" movie end?

So, to get to the point, I think what really bothers people is not so much the economics of music videos or songs licensed for advertising (because who, really, knows how much an ASCAP fee is going nowadays? BMI? Who cares?), its the fact that a peice of people's imaginations are stolen when an image is put into their collective brain. Michael Stipe said essentially that. he also added, "if you're going to force an image on them, you might as well make it a good one." Which is why R.E.M. has some really fascinating music and concert videos-- with directors from the high-budget Mark Romanek to the lo-fi Jem Cohen.

Now since the people in this discussion DO care about the economics of music (though, if you claim to, I choose to call all of you to rise to the challenge of knowing or at least finding the fee(s) of ASCAP and BMI), I think the only way to give any sort of credibility to art-- which is inherently anti-capitalist-- in advertising-- which nears hyper-capitalist at times; is for artists to embrace the world of capitalism (i.e.: read the Business section for once, you fucking hippie-liberal-egghead-Communist) and participate in responsible, ethical capitalism.

How? U2 did it almost perfectly: They didn't get paid for their iPod commercial; they were IN the commerical and had their faces there saying to their doubters, "Yeah we like this and we staring at you through the TV hundreds of times a day just so you know it, bud;" they sincerely BELIEVE in the product they're selling; Bono seems to have a good repore, genuinely seems to LIKE, Apple CEO Steve Jobs; and most importantly they're on a cutting edge of an advertising industry where most business types are way too complacent, way too safe.
Beyond that, in the way of cutting edge, U2 made every night's show of their Vertigo tour immediately downloadable onto an iPod RIGHT THERE IN THE VENUE FOR FREE WITH YOUR TICKET STUB!! THAT MEANS YOU GET TO DOWNLOAD THE SHOW YOU JUST SAW!!

The only thing they did wrong? Bono was a douche. But he can't help that, now can he?

quote:

Originally posted by Yay!:
Now since the people in this discussion DO care about the economics of music (though, if you claim to, I choose to call all of you to rise to the challenge of knowing or at least finding the fee(s) of ASCAP and BMI)[...]

Though, to be fair, having some understanding of ASCAP and BMI only addresses one element of the overall economic picture. It would be easy to draw a host of misconceptions without having some understanding of publishing rights and mechanical reproduction rights in addition to performance rights (go check out the Coverville podcast for a good example of said misconceptions). Wrap the whole shebang up in a package and cross reference it with the provisions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act as regards music (which has nearly killed WOXY.com) and you'll come to appreciate Creative Commons and the Podsafe Music movement.

Now Playing: "Moon Over Goldsboro" The Mountain Goats Get Lonely

quote:

Originally posted by Yay!:
I was born in '84. In the USA. The year MTV was launches.

MTV started in '81.

Also, I don't know if I agree with your statement that music is inherently anti-capitalist. Yeah, these bands are making art, but unless they're working day jobs, they're probably trying to make money (at least enough to survive on) while doing it.

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:
I agree with you on all counts. I used to work in the video production industry (the company I worked for used to do most of the Dodge commericals in the late '90s), and I can say for certain that creativity is a prime motivating force for just about everyone making a commercial.

I love a well crafted commercial, whether it be humorous (the Burger King commercials) or just plain cool (the Jaguar commercial featuring "I Turn My Camera On")

Well, if you've gotta have commercials, it's better to have creative and entertaining ones than crap. I guess the reason it still bothers me a little bit to see artists license their music for commercials is that I fundamentally abhor commercials, and I guess I've got a little more respect for someone who would rather have nothing to do with them.

Advertising is all about convincing people to buy things they wouldn't otherwise want. That and deception. It brainwashes children and contributes to overconsumption (and hence resource depletion and environmental destruction) and materialistic values. It serves no real economic purpose and is hence a waste of human resources and a source of economic efficiency.

quote:

Advertising is all about convincing people to buy things they wouldn't otherwise want. That and deception. It brainwashes children and contributes to overconsumption (and hence resource depletion and environmental destruction) and materialistic values. It serves no real economic purpose and is hence a waste of human resources and a source of economic efficiency.

How cute and idealistic. And wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:

quote:

Originally posted by Yay!:
I was born in '84. In the USA. The year MTV was launches.

MTV started in '81.

Also, I don't know if I agree with your statement that music is inherently anti-capitalist. Yeah, these bands are making art, but unless they're working day jobs, they're probably trying to make money (at least enough to survive on) while doing it.

Yes, it did. '81. But nonetheless, being a quintessential product of the MTV generation, better or worse, is my point.

I actually said "art" not "music." And I meant in the classic, worldwide sense. The frame I'm working from is very large, here.

Music, musicians, art and artists are, in essence, anti-capitalist, or at least uncapitalist.

cap‧i‧tal‧ism – noun - an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

Most artists rely on a somewhat unacknowledged co-option, from a large group of dedicated fans, a label (unless labels the size of, say, Secretly Canadian are becoming LLCs or Incorporated all of a sudden), a non-profit or a not-for-profit business, a school/university or the state (just usually not America, but the NEA should get credit where its due).

Seriously, how many "artists" do you know that are all like: "I want to bathe in a tub of cash!" Probably none.

quote:

Originally posted by LinnTate:
It would be easy to draw a host of misconceptions without having some understanding of publishing rights and mechanical reproduction rights in addition to performance rights (go check out the Coverville podcast for a good example of said misconceptions). Wrap the whole shebang up in a package and cross reference it with the provisions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act as regards music (which has nearly killed WOXY.com) and you'll come to appreciate Creative Commons and the Podsafe Music movement.

News to me. Googling now.

quote:

Originally posted by Yay!:
Seriously, how many "artists" do you know that are all like: "I want to bathe in a tub of cash!" Probably none.

I've known alot of musicians in my time, and I'd say most of them have a desire to get noticed, which means fame, which is typically accompanied by money. If a band doesn't care about money or fame, you most likely haven't heard of them.

quote:

Originally posted by m.leland:

quote:

Advertising is all about convincing people to buy things they wouldn't otherwise want. That and deception. It brainwashes children and contributes to overconsumption (and hence resource depletion and environmental destruction) and materialistic values. It serves no real economic purpose and is hence a waste of human resources and a source of economic efficiency.

How cute and idealistic. And wrong.

Idealistic? I think it's a rather dark view.

Care to explain?

quote:

Originally posted by Yay!:
Seriously, how many "artists" do you know that are all like: "I want to bathe in a tub of cash!" Probably none.

Maybe none necessarily start off with that in mind, but I doubt very many of them care now that they do.