"I deeply mistrust the notion that musicians or other artists are 'selling out' when they make a sound commerical choice. A lot of people who have grown up to be stockbrokers or dentists feel that they have abandoned their youthful ideals, and it is very important to them that their idols remain pure, as proof that there is purity somewhere out there in the world. Apparently, musicians don't have to make a living, only dentists and stockbrokers have to do that. So when someone comes up to me and says, 'I admire you because you stuck to your guns, you never sold out,' my temptation is to say, 'Listen: I've been standing on 42nd Street bent over with my pants around my ankles for thirty years, it's just that noboby fucked me yet.'"--Dave Van Ronk
― shookout (shookout), Thursday, 21 July 2005 19:01 (7 years ago) Permalink
― M@tt He1geson (Matt Helgeson), Thursday, 21 July 2005 19:09 (7 years ago) Permalink
― Pete Scholtes, Thursday, 21 July 2005 20:05 (7 years ago) Permalink
― dan bunnybrain (dan bunnybrain), Thursday, 21 July 2005 22:17 (7 years ago) Permalink
http://www.mbvmusic.com/2010/10/19/living-in-the-age-of-art-vs-content
― markers, Wednesday, 20 October 2010 14:24 (2 years ago) Permalink
i got fucked by a stockbroker once,,and he did it right thru his pants..never even bothered to lower them to a respectable ankle height
lmfao
― teledyldonix, Wednesday, 20 October 2010 18:30 (2 years ago) Permalink
Yet some artists start losing their shine after two decades of work. It usually comes down to poor song writing quality or deterioration of vocal range. Most of these end up pulling an album out before Christmas just so they can sell SOMETHING.
― I've played polar pool for far too long (MintIce), Friday, 22 October 2010 02:35 (2 years ago) Permalink
i like the aging singer's honesty about his "comeback" single in the movie love actually.
― Daniel, Esq., Friday, 22 October 2010 02:38 (2 years ago) Permalink
i liked the bit where dave grohl was saying how much he hated stadium rock bands in an interview but now his lips are firmly wrapped around the big dick of some major label
― jumpskins, Friday, 22 October 2010 08:29 (2 years ago) Permalink
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19206509#TWEET190760
Adam Yauch snubs ads forever from beyond the grave
― Get wolves (DL), Friday, 10 August 2012 10:56 (9 months ago) Permalink
that's not about not "selling out," that's about not getting exploited.
― some dude, Friday, 10 August 2012 11:01 (9 months ago) Permalink
It's part of the same debate imo.
― Get wolves (DL), Friday, 10 August 2012 11:07 (9 months ago) Permalink
It's a bit sad that artists now have to specify in their wills "don't do stuff to me after I'm dead that I would never have consented to while alive." But I can certainly understand and respect that decision.
― Chewton Mendip (White Chocolate Cheesecake), Friday, 10 August 2012 11:09 (9 months ago) Permalink
eh at this point if a musician reaches a certain level of fame or iconic status, it gets harder and harder to stop people from cashing in on your image/music even if you don't consent to it. feels to me like a wholly separate issue from people that choose to consent to advertising and other people judging them for it. (xpost)
― some dude, Friday, 10 August 2012 11:15 (9 months ago) Permalink
It's just a thread to post it on. You can't always find the perfect one.
― Get wolves (DL), Friday, 10 August 2012 11:31 (9 months ago) Permalink
fair enough
― some dude, Friday, 10 August 2012 11:35 (9 months ago) Permalink
this thread's a lot shorter than i expected it to be...
― sorry for asshole (dog latin), Friday, 10 August 2012 11:50 (9 months ago) Permalink
Honestly, I think this is a good way to remain irrelevant to future generations. Things have changed.
― Poliopolice, Friday, 10 August 2012 11:56 (9 months ago) Permalink
i dunno, i think Beastie Boys are gonna be pretty well remembered no matter what. and if they're not, it won't be because MCA didn't want their songs in any movie trailers.
― some dude, Friday, 10 August 2012 12:01 (9 months ago) Permalink
Because in the future we will only be allowed to listen to music through adverts.
― Get wolves (DL), Friday, 10 August 2012 12:39 (9 months ago) Permalink
Just curious-how do you think the majority of people in the future will be schooled on the ever-growing catalog of older and older recorded music?
― Poliopolice, Saturday, 11 August 2012 03:25 (9 months ago) Permalink
only if ILM still exists
― a regina spektor is haunting europe (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 11 August 2012 03:27 (9 months ago) Permalink
shit yeah, why you think we put in the hours?
― contenderizer, Saturday, 11 August 2012 05:32 (9 months ago) Permalink
Who gives a shit about "the majority of the people"? Most people who hear music in ads aren't even remotely interested in actually learning about the music they hear. There is no lack of access to, or information about music of the past these days. People in the future will "be schooled" because they are interested in music and want to learn about it and the resources to learn about it are easily at their disposal.
― wk, Saturday, 11 August 2012 06:08 (9 months ago) Permalink
But I'm not talking about whether they will be completely forgotten. I'm talking about cultural relevance. Cultural relevance has to do with recognition. One big way that people learn about and are introduced to music is by hearing it in ads. Just as an example, I'd say Hall and Oates was as close to irrelevant as you could get just a few years ago, but after they'd been featured in any number of ads, suddenly their value as a musical act has risen considerably. They are now getting props from all kinds of people (even audiophiles) who would have either written them off or never bothered to listen to them because of their utter lack of relevance in culture. You could argue that Nick Drake's influence and legacy would be whole lot smaller right now without Volkswagen.
― Poliopolice, Saturday, 11 August 2012 13:30 (9 months ago) Permalink
I don't remember ever hearing a Hall & Oates song in an ad (although in fairness I ignore a lot of ads). What is this "any number" you're referring to?
― Marco YOLO (Phil D.), Saturday, 11 August 2012 13:33 (9 months ago) Permalink
what fools the beatles were to destroy their legacy.
― (500) Days of Sodom (Merdeyeux), Saturday, 11 August 2012 14:21 (9 months ago) Permalink
Just as an example, I'd say Hall and Oates was as close to irrelevant as you could get just a few years ago, but after they'd been featured in any number of ads, suddenly their value as a musical act has risen considerably
dude I've been hearing "I Can Go For That" and "Private Eyes" in clubs and jukeboxes for more than ten years.
― a regina spektor is haunting europe (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 11 August 2012 14:33 (9 months ago) Permalink
*I Can't Go For That
Girls in comedy mustaches + 80's revival
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Saturday, 11 August 2012 14:53 (9 months ago) Permalink
I seem to remember that Nick Drake became more well known after his albums were reissued and the boxset was released in the late '90s. Then the VW ad came after that. The VW ad certainly sold a lot more of his records, but the only reason the ad happened in the first place was that there was already a revival of interest going on.
But that was back when people still watched TV ads. If anything is losing cultural relevance it's the commercials themselves.
― wk, Saturday, 11 August 2012 18:34 (9 months ago) Permalink
I can't hear "stop the world and melt with you" without thinking about cheeseburgers.If the ad makes you think more of the band than the product then it screwed up, so the strategy of cementing a legacy through ads hinges on the ad makers using your music incompetently.
also:
― Philip Nunez, Saturday, 11 August 2012 18:50 (9 months ago) Permalink
Would you agree that songs being used as samples in other songs also breathes new life into them, and creates new audiences?
I think that a song being used in an ad isn't all that dissimilar to it being sampled. It's still a recontextualization and creates another touchpoint for it. The more touchpoints anything has, the broader its reach and the more its impact is going to be. As we are increasingly entrenched in a world of media where there's no shortage of media texts nor barriers to access them, it becomes much harder for any artist or song to gain a strong position of recognition in popular culture. Ubiquity is a way of ensuring that there are many touchpoints, and many opportunities for people to be exposed to it. Ads are just one way of making that happen; others are video games, cell phone ring tones, samples, karaoke versions, youtube parodies, etc, etc. These are all valuable in cementing something's relevance, even if it doesn't necessarily signal quality.
― Poliopolice, Tuesday, 14 August 2012 19:41 (9 months ago) Permalink
It staples the song to a product.
― Mark G, Tuesday, 14 August 2012 20:44 (9 months ago) Permalink
relevance is a slippery quality. ubiquity is a kind of relevance, a very direct kind, and there's certainly nothing wrong with it. but there are are other kinds of relevance, too. some things come to seem relevant or "important" over time due to their inaccessibility.
― contenderizer, Tuesday, 14 August 2012 20:53 (9 months ago) Permalink
i disagree -- there is something inherently wrong with ubiquity in that for the majority of people encountering it, it's spam.
― Philip Nunez, Tuesday, 14 August 2012 21:02 (9 months ago) Permalink
so the less ubiquitous a thing is, the less likely it is to clog up the word's inbox? i can't deny that, but negative spam value is likely proportional to other sorts of positive value, right? for the most part, things are popular (thus spam-like) only to the extent that a fair number of people get something out of them.
"get something out of" doing some heavy lifting there i know...
― contenderizer, Tuesday, 14 August 2012 21:14 (9 months ago) Permalink
i'll grant health care as deserving ubiquity over the protests of a blinkered majority but not vuvuzelas
― Philip Nunez, Tuesday, 14 August 2012 21:18 (9 months ago) Permalink
There are good ads and bad ones. I'd say that the good ones promote the song and the product in a way that doesn't cheapen either. The Nick Drake and Richard Buckner ads done by Volkswagen did a great job; the Burger King "Melt with You" ads, well, not so much.
― Poliopolice, Wednesday, 15 August 2012 17:34 (9 months ago) Permalink
If someone wants to do a quality ad and get paid that's up to them but it's absurd to claim that someone who withdraws from that market (see also: U2, Coldplay, Arcade Fire, Tom Waits, David Byrne, and several others) are going to see their relevance and exposure wane. Ad refuseniks are usually happy to consider movie or TV syncs for example, and that's without mentioning the radio, the internet… you get the idea.
― Get wolves (DL), Wednesday, 15 August 2012 17:40 (9 months ago) Permalink
Arcade Fire did license "Wake Up" to the NFL for the Super Bowl, but gave all the money to charity.
― Darren Robocopsky (Phil D.), Wednesday, 15 August 2012 17:43 (9 months ago) Permalink
Even if you're in a DIY working class band making money solely through local live performances, your music is still being used to sell High Life, PBR, Camel, etc. At least Burger King doesn't kill 16,000 a year in drunk driving accidents.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 15 August 2012 18:17 (9 months ago) Permalink
If someone wants to do a quality ad and get paid that's up to them but it's absurd to claim that someone who withdraws from that market (see also: U2, Coldplay, Arcade Fire, Tom Waits, David Byrne, and several others) are going to see their relevance and exposure wane
Almost every one of the bands you mentioned are old-school artists who got their name/branding while still operating under the old model of music marketing, where record companies promoted them and people actually bought music. I would really like to see what kind of staying power any newer band has while withdrawing from the model that encourages multi-platform exposure to their music.
― Poliopolice, Wednesday, 15 August 2012 19:00 (9 months ago) Permalink
we'll see what we will see
― contenderizer, Wednesday, 15 August 2012 19:09 (9 months ago) Permalink
I'm not 100% against songs in ads but I think there's kind of a continuum where being featured in a well-directed commercial that fits the atmosphere of the song > being featured in an ad where the context is kind of off > being featured in a just flat-out awful, irritating ad > actually having the lyrics of your song changed into a jingle for the product > being featured in an ad for some kind of hateful or evil product
― bert yansh (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 15 August 2012 20:04 (9 months ago) Permalink
And I think anything beyond the first one risks diminishing the power of the song. E.g. there are a lot of great old motown and other 60s soul hits that I can never hear without thinking of nabisco products or some fast food chain, although granted it's not like Mr. Big Stuff would have been exceptionally important and meaningful to me otherwise.
I'd also ad a subcategory somewhere in the third or fourth one there for ads where even though the lyrics aren't actually changed, certain words in the song are emphasized because they refer to something about the product, or the announcer speaks words that are in the lyrics. "Do what you wanna do at the Wal-Mart back to school sale! Because it's your thing!" etc.
― bert yansh (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 15 August 2012 20:07 (9 months ago) Permalink
there are a lot of great old motown and other 60s soul hits that I can never hear without thinking of nabisco products or some fast food chain
Yeah, but you kinda forget those ads and just remember the songs. Unless off the top of your head you can list the specific product and specific song.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 15 August 2012 20:09 (9 months ago) Permalink
Even if I can't remember the product I usually get the sound of an announcer in my head. Mr. Big Stuff was Oreo Big Stuff, fwiw.
― bert yansh (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 15 August 2012 20:10 (9 months ago) Permalink
and like a lot of people said in the CCR thread, certain types of ubiquity are inherently devaluing. we become bored of what we always see and hear. value is frequently the product of specialness, even rarity.
― contenderizer, Wednesday, 15 August 2012 20:12 (9 months ago) Permalink