Music in Ads

I simply don't accept this statement as true. (Mr. Jones' answer basically sums up why.)

isn't the actual reason for the nausea being announced here, that ad-ppl, who you despise, think a lot of a record that you think a lot of, which makes you feel you might be more like them than you want to be?

And I don't buy that either. Sure, there may be individuals of whom it's correct, but saying it's the "actual reason" is just silly.

Unfortunately, I number myself among those who believe that art can have within itself an articulate, intentional aesthetic communication, and in turn, that that act of communication can be rendered impossible by context. So if nothing else, I resent a lot of the commercial use of music because it doesn't give the music a context in which to sound. It takes the most superficial aspects of a song, beats them into the ground, and rules out the possibility of any kind of aesthetic response that would take longer than 30 seconds to play itself out.

That being said, I've heard more than a few ads that used music effectively, and even some that improved on the original. There's a Bally's fitness commercial that uses "Get This Party Started" -- a song I can't much stand -- but uses a version with some weird edits that chop up the phrase lengths, making Pink's voice enter on strange beats. It's much more interesting than the original.

I guess the bottom line is that some music is as effective -- and even on occasion more effective -- when it's used in commercial contexts. But there's a hell of a lot of music out there that simply doesn't work well in a 30-second spot -- whose entire point is lost in that format -- let alone with voice-overs and incongruous images (or ones that literally contradict the lyrics of the song, when there are lyrics). The end result is that the only access we get to the piece is of the most superficial kind, and so we're left with the musical equivalent of the same force that leads people to say things like "Money is the root of all evil" and "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".

maybe i will at the weekend

"I number myself among those who believe that art can have within itself an articulate, intentional aesthetic communication" => yes phil, and so do i (cf my titanic struggle with Momus over what Garry Wills is talking abt on the Firbank thread on ILE), it's just that i think communication happens in the world and in history, and NOT just in a perfect-forming instant in one person's head then in perfect manifestation abstracted and uninterrupted for all time. "Song" came into being as a form and a behaviour gradually and for a reason: it isn't an axiomatic structure or social dynamic handed out by God and/or Plato at creation. Nor was the formal distinction ad/art.

(In fact the fact that you're citing the Salzburg argt — once you tidy it up historically and factually — will actually drive a coach and horses thru the "anti-pomo" line you're laying down with its help...) ("pomo" in quotes cuz you never use the p-word, thankfully, and I try not to either)

(must stop now as shd have left work half an hour ago!!)

When I first read this I had no idea what you were talking about until I went back and reread the whole thread. My mistake -- the Jones post I was referencing was the "I don't know about this at all mark s." one, not the Salzburg one which I haven't really finished chewing on yet.

(most ads are awful, and most use of music in ads is awful => this is NOT because the use of music in ads is intrinsically and by definition a producer of awfulness)

I backed off on that point when I realized no one was actually saying it on this thread. I later mentioned points being "ventriloquized" because much of the debate is being directed at imaginary arguments. Once again: I'm making an effort to steer clear of passé punk reactionary hysterics here, avoiding not only "pomo" but also "immoral", "whoring", "big business is evil" etc.

hahahahahaha.

There is one song I can think of that will forever be associated with an ad (I guess you have to live in the US to get it tho): Bob Seger's "Like a Rock." There is no way he can ever play that song again without people seeing a Chevy (I think) ad in their minds. However, that took years and years of mindless repetition to achieve. And I bet him and his kids never need to work another day because of it.

The Bank's statement came from spokeman George Bothwell: "We thought the lyrics caught rather nicely the imperative for large institutions, like banks, that they face having to change".

Oh, shut the fuck up. He never appeared on any Gap commercials or pepsi advertisements and didn't allow his work to be displayed on such commercials, either. Obviously you decided to skew the intent of what Bill Hicks meant to serve your own stupid fucking needs.

Die.

fuck that hippy crap."

Spoken like a true idiot. congratulations, dumbfuck.

Your argument is as tenuous as arguing that somebody who has socialist/communist beliefs is a sellout for accepting money for their cds.

Sometimes I'm glad an artist gets exposure (The Sonics with Have Love Will Travel, etc) but sometimes we feel that you're cheapening a song by exposing it to the average person.

What can happen is that we stop taking music at face value and it serves the prupose of being another extension of ourselves. Exploiting "hip" music can make hipsters feel like they're being exploited. Hip people seeking hip music to go along with their other hip tastes.

As for Mr. Hicks, he was hilariious but contradictory. He would rave about gov't conspiracies while simultaneously denouncing "gun-nuts" (why does he think they have so many guns?). He would also talk about how stupid gun people are for thinking that "more guns will mean less crime" when he followed that logic when it came to his opinions about the war on drugs. He thought it was incredibly stupid to think prosecuting drug users it would make anything better. His logic was "more drugs, less problems".

The problem with many "fight the man and/or corporate greed" people is that they define things like "greed" in an awfully shady way. When people come up with ways to make money giving the public what they want it's "private greed", but when they tell the people what they should want it's public interest. It was "Do What Thou Wilt" until they started losing their own money, and then it was "STOP ALL THE DOWNLOADIN'", to cite just one example.

Wasn't expecting to be introduced to the sounds of JIM REEVES through an ad but hey it works!

(or other sounds beyond the one xmas tune...)