I just saw a Cadillac commercial with "Start" by The Jam playing in the background. Along with John Mellencamp doing car commercials, after refusing to allow his music to be used in that manner for years, hearing The Jam plugging a car was a shock. I guess "artistic integrity" has been dumbed down to a meaningless phrase. If Paul McCartney ever gets the rights to The Beatles' songs back from Michael Jackson, will he sell "Revolution" to Nike?

I'm of mixed feelings on this - I used to get mad at artists who would allow their music to be used to sell products, but I don't so much anymore. They have a right to earn a living off their work, and if radio won't play their music but a commercial is willing to broadcast it into millions of homes and actually pay them for the right to do it, then who am I to tell them to live up to my standard of artisitic integrity? Of course, my day job is as a graphic designer, so I have no artistic integrity at all - all my work is geared towards selling crap. Why should I hold Paul Weller to a higher standard than I hold myself?

So if Moby or Goldfrapp or any number of people are becoming big stars by licensing their music, go for it. I remember seeing the movie ATHENS GEORGIA INSIDE OUT and being pissed that what's-her-name the singer for Pylon had given up on music and was working at a Kinkos type place, But she could pay her bills working there, something she was never able to do as a member of Pylon.

So if a commercial pays enough of Jason Pierce's bills that he can keep making Spiritualized albums instead of going to work at McDonalds, I say more power to them.

However, it does bug me when someone sells a song to a commercial which goes against everything the artist claims was the original intent of it. Pissed me off very much when Steve Earle's "The Revolution Starts Now" and M.I.A.'s "Galang Galang" turned up in car commercials, as that seemed to be very counter to the spirit of the original song.

Iggy said he didn't care if they used his songs to sell anything, he didn't write the song about a cruise line so he's happy for the money. Apart from Fugazi, who else is putting artistic integrety in front of being a money whore now days anyway? Bend over and hope they lube it.

Put me on that side of the argument that finds the sell-out sickening. Art and commerce are antithetical impulses. The presence of a song in a commercial degrades the artistic meaning of a song. These sociopathic hipster ad agencies are doing everything in their power to destroy the artistic meaning of music and art, and link it with a commercial product. The fact that most people are cool with this commodification (particularly young kids) is a real bad sign in my opinion. It means the ad agencies have won. It also means that economic and commercial values have successfully displaced all other values.

The sell-out is particularly nauseating when the group who wrote the song makes claims to being political dissenters or avant-garde. I used to rail against individual artists who sold their songs for commercial purposes, but now the practice is so much the dominant paradigm, that it is not really worth expending the energy. After London Calling was used in a Jaguar ad, I gave up. Now I am not even surprised when I hear Modest Mouse in an ad, or the Fall in a Mitsubishi commercial, though I never cease to be sad about it.

Is Ian McKaye the last holdout? If so, God bless him.

Stop me if I'm on the wrong track but, depending on your publishing deal maybe it's out of your hands once you've (perhaps naively, years prior) signed.

Many artists do not own their recordings, true.

Depends on the artist, but I'm happy that the music of my generation is receiving the cultural nod. (We're just talking television adverts, correct? Harmless!) I'd rather hear a hip in-the-know track than pure shite in the background. As for the Jam, if it were me I'd feel it was an acknowledgment of my work.

There's an ad producer out there who likes my work so much that's he's willing to fight his fellow naysayers to see that I get the royalty? Fantastic.
Its' sad that so many artists never get to see income from their work because modern society simply does not support art. When I was in my twenties I decried sell-out at the drop of a Doc Martin but I'm all grown up now.



Post Edited (09-18-12 16:03)

I have mixed feelings about this myself. Although it's great that people will be making money they wouldn't have otherwise (like Paul Weller making some Yankee Dollars from Cadillac), it's sad to see songs that mean so much to you used for selling things, like "Picture Book" my favorite song from my favorite Kinks album being used to sell computer printers or poor Nick Drake's "Pink Moon" being used to sell VW's a few years back. Oh well, let's face it, we're living in a Mike Love world.

btw -
Michael Jackson owns half of the publishing rights to the Beatles catalog. He sold half to Sony. McCartney asked Jackson to increase his 25% share of Lennon-McCartney royalty results and was turned down. Imagine how he feels - they used to be friends and it was McCartney that allegedly schooled Jackson in songwriting royalty values (McCartney told Yoko that together they could own the rights but she acquiesced to Jackson). So the easy math on the split is: 25% Sony; 25% Jackson; 25% McCartney; 25% Lennon estate with Sony deciding licensing issues.

Jackson recently used these rights as loan collateral so its possible he may put up the for sale sign. If they were worth US$47mil in 1985...

edit:: additional info from wikipedia
Looks like McCartney own the rights to the early pre-Northern Beatles catalog.
Harrison published as Harrisongs Ltd., and Starr as Startling Music.



Post Edited (03-05-07 18:27)

I guess I am a bit hypocritical on this subject. For me it really depends upon the performer. If Elton John wants to shill out products with his music it wouldn't bother be because he is more of an entertainer than an artist in my opinion (granted that is being a little unfair). However, when I heard the Clash selling Levi's that did piss me off.

A lot of up and coming bands see this as a new strategy for breaking into the market place (as is getting your songs played on a CW network show). The Dandy Warhols certainly got a lot of mileage out of "Bohemian Like You" being played in a car commercial and I seem to recall Blur's "Song 2" also being used in a car commercial. Both of those bands are tragically underplayed in the US that I don't begrudge them getting the airtime even if it means being used in a commercial. I feel the say way about Paul Weller.

Neil Young spoke out very publically about this in the mid-eighties, (remember "This Notes for You"?), I think he is still sticking to his guns.

Last I checked, the music in commercials was a whole lot better than the music on radio. I think the medium has changed so much--and often people will hit the internet to find out "what song that was." If it turns a kid on to the Kinks, Nick Drake, or even the Caesars, I'm all for it. It's not like there are too many other avenues of exposure in mass media for non-mainstream music. Certainly not radio, which is practically a monoculture now. As I said, the medium has changed. Gives the Jam a whole new market they wouldn't gain elsewhere. I also hear a lot of edgy new stuff for the first time in commercials. The downside is I can't hear "Picture Book" or "Pink Moon" without thinking of the commercials now.



Post Edited (03-05-07 19:29)

I dont think a television advertisement is a neutral medium for conveying songs. It alters the meaning of what you are hearing. Marshall Mcluhan, anyone?

Well, based on Mclhuhan, it wouldn't be neutral in any medium, including radio. (Though I suppose MySpace would escape his scrutiny.) Sure, the medium is the message, but the medium (commercials) has changed. And something is getting shaken up in our culture, often in good ways. I'm not sure how different it is shilling for Warners nowadays or having a song in a movie (The Shins come to mind) than it is shilling for Cadillac; none of this is exactly not-for-profit work. I'd rather a kid buy a Caesars album because of a cool Ipod commercial than purchase a Switchfoot album because he heard it on the "alternative" radio station that has the same playlist as all of the other alternative stations in the US. I think commercials are serving the purpose that videos once did (along with the main purpose of shilling their products). But as I said, it can "taint" the listening experience--now I think of Ipods every time I hear "Jerk it Out" or "Feel Good Inc." But then again, I wouldn't have heard the former if it weren't for the commercial!



Post Edited (03-05-07 19:51)

>something is getting shaken up
> in our culture, often in good ways.

I guess that's where we disagree. I think of a commercial as an anti-cultural event, and I find the motivation of the advertisers inherently malicious. I believe they are co-opting a culture for commercial gain instead of enhancing one.

It is a two way street. Can you criticize an artist for letting their music be used for advertising and still be glued to the idiot box with dignity?

I'm not anti-TV but if you are watching "Skating with the Stars" or "Marry a Millionaire" clap-trap, and then you get all high and mighty when a commercial comes on, you are a goof.

Nosepail, can I buy you a drink?

What a perfect closing statement to this issue.

Anyone on the other side of his accurate, poignant and conclusive argument is either:

a. trying to justify their kid in college advertisment major
2. drowning in nostalgia
c. making lame excuses for their own generations sickening sell-outisms
4. works for one of three monopolistic TV cable/satellite companies

SCTV did it best and Neds Atomic Dustbin told us the truth in 1991. KILL YOUR TELEVISION

Even deeper.
Sure, there are plenty of arguments for a Marxist economy but in a capitalist system sellers need to notify their buyers of their intention to market. In the chief alternative to this system, art does not flourish.
Nostalgia? Mclhuhans's theories are nostalgic. Not bad observations, they just need updated. Culture has indeed changed. Radio co-opted culture jus tthe same and that's where people got their music; MTV after that. The internet is the ultimate anti-television outlet but I think erik is absolutely accurate: the medium(s) has changed. So has the concept of "sell-out" as regards the medium. How is it malicious for the producer to enlist music he is fond of rather than music he detests? I write and play music but I don't particularly give a fuck if anybody ever hears it. Ray Davies intends he be heard and I understand that, too. The "three monopolistic TV cable/satellite companies" have zilch to do with music selection in advertisements from the parties concerned. It's easy for Neil Young to turn down the extra income, not so for The Apples or The Shins who, if they don't make the next rent payment, may be out of the music industry forever.
You can argue that the free-market not be allowed to use any sound-and-vision medium and grind the economy to a halt, but barring that, the choice indeed is: Caesars or Switchfoot?

The music tradition up until the mid-60s was that songwriters got paid for other people to use their work. In their eyes, the entire rock era of the band signing the contract with a label to begin with is the sell-out.

Virtually no musicians san survive on, say, the Grateful Dead model where your songwriting and recordings mean little. Most bands we like sleep om floors, drive duct-taped vans from town to town, get continually ripped off by promoters and club owners, sign with a label but do not break even until they move 200,000 units (even on an indie). They may leave some good music behind but they wake up one day and think "I'm 35 years old and can't afford an apartment or a vehicle and the only skills I have are as a songwriter". It's a tough freaking lifestyle. I hold it against no one when they get the call from the publishing agent saying "apparently you wrote some song in the early 80s that never got airplay but some guy who bought your record in college still remembers it and works in video production now and wants to pay you $100 each time the commercial airs". Course, that's only if, by some miracle, you still own the rights to what you wrote.



Post Edited (03-05-07 22:34)

He swallowed it hook, line and sinker!
We knew you punks were going to grow up someday.
So go out and buy a caddy already.
(intermission)

just joshing my fave pagan.

Iggy is getting up there though. I dont think he paid a lot into social security either.
Cadillac should just give him one.
(intermission, confession, I did the dishes.)
Coincidentally enough, TP figures in to this mix. How many artists has IR via TP singlehandedly championed?
All for love not money.
If Iggy gets a caddy, Robbins gets a hummer, with the fourth edition (the dayglo pink and iridescence blue cover, with all the records on it) airbrush paint job.



Post Edited (03-05-07 23:16)

One thing I think erik is saying, which really adds to the old topic, is that, in the days of different outlets, an artist had to think "Did I sit down and write this song with the intention of shilling? No!"

Whereas, now (post Mcluhan, if you will) the medium is seen as an outlet of exposure: the song isn't shilling the product as much as being exposed in addition.

It's a fascinating subject because: where does it come from? Why is art supposed to be a non-commodity? Do we insist on sharing some artists but get stingy with others?

Personally, I theorize that's it's like religion. Just as everybody's born an athiest, nobody naturally comes about the concept of "sell-out". Their taught it.



Post Edited (03-05-07 23:00)

yeah, those are exactly the lines along which I'm thinking, Paganizer. I also look at the production value of commercials nowadays as opposed to the days when Tom Bosley was selling Glad trash bags, Joe Namath was wearing Leggs, and OJ was running through airports. Some of these commercials are just *Artistically* interesting. OR downright clever. (The cavemen are getting their own TV series for chrissakes.) I think we're at a real fuzzy junction between art, commerce, and popular culture that Andy Warhol would love. I'm not championing commercials as "Art," but I do appreciate the fact that someone is choosing good music instead of crap. I mean look at Townshend: He's pimped out the Who canon ad nauseum. God bless him...the music lives on. (And I don't think of trucks or CSI when I hear the Who.) Speaking of Warhol. . . I saw Moe Tucker play a show in Ithaca a few years back and had to think "hey she has her credibility" but she had to work at Wal-Mart to get a mortgage.

What's the alternative? Have Timberlake songs accompanying commercials because he's already a commercial sellout, or hear an interesting new artist on a commercial? (I'm sure the producers are also drawn by the relatively cheap rights to "hip" songs. I wonder what "Pink Moon" cost VW versus if they tried to get the rights to "Revolution"?)

Who has to give him the hummer? (he he)

...and the point about Neil is exactly one I wanted to bring up. how many years of living a millionaire's life of luxury in the canyon and doing blow preceded Neil's big fit of anti-commercial integrity in the '80s? I'd love to see him point his finger at the Who, and for Townshend to give him the old butt-of-the-Gibson boffo to the back of the head that he gave Abby Hoffman at Woodstock.

Though all of this having been said, I must say that I was disturbed to see Dean Wareham in a fashion spread in the new Esquire. Call me a hypocrite, but it made me uncomfortable.

yes, and the thing would come preprogrammed with not just happy jack to play, but the entire who catalog!
Thats capitalism aint it?l

ironically, steve, lust for life or was it raw power ? came to the attention of some young ad guy in Nike land because it sounded good in the TP record guide.... so i am to blame for pimping a hero!

Steve probably knew that, Ira. That's why he suggested you should be sentenced to driving a Hummer.

There's no question that Pink Moon is cheaper. That's one thing that made it cool - they could have afforded something less obscure.

I know a producer who wanted to use Metallica for a sports video (thus requiring a Videogram License for copyrighted work, a Synchronization License and a Master Recording License, a package sometimes bundled as "full rights"*) but they wanted $xx,xxx. This is a bit more than the video profited and just finding all this out held up the release by half a year (it would have covered home DVD sales only and no theatrical release, for example). The search costs on the copyright were not recouped. Movies begin "clearing" well in advance for this reason.
Just about everybody licenses their stuff, in reality, even Neil (just maybe not to television commercials). I would guess that, even with its massive exposure, Revolution is still pricey! As it should be, since it's such a recognizable and signature riff and that's what matters.
example>
What would you recognize in just seconds from REM or U2?
"End of the World as We Know It"
or the riff from "In the Name of Love"?
Those may carry the priciest licensing fees from those two bands, I would guess.

*Not being a copyright attorney, this may not be exact but you get the idea



Post Edited (03-31-07 03:27)

"Robbins gets a Hummer"? Jeez, Steve, what do you have against Ira?

Hmmmm, last time I checked it was called the Music BUSINESS (in caps) not the Music art (in lowers), and I was a whore in the industry on both the artistic and business side. I now work for a Fortune 50 company and you know what.... there is no fucking difference between this company and the said music biz ;just less drugs.
"I think of a commercial as an anti-cultural event, and I find the motivation of the advertisers inherently malicious. I believe they are co-opting a culture for commercial gain instead of enhancing one." If I'm not mistaken that is etched in marble in the lobby of Sony Records and each exec genuflects as they pass that.
Oh and a shout-out to Neil. I remember working one of his shows during the time he was really pro-Regan and pro war (which he is furiously back peddling on now) and Neil threw a fit because they didn't have the right steak to feed to his dog Elvis. Rockin in the free world with a great backstage rider!
And macca owns the Buddy Holly catalogue right? Buddy was shilling cake mix and cars a few years back.
What did I hear on the radio on my way home last night? Commercials! No music (thanks Clear Channel).....then I watched the hockey game and heard the Buzzcocks, the Fall, Modest Mouse, Dylan and hey they found a new product to use "Lust for Life" and you know what happened? My hockey buddy asked what music played during that Mitsubishi commercial. I told him the Fall and today he's going to buy 3 Fall CDs and discover the genius of Marky. This from a guy who owns all 6 volumes of "Sport Jamz".
Whoops time to go, I see my Police tickets are ready! 2 mid section seats for $539.00 and I wonder who is sponsoring this show?

Does anyone get as worked up when a song turns up on a tv show or movie soundtrack? At the end of the day, what's the difference? They are licensing their work to be used in a context different from what they conceived it all for filthy lucre. But since movies are "art" and commercials are "commerce" we don't get as upset about it. When Michael Madsen douses a cop with gasoline with "Stuck in the Middle with You" in the background in RESERVOIR DOGS, it's cool. But if Amoco used that song in a commercial, it would be a sellout. (If anyone actually cares if Stealers Wheel sold out, that is.)

Basically, as soon as a musician records a cd, commissions album cover art, and plops the things down in the racks at a music store it has become a commercial product and any artistic purity has been compromised. If you want to enjoy music made purely for the love of making music you're going to have to limit yourself to municipal bands or guys sitting on their front porch strumming a guitar.



Post Edited (03-06-07 12:22)

For me, it's not about "selling out" -- nobody who's actually earned a living from their art regards the accusation of "selling out" as anything but purely laughable -- but the fact that when I hear the song "Bargain", I think about a car ad instead of what the song's really about. I've dealt with this problem by not watching TV anymore.

I get your point, Scratchie. It just seems funny to me that some major artists made a big deal about not selling their music to promote products outside of selling their own records, and concert tickets, especially in the 1980's. John Mellencamp turned down car commercials when he was hot on the charts, twenty years ago, on moral grounds. He felt that it would be a sell out to use his music that way. Now he shills his new record with Chevy. He cops to doing it. Just the same, shouldn't someone point out that it might be hypocritical for him to do the Chevy ads after making such a big stink against them years ago? I don't know what Paul Weller's position on thay type of thing was back in the days of The Jam. What irritated me about that the use of that Jam song is that it's used as a commercial now, when it couldn't get any decent airplay when it was a new record. Ditto for The Feelies, Buzzcocks, et al. Shit, is the only way to get a great record played is to ignore it for twenty years until a fucking car company uses it to sell their product?

You know, when I first caught wind of "Start!" being the new promo for Cadillac, I nearly plotzed. My husband and 13 yr-old son were in the room and I asked them at least 3 times during the 45 min period afterward if I did, in fact, distinctly hear The Jam's "Start!" on a Cadoo commercial. In other words, was I hallucinating?! Pinch me, I must be dreaming, any of those cliche phrases used to convey a total and utter sense of disbelief. A definite what the f**k ?!!! moment. I was taken aback on many levels as were many of the other respondents to this forum (I also remember my disgust when my 13 yr old was a toddler and Family Stone's Everyday People was co opted for Toyota--'what the hell?!) But I did get over the Sly debacle, and since my initial shock on St. Paddy's Day, I now know it's true that Paul Weller has licensed his song to the number one car maker for pimps and guidos--I don't think I would have been so gobsmacked if the song were in a promo for Mini Cooper, seems more appropriate. But ultimately, if this can turn more people on to The Jam, who have gone woefully unnoticed by so many on this side of the Atlantic for so long, then so be it. It's great music, period. I've found myself looking up the Fratellis' "Flathead" from the iPod commercial along with "Have Love, Will Travel" by the Sonics, because as many of us have expressed, with Clear Channel and the rest of corporate radio it's just SSDD.

It's a way to attach some edginess in the eyes of a certain demographic to products that are otherwise utterly devoid of edginess.

Wow, I just saw a commerical for VOLVO which had THE FEELIES "Let's go" as it music

I must say the the makers of these spots have good taste...it's started a small renaissance in my stereo, where I'm listening to "Love Spreads" for the first time in a decade. . . great slide guitar opening.

scratchie sez: "For me, it's...the fact that when I hear the song "Bargain", I think about a car ad instead of what the song's really about."

EXACTLY.

I fuckin HATE that one of my fave sly & family stone songs "Everyday People" is now embedded in my mind as a car commercial.

There's some insidiously evil about this - everytime an oldies station plays "Everyday People" it is essentially now a car jingle. A classic tune has been hijacked.

Previously, jingles were only heard during an ad, til advertisors learned how to piggy-back on a classic song and ride their product all over.

How about the Cadillac commercial that has the Teddybears featuring Iggy Pop - "Punkrocker"? - the song is ok but with lyrics "I'm a punk rocker, yes I am" and for Cadillac, it really seems stupid. I'm just waiting to see some knucklehead blasting that out of his Cadillac. hah!

I'm surprised that the Beatles never sued Paul Weller
because of the song 'Start's similarity to 'Taxman'.


George Harrison got sued over a lesser offense for 'My sweet Lord',
in my opinion.

A friend of mine sent this to me after we talked about the Violent Femmes music used to sell Wendy's burgers. This is the reaction from Brian Ritchie the bass player:
"For the fans who rightfully are complaining about the Wendy's burger advertisement featuring Blister in the Sun, Gordon Gano is the publisher of the song and Warners is the record company. When they agree to use it there's nothing the rest of the band can do about it, because we don't own the song or the recording. That's showbiz. Therefore when you see dubious or in this case disgusting uses of our music you can thank the greed, insensitivity and poor taste of Gordon Gano, it is his karma that he lost his songwriting ability many years ago, probably due to his own lack of self-respect as his willingness to prostitute our songs demonstrates. Neither Gordon (vegetarian) nor me (gourmet) eat garbage like Wendy's burgers. I can't endorse them because I disagree with corporate food on culinary, political, health, economic and environmental grounds. However I see my life's work trivialized at the hands of my business partner over and over again, although I have raised my objections numerous times. As disgusted as you are I am more so."

Interesting to note the Femmes are still together and still tour.

Yes, and the last time I saw them they performed nothing but material from before Gano lost his songwriting ability.

However, if Gano is a prostitute for licensing his songs to advertisers, what does that make Richie for continuing to tour with someone he obviously despises, peddling 25 year old songs (that he never wrote in the first place)? Where is the pure artistic integrity in that?



Post Edited (03-30-07 17:44)

>
> However, if Gano is a prostitute for licensing his songs to
> advertisers, what does that make Richie for continuing to tour
> with someone he obviously despises, peddling 25 year old songs
> (that he never wrote in the first place)? Where is the pure
> artistic integrity in that?
>


can't dine gormet without that sweet femme scratch...

[www.youtube.com]

I enjoy hearing The The every time that M&Ms commercial comes on.

Cadillac is up to it again. Their latest commercial has Iggy Pop's Success on it. Even if I could afford a caddy I wouldn't get one, but it is sort of cool hearing songs with blatant irony used in superficial ways - although I'm sure whoever put it there was in the know.

Did anyone catch Mr and Mrs EC shilling for Lexus? Nattering on about influential music while sitting in a car, eyes closed like a teenage stoner? It is beyond embarrassing. You'd think with the combined worth of the Costello and Krall catelogues they wouldn't need it. Did they think because they are talking about music and not the car it is somewhat above the other sellouts? Then I saw on VH1 EC jamming on his songs (and theirs) with new young talent like fall out boy and the guy from green day (Billy bob Armstrong?). Doing a truly horendous version of "I want you" with Fioner Apple, whose jogging-in-place-i-gotta-pee gyrations make Cat Power's look like Tina Turner, made me wonder if she even read the lyrics at all.

yeah, this is a new level. Not just a song, but Elvis himself, sitting in the backseat. Every time I find this commercial stuff tolerable, they find a new line that makes me uncomfortable. What's next? Pete Townshend slapping Roger Daltrey on the forehead because he "could have had a V8"? Iggy slathering peanut butter on the Aflac duck? The GEICO gekko strolling Carnaby Street with Paul Weller discussing car insurance? It's pretty amazing out there. It's a bizarre era to be alive.

Not too many years ago, I was enjoying the Super Bowl when a Caddy spot came on soundtracked by Led Zep's "Rock & Roll". One of my most anti-corporate friends (who, ironically enough is an executive for Coke) turned to me with a look of shock, and asked, "WHAT is that? Are you kidding?" I replied: "THAT is Led Zeppelin. No, I'm not kidding. I always found them a bit derivative & Hobbit-y, but you might enjoy their work."

it took me a long time not to think everytime the Zep commercial came on that it was Keith Moon's intro to the Who's live version of Baby Don't Do It. Now that's rock and roll....

Do you think Keith's rolling in his grave?

If he isn't now, he will be when that Mike Meyer's bio-pic comes out.

fuck, i'll be digging mine when that movie hits the tard-o-plex