Rolling Stones...

[Wooderson]

I cant believe you can "go off" a band just because they sell their songs to adverts.

Radiohead dont let their songs be used for ads (as far as I am aware), but the flaming lips do.

I still love both bands. I just couldnt really give a shit if I heard "do you realize" over the top of a porsche advert or somthing. Do all the happy memories I have associated with that song all of a sudden become less real? It seems crazy to me.

I cant help think the answer here is simply to watch less telly!

Yet Iggy appearing personally with a silly little puppet is more tolerable?

The thing that kicked this off is an instrumental of The Universal playing over an innocuous yet well crafted animated ad campaign. And the decision that this somehow tarnishes the credibility of this band is pointed out to us/sparked off by whom? A chap who doesnt even really like Blur!

This is a specifically anti-Blur agenda wrapped up in a diatribe against Beyonce & J/Z's commercially savvy pop as far as I'm concerned. The fact that Iggy and Lydon are given a pass on their appearances strengthens my argument somewhat. Nal adores both Lydon and Iggy.

As mentioned in your example above with the FLips, hearing the music in the ad can make you hum the song or even remind you to stick on the record... "It Overtakes Me" here is a good example. Do I make any connection with the product and the music? NO! I'm not that daft. Do I go out and buy the bevv on this basis? NO! I'm not that succeptible. Its a cool little promo is all!

Jonathan Glazer's "Surfer" ad with Phat Planet - fantastic.

Honda's more recent "Impossible Dream" ad - superb enthralling stuff.

- - -

Guess it boils down to this - not mentioned specifically but Blur's "Crazy Beat" was used in a Levi's campaign in the late 1990s. Crazy Beat is Blur's WORST song by some distance. Its a turkey! It was shite to begin with and shite after its use in the ad.

Contrary to this, in the late 1980's and early 1990's Levi's used some no brainer absolute classics in their ad campaigns.

- Heard it through the Grapevine

- 20th Century Boy

- Stand By Me

- Should I Stay or Should I Go

Did their use in selling overpriced jeans that I could never fit in tarnish or somehow spoil my impression of their quality or of the artists concerned?

Did they fuck!?! They were classics before and were classics after. That the artists or the holders of the licences made a pocketful of wedge following their use is irrelevant.

Last one from me on this one...

I don't think any less of Dalglish or Messi or Cantona or Vinny Fucking Jones as footballers for appearing in ads, be the campaigns themselves worthy or horrific.

Nor do I give a shite about Blur's music or Sugg's mush appearing in ads.

Its business. End of.

[The Nal]

So err...whats wrong with what he done exactly?

Apart from the fact that endorsing Coke is such a cliched thing to do, when you're the poster boy for the indie generation or whatever hes meant to be, it pisses a lot of loyal fans off when he goes and does something like that.

Its was basically just a cynical money making project for him. Which I think he now regrets.

The thing that kicked this off is an instrumental of The Universal playing over an innocuous yet well crafted animated ad campaign. And the decision that this somehow tarnishes the credibility of this band is pointed out to us/sparked off by whom? A chap who doesnt even really like Blur!

Partly for the reasons I've pointed out! Its not a unique point of view from me. Blur are fine. Can take or leave them. Damon appears all rootsie and holier-than-thou yet he flogs his music off to any old wally with a few quid and a can of dogfood to sell? Nah. Sorry. Not having that.

If The River by Bruce Springsteen ever appears on an ad for River Rock or something I'd be fucking gutted. The song would be dead in my eyes.

This is a specifically anti-Blur agenda wrapped up in a diatribe against Beyonce & J/Z's commercially savvy pop as far as I'm concerned. The fact that Iggy and Lydon are given a pass on their appearances strengthens my argument somewhat. Nal adores both Lydon and Iggy.

When did they get a pass? Iggys ad pissed me off no end. Absolute bullshit from the man. A flag carrier for anti corporate culture and then hes in insurance ads? Bullshit. Lydons case is different though.

Contrary to this, in the late 1980's and early 1990's Levi's used some no brainer absolute classics in their ad campaigns.

- Heard it through the Grapevine

- 20th Century Boy

- Stand By Me

- Should I Stay or Should I Go

Did their use in selling overpriced jeans that I could never fit in tarnish or somehow spoil my impression of their quality or of the artists concerned?

Did they fuck!?! They were classics before and were classics after. That the artists or the holders of the licences made a pocketful of wedge following their use is irrelevant.

Apart from the Clash, they were all dead or not the songs writers. Its completely different using a song that you've actually written

Last one from me on this one...

I don't think any less of Dalglish or Messi or Cantona or Vinny Fucking Jones as footballers for appearing in ads, be the campaigns themselves worthy or horrific.

Sports stars aren't the same at all. This isn't a blanket "never do ads" convo. Each case if different.

Nor do I give a shite about Blur's music or Sugg's mush appearing in ads.

Its business. End of.

It sadly is for the bands who decide to do it. Business I don't want anything to do with. And never really have done. I can tolerate the odd ad here or there but entire back catalogues been farmed out to any old fucker is too far a step for me.

Edited November 1, 2012 by The Nal

[mrtourette]

The Nal I think you're projecting your reaction onto a lot of people when it might not necessarily be the case. You've said a few times that "it pisses off thousands of loyal fans when they do it" (or something to that affect) and I don't necessarily think it's the case. I know it's your opinion, but trying to give it weight by claiming that it's the opinion of thousands of others and suggesting that they're letting down or showing a lack of respect to fans when it isn't necessarily the case doesn't seem right.

[monkey1989]

money is bad ?

[mrtourette]

money is bad ?

Of course it is, how can you be a tortured soul putting everything on the line to create a perfect piece of art when all along the devil is stood above you, wavng dollar bills under your nose to encourage you to abandon your principles. Or something like that.

[mrtourette]

Everytime that song is used in an ad the thing that resonated with you is diluted.

That's a very definitive statement, why are you so sure about that?

[GuitarManDan15]

Musicians making money!? How dare they! How dare they maximise their earning potential so they can provide for their family!

Making music is these people's jobs and with album and single sales bringing you peanuts I can't see how you can blame bands for trying to make as much money as possible. The songs were written and then used for adverts, the 'art' was created before the 'corporate machine' got hold of it. I think its incredible naive to think less of bands for trying to earn money, this whole notion of credibility baffles me and sounds rather aloof. If i like a song I like it, the fact its been in an advert makes no difference to me. Some bands i've even discovered through adverts.

But then again maybe all bands should be box bedroom dreamers selling 10 ep's to their mates and playing to a man and his dog at the local pub because at least then 'artistic credibility' will be intact...

[jump]

Here's Snoop Lion (formley Snoop Dog) using Drop It Like It’s Hot for a Hot Pocket ad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Qr22iCGxDBo

[The Nal]

The Nal I think you're projecting your reaction onto a lot of people when it might not necessarily be the case. You've said a few times that "it pisses off thousands of loyal fans when they do it" (or something to that affect) and I don't necessarily think it's the case. I know it's your opinion, but trying to give it weight by claiming that it's the opinion of thousands of others and suggesting that they're letting down or showing a lack of respect to fans when it isn't necessarily the case doesn't seem right.

Its a fair assumption that if a band has a million fans, (like White, Blur, Iggy etc) and they do a shite ad somewhere, a small percentage of people are going to be pissed off. Which equates to thousands. Even 0.5 of a %.

I've been searching around a lot of forums over the last few days of certain bands, reading articles etc and theres a clear minority who feel the same way about bands they love selling off the songs I love.

I'll make a counter point - I would argue that a lot of people think the same as me (and others on this thread) but don't admit it as its quite a sad thing to absorb - that a band who are important to you go down that road.

Took me a while to absorb and accept Dylans recent dabblings if I'm honest. Looked for every reason I could think of to excuse him but I just can't sadly.

[mrtourette]

Its a fair assumption that if a band has a million fans, (like White, Blur, Iggy etc) and they do a shite ad somewhere, a small percentage of people are going to be pissed off. Which equates to thousands. Even 0.5 of a %.

I've been searching around a lot of forums over the last few days of certain bands, reading articles etc and theres a clear minority who feel the same way about bands they love selling off the songs I love.

I'll make a counter point - I would argue that a lot of people think the same as me (and others on this thread) but don't admit it as its quite a sad thing to absorb - that a band who are important to you go down that road.

Took me a while to absorb and accept Dylans recent dabblings if I'm honest. Looked for every reason I could think of to excuse him but I just can't sadly.

I guess, I'm still not really buying that a band or artist should have to take the feelings of every single fan into question when deciding what to do with their music, and that if they don't and manage to upset 0.5% of their fans that somehow makes them bad people who are disrespecting the loyalty of that 0.5%.

I will admit that in my teenage years I used to think like you (that isn't supposed to be patronising in any way!), I have thrown away CD's and records in disgust by bands who I think have sold out or done adverts and telly shows that I didn't like and preached to bored (yet thankfully tolerant friends) about how disgraceful it is, but nowadays maybe old age and acceptance has taken over and I see the world differently. I've been fortunate enough to be touched by a lot of music, if a band decides to use that music to make money and I'm comfortable that's it's for a good reason (a judgement I'm happy making if I know about the band through years of following them) then I have no issue with it, and probably bcause I have no issue with it mans that it doesn't ruin the song in question at all.

I will always agree with you about the distateful and classless whoring around by the likes of Beyonce and Jay-Z, but that's always tempered by the possibility that, like me with Blur, Beyonce and Jay-Z fans are perfectly OK with them doing that.

[Wooderson]

The recent heavy promo of 'Celebration Day' - wall to wall advertising, dedicated movie nights, catty transatlantic pressconferences, dvds, triple vinyl (!!!) releases - all from a single one off event that was billed as a tribute to one of their mentors is as cynical and exploitative of a fanbase as I can remember.

[UEF]

Snoop is the biggest ho in the rap game to be fair

[eFestivals]

A song is written. It's a piece of art expressing something.

or alternatively, it's a product and not art.

Not everything that might be deemed 'creative' gets to classify as art.

[The Nal]

I will admit that in my teenage years I used to think like you

I'm the opposite! I'm 33 now and it bugs me more every day! I think I'm regressing.....

The recent heavy promo of 'Celebration Day' - wall to wall advertising, dedicated movie nights, catty transatlantic pressconferences, dvds, triple vinyl (!!!) releases - all from a single one off event that was billed as a tribute to one of their mentors is as cynical and exploitative of a fanbase as I can remember.

Whats wrong with a band promoting their music using.......... their own music?

Have you seen the gig? Theres nothing cynical about it. Thats the big take home thing about it. Would you say the same about the countless Grateful Dead boxsets out there? I wouldn't.

If Trampled Underfoot turns up on on a dogfood ad though.......

Musicians making money!? How dare they! How dare they maximise their earning potential so they can provide for their family!

I think you're getting the cart before the horse here a bit.

Damon Albarn was a multi-millionaire before he got into the rights selling business. A multi millionaire from money fans paid to buy his albums and go to his gigs. Do you think if Blur sold Shes So High and Theres No Other way as soon as they came out in 90/91, and they were all over shit TV ads, Blur would have had the same loyal fanbase that made them millionaires in the first place? Not a hope. They would have still had a fanbase of course, but it wouldn't be the same.

Same for Iggy Pop, Beyonce and Jay-Z, Jack White etc.

The fact that theres a demand to use their songs means they already had to be successful. Or there would be no demand there. I don't know of an unknown artist who branding companies are offering money to for their songs.

Edited November 1, 2012 by The Nal

[mrtourette]

how can it not dilute it?

Do you mean diluted just through persistent hearing or morally diluted due to it being part of an advert?

[eFestivals]

that's true. It's an area I'm generally not interested in though

I'd say that it's a very relevant point towards what is being discussed, but ignore it if you like.

[The Nal]

I'd say that it's a very relevant point towards what is being discussed, but ignore it if you like.

I agree with everything Tony is saying here. And you too. If its clearly a "product" from the start I have no interest. Which I think is what Tony was saying as opposed to not being interested in your point.

But if people aren't bothered by this sort of thing then fair enough.

[russycarps]

I agree with everything Tony is saying here. And you too. If its clearly a "product" from the start I have no interest. Which I think is what Tony was saying as opposed to not being interested in your point.

But if people aren't bothered by this sort of thing then fair enough.

lots of musicians view their music in a very very different way from us fans though. Lots of them are completely dismissive about songs that us the fans obsess over and discuss over and over.

I just dont find it surprising at all that they make a bit of easy cash from their songs.

I really feel like I should share your view on this subject but I just cant!

[eFestivals]

i didn't ignore it, I acknowledged it, and explained that it doesn't apply to me. Am I allowed to express my opinion?

I didn't say anything about whether it applied to you or not. I said it applied to the subject under discussion.

[Wooderson]

Zeppelin's multi-media blitz for Celebration Day is a more unashamedly commerical and exploitative form of income generation than any (can I jump on the bandwagon too?) dogfood adverts.

Its unnecessary and unbecoming of them and their legacy, should be rechristened "Celebration (of how much money we're going to make) Day." *

*Devil's Advocate.

Edited November 1, 2012 by Wooderson

[Wooderson]

out of just about any reformed bands leaving a half-decent legacy, from what I've seen of the film Celebration Day does a better job than most

Whether the film is a thing of quality or not is irrelevant. I havent seen it, nor do I doubt that the performance and standards are quality. My point is that a single "poetic" event is being exploited for huge financial gain by the band.

- Hold a massively oversubscribed one off event gig aimed to celebrate a mentor of the band

- Wait a few years for dust to settle

- Go on global mega-blitz selling the one off event in every way, shape, manner and form possible

- Deny what your fans actually want i.e. further performances

- Behave beligerantly and condescendingly when called up on this

- Use one off event gig as platform to re-release all records again

If the public (specially the Led Zep fanbase) don't see this for the marketing hype of the decade then I dunno what to say. Money making. Pure and simple.

To put another band down for licensing a song to an ad man and defending this crass commercialism is patently ridiculous Tony as youve been there*! Its the same racket.

*Sorry this is unclear following re-read. Meant that you have obv. insider music biz experience.

Edited November 1, 2012 by Wooderson

[Big Vern]

To me one of the main problems here with fans disappointed because a band has "sold out" or ruins a special song for an individual because they've allowed it to be used for an advert, is that there seems to me to be a perception of "ownership" by the fans of that band or its music, purely because they think a band or a specific song is special to them.

It's like "I love that song, how dare they allow it to be used on a dog food advert, that's ruined that song for me!". To be fair artists generally release material to make money, as we all work in our day to day jobs to earn money. Just because they produce a song that we attach ourselves to because of something going on in our lives, is not the bands fault or concern, it is their song to do with what they want surely?

The only hypocrisy is those artists that have sold themselves all along as non commercial, non sell out artists, who then have a massive turnaround and do exactly that. But that said, it's their decision to make and yes, they may lose respect off a number of their fans who like them for the non commercial nature, but hey, the use of their songs on an advert will probably open them up to a new audience and they'll replenish the lost income.

Anyway if you're that shallow to stop liking a song you've loved for years, because it's on an advert, you can't have liked it that much in the first place and it was just a audible crutch at the time!

[The Nal]

Zeppelin's multi-media blitz for Celebration Day is a more unashamedly commerical and exploitative form of income generation than any (can I jump on the bandwagon too?) dogfood adverts.

You're joking? Playing a gig and then promoting the DVD release is worse than selling your entire back catalogue to the highest bidder to use it for whatever purpose they want? Including selling Australian dogfood? Come on!!

On your other point, I don't want to see a Led Zeppelin reunion tour. No Bonzo no Zeppelin. Celebration Day, as good as it is for a one off, reaffirmed that for me.

The only hypocrisy is those artists that have sold themselves all along as non commercial, non sell out artists, who then have a massive turnaround and do exactly that. But that said, it's their decision to make and yes, they may lose respect off a number of their fans who like them for the non commercial nature, but hey, the use of their songs on an advert will probably open them up to a new audience and they'll replenish the lost income.

Anyway if you're that shallow to stop liking a song you've loved for years, because it's on an advert, you can't have liked it that much in the first place and it was just a audible crutch at the time!

I've never really had the experience thankfully. But its the exact opposite of "shallow". People holding a deep affection for the song are the ones who could be the most pissed off and let down by it.

How do you think early 60s counter culture kids who lived by The Times They Are a Changin' (and there were plenty!) felt when Dylan sold it to a fucking bank a few years ago? Rightly gutted I'd say. Nothing shallow about that.

Although the original song was nearly 50 years old so had lost a lot of its meaning anyway.

Edited November 1, 2012 by The Nal

[Wooderson]

The fact that theres a demand to use their songs means they already had to be successful. Or there would be no demand there. I don't know of an unknown artist who branding companies are offering money to for their songs.

Stiltskin?

In reality once Levi's had drunk the "soul classics" well dry they moved to unknowns. That "Spaceman" tune for example, or "Mr. Oizo". Both were number one singles on the basis of the advert.

[Big Vern]

I've never really had the experience thankfully. But its the exact opposite of "shallow". People holding a deep affection for the song are the ones who could be the most pissed off and let down by it.

How do you think early 60s counter culture kids who lived by The Times They Are a Changin' (and there were plenty!) felt when Dylan sold it to a fucking bank a few years ago? Rightly gutted I'd say. Nothing shallow about that.

Mmmmm I just can't see that. If the event and attaching song was that meaningful to you, hearing on an advert wouldn't change that imo. Let me give you an example, my mum passed away 4 years ago and I sometimes catch one of her favourite songs on an advert, a song I am very fond of because it reminds me of my mum. I don't suddenly think "damn them, they've ruined the memory of my mum!", it simply reminds me of my mum and makes me smile.

If you're suddenly forgetting why that song was so dear to you, simply because it is on something you don't want it to be on, to me sounds a little spoilt and the fact that it is on an advert is a stronger feeling to you than the memories of why it was so special.

Just my opinion, but then I am a tory twat