Money Talks?
December 11th, 2007 | 11:03 am est |
The use of popular music in advertising is far from a new trend, and the practice has gained a considerable amount of steam in the 21st century, perhaps thanks in part to Apple’s successful iPod campaigns. But how much is too much, and which artists are above having their music used to sell everything from automobiles (the Jam, the Pogues, the Clash, Black Sabbath) to department store chains (John Lennon, Iggy Pop)? Reverence for a musician or group may be a matter of opinion, but what happens when an act crosses the line from pop star to cultural icon? Does it cheapen the memory of those like Lennon and Joe Strummer when their hits push products, or does it introduce a new generation to their music as well as that shiny new car? Is Paul McCartney a sell-out or shrewd businessman for making an iPod commercial featuring music from Memory Almost Full? What about Slash’s endorsement of Guitar Hero III and the subsequent placement of Velvet Revolver’s “Slither” in the game’s TV spots?
The issue becomes even more muddled for new and/or independent artists who face an uphill battle against their established/major label counterparts when it comes to exposure. The Internet may have enlarged the playing field, but it hasn’t leveled it — and for those who can’t make a multi-million dollar music video or get their album played on mainstream radio, a 30-second shot of fame looks very enticing. The Fratellis and Feist broke into the American market this year thanks to iPod spots, while Wilco allowed several songs from Sky Blue Sky to be used in Volkswagen commercials. In the United States, Ingrid Michaelson gained popularity when her music was used in the television show Grey’s Anatomy and a commercial for The Gap; across the Atlantic, Irish singer/songwriter Paula Flynn shot to fame when her cover of David Bowie’s “Let’s Dance” (recorded as a joke and posted on her MySpace page) was used to advertise Ballygowan bottled water. It’s hard to admit, but these arrangements are mutually beneficial for both companies and musicians, even if they do make fans squirm.
So what lies ahead for 2008? Music lovers continue to decry the use of pop songs for marketing purposes, but who hasn’t discovered or rediscovered an artist thanks to a flash on their TV screen? With album sales slumping, will this be the new way for labels and musicians to turn up the revenue stream? And whose tunes will announce the latest from Nike, Nissan, or Nordstrom?
I know artists and music snobs decry the use of pop music in advertising all the time… but really… it’s easy to say you’ll never sell out when no one’s making any offers.
I’ve had this same argument 1,000 times with fellow music fans, and both sides will always have a good point. I don’t see an end to this debate any time soon.
Music and commerce go hand in hand, and always have done. What’s truly rare is the elevation of any artist to an ‘anti-commercial’ level. It’s those artist’s works that seem most jarring - Nick Drake! - yet, as you point out, such obscure music gets a far wider hearing this way. Best thing to do is not watch the commercials if it bugs you…
It is generally fine when the song is featured as is, but when it is butchered then it becomes an issue of artistic integrity. I’m thinking of the infamous Outback Steakhouse commercials that use Of Montreal’s “Wraith Pinned to the Mist and Other Games” with changed, and very insipid, lyrics. On the other side of the spectrum, the “Manhattan Research Inc.” collection by Raymond Scott shows that music composed for commercials can be innovative, compelling, and fun. Ultimately, it is the artist’s choice. I am reminded of an article written by a member of the Doors (I can’t find the article and remember who) explaining why their songs have never been used in commercials: it comes down to a veto by this member in honor of Jim Morrison’s wishes. I wish I could find that article, so I could post it. Darn bad memory…
Tom Waits addressed this issue once in an Onion A.V. Club interview (6/25/03), pointing out that the use of an existing song in a commercial forges a new and insidious association for the listener: “The memory that you have and the association you have with that song can be co-opted. … I hate it when I hear songs that I already have a connection with, used in a way that’s humiliating. … They want to plug your head into that and change the circuitry. While you’re dreaming about your connection with that song, why don’t you think about soda or candy or something?” The full interview can be found here: http://www.avclub.com/content/node/22533
When I was younger and in a band of my own, I had the idea in my head that I would never sell out. A couple years later my little sister got me into some really cool indie music and I’ve been hooked ever since. But I started noticing these artist’s songs in commercial. There was a Feist one for a HSBC I think and then there was a car commercial with music from the Go! Team. Whether or not people learned who these artists were from these commercial isn’t so important as the fact that they helped get those songs in the heads of people. I wasn’t bothered by the fact that these artists were “selling out” either because I never heard them on the radio nor did any of my friends know about them. So is it selling out for a groundbreaking band like the Go! Team to put their music into some commercials and actually make some decent money, which is what every artist gets into it for, or is the real sellout a band like Nickelback that recycles old ideas and exhibits no originality with the intention of being the richest band in the world. And let’s face it Nickelback have always maintained a blue collar image.
It’s the same old story. Nobody likes to see musicians or songwriters get paid. In the ‘music industry’, the musicians are the last to get their cut, if at all. They are overworked and cheated on the level of sharecropping farmers.
Our culture still perpetrates the myth of the rich, pampered and famous Rock Star. When music artists grieve in interviews about their true state of affairs, they are perceived as jaded and ungrateful. The repetitiousness of these myriad complaints make it seem, cliched, and even less creedence is granted.
Getting depleted grosses due to label ‘recroupment’, management and middle management percentages, concert venue promoters etc, your favorite music artists make less per hour than a McDonald’s employee.
The big advantage to being a songwriter (albiet, a successful one)is when you earn income for licensing the use of the songs you ‘ve composed.
Consider that many of these people have families and children, long suffering poverty while these songwriters are paying their dues in obscurity. Making it in music is not for lazy people. It takes a tenacity and a hard work ethic. It also costs the musician lots of money on instruments, maintenance, rehearsal costs, recording costs, promotional materials,etc. There is no limit in products and services geared to the struggling musician,all enforced as neccesary to get to the ‘next stage’.
The cry of ‘Sell out!’ is such a selfish, fan-derived derivative. It infers that there is some kind of betrayal of some value system that the fan has implied on the artist. It is like that old adage I heard,”Contempt for the rich is a plot against the poor, to keep the poor from wanted to become rich.” In my opinion, you have to stand for something first, declare it, and betray it to ’sell out’.
I always thought The Clash were more image oriented than anything. The politics were more of an rebel/image thing. I suspect that if Strummer lived long enough he would have licensed a Clash song to some product, just like the more political Dead Kennedy’s did (albeit without Jello Biafra’s support).
My favorite artists make less per hour than a fast food employee? Really? Interesting. All my favorite artists live in castles and drive $200,000 Mercedes. McDonald’s must be paying well these days… (Cue the sad violins).
And spending money on instruments? Get real. For developed acts, a lot of those instruments are placed by the manufacturer, hence the credits in the record sleeves.
The problem with “selling out” is that we, the public, can be relatively sure that “Rock and Roll” wasn’t written about a Cadillac, and that “Revolution” wasn’t written about a running shoe. I mean, what political cause does a Nissan embody that Strummer would have seen fit to support with “Pressure Drop?”
This disconnect between the original meaning of a song and its later commerical incorporation isn’t “projected” by an elitist fan base; it’s real. For an artist to contribute to this eroding of principle indicates desperation at best, and greed at worst. Yes, artists may get ripped off by everyone in the industry, but I’d bet few are doing so badly that they really have to stoop to these levels. Then again, it’s their song, so shame on us for investing any emotion or attachment in it at all.
Zach: I believe that “Jim’s wishes” were, if Buick aired a commercial using “Light My Fire” that, according to Wikipedia, he’d “have a Buick smashed with a sledgehammer on a TV show should the (presumably ready) commercial be aired.” So…Jim was fairly vocal about his opinion of his work in a commercial.
However, given that that was 1967 and apparently we’re still having the debate, I don’t see it ending any time soon.
I think what everything is going to boil down to is the artist or who owns the rights to their songs. I don’t think it’s an integrity issue or an association issue- didn’t the association between music and visuals come up during the debate over music videos?
I understand that some people feel squeamish about the idea that the Beatles’ “All You Need is Love” is now used for a Luvs commercial and I get that. I personally think it’s disconcerting. Then again, it seems that when George Harrison died, the last Beatle who cared to keep the catalog out of bed with advertising died. So, I’m not terribly surprised.
Then again, if you want to go that route, it could be argued that by releasing albums under a major record label, artists are selling out. (And there are PLENTY of those arguments.)
To be honest, it’s all just intellectual masturbation. Listen to music you like, realize that the artists are human and prone to temptation just as much as any other, and get over it.
I decided some years ago to reclaim songs whenever I heard them used in commercials, which led to some nice revisitations of music I love.
Bastardization is the real problem. The worst example I can remember is the use of Creedence’s “Fortunate Son” for a Wrangler ad that prominently displayed an American flag (and not in the “social-critique-IS-patriotic” way).
To the people saying that Joe Strummer would have succumbed, it is very interesting to me that the only use of a Clash song in an ad that I can recall didn’t occur until after his death. Do we have Mick to thank for that?
And if you feel that The Clash, and Joe in particular, were just striking a political pose, please revisit their music and, in particular, their lyrics. From what I’ve read, seen, and heard, they sure seemed serious to me. Was he human, so that perhaps he may not have lived up to his idealistic nature all the time? Sure, but if you think you’re different, you’re almost certainly fooling yourself.
It’s very easy to say that if one has problems with capitalism, especially with the way it interacts with/controls/shapes art, one should either drop out (off the grid) or shut up, but that’s not a statement that opens dialogue, it’s just a simplistic, reductionist imperative.
Worst example was when i cringed whilst hearing
“tired of waiting” - kinks - as strk on an alka
seltzer commercial in 1996, unbeleiveable! at the
time…and amazing it didn’t last long: seemed like
someone/somewhere noticed our opposition and ad got
pulled after only a few airings…