I don't listen to mainstream music radio too often but it seems to me like I often hear a song on commercials before I hear on the radio or quickly hear it on a commercial after I've heard it on the radio. Is selling out your song to be a jingle for the latest model of Jetta or Dairy Queen no longer considered crass by successful musicians these days?
If it's mainstream, then they've probably already sold out by making their records cookie-cutter-radio-and-MTV-friendly.
No such thing as 'sell out' in the world of music anymore unless you take it down to the indie level in which case it is often considered a sellout if an indie band signs with a major lable, like Green Day (they still get backlash) or Bad Religion, etc.... One notable exception is that you wil rarely if ever here a Beatles (especially an original with them actually playing) song in a commercial.
It annoys the hell out of me that Jane's Addiction sold 'Mountain Song' to Coors for their new ad campaign.
I think there is a huge difference in a band signing with a major label then them selling their song to the highest bidder to endorse a product. I'm not sure where punk fans ever got the "sold out because they signed with interscope" tag, but I think it comes from fans who feel the band owes them something when in reality they should look at themselves in the mirror and then take a shower. How could anyone blame a band/artist for seeking financial gain from their success? What basis is there to ever call them a sell out? Basically I see a sellout as someone lessening their artistic content for financial gain. A few good examples of this are people allowing their songs to be used in obviously cheesy add campaigns and artists who "edit" their music to earn more album sales.... such as selling an edited version of their albums so it can be sold in Wal-Mart (which sells the majority of CDs in the US). I'm happy to know that my favorite artists don't sell "edited" versions of their works... and I question any "artist" who would do so. Bands like Nine Inch Nails and Tool could double their album sales if they would make edited versions of their albums but they choose not to do so, they view their albums as artistic expression. While I don't agree with some albums graphic content I do believe in artistic expression. I find it amazing that we have thousands of explicit paintings and sculptures in our museums but some albums are taboo. I also find it amusing that I am a Christian/Republican and have these views on "art"... but then again I think God gave us vivid imaginations and all different ways of dealing with our hatred/anger/sadness/envy and anything else that brings about vivid forms of expression.
Being able to make a living as a musician is kind of like being able to make a living as a professional athlete. If you want to make the GOOD money, you can usually only do it for a VERY short period of time. When you realize that literally tens of thousands of bands are out there and only a TINY percentage will get a deal and, of those bands that get a deal, only 300 will have a major label release each year and, of those bands, only about 10 will have hits. Factor in that only about 1 in every 1000 bands that have hits go on to long-term careers, you see that the chances of making a decent living in the industry are VERY small. It is the dirty little secret of the business that out of 12 bands that make a record, 9 lose money, 1 breaks even and 1 makes enough money to pay for the rest. Most of those 9 are dropped never to be heard from again. So, if you can make money from a commercial or a movie or a tv show or whatever, you do it.
The songs that you hear on commericials are from the successful arists. That's like saying it's cool for U2 to charge 160 bucks a ticket because their careers may be over before they know it.
The only time it bothered me was when "dream on" was used for some car this year. That song did not deserve such a fate. I did like when Sting used Desert Rose and when that Symphony song was used for nike tho'. So I'm split.
Jacko still has the catalogue, (that's why the pimping of Revolution for that Nike commercial). (But may sell it because he needs the money)
Actually, the vast majority of songs on commercials are from rarely heard artists. Yes, there are notable exceptions, but the majority are not from big name artists who are still popular. Most of the really huge artists who have been successful for many years and still are - Springsteen, Prince, U2, etc. - are heard rarely in commercials. If you hear a popular song, it is usually an old song and keep in mind that many OLDER songs used for commercials are no longer owned by the original artist. There is a big market for emerging artists having their songs used in commercials. It is actually how Moby was discovered and how artists like Guster were helped in their efforts to become more successful and others like Nick Drake were re-discovered by a younger generation. Like it or not, commercials, tv shows and other mediums like the internet have become viable outlets for bands to earn income and promote themselves. Much of the reason they do it is to circumvent radio which has become so formulaic, it is almost impossible to get airplay unless you fit a very specific format. Without those other outlets, many of these bands would be dropped and cease to exist.
The most 'out of nowhere' sell out has GOT to be the Led Zeppelin fueled Cadillac comercials. I really cant blame Page and Plant for doing it. Sorta like an irresistable dare you can't pass up based on the seeming polar opposites they represent.
fans should only be able to get on artists for being sellouts as long as they're willing to pay the artist for the money they would've made for the commercial, "cheesy" song, etc.
Oh who cares!?!? I'd much rather hear good, popular songs (that might happen to get airplay) on a company's commerical. Hearing these "sell out" songs are better than hearing the horribly annoying "little jingles" like the Thunderbolt Motors song or other cheap short songs. I like hearing classic songs on TV since the companies paying for those are gonna be showing the said commercials A LOT; they might as well be good songs.
Great post! Exactly: who can blame anyone for deciding to actually be able to support themselves with their music, should the opportunity arise? Especially if the music is just taken as it exists/ in context. What's weird is things like the Sheryl Crow song "You're An Original". I can't remember what the commercial was for, but it was for something that would make you look/ feel original. They conveniently left out the part of the song which said "Turn around and you're looking at a hundred more". In the song, the phrase "you're an original" was sarcastic. In the commercial, it wasn't. I don't know if I'd call it selling out... on the other hand, not that she needs the money. It was just weird.
That's the worst part about being a musician. You can either stay poor and play bars for the rest of your life and maybe record an album that sells a few thousand copies, or you sign a big record deal, make lots of money, and then get accused of "selling out" by all those fans who were listening to you when you were poor.
No offense, but that's pure nonsense. I remember seeing that on Greenday's Behind the Music. They interviewed some people from that club they used to play at and they were saying how much they hated Greenday for signing a record deal and how they would get their asses kicked if they ever came back. One guy looked like he was in his forties and was talking like he was still in high school. Reminds me of the Dad who doesn't want his kid to succeed because it may expose him as being a loser. He want's his kid to be as miserable as him. Same thing with these Greenday "fans". That being said, Sting is a sellout.
I liked it when they used James Brown's "Say It Loud, I'm Black and I'm Proud" for The Gap's black demin ad campain.
