John Densmore of the Doors talks about his issues with popular bands selling their songs to commercials: http://idafan.com/Densmore-TheNation-July8-02.htm There's alot of stuff to wade through, but I thought this passage summed it up nicely: I don't begrudge any artist trying to make money, but I do wonder if the emotion and artistry in their songs is somehow cheapened when it's used to hawk cars and beer. We've all talked about how certain songs have affected us and have even gotten us through tough times in our lives. Will the songs still have such power when we immediately associate them with a company logo?
Conversely, will some ten year old who thinks fast cars are cool and sees the Cadillac commercial and hears Led Zep for the first time decide that "hey--this music is cool! I'm gonna look on the Internet and find out where this music comes from." I think Zep's music is pretty timeless. I hate to associate it with this year's Cadillac, but if the commercial somehow helps spread out Zep's influence to another generation.......I can't really fault it.
Pole: It's 10, not 9. I hate math. I think it is easy for the guys from the Doors who have made so much money from their music to talk about integrity and artistry because they can afford it. Great jazz artists - most of whom had more artistic ability in their pinkies than the majority of pop and rock bands - often lended their likeness or music to commercial endeavors. They didn't lose their artistic integrity over it. In fact, no one even remembers that they did it.
I totally agree with Subatomic. We live in a capitalistic society and artists should be free to sell their art how they want but at the same time how much are they willing to compromise on the integrity of their art? Especially since MTV has made music so closely associated with visuals. So in the case of musicians who've had a breakout hit but end up selling that for commercials do they want to be associatied with those products. For instance I first heard Republika on a Dairy Queen commercial (and a pretty stupid one at that, it had a part with a guy in a bear suit dancing on a rooftop) and now every time I hear them I think of bear suits and Blizzards. There's also a Jetta commericial with a song that I don't remember the name of the band or song but everytime I hear it on the raido I think of it as the Jetta song. This doesn't just apply to new bands or songs. For awhile Toyoto had an ad campaign focused around the song "Everyday People" so even though I'd heard that song long before the campaign I will still think of that as the Toyoto song. As for Cadillac's Zeppelin campaign that's only on one song that isn't very representative of Zeppelin. What's worse is that remix the song to fit whatever message they want even further removing it from the mood that Page and Plant originally intended. The only band that I think figured out a way to sell out and still stay true to their own artisitic vision is Chumbawumba who sold "Tub Thumper" and another song to GM and then took the money they made it and donated it to anti-corporate causes.
Nope. Dylan sold Times They Are A'Changing to a Canadian bank several years back. More recently he not only licensed use of Love Sick -- but even actually appeared -- in a Victoria's Secret commercial. I don't think anyone's gonna top that.
It's one thing if your song was on the air 20 years ago. It's another if the song is featured on a commercial right around the same time it's released (*cough cough* Lenny Kravitz *cough cough*).
Hey it worked for him, I can vouch for that. The first time I heard "Lady," I got to see Sarah Jessica Parker dancin' around. Having the sound of it with the added bonus of seeing her stuck in my head, it made me go out and get it.
Like I said, a lot of artists are using television because radio won't play them. Seal allowed TNT to use "Waiting for You" for their "TNT is Drama" ads and it got him airplay when he otherwise would've been ignored by commercial radio. I can think of half a dozen artists right off the top of my head who went that route because radio wouldn't play them. It has become the most logical move for artists trying to become successful in an industry that is shrinking by the day.
I think using a song in a television show or movie is a huge difference then using them in a TV commercial. Most of the time when you hear a song in a movie or TV show it is the vision of the director, scorer or some intern to make it part of their atmosphere... although it has become more common for publicists to push an artist onto a show (see any WB drama). Once again, I could really care less if an artist chooses to cheapen his or her art by auctioning it to be used to pimp the latest rides... I just happen to find it refreshing though that the artists I love have never done this. If a musician wants to make money by being on the latest Caddy commercial I don't ever want to hear them trying to prove their artistic merit later down the road.
I met a boy wearing Vans, 501s, and a Dope Beastie t, nipple rings, and New tattoos that claimed that he Was OGT, From '92, The first EP. And in between Sips of Coke He told me that He thought We were sellin' out, Layin' down, Suckin' up To the man. Well now I've got some A-dvice for you, little buddy. Before you point the finger You should know that I'm the man, And if I'm the man, Then you're the man, and He's the man as well so you can Point that ****in' finger up your ass. All you know about me is what I've sold you, Dumb ****. I sold out long before you ever heard my name. I sold my soul to make a record, Dip ****, And you bought one. So I've got some Advice for you, little buddy. Before you point your finger You should know that I'm the man, If I'm the ****in' man Then you're the ****in' man as well So you can Point that ****in' finger up your ass. All you know about me is what I've sold you, Dumb ****. I sold out long before you ever heard my name. I sold my soul to make a record, Dip ****, And you bought one. All you read and Wear or see and Hear on TV Is a product Begging for your ****** dirty Dollar So...Shut up and Buy my new record Send more money **** you, buddy.
I guess I don't see how there is artistic merit in not selling your music to a commercial entity. In reality, EVERY band does that already when they go into business with one of the five major labels. They freakin' own everything already. There is also the serious issue of survival. Here's the basic equation: The more time you spend on your craft - writing, rehersing, recording - the better you get. The more you get paid for your craft, the more time you have to work on it. The less you get paid, the more you have to work other jobs which means the LESS time you can spend getting better. As a result, quality diminshes. Add to that the fact that many artists cannot make money through traditional methods. Radio won't play them. Labels won't sign them. Do they just give up and get a day job or take whatever paying gig they can get to further their art? I cannot imagine that anyone would instantly consider Led Zeppelin a worse band with little or no artistic merit to the music they wrote simply because they allowed a song to be used for a Cadillac commercial. It isn't as if bands are writing jingles. They are just getting paid for allowing someone to play their music in conjunction with a commercial. Having a song in a commercial didn't change their writing or recording process. It didn't alter how they came up with the song or the amount of time they poured into rehersing, practicing and writing. If it did, they weren't artistically viable in the first place. No one is going to accuse Dylan of suddenly becoming a ****ty songwriter because he did a Victoria's Secret ad, nor should they. It is a big leap to go from writing a song that you love and having it played on a commercial to writing a song just to sell cars or underwear. The former is still exactly the same as before, just who pays for it has changed. The latter isn't art - it's commerce.
If you ask me artists like Zeppelin and Dylan did cheapen themselves by auctioning their tunes to the higher bidder. If your opinion is different then so be it. It's not like they needed the money... they did it for the vanity and quick regen on their 15 minutes of fame. They are aging and becoming less important in the world of music, they used these simply as wake up calls to the music world to let them know "hey, we're still here." It's their right to do how they please with their creations, but they shouldn't be astonished when some fans go... "dude, could you have been any more of a b****?" I mean Bob Dylan was in a lingerie commercial for pete's sake...
I definitely think a songs integrity CAN definitely be compromised when used for a commercial. They can change the meaning of the song and it's message. Devo's "Beautiful World" is a sarcastic take on society and a great song. Then Target used it, completely changed the meaning of the song by taking out the line "For you, but not for me". They did the same thing to CCR.
Jeff I see your point in regard to musicians having to make a living but as an artist do see how licensing your song to sell cars, lingerie or DQ Blizzards could compromise your artistic vision? Especially for successful musicians already. If you're at the point where you're famous enough to make money off records and touring how does doing Gap ads promote your artistic vision?
