Daley Blames - Who Else? - The Media For Oprah-geddon
Chicago Gets Googled
Friday Flashback - Old School Oprah
Today's Transgender Day of Remembrance Honors the Dead
Review: Paramount Room
It’s all fun and games until someone calls sell-out, but how is almost every artist not a sell-out when it comes to putting tunes behind a commercial these days? From the use of “Lust for Life” to get us aboard a Royal Caribbean Cruise to Wilco shilling for Volkswagen, what are the best or worst songs used in commercials? Mark Caro wants your comments about that over at his blog, Pop Machine.
Do we care that The Beatles’ music is used in a Luvs diaper commercial? Probably not as much as those who grew up with that music as the soundtrack to their lives. Our generation’s cries of sell-out have been thrown more readily to indie bands, such as Of Montreal’s appearance in an Outback Steak House ad. Play along with Mark and Rolling Stone’s “Worst Rock Sell Outs Ever!” by disparaging more bands with the sell-out moniker. Or, praise them for their American right to control their own destinies by getting cash that can be used to record an album outside the artistic constraints of the mainstream recording industry.
Image from campaign literature by the very people who want to help license your music, Leap Music.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Remember, it's not 'selling out', it's 'buying in'. And if you have a job doing anything but your one true passion in life, haven't you also sold out already?
I never understood the dislike that rock fans have for musicians who, you know, actually make money with their music.
Don't bore me with the "purity of rock music" crap, either. Rock has always been a business, and has almost always been a big business. Even the most indie of indie bands worry about such less-than-pure matters as image and fan base and demographics and merchandise sales---meaning not that they are bad people, but rather artists and artisans looking to make a living doing what they love. Why should they be more pure than any of us, who often sell our skills and talents and ideas for less-than-noble causes?
If the music is good enough, it shouldn't matter if the song is sold to a car company, or even if the musician is a grade-A pretentious asshole--the music will still stand or fall on its own.
Then again, I will never forgive United for exploiting "Rhapsody in Blue."
It's disheartening that we live in a society where the stark reality of economic compulsion guides artists to cash in on their art while they can. Unless we're willing to create a better publicly funded structure to promote artistry, this is the way it's going to stay. Every man for himself and profit while you can.
I recently saw a Jeep commercial that appeared to feature "Smiley Yeah Yeah Yeah" by the excellent but obscure surfabilly band Southern Culture on the Skids (you can only hear the first eight bars or so). SCOTS has been touring forever, and I personally am glad to see them making some money, even if it involves plugging Jeeps.
I'm with #2 & #4. It's not like these little indie bands go home and swim in their vaults of money. If they can make a nickel hawking Jettas, so be it. The music is still good.
And I third that notion. Would you rather see a band you love have to pack it in because they can't afford to tour or make their next record, or shill for Sprint and get to continue their career? (I heard Ambulance LTD on a Sprint commercial yesterday, which is the first time I've heard them outside my own playing. I though, "good for them, now let's get that next album out.")
It's sad, yes, that our "society" doesn't help artists out, I guess. I mean, on paper, that sounds great. But I think I'd be more wary of art that's governed by public funds--and potentially interests--than I currently am of art that's created for art's sake, then purchased by a company.
It hasn't seemed to hurt any bands--the Walkmen and Brendan Benson sold their songs to Saturn, and they've managed to put out more albums--presumably using some of that ad money. I don't hear them solely writing jingles for Pringles ...
I also agree it is unfortunate that financial needs make artists have to sell their work to advertisers, but thats how our economy is set up. I've noticed lately that it seems advertisers have become the only source of income for a lot of the creative workforce, it is a bit sickening. Of Montreal is a prime example, Kevin Barnes panicked after learning he was going to have a baby, since he barely made enough money to support himself, how would he raise a family? He and his wife actually moved to Norway for a while to take advantage of the health benefits for artists there.
No such thing as selling out; these people have to eat! The idea of selling out is a dated notion.
That being said, I think the Dandy Warhols entire ouvre is currently on some kind of commercial or movie advertisement.
Does it take away from the music? A little. I once had a conversation with an art critic about this. "Does it take away from Beethoven's Fifth when you see it in a soap commercial for the 500th time?" Answer: Absolutely. Same thing with seeing "Starry Night" on everything from coffee cups to T-shirts to napkins.
But it's both inevitable and not really important to the conversation; the Dandy Warhols are not Beethoven, anyway, so good for them.
i'm slightly uncomfortable that a product i hate has turned into a gateway to songs i love. that said, i never would have heard those songs if not for Hummer ads. it's kind of turned into old-school radio, in that i'll hear Rhythm of Snow or LFO and subsequently check out more stuff by them.
one thing that mystifies me though - what song is used in the 'sunroof' commercial? i kept checking their site, for they're good about promoting their music, but i haven't seen it get credit yet. the same goes for other brands.. is there a central database where i can look up who does what Pepsi commercial, or whether or not a Cadillac song is the product of a band or studio musicians?
Every artist deserves to make a little money, but the Of Montreal situation is a joke. They didn't just lend their most popular song to an Outback Steakhouse commercial....they actually re-recorded it with new lyrics about Outback. That is an utter and complete joke.
Use your art to make some money....cool. Change your existing art specifically to shill for some corporation? That is deserving of the sellout tag.
When "Breed" by Nirvana was used to sell a baseball video game. Kurt would have never signed off on that.
I like that distinction #10.
And Shannon - time to start another new website...
That commercial makes me cringe every time, Dan.
Thanks Dave, I agree. Im all for artists that make their own art and THEN can sell it, as opposed to making a product FOR a corporation. And Im actually proud when I hear a song in a commercial that I know - bc its usually just a clip, (bc its not mainstream and I know all the little trixies out there have no idea what it is)
guest #10 - a contract is a contract. fyi, Of Montreal did try to get out of the deal, but it was too late.
"I think I'd be more wary of art that's governed by public funds--and potentially interests--than I currently am of art that's created for art's sake, then purchased by a company."
"Governed by public funds" is the wrong way to look at it, because the funds don't govern anything. The public can't tell artists what to create the way corporations can because, unlike corporations, the public doesn't profit from use of the art. Bob Dylan will never do a song about the shitty working conditions of the people who toil in Victoria's Secret factories (not saying there are such conditions—this is purely hypothetical). I don't see how public funding could possibly create a more dubious incentive structure than art that's paid for by a corporation.
My band would sell our songs for a Depends commercial.
One other comment, then a question:
I think the best use of a famous song in a commercial was definitely "Hello Goodbye" for Target. They couldn't have picked a better voice to sing that song than who they got (Sophia Shorai). I actually like her version better than the original!
Now the question -- I've been trying to figure this out since I first saw this commercial (and seeing it about a dozen times a day isn't helping). It's for Saturn and the commercial is them bringing competitors' cars to the dealership for a comparison. What song is playing in the background? It's an alt-rock riff, the drums kick in and there's a dissonant solo over top of it, then the commercial ends. Can anyone tell me who this is before I go crazy?
Let's be honest, anyone writing three minute pop songs has commercial aspirations anyway, or the vast majority do. It's not really art to begin with in most cases, it's artainment.
#17, it's "Antonelli" by Tahiti 80
@Lizz K: Wrong song, but thanks. I figured it out -- it's a Dandy Warhols song. This is the commercial I was talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spYeV0dJSWg.
If you think about who is drafting these ads, chances are it's the same folks next to you at these concerts. If I were in advertising, I'd be sure to suggest an up and coming band/artist for my account to launch their national campaign.
Kinda like how I use James Yancey, Ben Gibbard and Mike Skinner as test users in my use case scenarios.
How many people who complain about cool music being co-opted for advertising would rather see their tax dollars go to support these artists? Not me. If you make something, you can use it for whatever you want, even if it has a deeper meaning for someone else.
As far as finding out what songs are featured in commercials, there's several sites that will help you.
E, all i see is an underlined sentence.. as a link it doesn't work. :(
"How many people who complain about cool music being co-opted for advertising would rather see their tax dollars go to support these artists?"
I'd like to see my tax dollars go to support art. I think it's something an advanced society should embrace. If the only legacy we leave behind is that we earned more money and produced more baubles than any previous society, then we're just animals. I'd rather use a portion of our tremendous wealth to give more artists a chance to explore the unique creative attributes that make us human.
But I realize this will probably never be a popular idea during my lifetime.
Sorry about that. It worked on preview. The sites I was trying to link were www.adtunes.com and www.whatsthatcalled.com.
I should also clarify that while I have no problem with my tax dollars going for art in general, I tend to think that "popular" "mainstream" music isn't where that money should be going, be it Britney, Iggy, or Of Montreal.
Obviously, there's a line somewhere in my head, and I'm not sure exactly where that line should be, I have no problem with tax monies supporting something (I'm just really talking about music here, rather than "art" in general) that might have a harder time finding general acceptance, be it free jazz, drone, chamber music, or whatever, but for something more "disposable" like indie rock or pop singles, not so much. There's obvious flaws in this argument, I realize, but I'm sticking to it.
"Every artist deserves to make a little money, but the Of Montreal situation is a joke. They didn't just lend their most popular song to an Outback Steakhouse commercial....they actually re-recorded it with new lyrics about Outback. That is an utter and complete joke.
Use your art to make some money....cool. Change your existing art specifically to shill for some corporation? That is deserving of the sellout tag."
While I agree with this post, my other problem with the Of Montreal/Outback situation is just what a complete douche Kevin Barnes was about the whole thing. Not only did he rewrite and rerecord the song (and I wonder if the rest of the band even knew about it - a little less than 2 years ago, "Wraith Pinned to The Mist..." was in a VH1 commercial, and when I mentioned that to several members of OM, they didn't know about it), when people made fun of him and/or called him a sell-out for it, he spazzed and said they couldn't be fans if they didn't respect him as an artist. Right.
Man, it really sucks when people get paid for what they love to do.
"Im all for artists that make their own art and THEN can sell it"
If you're on a major label, or even the innumerable "indie" labels that aren't really indie because they rely on majors for distribution, you're already sold. When your label pays for your studio time, you're already sold; you have a budget to recoup. Sometimes you have to do that through licensing agreements. That's how a lot of bands get discovered now, and how a lot of older bands keep themselves heard. You can't make an album with no money whatsoever, not one that will sell enough for you to quit your day job. If an advertiser is willing to pay thousands to use your song, how is that any different than selling concert tickets to douche-bags or a-holes you might not agree with? You're in the business of making a living from music.
If you don't like the way a musician chooses to make money from his art, then stop being a fan of that musician. There's no need to whine about this like you're a helpless consumer who can't make decisions for himself.
I wish I had something to sell out with but it looks like cubical culture for me ad infinitum.
Who the hell is Of Montreal? The worst bastardization right now is playing The Humane Society's "Knock Knock" in a Miller Lite ad. Puts all of your whining to shame..