Is the meaning of a song any less effected when it's heard on the radio, sandwiched between a Monster Truck show and an Empire Today radio spot?
I once had the opportunity to cast the bassist of an indie rock band in a tv spot for a popular chain of pizza restaurants. The lead singer (her husband) told me afterward: Thanks to you, we had health care that year.
You didn't mention "Pink Moon" in the VW spot that essentially brought Nick Drake's music to people who wouldn't have heard it. Or Yael Naïm, the singer no one outside of Israel might have known otherwise were it not for Apple. And yet neither one of those performers are considered "brands," in the same way that Madonna is. They haven't really compromised anything, no less than payola would have done for a radio station in the 1950's.
I wonder about the timing of this rant, too. If this were 1986 and we were bitching that Lou Reed starred in a Honda motorcycle spot, along with "Walk on The Wild Side," or we just saw Nike's "Revolution" spot, okay, I could get it. But it's twenty two years after the fact.
Surely by now, with few exceptions the majority of people have accepted the idea that album cover art isn't as important, mp3's are more convenient even at the expense of vinyl fidelity and an indie rock group Dean & Britta might want to pay their dentist bills rather than live hand to mouth, no?
mtlbbg
· 4 months ago
@evan - Context. Sandwiched between other stuff doesn’t matter because at least the song is intact, not butchered for a :30. Still, your argument is all about the reasons “for,” yet doesn’t mention the one thing Steve starts to touch on.
When you hear a song you loved/grew up with now appear in a soap ad, the first reaction is “Damn, you gotta be kidding.” (Usually, it’s just one line lifted from the chorus that happens to be something a brand THINKS it can lay claim to using to make people identify with said product.)
You react that way now though because the feeling the spot is trying to illicit is at odds with the memories you first created with the song, creating a disconnect, even though a brand thinks hijacking your memories is a good thing. Music is about visualizing your own story for the song, NOT someone else’s interpretation of it. (It’s great a few people got turned onto the song, but I’m guessing plenty of Drake fans also cringed too.)
I also don’t see justification for using a 30-year old song for an audience who never heard of it, just because a line in the song happens to bail out a copywriter who couldn’t come up with better one.
As for starving musicians? I understand, but, why is that the viewer’s problem. For every Of Montreal cashing a T-Mobile check, how many musicians DON’T need to, either? Get better agents then. A well-known song should be producing decent royalties for all involved in the first place, especially if it’s a hit.
Regardless, I have no problem with musicians in spots—just be creative with it. They don’t have to come on and play their hits to be effective. (Ozzy, Gene Simmons, etc. NOT that those dudes need more money either, just saying.)
Chuck Nyren
· 4 months ago
A quote from my book:
Purely anecdotal: I’m watching TV. I hear a tune I haven’t heard in thirty-five, forty years. My mind goes off into the ether. “Wow. What a great song. I’d forgotten all about it. I had the album.The cover was blue . . . And there were a bunch of other great songs on that album.What the hell were they? I can’t remember . . . I wonder if I can get it on Amazon. There’s probably only a compilation of his hits,or a boxed set. But I just want the CD of the album. I’ll have to remember to check the next time I’m online . . .”
By then, the commercial is over. In fact, probably three other commercials are over. I have no idea what the product is, or what any of the the other products are.
mike
· 4 months ago
I agree with you entirely BUT don't throw the Beatles on there quite yet, as far as I know doesn't/didn't Michael Jackson own the rights to all the Beatles songs?
Last I'd heard Jackson outbid Paul McCartney for them in the late 80s/early 90s, ruining their friendship and placing Beatles songs in every commercial imaginable.
dhanson
· 4 months ago
Yes, Michael Jackson (and I think Sony) own the rights to the Lennon/McCartney catalog. Lennon and McCartney were young and naive when they signed their early contracts and lost the rights to the songs. McCartney and Yoko Ono tried to buy the rights when they became available but lost to a higher bid from Jackson. So the songs can be used in ads, BUT not performed by the Beatles, which is why the Revolution ad for Nike got in trouble. To this point the Beatles have refused to let their versions of the songs appear in ads.
evan
· 4 months ago
@mtlbbg This is the best discussion I've had in a while.
I completely understand your argument, and I'm really pretty much on the same side. But it's still interesting to me to explore it because I don't think we can separate the way in which music is now reaching us, either from anything else.
I would like to think my music association memories are stronger than anyone who chooses to use music in a way I deem inappropriate, too. Yes. I cringe when they use Devo's "Whip it" in a Swiffer ad, but with that concept, (and most concepts in general for that matter) we're way beyond the old "lazy creative" argument and have now gone headstrong into the conceptually vacuous territory.
Still, I can't help but think your argument if we're not careful could apply to other parts of entertainment, which begs the 'where does it stop,' question. For instance, I could write a pejorative essay on wes anderson, quentin tarantino, cameron crowe, john hughes and zach braff's destroying my music with their greatest-hits soundtrack as a cheap way of generating emotion in mainstream american movies for an audience they presuppose is not intelligent enough to generate their own.
The reason I don't (besides the fact I think I have a life) is that "My music" is also "Their music." You may own your specific memory association with The Smiths, "Everyday is like Sunday" or whatever, but you don't own the song, or have the sole rights to its memory association.
So in some ways thats kind of neat. In other ways yeah, that doesn't mean it should be plopped on a doritos ad because no one needs that. Still if its that important, the artists shouldn't sell out so they can keep themselves in doritos so all the fault can't be placed on Big Advertising.
So let's say this: I'm not prepared to condemn the act in its entirety. In small doses and within the right context its effective. But I don't want it everywhere, either. All and all we should strive for a More concept, less slap-dash one-song-its-all approach.
And for the record I still haven't forgiven R.E.M. for "Stand" or "Shiny Happy People."
Ron Zywicki
· 4 months ago
I'd say mtlbbg captures the basis of my objections to "recycling" music and shoving a snippet of a song into an ad when he points out that "a line in the song happens to bail out a copywriter who couldn’t come up with better one."
e.g. think of the promos for Sunday football games where they use the chorus from The Smith's "Everyday is like Sunday." They drop the rest of the lyric: "every day is silent and grey"—not the best brand message. Most non-Smith fan's wouldn't know that, nor care. But the point is that it's easier to write a quick royalty check than to write something unique, interesting and brand-appropriate for the long term.
The power of the jingle needs to be re-embraced. freecreditreports.com is proving it works today just as it did forty years ago.
All Comments
http://tinyurl.com/o229ah
Even my latest post has something to do with it.
I once had the opportunity to cast the bassist of an indie rock band in a tv spot for a popular chain of pizza restaurants. The lead singer (her husband) told me afterward: Thanks to you, we had health care that year.
You didn't mention "Pink Moon" in the VW spot that essentially brought Nick Drake's music to people who wouldn't have heard it. Or Yael Naïm, the singer no one outside of Israel might have known otherwise were it not for Apple. And yet neither one of those performers are considered "brands," in the same way that Madonna is. They haven't really compromised anything, no less than payola would have done for a radio station in the 1950's.
I wonder about the timing of this rant, too. If this were 1986 and we were bitching that Lou Reed starred in a Honda motorcycle spot, along with "Walk on The Wild Side," or we just saw Nike's "Revolution" spot, okay, I could get it. But it's twenty two years after the fact.
Surely by now, with few exceptions the majority of people have accepted the idea that album cover art isn't as important, mp3's are more convenient even at the expense of vinyl fidelity and an indie rock group Dean & Britta might want to pay their dentist bills rather than live hand to mouth, no?
When you hear a song you loved/grew up with now appear in a soap ad, the first reaction is “Damn, you gotta be kidding.” (Usually, it’s just one line lifted from the chorus that happens to be something a brand THINKS it can lay claim to using to make people identify with said product.)
You react that way now though because the feeling the spot is trying to illicit is at odds with the memories you first created with the song, creating a disconnect, even though a brand thinks hijacking your memories is a good thing. Music is about visualizing your own story for the song, NOT someone else’s interpretation of it. (It’s great a few people got turned onto the song, but I’m guessing plenty of Drake fans also cringed too.)
I also don’t see justification for using a 30-year old song for an audience who never heard of it, just because a line in the song happens to bail out a copywriter who couldn’t come up with better one.
As for starving musicians? I understand, but, why is that the viewer’s problem. For every Of Montreal cashing a T-Mobile check, how many musicians DON’T need to, either? Get better agents then. A well-known song should be producing decent royalties for all involved in the first place, especially if it’s a hit.
Regardless, I have no problem with musicians in spots—just be creative with it. They don’t have to come on and play their hits to be effective. (Ozzy, Gene Simmons, etc. NOT that those dudes need more money either, just saying.)
Purely anecdotal: I’m watching TV. I hear a tune I haven’t heard in thirty-five, forty years. My mind goes off into the ether. “Wow. What a great song. I’d forgotten all about it. I had the album.The cover was blue . . . And there were a bunch of other great songs on that album.What
the hell were they? I can’t remember . . . I wonder if I can get it on Amazon. There’s probably only a compilation of his hits,or a boxed set. But I just want the CD of the album. I’ll have to remember to check the next time I’m online . . .”
By then, the commercial is over. In fact, probably three other commercials are over. I have no idea what the product is, or what any of
the the other products are.
Last I'd heard Jackson outbid Paul McCartney for them in the late 80s/early 90s, ruining their friendship and placing Beatles songs in every commercial imaginable.
I completely understand your argument, and I'm really pretty much on the same side. But it's still interesting to me to explore it because I don't think we can separate the way in which music is now reaching us, either from anything else.
I would like to think my music association memories are stronger than anyone who chooses to use music in a way I deem inappropriate, too.
Yes. I cringe when they use Devo's "Whip it" in a Swiffer ad, but with that concept, (and most concepts in general for that matter) we're way beyond the old "lazy creative" argument and have now gone headstrong into the conceptually vacuous territory.
Still, I can't help but think your argument if we're not careful could apply to other parts of entertainment, which begs the 'where does it stop,' question. For instance, I could write a pejorative essay on wes anderson, quentin tarantino, cameron crowe, john hughes and zach braff's destroying my music with their greatest-hits soundtrack as a cheap way of generating emotion in mainstream american movies for an audience they presuppose is not intelligent enough to generate their own.
The reason I don't (besides the fact I think I have a life) is that "My music" is also "Their music." You may own your specific memory association with The Smiths, "Everyday is like Sunday" or whatever, but you don't own the song, or have the sole rights to its memory association.
So in some ways thats kind of neat. In other ways yeah, that doesn't mean it should be plopped on a doritos ad because no one needs that. Still if its that important, the artists shouldn't sell out so they can keep themselves in doritos so all the fault can't be placed on Big Advertising.
So let's say this: I'm not prepared to condemn the act in its entirety. In small doses and within the right context its effective. But I don't want it everywhere, either. All and all we should strive for a More concept, less slap-dash one-song-its-all approach.
And for the record I still haven't forgiven R.E.M. for "Stand" or "Shiny Happy People."
e.g. think of the promos for Sunday football games where they use the chorus from The Smith's "Everyday is like Sunday." They drop the rest of the lyric: "every day is silent and grey"—not the best brand message. Most non-Smith fan's wouldn't know that, nor care. But the point is that it's easier to write a quick royalty check than to write something unique, interesting and brand-appropriate for the long term.
The power of the jingle needs to be re-embraced. freecreditreports.com is proving it works today just as it did forty years ago.