Your favourite music and TV commercials.

Mango

So I know sometimes these things slip by unnoticed as they only get aired in certain countries but doing the rounds right now in Australia is..... (takes a deep disappointing breath).....

Black Keys "Howlng For You" selling FUCKING car insurance :nono:

The Cat Empire "Hello, Hello" selling FUCKING yoghurt :nono: (not that kind of fucking yoghurt)

Postal Service "Such Great Heights" selling FUCKING mobile phones :nono:

How much say do the artists have in this? No actual lyrics are used in any of these so is it a publishing thing?

SatansFuton

I don't know how much say the artists have in it, I'm guessing it depends on whether they still own the rights to the music in question. As long as the songwriter(s) didn't sign away their publishing with their record deal or sell their catalog later, they should have control over whether or not a song is used. At least that's my understanding.

Probably one of the more notorious uses of a song in a commercial, a move that actually split the band up for 5-6 years, was the use of "Blister In The Sun" by Violent Femmes in a Wendy's (don't know if you have them in Australia, it's a fast food burger place) commercial. In this case the songwriter, Gordon Gano, did own the publishing rights to the song and he did have a say in using the song. Brian Ritchie, the bass player, was pretty confused and pissed over it, because he is a gourmet and Gordon is a vegetarian. Ritchie sued Gano over it, and a feud lasting half a decade ensued.

Brian Ritchie wrote:

For the fans who rightfully are complaining about the Wendy's burger advertisement featuring "Blister in the Sun," Gordon Gano is the publisher of the song and Warners is the record company. When they agree to use it there's nothing the rest of the band can do about it, because we don't own the song or the recording. That's showbiz. Therefore when you see dubious or in this case disgusting uses of our music you can thank the greed, insensitivity and poor taste of Gordon Gano, it is his karma that he lost his songwriting ability many years ago, probably due to his own lack of self-respect as his willingness to prostitute our songs demonstrates. Neither Gordon (vegetarian) nor me (gourmet) eat garbage like Wendy's burgers. I can't endorse them because I disagree with corporate food on culinary, political, health, economic and environmental grounds. However, I see my life's work trivialized at the hands of my business partner over and over again, although I have raised my objections numerous times. As disgusted as you are I am more so.

I personally am not bothered by songs used in commercials, but I can see Brian Ritchie's concern, selling frozen burgers when he is a gourmet and the lead singer is a vegetarian. Selling your song for an ad is one thing, selling it to a company that goes against what you believe in is another.

Johnny Aggro

Not sure about commercials, but Backspacer was all over TV shows from the US. Can remember Unthough Known, Fixer, Just Breathe and The End in the likes of Greys' Anat, Hawaii 5-0, Flashfoward (really terrible show). Kinda cool to hear it, but again what input do PJ have? I guess they have a lot of say these days, but then I ain't sure.

Think it was Yellow Ledbetter that was their first at the last show of Friends, this was because their deal with Epic was finished by then.

Interesting.

Pap

I'll post two videos related to jingles later.

pandora

I love Sarah http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gspElv1yvc ...
right now there are animals that need you

moretonbayfig

Mango wrote:

So I know sometimes these things slip by unnoticed as they only get aired in certain countries but doing the rounds right now in Australia is..... (takes a deep disappointing breath).....

Black Keys "Howlng For You" selling FUCKING car insurance :nono:

The Cat Empire "Hello, Hello" selling FUCKING yoghurt :nono: (not that kind of fucking yoghurt)

Postal Service "Such Great Heights" selling FUCKING mobile phones :nono:

How much say do the artists have in this? No actual lyrics are used in any of these so is it a publishing thing?

... EV is on high rotation on SBS past 6 months http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtJNbML8Qr0 The ad itself is a bit naff, but a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down

Spoony C

With stuff like "Blister in the Sun," where it's an older/classic song being sold later in a band's career, it can feel like a cash grab and seem kind of gross, but with the current bands using fairly current songs in advertising ("Howlin' for You" was in a car commercial when its album was fresh), it's another outlet for getting yourself heard. Radio exposure has been eliminated for all but a chosen few; MTV is gone as a music outlet. For all the freedom that the streaming sites and online sources offer, your music generally has to be recommended (either by a blog, another user, or a "you might also like" algorithm) for a new listener to find it. Appearing in commercials or TV soundtracks is a newish* way to get your music heard, get caught in their heads, and have them want to know what it is. It's probably an in-between step before we get to something else entirely, but it's what we have right now.

*I say "newish" because the big pioneer of this was Moby, back in 1999-2000, when he licensed pretty much all of his 18 album to commercials and rode the exposure to solid sales.

Mango

SatansFuton wrote:

I don't know how much say the artists have in it, I'm guessing it depends on whether they still own the rights to the music in question. As long as the songwriter(s) didn't sign away their publishing with their record deal or sell their catalog later, they should have control over whether or not a song is used. At least that's my understanding.

Probably one of the more notorious uses of a song in a commercial, a move that actually split the band up for 5-6 years, was the use of "Blister In The Sun" by Violent Femmes in a Wendy's (don't know if you have them in Australia, it's a fast food burger place) commercial. In this case the songwriter, Gordon Gano, did own the publishing rights to the song and he did have a say in using the song. Brian Ritchie, the bass player, was pretty confused and pissed over it, because he is a gourmet and Gordon is a vegetarian. Ritchie sued Gano over it, and a feud lasting half a decade ensued.

Brian Ritchie wrote:

For the fans who rightfully are complaining about the Wendy's burger advertisement featuring "Blister in the Sun," Gordon Gano is the publisher of the song and Warners is the record company. When they agree to use it there's nothing the rest of the band can do about it, because we don't own the song or the recording. That's showbiz. Therefore when you see dubious or in this case disgusting uses of our music you can thank the greed, insensitivity and poor taste of Gordon Gano, it is his karma that he lost his songwriting ability many years ago, probably due to his own lack of self-respect as his willingness to prostitute our songs demonstrates. Neither Gordon (vegetarian) nor me (gourmet) eat garbage like Wendy's burgers. I can't endorse them because I disagree with corporate food on culinary, political, health, economic and environmental grounds. However, I see my life's work trivialized at the hands of my business partner over and over again, although I have raised my objections numerous times. As disgusted as you are I am more so.

I personally am not bothered by songs used in commercials, but I can see Brian Ritchie's concern, selling frozen burgers when he is a gourmet and the lead singer is a vegetarian. Selling your song for an ad is one thing, selling it to a company that goes against what you believe in is another.

Thanks for that. I enjoyed that read. I know The Clash have done it too with Levis and John Lydon tried selling me butter (and gave a shit load of excuses too). I am usually disappointed I must admit. I think back to Bill Hick's "Artistic Roll Call" from Rant in E-Minor:

Do a commercial, you’re off the artistic roll call; every word you say is suspect, you’re a corporate whore and uh, end of story. And yes, I have been offered commercials, so I’m not jealous and I turned them all down ‘cause…I’m not a salesman and I don’t need money that is built on blood.

(guy in crowd asks ‘Who offered it to you?’- Hicks responds:)

Well, in England, I did this, this is classic England- I got offered..this is the product, you ready? “Orange Drink.” I’m goin’ “What’s the name of it?” “Orange Drink.” That’s classic England, right? Such a socialist fuckin’ nightmare over there, right? That’s the drink- Orange Drink. I said, “Yeah you really got my act down good, guys. That’ll be great.”

“You know..when I’m done ranting about elite power that rules the planet under a totalitarian government that uses the media to keep people stupid, ..my throat gets parched. That’s why I drink ‘Orange Drink!’ ” Yeah, right. Don’t ya see how it all fit in. Don’t ya see how every word I said would be hollow and filled with nothing.

Mango

I am probably still a bit blind to the realities of it all and naive in thinking "artists" still give a fuck. But I like to hold on to that as much as I can and when someone uses a song, that once stood for something, to try and sell me shit...I feel let down.

Isn't there any other way you can earn your living? Black Keys are HUGE everywhere, they're touring and selling out shows.... Do they REALLY need to sell me this shit? I just hope they have no say in it and are as pissed off as me.

moretonbayfig

Mango wrote:

I just hope they have no say in it and are as pissed off as me.

I can't hurt to ask via social media... like with the recent case of the New York photographer who refused an offer from DNKY to purchase the rights to use his work - they used his work anyway without permission or payment in a foreign market. If not for a fan of his work alerting him, the photographer would never have known. Also, John Butler Trio had 'Zebra' stolen and refashioned and used in an ad shown during the 2012 Superbowl - JBT's website and social media accounts were flooded with fans asking if they had sold the rights, which they hadn't. Presumably, the risk to corporations of stealing work is financially minimal...?

SatansFuton

Mango wrote:

I am probably still a bit blind to the realities of it all and naive in thinking "artists" still give a fuck. But I like to hold on to that as much as I can and when someone uses a song, that once stood for something, to try and sell me shit...I feel let down.

Isn't there any other way you can earn your living? Black Keys are HUGE everywhere, they're touring and selling out shows.... Do they REALLY need to sell me this shit? I just hope they have no say in it and are as pissed off as me.

I used to think that way too, especially when I was younger. Back in the 90's there was a lot of talk about selling out, any band that wasn't starving to death was a "sell out" in a lot of people's minds. I think people just prefer their artists to be poor, when they become millionaires you can't relate to them as well. And everybody loves the image of 5 guys sleeping on mattresses laid across the floor of some shithole apartment and eating dinner out of a can, all for the love of music. The stuff we've seen in recent years would have really caused a stink back in the 90's. People were very idealistic with other people's finances it seemed.

Whether or not they REALLY need to sell it to you, I don't know, depends on how much money they think they need. What bills they have, what future they're planning, if they have kids, etc. The Black Keys aren't going to be The Black Keys forever. Well maybe they'll last 20-50 years, but odds are they won't. People want to make money while they can. Album sales aren't what they used to be, I'm sure touring is where most money comes from. So selling a song or two is a way to make money while not having to be on the road, which I'm sure is appealing.

We can sit here and say "isn't there any other way you can earn your living?", but if somebody handed you a contract for a song you wrote right now and offered you thousands of dollars to put it in a commercial, would you turn it down out of principle? It's easy money, and once you become a professional musician that means it's not your hobby anymore, it's your career and where you make your money. You can't be a banker by day and play arenas at night. So I'm sure a lot of musicians, when something like that is put in front of them, probably sign it and accept their earnings as long as it's not something too disgusting or contrary to their beliefs. Unless you're Gordon Gano I guess.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think every band is doing this just to make a living. Certainly many are filthy rich and keep doing it. I'm not sure how much money the Stones think they need, but it doesn't really bother me.

catefrances

SatansFuton wrote:

...We can sit here and say "isn't there any other way you can earn your living?", but if somebody handed you a contract for a song you wrote right now and offered you thousands of dollars to put it in a commercial, would you turn it down out of principle?...

yes I would turn it down out of principle... without hesitation.

Mango

moretonbayfig wrote:

... EV is on high rotation on SBS past 6 months http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtJNbML8Qr0 The ad itself is a bit naff, but a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down

I hadn't seen that, cheers.

catefrances

moretonbayfig wrote:

... EV is on high rotation on SBS past 6 months http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtJNbML8Qr0 The ad itself is a bit naff, but a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down

make it stop.... please make it stop.

SatansFuton

catefrances wrote:

SatansFuton wrote:

...We can sit here and say "isn't there any other way you can earn your living?", but if somebody handed you a contract for a song you wrote right now and offered you thousands of dollars to put it in a commercial, would you turn it down out of principle?...

yes I would turn it down out of principle... without hesitation.

Out of curiosity at what point would you draw the line? If you wouldn't license out a song to a commercial, would you do it for a TV show or movie? Most of which are commercials these days to some extent with all the product placement. You can hardly put yourself on tv or radio without taking part in trying to sell the public something.

catefrances

SatansFuton wrote:

catefrances wrote:

SatansFuton wrote:

...We can sit here and say "isn't there any other way you can earn your living?", but if somebody handed you a contract for a song you wrote right now and offered you thousands of dollars to put it in a commercial, would you turn it down out of principle?...

yes I would turn it down out of principle... without hesitation.

Out of curiosity at what point would you draw the line? If you wouldn't license out a song to a commercial, would you do it for a TV show or movie? Most of which are commercials these days to some extent with all the product placement. You can hardly put yourself on tv or radio without taking part in trying to sell the public something.

the line is already drawn... so no and no.

SatansFuton

catefrances wrote:

the line is already drawn... so no and no.

You'd likely have a short but admirable music career.

The only reason I don't have a problem with these kind of things is because it puts the music out there for more to hear. Pearl Jam has seen a large rise in popularity and more people hearing their music because of it. Prior to Backspacer the last time I heard a new Pearl Jam song on the radio around here was "Light Years". I"m not joking or exaggerating, from Riot Act on they've gotten no play in this market, just the same old hits from the early days. When Backspacer first came out, didn't hear a single song from it on the radio either, no surprise. They'd be like "Pearl Jam has a new album out... here's Jeremy". Then Backspacer songs became the cliche songs to use on every hour long drama, and I kid you not I've heard "Just Breathe" twice on the radio in the past two days and Pearl Jam on the radio multiple times every day. In your market it might not be that big of a deal for that song to play on the radio, but here in Texas it's Ten through Vitalogy, and nothing else ever. And even those songs were starting to become less common the further we get away from the 90's.

It's just so hard to do anything these days in the spotlight without selling something. If you go on SNL and play a couple of numbers, you just pimped Budweiser, because as soon as your song ends the Budweiser logo pops up and says the musical guest was "brought to you by...".

catefrances

SatansFuton wrote:

catefrances wrote:

the line is already drawn... so no and no.

You'd likely have a short but admirable music career.

The only reason I don't have a problem with these kind of things is because it puts the music out there for more to hear. Pearl Jam has seen a large rise in popularity and more people hearing their music because of it. Prior to Backspacer the last time I heard a new Pearl Jam song on the radio around here was "Light Years". I"m not joking or exaggerating, from Riot Act on they've gotten no play in this market, just the same old hits from the early days. When Backspacer first came out, didn't hear a single song from it on the radio either, no surprise. They'd be like "Pearl Jam has a new album out... here's Jeremy". Then Backspacer songs became the cliche songs to use on every hour long drama, and I kid you not I've heard "Just Breathe" twice on the radio in the past two days and Pearl Jam on the radio multiple times every day. In your market it might not be that big of a deal for that song to play on the radio, but here in Texas it's Ten through Vitalogy, and nothing else ever. And even those songs were starting to become less common the further we get away from the 90's.

It's just so hard to do anything these days in the spotlight without selling something. If you go on SNL and play a couple of numbers, you just pimped Budweiser, because as soon as your song ends the Budweiser logo pops up and says the musical guest was "brought to you by...".

I couldn't give a fuck if the bands I listen to have a rise in popularity. why would I?


as for hearing pearl jam on my radio station I think the last time was in 2009... but I wouldn't bet on that.

SatansFuton

catefrances wrote:

I couldn't give a fuck if the bands I listen to have a rise in popularity. why would I?

I don't care about rise in popularity in terms of wanting other people to like what I do, I'm talking about how it affects the prosperity/longevity of the band. A band nobody listens to doesn't stay a band very long, an album nobody knows is out doesn't sell, and it's hard to put butts in seats to see such a band.

catefrances

SatansFuton wrote:

catefrances wrote:

I couldn't give a fuck if the bands I listen to have a rise in popularity. why would I?

I don't care about rise in popularity in terms of wanting other people to like what I do, I'm talking about how it affects the prosperity/longevity of the band. A band nobody listens to doesn't stay a band very long, an album nobody knows is out doesn't sell, and it's hard to put butts in seats to see such a band.

the majority of bands I listen to are 'unknown' and have been for, in some instances, many years. the commercial stations wont touch them cause they don't support local talent... the upside of that is I can always be guaranteed to see them live whenever they tour. if the bands I listen to do cease to exist well that's the way it goes... theres always someone else to listen to... alls you gotta do is look. and because ive bought their EPs and albums I can continue to listen to them for however long I choose. im not sure we should expect bands to last for 20 years or whatever... especially if they lose the edge that attracted us to them in the first place.

SatansFuton

catefrances wrote:

SatansFuton wrote:

catefrances wrote:

I couldn't give a fuck if the bands I listen to have a rise in popularity. why would I?

I don't care about rise in popularity in terms of wanting other people to like what I do, I'm talking about how it affects the prosperity/longevity of the band. A band nobody listens to doesn't stay a band very long, an album nobody knows is out doesn't sell, and it's hard to put butts in seats to see such a band.

the majority of bands I listen to are 'unknown' and have been for, in some instances, many years. the commercial stations wont touch them cause they don't support local talent... the upside of that is I can always be guaranteed to see them live whenever they tour. if the bands I listen to do cease to exist well that's the way it goes... theres always someone else to listen to... alls you gotta do is look. and because ive bought their EPs and albums I can continue to listen to them for however long I choose. im not sure we should expect bands to last for 20 years or whatever... especially if they lose the edge that attracted us to them in the first place.

I understand your point of view, but you're not really looking at it from their point of view. You're looking at it as somebody who if this band craps out there's always another one, but that's of little consolation to the people in these bands trying to make a career out of music. Your life goes on, you get into another band, meanwhile some guy is giving up on their dream, taking up a 9 to 5 and maybe once in a while hearing "weren't you in that band?". I also enjoy the romantic notion of the starving artist who is in it for the love of music, but I never fault them for making money. They have to be able to make money (and there are other ways, but just talking about the general idea of bands taking money where they can) in order to keep doing what they're doing. If you're not making money being in a band costs you money. Instruments, strings, adjustments, equipment and all that costs money. Most bands of the size you're talking about are doing good to break even, in the early days the Stones were paying for the privilege of playing, they couldn't have kept on. Everybody needs a break of some kind or they're going to end up burning the french fries.

Now with your bigger bands obviously this is different. I'm not saying Pearl Jam needs to put songs on hour long dramas to keep the lights on, but I'm sure these bands are looking forward to a life (albeit a wealthy one) after music. When the tours end for these bands I'm not putting anybody's kids through college, chipping in for their divorce settlements or their DWI attorney.

catefrances

SatansFuton wrote:

I understand your point of view, but you're not really looking at it from their point of view. You're looking at it as somebody who if this band craps out there's always another one, but that's of little consolation to the people in these bands trying to make a career out of music. Your life goes on, you get into another band, meanwhile some guy is giving up on their dream, taking up a 9 to 5 and maybe once in a while hearing "weren't you in that band?". I also enjoy the romantic notion of the starving artist who is in it for the love of music, but I never fault them for making money. They have to be able to make money (and there are other ways, but just talking about the general idea of bands taking money where they can) in order to keep doing what they're doing. If you're not making money being in a band costs you money. Instruments, strings, adjustments, equipment and all that costs money. Most bands of the size you're talking about are doing good to break even, in the early days the Stones were paying for the privilege of playing, they couldn't have kept on. Everybody needs a break of some kind or they're going to end up burning the french fries.

Now with your bigger bands obviously this is different. I'm not saying Pearl Jam needs to put songs on hour long dramas to keep the lights on, but I'm sure these bands are looking forward to a life (albeit a wealthy one) after music. When the tours end for these bands I'm not putting anybody's kids through college, chipping in for their divorce settlements or their DWI attorney.

im fairly sure that musicians know going in that the music industry is a crap shoot... and yep I know the bands I listen to are touring to survive and in between they bring out albums. I also know theyre working somewhere to pay the bills... I see them behind the bar at my favourite venue or behind the counter of my preferred record store. but they've chosen that and cause they love the music they'll do what needs to be done. if they choose to sell their songs then that's their business but I don't have to agree with them. it really has nothing to do with me... but when it comes to me... I know where my line is drawn. that's all im saying.

Mango

SatansFuton wrote:

I used to think that way too, especially when I was younger. Back in the 90's there was a lot of talk about selling out, any band that wasn't starving to death was a "sell out" in a lot of people's minds. I think people just prefer their artists to be poor, when they become millionaires you can't relate to them as well.

We can sit here and say "isn't there any other way you can earn your living?", but if somebody handed you a contract for a song you wrote right now and offered you thousands of dollars to put it in a commercial, would you turn it down out of principle? It's easy money, and once you become a professional musician that means it's not your hobby anymore, it's your career and where you make your money.

Well I grew up / was a teenager in the 90's so maybe I still hold on to those principles in a weird way. And as I said before maybe I am naive but the music was so aggressive and so DIY. Now people think music is created on a fucking Simon Cowell show, on a stage with glossy stars hitting big red buttons to vote. Tears, snot and joy all mixed into one 3 minute song. You can't get away from it wherever you go. Its a poison that spreads everywhere and yes millionaire rock stars ARE usually dick heads. I've no problem with anyone who works hard, earns their money and is enjoying it. But don't forget where you came from and what you once stood for.

And I would like to believe that if I was talented enough to write a song good enough for someone to listen to that I could believe in myself and turn away massive contracts for easy money. I would like to think I could be one of the artists who said; "No you know what? Fuck this company trying to sell crackers or orange juice off my creativity." Because I believe if you are doing something you truly love you should honour that and keep at it. If I don't end up with a mansion and six sports cars, so what? I know what is important to me in life.

There are plenty of pop stars coming off the never-ending conveyor belt who will gladly get on their knees for a slice of the pie. That's their call, but I despise that music and what it stands for, so when it happens to the stuff I like it annoys me.

I think the day when you accept it is when you let go of your principles. Sure I may be one of a dying breed but I don't care. You can't try and put your soul on an album and be one of the people one day, then allow your music to be used to sell some shit product and try still be down with kids at the same time. Its one or the other in my eyes.

You make some great points though and I understand where you are coming from.

SatansFuton

catefrances wrote:

SatansFuton wrote:

I understand your point of view, but you're not really looking at it from their point of view. You're looking at it as somebody who if this band craps out there's always another one, but that's of little consolation to the people in these bands trying to make a career out of music. Your life goes on, you get into another band, meanwhile some guy is giving up on their dream, taking up a 9 to 5 and maybe once in a while hearing "weren't you in that band?". I also enjoy the romantic notion of the starving artist who is in it for the love of music, but I never fault them for making money. They have to be able to make money (and there are other ways, but just talking about the general idea of bands taking money where they can) in order to keep doing what they're doing. If you're not making money being in a band costs you money. Instruments, strings, adjustments, equipment and all that costs money. Most bands of the size you're talking about are doing good to break even, in the early days the Stones were paying for the privilege of playing, they couldn't have kept on. Everybody needs a break of some kind or they're going to end up burning the french fries.

Now with your bigger bands obviously this is different. I'm not saying Pearl Jam needs to put songs on hour long dramas to keep the lights on, but I'm sure these bands are looking forward to a life (albeit a wealthy one) after music. When the tours end for these bands I'm not putting anybody's kids through college, chipping in for their divorce settlements or their DWI attorney.

im fairly sure that musicians know going in that the music industry is a crap shoot... and yep I know the bands I listen to are touring to survive and in between they bring out albums. I also know theyre working somewhere to pay the bills... I see them behind the bar at my favourite venue or behind the counter of my preferred record store. but they've chosen that and cause they love the music they'll do what needs to be done. if they choose to sell their songs then that's their business but I don't have to agree with them. it really has nothing to do with me... but when it comes to me... I know where my line is drawn. that's all im saying.

True, they know what they're getting into. I'm not saying they're victims with no other way to survive. I see selling a song as pretty victimless though. We hate ads, but they're free. It's not like gouging fans with high ticket prices or overpriced "limited edition" DVD sets.

SatansFuton

Mango wrote:

SatansFuton wrote:

I used to think that way too, especially when I was younger. Back in the 90's there was a lot of talk about selling out, any band that wasn't starving to death was a "sell out" in a lot of people's minds. I think people just prefer their artists to be poor, when they become millionaires you can't relate to them as well.

We can sit here and say "isn't there any other way you can earn your living?", but if somebody handed you a contract for a song you wrote right now and offered you thousands of dollars to put it in a commercial, would you turn it down out of principle? It's easy money, and once you become a professional musician that means it's not your hobby anymore, it's your career and where you make your money.

Well I grew up / was a teenager in the 90's so maybe I still hold on to those principles in a weird way. And as I said before maybe I am naive but the music was so aggressive and so DIY. Now people think music is created on a fucking Simon Cowell show, on a stage with glossy stars hitting big red buttons to vote. Tears, snot and joy all mixed into one 3 minute song. You can't get away from it wherever you go. Its a poison that spreads everywhere and yes millionaire rock stars ARE usually dick heads. I've no problem with anyone who works hard, earns their money and is enjoying it. But don't forget where you came from and what you once stood for.

And I would like to believe that if I was talented enough to write a song good enough for someone to listen to that I could believe in myself and turn away massive contracts for easy money. I would like to think I could be one of the artists who said; "No you know what? Fuck this company trying to sell crackers or orange juice off my creativity." Because I believe if you are doing something you truly love you should honour that and keep at it. If I don't end up with a mansion and six sports cars, so what? I know what is important to me in life.

There are plenty of pop stars coming off the never-ending conveyor belt who will gladly get on their knees for a slice of the pie. That's their call, but I despise that music and what it stands for, so when it happens to the stuff I like it annoys me.

I think the day when you accept it is when you let go of your principles. Sure I may be one of a dying breed but I don't care. You can't try and put your soul on an album and be one of the people one day, then allow your music to be used to sell some shit product and try still be down with kids at the same time. Its one or the other in my eyes.

You make some great points though and I understand where you are coming from.

As do you. Personally if I were a musician I wouldn't look at it as a company trying to piggy back off my creativity, but rather a chance to use my creativity to fund my passion, to keep working in the business, and not have to worry about money while I focused on my passion.

catefrances

SatansFuton wrote:

True, they know what they're getting into. I'm not saying they're victims with no other way to survive. I see selling a song as pretty victimless though. We hate ads, but they're free. It's not like gouging fans with high ticket prices or overpriced "limited edition" DVD sets.

ads are free cause they know people wouldn't pay to view them... that's why they've crept so insidiously into our lives.

a couple of years ago I was sitting on the sofa watching an adbreak and I heard a very familiar song... it was from one of my fave local bands.. I was intrigued cause this is a band who are socialist, anticorporate and big on conspiracies to the nth degree and I wondered what they could possibly be flogging. turns out it was real estate. my heart dropped and I couldn't get my head around the decision theyd made. of all the things they could flog it was real estate. the thought still makes me cringe and the next time I see them(they've just come back from hiatus)if I get the chance I will ask what was behind that decision. cause im dead fucking curious. it just seems so out of character for them.

catefrances

SatansFuton wrote:

As do you. Personally if I were a musician I wouldn't look at it as a company trying to piggy back off my creativity, but rather a chance to use my creativity to fund my passion, to keep working in the business, and not have to worry about money while I focused on my passion.

and how many times do you do that before you realise youvve sold your soul?

SatansFuton

catefrances wrote:

SatansFuton wrote:

As do you. Personally if I were a musician I wouldn't look at it as a company trying to piggy back off my creativity, but rather a chance to use my creativity to fund my passion, to keep working in the business, and not have to worry about money while I focused on my passion.

and how many times do you do that before you realise youvve sold your soul?

Never. Unless having a job in general means you've sold your soul. Which I know it does to some people, but I wouldn't be ashamed to make a living at what I'm good at.

catefrances

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW_Hj2K0wo

catefrances

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgUWTquztGY

SatansFuton

As always Bill makes good points, but as always he's very over the top about it, as was his style.

My question is this, how do you survive in music without selling something for somebody? You go on a TV show there are commercials and corporate sponsors, same for radio, you get a write up in a music magazine with ads falling out of it and your picture wedged between two cologne samples. You tour and you're selling overpriced beer and parking. Maybe you don't sell any songs at all, don't put yourself in any TV shows, etc, just make records. Let's say you sign with Sony Music, owned by Sony America, part of the Sony multi-national conglomerate. Sign with Universal and you work for Vivendi. It seems to me, and maybe it's just me, no matter what you do you're working for the advertising companies, or selling something.