"Classic" music in TV commercials
BG -- Mon, 07/10/2006 - 15:19
The proliferation of "classic" music (as well as music from up-and-coming artists frozen out of the increasingly homogenous radio world) being in television commercials is nothing new, but with each day that goes by, it makes me never want to hear those artists again--particularly the already rich artists that are simply selling the soul of their craft.
Anyway, a site that lists many of the songs and the products they've been used to sell is at:
Who needs The Who's catalog when many of their songs now plug Hummer and the like?
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
I was kind of thinking the same thing when I heard that Keith Richards is doing a cameo appearance as Jack Sparrow's father (Depp) in the next installment of Pirates of the Carribean. It's as if the integrity of the movie is secondary to the marketing opportunity which it seems to me is the direction that movies and music are headed in today. It's all about the franchise and milking the audience for every last drop of green.
Maybe I'm just a curmudggeon but it seems as if it's open season for making a big joke of everything.
No doubt people of a certain age will flock to theaters for no other reason than to watch Richards make a complete idiot of himself (or not). Pt Barnum was right about suckers....
Neil Gader
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
Not being a regular TV watcher I am largely oblivious to the use of pop songs to sell Hummers and the like. That said, I've been exposed to enough of this kind of thing to share Bob's and Neil's feelings. I personally couldn't care less if I hear another Who song (for one example), and even a guy like Steve Earle--a man I never thought would "sell out"--recently licensed one of his tunes for a TV commercial. As to Keith Richards' reported appearance in the next Pirates movie, it, like song pimping, seems to reflect the power of the Boomer generation in the marketplace. It also shows that most people aren't very musically adventurous. For more on that topic, see my upcoming editorial in TAS Issue 164.
Wayne Garcia
Editor, The Absolute Sound
I definitely agree with the "song pimping" remark, and to the Boomer marketing power, I'd add what Starbucks has been doing with music in the chain--selecting primarily pre-approved mainstream pop and A/C for mass consumption, i.e., their breaking of that miserable (and final) Ray Charles studio album. It's really sad that Brother Ray hadn't ever had a platinum album in his life, and that that duets collection is what most people own from his catalog. Again, the power of marketing.
Bob Gendron
Music Editor, TAS and Playback
In all fairness, you have to let these artists earn money wherever and however they can. Steve Earle needs every paycheck he can get, and if he collects royalties for TV commercials it's OK by me. We live in a commercial society. Artists are exploited every time they turn around, and however they can earn a buck from their art is totally great. If attaching one of their works to an ad campaign makes them somehow less pure, I'd like to know how. They want to sell recordings and concert tickets, don't they? Ultimately, how is that any different from lending one of their songs to a car commercial?
And on the issue of using classical music to shill for products, remember that this is often the only exposure that people get to such music. Some have actually become enthusiasts because of a snippet they heard in a commercial. British Airways' use of the "Dome epais" duet from "Lakme" gave opera recordings a big boost. Don't dismiss the educational value of commercials. Their effect is far more pervasive and far-reaching than ad agencies ever imagine.
Haven't you ever heard a great piece of music for the first time in a commercial and just had to track it down? I know I have. JRalph's "A Million Miles Away," from the Volkswagen commercial where James Spader is desperately trying to get to the wedding, was one such piece of music. My search was so extensive and persistent that I ended up getting the recording direct from JRalph personally, because it was not available in any store.
Barry Willis
I'm going to respectufully albeit passionately disagree with those claims.
Artists are exploited every time they turn around? Hmmm.... Maybe the blues and jazz artists of the 30s, 40s and 50s, but I really don't think that's the case today. Artists today have a much clearer understanding of the contract they are signing, what it means, and what the consequences hold. No way am I going to subscribe to the belief that artists need paychecks so it should be a free-for-all for commercial tune music. I put a higher value on music than that, and I believe most artists do as well. Do The Who continue to need every paycheck they can get? The Stones? Michael Jackson via his Beatles catalog? (Well, he might...) Point is there are only so many castles to buy. I don't think we'd be looking at art--sculpture, painting, music, literature--the same way if it was all just put up to the highest bidder. I think it's a joke when I see Picasso images manipulated and put on shirts or mugs.
The difference between concerts and recordings vs. giving your song/craft to a commercial is huge. The former is art; the latter is advertising. If you're in the biz just to write commercial jingles, it's not art. Moreover, the selling of once-meaningful songs violates their original intent and associates them with a product. Do albums and concerts do that? Not in my experience.
And thankfully, there are a bevy of musicians who seem to agree. Tom Petty, Neil Young, Tool, and many others have turned down millions for the appropriation of their music in commercials. Trans AM has turned down NBC, Hummer, and Levis. The Thermals have turned down Humemr as well; they seem to have an endless supply of coopting cash. Love him or hate him, Axl Rose has gone to court over his refusal to liscence GNR songs to the highest bidders, much to his ex-bandmates' dismay. There has been an uproar over the recent sale of the Nirvana catalog for what ultimately will be a big sell-out. Can't wait to hear "Smells Like Teen Spirit" advertising some juvenile body spray. Anyone think that song will still have the same resonance or meaning? Pish. Moreover, the indie-rock community has prided itself on resisting this kind of crass commercialism. As for Steve Earle, he still hasn't recovered from the black eyes he took from that decision to sell out to Chevy. It seems like all the credibility he had got flushed down the toilet in a jiff; interestingly, he's been silent since that move.
As for the exposure argument, I think that's weak. Never has it been easier for people to listen to whatever they wanted and turn an ear to unheard music. The proliferation of the Internet and tons of legal preview and downloading sites have made this possible. The good record stores that remain all have listening areas and/or stations that basically playback tracks from any album you pick up and put underneath it. And what about Satellite Radio? What about Pandora? What about LastFM? Exposure problems? I think not. Look at Clap Your Hands Say Heah and Tapes n Tapes---both indie bands sold tens of thousands of albums without a label, right out of their bedrooms. Radiohead might not even use a label for its next record, and that would signify the biggest sea change in the industry since CDs replaced LPs--and it would be bigger. Let's face it--you can now live in the middle of rural Montana and hear anything you want now, and be in touch with everything going on.
Bob Gendron
Music Editor, TAS and Playback
In response to BG & BW I would like to add that artists, depending upon their stature, assume a certain risk peddling their output to commerical television. But that risk is proportional to their reputation and generational appeal. For baby boomers, the Beatles catalog is sacred. Even repeated exposure in TV ads is not going to tarnish that luster signifcantly--especially since they disbanded so many years ago. The Stones (who continue to tour, against all odds) seem to want to have it both ways with revenue streams pouring in from recordings concerts and commercials. They are becoming a crass parody with younger listeners more likely to associate "Start Me Up" with Microsoft than anything of greater substance. I think their reputation suffers greatly. My point is-I can't begrudge them wanting to line their coffers with gold but they are assuming the risk that their place in the pop pantheon is secure. For the Beatles I'd say yes. The Stones, the Who, over the next few years might see some slippage of their cred.
I think it's possible that unknown bands can get noticed with TV exposure that will ultimately drive interest, album sales and might give them legit artist credentials. But like the band that did "The Friends" theme, the market quickly heard them as one hit wonders and where are they now? ave Still, it gave them a shot.
Neil Gader
TAS
Neil Gader Associate Editor The Absolute Sound
With all due respect, art of very high quality is sold to the highest bidder(s) every day. It's especially true in the world of painting and sculpture, and absolutely true in the film industry. Hypothetical question: If you wrote a great screenplay, novel, or song, wouldn't you want to sell it to the highest bidder? And wouldn't you want to participate in royalties from ticket sales and syndication, and profits from spinoff products, etc? I certainly would. I'd want the maximum revenue stream for the maximum length of time from whatever I created. I don't think that would lessen the artistic impact or intent of my creation one bit.
Our treasured "pure" musical artists make plenty of bucks not only from their recordings and concert tickets, but also from all the cheesy momentos sold at concerts, in record stores, and on their websites -- T-shirts, hats, jackets, posters, bobble-head dolls, license plate frames, rear-window decals, bumper stickers, ad infinitum.
I don't see how hustling all that crap is more noble than licensing a song for a car commercial. Everyone who wants to make a go of it with their art, who wants to make that art a career and not a hobby, wants commercial success. The variation in "priciples" among these artists is nothing more than assorted opinions falling somewhere on the spectrum between isolationist disdain and unbridled hedonistic money-grubbing.
And, the "art" factor in many TV commercials is often far higher than in the programming they pay for. The use of great music for any purpose is a benefit for all, in my opinion.
BW
No doubt art of high quality is sold to the highest bidder everyday; that's inarguable. But the question is if that's right, and if the art, after it's sold, still has the same meaning or if it slips.
As for the cheesy mementos, the artists that do that are largely mainstream cash-it-now honeys whose best days went the way of the $2 Friday night movie ticket. The band that started most of that--Kiss--has always acknowledged they were marketing fiends and as a result, the music has never been looked upon as a priority, paritcularly post-77. Many bands who have such goods peddled in their name--the Grateful Dead, for example--are now under the control of one member or a corporation because other members are no longer active or have passed.
Man, I must be missing it, but I'm not certain I've ever seen a Grandaddy liscence plate holder, a Minutemen bobblehead or an Isis jacket. Again, these products belong to primarily older, Baby Boomer acts that also happen to charge $150 for a seat.
And we'll agree to disagree, but music in commercials immediately associates the former with a product completely unrelated to the song, thus compromising the integrity and meaning. OK, I'll quit harping on this topic now.
Bob Gendron
Music Editor, TAS and Playback
I still say there are instances where I an artist presenting their music in an ad can benefit both parties involved. One example I can point to is that Gap commercial from a few years back where Rufus Wainwright was sitting at a piano singing a magnificent version of "What Are You Doing New Year's Eve?" I remember being totally floored by his voice and I sought out his debut album the next day.
I think this is a bit different from U2 hawking Ipods and "Vertigo" in that Apple ad last year. Besides, they totally bit that "Vertigo" riff from the Vines' "Get Free." If you're going to steal a riff from someone, don't you think you could do better than the Vines?
Or you could go for Jessica Simpson and Janet Jackson's latest approach. The former will insert your name into a prepared "individualized" single for a small fee; the latter is having fans design her latest album cover because she knows her career is so over. How tempted I am to blow up a picture of a nipple to extreme size and submit it as the cover. How apt, no?
Bob Gendron
Music Editor, TAS and Playback
"My blood runs cold
My memory has just been sold . . ."
J.Giels Band
Yep, Mr. Geils about sums it up.
Bob Gendron
Music Editor, TAS and Playback