Rolling Stones...

[The Nal]

forgot about Neil... This Note's For You...!

Great video. Another legend to take the piss out of Michael Jackson.

Great they did in fairness considering the relentless paedophilia that followed from him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJiUEr4045o

Edited October 31, 2012 by The Nal

[jimmyt]

I don't think it's unusual at all. It's just that when it comes to it, most artsits are happy with the money. Tom Waits is the only artist I can think of who has declined to use any of his songs in ads. He even sucessfully sued when a 'sound-alike' of him was used in one ad.

I'm sure Tom isn't unique in having a say in what happens with his songs

Here's a sad fact for you, though. I only own a few Tom Waits albums because, as an impressionable kid, I loved "Heartattack and Vine" on the Levi's advert (I know it was Screamin' Jay Hawkins version and I know Tom sued over its use) and it compelled me to investigate further.

My take on this is a consolidation of other points made. 1) Who watches adverts? That's what the mythical-cloud fairy invented Sky+ for. 2) If you have to suffer an advert, isn't it nicer if it's an opportunity to hear a good song rather than a ba one? 3) Bands are allowed to make money from their music, however they choose, and so they should be. If companies are stupid enough to think I'll buy their product because they use a particular song, or if they think I'll believe that a band endorses a given product because their song is used, then let them.

Are we at a point where we basically only like Led Zeppelin because they didn't release singles? Let's face it, for at least 25 years singles have been nothing more than adverts for the album which, more recently, is just an advert for the concert; videos are adverts for the singles. I know this being a bit daft but so is the idea that people don't like something as much because it's used commercially. We all get off on liking something a bit obscure because then it feels more personal and I, for one, go off songs I hear too much but when you're quoting adverts I don't even know about (dog food - or wa that a joke?) you're becoming the marketing man.

Edited October 31, 2012 by jimmyt

[jimmyt]

promoting your album is hardly the same as promoting dog food though, is it?

Surely we're not going to debate the products?! The argument for credibility, as presented, appeared to me to be that music/art should be made for music/art's sake. If you're writing a catchy 3and a half minute number to shift the rest of your songs, that's just marketing. The difference is, I might buy the album based on the song. I'm not going to buy dog food. I haven't got a dog.

[The Nal]

but when you're quoting adverts I don't even know about (dog food - or wa that a joke?) you're becoming the marketing man.

Unfortunately its not a joke.

I've never heard a lot of these ads as I fully agree with you about Sky+, but its all about the intent, the cynical nature of the "sale" and how it cheapens the song.

Edited October 31, 2012 by The Nal

[mazola]

I just got all excited at getting home an seeing 3 unread pages on the Rolling Stones thread, and thought there'd been some news.

Get a room you guys!

[jimmyt]

Unless you're going down the route that ends with the only true artist is one who never lets anyone see or hear it

I have only just realised how credible I am! Although, having revealed this, I am just a little bit less credible than I was an hour ago.

[jimmyt]

I just got all excited at getting home an seeing 3 unread pages on the Rolling Stones thread, and thought there'd been some news.

Get a room you guys!

Clearly this user account belongs to Lenny Henry and he's trying to shame us into a £29 a night room...

[The Nal]

Clearly this user account belongs to Lenny Henry and he's trying to shame us into a £29 a night room...

About as funny as Lenny Henry too.

[Big Vern]

I think the only problem with artists allowing their music to be used for adverts is if they have tried to sell themselves as none sell outs in the past, otherwise they are just furthering their income streams, which is what most artists go out to do these days, rather than to purely bring joy to the masses.

I agree with jimmyt, I'm all for using their tunes on adverts, sometimes brings to my attention bands I havent heard before. Definately isnt going to make me go and buy the product advertised, if anything its paid for advertising for the artist.

[The Nal]

Heres the mix up with the 12 quid tickets for Slane anyway

Edited October 31, 2012 by The Nal

[MEGABOWL]

Neil Young?

Love this Waits quote though: "If Michael Jackson wants to work for Pepsi why doesn't he just get himself a suit and an office in their headquarters and be done with it".

His attitude is a huge reason why I've become a little obsessed with hi over the last few years. Although the flipside of him not doing ads is that he charges a lot for his gigs.

REM? Radiohead? Coldplay? Springsteen? Pearl Jam? Rage Against The Machine? Arctic Monkeys?

I'm with you on this, it's been a lightning rod for me since I listened to Bill Hicks in the mid 90s. However I think it's becoming more complicated due to it being far more difficult than it used to be to make money with so many people stealing music these days.

I'm far more sympathetic to smaller, upcoming acts doing it than established stars. However, in a typical Catch-22, if an artist I think doesn't need the money sells their art as a 'product' and takes the advertising dollar, I'm far less inclined to buy their music. If they want to 'monetise' the 'product' by selling 'consumer goods' to an appropriate 'demographic', they don't need my money.

[The Nal]

REM? Radiohead? Coldplay? Springsteen? Pearl Jam? Rage Against The Machine? Arctic Monkeys?

Probably yeah. Theres lots. Some good bands too. Certainly more credible than Blur.

I'm with you on this, it's been a lightning rod for me since I listened to Bill Hicks in the mid 90s. However I think it's becoming more complicated due to it being far more difficult than it used to be to make money with so many people stealing music these days.

Yeah thats the sad reality we're facing. Doesn't mean it doesnt ruin the music though.

I would replace where you wrote "to make money" above to "make lots of money". Bans can still earn a very comfortable living.

I'm far more sympathetic to smaller, upcoming acts doing it than established stars. However, in a typical Catch-22, if an artist I think doesn't need the money sells their art as a 'product' and takes the advertising dollar, I'm far less inclined to buy their music. If they want to 'monetise' the 'product' by selling 'consumer goods' to an appropriate 'demographic', they don't need my money.

And if an established artists does it I'm far less inclined to listen to their music. Which I already may even own!

[mrtourette]

Probably yeah. Theres lots. Some good bands too. Certainly more credible than Blur.

See this is where we disgaree. Coldplay are more credible than Blur just because Blur let their music be used for adverts? I don't think Coldplay are anywhere near as inventive or challenging as Blur can be, nor do they demonstrate the ability to embrace other forms of music or art, and are just as desperate (if not more) for promotion and attention. Not to mention their apparent ease with viagogo raping their last tour and screwing over ticket-buyers. They have become a byword for tedious, dull and safe music over the years for a reason. And yet they have more artistic merit and credibility just because they don't sell their songs for adverts? I can't get on board with that. This is taking it beyond Blur and Coldplay but surely an inventive, edgy, challenging and constantly evolving band that sells a song for use in an advert is still more credible than a tedious, dull, unimaginative band who are corporate whores in all aspects other than the fact that they don't let their music be used on adverts?

Edited October 31, 2012 by mrtourette

[The Nal]

See this is where we disgaree. Coldplay are more credible than Blur just because Blur let their music be used for adverts? I don't think Coldplay are anywhere near as inventive or challenging as Blur can be, nor do they demonstrate the ability to embrace other forms of music or art, and are just as desperate (if not more) for promotion and attention. Not to mention their apparent ease with viagogo raping their last tour and screwing over ticket-buyers. They have become a byword for tedious, dull and safe music over the years for a reason. And yet they have more artistic merit and credibility just because they don't sell their songs for adverts? I can't get on board with that. This is taking it beyond Blur and Coldplay but surely an inventive, edgy, challenging and constantly evolving band that sells a song for use in an advert is still more credible than a tedious, dull, unimaginative band who are corporate whores in all aspects other than the fact that they don't let their music be used on adverts?

Sorry, agree with you 100%. I meant "some bands" on MBs list as being more credible than Blur. Coldplay not being one of them. I dont like Coldplay. I've no issue with them, just think they're a nothing band. And I wouldn't have an issue with them selling their music to anyone as they are a nothing band.

I didn't see Blur at Glasto. Was over at the Prodigy. Would've liked to see Blur, I've watched the performance of it a few times but I couldn't have got into it at all for the reasons I've mentioned.

I have seen Coldplay at Glasto funnily enough but I left because I was bored shitless.

Edited October 31, 2012 by The Nal

[mrtourette]

Ah OK. I still think there's more to judging a band's credibility, however it is endearing when a band decides that it isn't for them (just as long as they don't go on and on about it).

[The Nal]

Ah OK. I still think there's more to judging a band's credibility, however it is endearing when a band decides that it isn't for them (just as long as they don't go on and on about it).

Like religion!

I think theres more to judging a bands credibility too. But when they're selling off songs that they know people love and know mean a lot to people it really pisses me off. So duplicitous.

I love hearing stories from people about how a song got them through a tough period in their life (or in some girls cases - a tough period!), how it brought people together and how it in some cases actually saved peoples lives! Its the pure and beautiful part of music. Whats its meant to be.

Just annoys me no end when the same song, who the artist knows is part of peoples lives, who people have listened with closed eyes time and time again absorbing the song into their lives, ends up on a cheap dog food commercial so they can pocket a quick 20k for a few sneaky lines of bronson.

Again, not bashing Blur here but just using them as an example of what lots and lots of bands, "sacred" to fans, have done also.

Edited October 31, 2012 by The Nal

[MEGABOWL]

See this is where we disgaree. Coldplay are more credible than Blur just because Blur let their music be used for adverts? I don't think Coldplay are anywhere near as inventive or challenging as Blur can be, nor do they demonstrate the ability to embrace other forms of music or art, and are just as desperate (if not more) for promotion and attention. Not to mention their apparent ease with viagogo raping their last tour and screwing over ticket-buyers. They have become a byword for tedious, dull and safe music over the years for a reason. And yet they have more artistic merit and credibility just because they don't sell their songs for adverts? I can't get on board with that. This is taking it beyond Blur and Coldplay but surely an inventive, edgy, challenging and constantly evolving band that sells a song for use in an advert is still more credible than a tedious, dull, unimaginative band who are corporate whores in all aspects other than the fact that they don't let their music be used on adverts?

But again, to play Devils Advocate for a bit, I find myself questioning their motivations. Were they really being inventive, edgy and challenging because that's what came out of them as artists or were they doing it because they were thinking "this will play nice on a British Gas advert", or "we need to keep our artistic credibility because we'll be able to get more for our singles"?

Might seem ridiculous but then this in the case of Blur, we're talking about a band whos frontman is happy to do ads for Murdoch Newspapers....

[rexclark]

If I can forgive Daft Punk for this, I can forgive anyone.

Edited October 31, 2012 by rexclark

[danbailey80]

Jack White seems to be untouchable. He writes and records a song for cokaafuckingcola, yet no one bats an eyelid. I find this unforgivable.

I also find his ability to consistently release weak, patchy albums unforgivable but I seem to be alone in that view.

[The Nal]

Jack White seems to be untouchable. He writes and records a song for cokaafuckingcola, yet no one bats an eyelid. I find this unforgivable.

I also find his ability to consistently release weak, patchy albums unforgivable but I seem to be alone in that view.

I think the new album is really good. Only album of his I like. But that coke ad is a fucking disgrace yeah.

[mrtourette]

What about writing songs for films (ie Bond themes)?

[russycarps]

I cant believe you can "go off" a band just because they sell their songs to adverts.

Radiohead dont let their songs be used for ads (as far as I am aware), but the flaming lips do.

I still love both bands. I just couldnt really give a shit if I heard "do you realize" over the top of a porsche advert or somthing. Do all the happy memories I have associated with that song all of a sudden become less real? It seems crazy to me.

I cant help think the answer here is simply to watch less telly!

[Sketchead]

I cant believe you can "go off" a band just because they sell their songs to adverts.

Radiohead dont let their songs be used for ads (as far as I am aware), but the flaming lips do.

I still love both bands. I just couldnt really give a shit if I heard "do you realize" over the top of a porsche advert or somthing. Do all the happy memories I have associated with that song all of a sudden become less real? It seems crazy to me.

I cant help think the answer here is simply to watch less telly!

Agreed with this, makes no difference. If anything it makes me pay attention to the advert, something I rarely do. Hate adverts.

[The Nal]

In fairness I'm sure Jack White regrets the Coke ad. I mean how fucking lame is doing a Coke ad? So 1980s! But he lost a lot of fans and a lot of respect for it.

Its an arse clenchingly cringing ad too. Fucking awful.

Edited November 1, 2012 by The Nal

[LondonTom]

To be fair, it's a bit different (Though a band selling songs for ad's doesn't really bother me...in fact I had listened to los campesinos! in ages until I heard YOU! ME! DANCING! on the Budweiser ad, and I started listening to them again. As long its not the aim of proper released song.)

http://www.independe...ent-476062.html

White said Love is the Truth had been written specifically for Coca-Cola and he would never allow his music to be used for any other brand. Speaking to theNME, he said: "I certainly wouldn't want a song that I'd already written to be used on a commercial. But to be asked to write something particular along one theme of love in a worldwide form that I'm not really used to appealed to me."

So err...whats wrong with what he done exactly?

Edited November 1, 2012 by LondonTom