Know Your Product...

i think it may be selling out but frankly rock and roll dont pay what it used to

I don't understand the objection. The music is still there, just the same, as good (or not) as it was. I don't suppose Low or Clinic are making so much money at this that they're going to refuse big money (and I think it probably is big in their terms), so long as the source isn't objectionable. And there's the extra exposure, which can lead to rereleases and huge hits - though just the one, generally.

I'm no expert on this, but there have been cases where acts have claimed that a song was sold for use in an ad without their approval, so maybe it's not always their decision.

it's actually often the publishing company who make the deal rather than the band themselves. to explain, royalties are split (50-50 i think) between song-writing royalties and performance royalties. these royalties are then split between the band and the record company (performance royalties) and the songwriter and the publishing company (songwriting royalties). in the US publishing companies are either affiliated to ASCAP or BMI (do US copies of albums still just say 'ASCAP' or 'BMI' after the songs?), in the UK the album usually gives the publishing company. if the song says 'Copyright control', then the songwriter has no publishing company and will get all of the songwriting royalties. the advantage of using a publishing company is that they will push the music to be used in films, adverts etc. depending on the contract the artist may not have a say in picking the adverts

Great music is great music. Whether Clinic is bending over for Levi's or not, their albums stand up. Same thing with Low... they've paid their dues, so more power to them. As for The Shins... not sure what happened there. Aren't they just starting out? And why McDonalds? But it least the vocals don't kick in... it's just the jingle.

Oh, and about Moby... shame on you, Moby. You've done some decent soundtrack/ambient work and it was kind of neat when you kicked out the thrash jams... but you'll do anything for money, won't you?

I heard that the Beta Band refused a large amount of money from the people at Gap to use some of their music in one of their commercials. And the Betas aren't rolling it- apparently, their record label is paying their rent. That decision strikes me as silly. But it seems to tie in with the BB's anti-globalization sentiments that I noticed in a Pitchfork interview.

i never understood why everyone wishes for their favourite pop stars to be poor.

It's called the "kill yr idols syndrome", Keith.

Oh, I don't want 'em to be poor. I just want the companies to give them money for free. ;-)

i guess it would bother more if i watched alot of tv. i think that it has definately given artists like low,spiritualized and stereolab some exposure and probably improved their fanbase. but as we get older we need some cash to pay the bills and start thinking ahead.
i see someone like chris brokaw who has done lots of great stuff working in a record store and i really hope he gets some $ thrown his way for a commercial cause he ain't getting any younger.

I don't see why the Beta Band should have a problem with whoring themselves out to the Gap. Are they under contract to Levis or something?

moby gave a track to an oil company to use for a commercial. so much for animal rights.

I heard the White Stripes turned down a mil for a Gap Ad. Hoorah! My favorite Jack White quote: "Detroit, where weak music just doesn't cut it!"

Take a look at Iggy Pop's "Lust For Life" - it's been used quite a bit in adverts... I think I heard Iggy say, 'My songs may have meant something to me at the time they were written, but after 20 years, they're just product - so why shouldn't I try to get some money out of them?' .. I don't know how well that applies to artists (like Moby) that sell their music before it hits the shelves. But I've got to give Moby credit as a businessman - he reached a wide audience & became an overnight sensation by "selling out." (Doesn't make his music any better or worse... But I worry about the follow-up - will he try to maintain his mainstream appeal by staying safe?)

The problem for the listener is partly an aesthetic one. For a song or band you love, you've probably created your own private little 'world' for them and it doesn't neccessarily involve the imagery you see in the ad, let alone the products being sold. This applies equally to videos, of course, but there at least the visuals are part of how the music/track/artist/whatever sees itself. It's the forced context that can grate. All this is hypothetical because personally I'm never that bothered.

revive

...oops, I thought this thread was about The Saints' 2nd album and I just came into say that the The Saints' 1st album trashes that album (and most albums to be frank). But while I am here, picture the scene: I'm sitting watching telly drinking a cup of tea, on comes a mobile phone advert and the music is ................. "Rest Aria" by The Residents, from their hardly famous debut album! Actually as the advert progressed it became apparent that it was merely a sample of "Rest Aria", even so, what's the world coming to?!???!

the more I think about it, the more I really can't get down with bands agreeing to have their songs sold to commercials.

now, I'm unpopular with this opinion, but allow me to explain some misconceptions about this opinion.

1) I don't want my favorite musicians to be poor. I don't have any kill yr idols syndrome or anything like that. I want as many people to like the music I like as possible.

2) I think corporate culture marketing is destroying culture, where every sub-this and under-that becomes a target market, and nothing, nothing at all, is out of the reach of corporate sponsorship. Its like we have the whole world of culture by the good graces of GM and Anheuser Busch and Fleet Bank. If they didn't care about art nobody would! but the problem is then they're the arbiters.

3) the underground rock world initially stood in opposition to that, but now its not only acceptable but even encouraged for bands to do a commercial cos hey, its easy money! Being in a band doesn't mean you've earned more of a right to quick easy thousands or millions of dollars more so than another profession.

I guess I'm just tired of seeing corporate underwriting of every facet of culture (museums, opera houses, rock clubs, theatre), and I sort of wish it wouldn't creep into the world of independent music. but hey, I don't begrudge bands doing it, its their call, I just think it bodes poorly.

yes yes, my list didn't really need to be a list.. and the only misconception I really talked about was point 1, but whatever, you get my point.. I hope...