Selling of classic rock for tv ads

Just read a Rolling Stone interview with Pete Townshend where the subject of the Who's "Bargain" being used in a Nissan ad came up. Pete didn't have a problem with it and wonders what all the fuss is about.

How do you feel about some of your favorite rock songs showing up as soundbites for commercials? Personally I'm not thrilled but then I don't own the rights to the music. The "not thrilled" has to do with the song being taken out of context to sell something.

 

Some of the artists, especially of "older material" may need the income. All the power to them.

 

I try to take it in context. If I think it's an older artist who may need the money, ok. But if it someone who doesn't ie. Townshend or Ian Anderson I'll avoid the product like the plague.

 

Hi,

I vote w/ Neil Young on this one.

-Jeffrey

 

It doesn't bother me too much. It introduces the songs to new listeners although it does impart a different meaning.

Once you would hear the song for the first time as it came on the radio with all the excitement. Now you associate the song with butter melting on your asparagus.

 

I can't believe the Clash sold out. These guys put out a triple Lp, "Sandista!," and demanded that it sell at a single Lp price. Twenty years later, "London Calling"'s title track is being used for a car commercial.

 

I used to feel pretty strongly that classic rock songs shouldn't be used in advertising, but I've pretty much softened my stance on that. At this point in time, I can't think of anyone who either hasn't sold out, or been sold out somewhere down the line (Maybe Springsteen?).

Think about it, The Beatles, The Who, The Stones, Elvis, Van Morrison, The Beach Boys, Sting, John Lydon...even The Clash, who were kind of my last hope, have all allowed their music to be used commercially.

I generally find that most artists who sell their songs to Madison Ave. generally need the money. When Iggy Pop started letting "Lust For Life" out for commercials, I figured that he could actually use the money. It also probably introduced the song to more people than had ever heard it before. Same deal when The Smithereens' "Blood And Roses" went to Nissan, though it's my understanding that most of that money went to Capitol for use of the original recording. Remember that unless an artist owns his masters outright, the folks getting paid for the commercial are the songwriter and the label who owns the recording. That's why you see a lot of artists re-recording special new versions of their hits specifically for commercials (I'd heard Dennis DeYoung re-did "Mr. Roboto" for a car commercial (VW?) a few years ago for just that reason.)

In a lot of cases, I think we're seeing that some of our rock heroes aren't as set financially as we thought they were, case in point, The Who continuing their tour after Entwistle's death, mainly because they couldn't absorb the money lost by cancelling. You wouldn't think a band like The Who would have money problems, but for all we know, Pete may be the only one who's set for life financially (just speculation, of course).

I don't know, I still have mixed feelings about artists who sell their songs for commercials, but in some cases, I'd hope the results would fund their next project, especially those who may not have the support of a label.

 

Every artist brought up here is a major label artist (or has been at one time). That in itself tells you they've commercialized their art. This includes Springsteen, Neil Young, and anyone else who'd have you believe otherwise. I don't like hearing Zeppelin (compressed to hell mind you) on some godawful Cadillac commercial, but it's a natural extension of the commercialization of popular music.

As for me, I just stick my fingers in my ears and hum a tune when these things come on. I don't want to be thinking SUV polo games when I hear Who's Next!

 

While I'm not happy about the commercial use of these tunes, there is not much anybody can do about it. For whatever reason, the enjoyment I derive from any particular song is immediately lost when I hear it being exploited commercially. While not a conscious decision, it seems that I rarely play that song, and sometimes the artist, again. One of my all time favorite songs long ago was Like A Rock by Bob Seger. Now I can't stand to hear it, and rarely listen to any Seger at all. My loss I guess . . .

 

Now, the story I'd heard on this one was that Seger was always against using his songs in commercials. Apparently though, he met up with some auto workers who'd run into hard times in his hometown of Detroit at some point who asked him something like, "Hey, how about doing something to help us sell a few of these cars". Hence, he allowed Ford to start using "Like A Rock" in their commercials.

Now, that story doesn't tell you how much money Seger gets for his song's use, or who actually gets the money, but it does show something of his motivation for allowing the song to be used.

 

I have no problem with it. Here's what Pete Townshend said:

Who fans will often think, "This is my song, it belongs to me, it reminds me of the first time that I kissed Susie, and you can't sell it." And the fact is that I can and I will and I have. I don't give a **** about the first time you kissed Susie. ... It's my song. I do what the **** I like with it."

 

I used to get bent out of shape about it, and I do think it has gone from just a few to almost every commercial using an old song, but then I think, "Hey, the reason I know so much classical and music from the early part of the 20th century is from those Bugs Bunny cartoons." So it's not like the advertisers now just came up with the idea. I do think it is being over done.

When I first got into radio, the theme to "2001" was listed as the most over used song in commercials...it's back now in a new ad.

Dough1981

 

Ladies & Gentlemen......... The Grateful Dead.

 

I don't know look at the GD merchandising. Everything from baby clothes to golf balls. A friend of mine was once selling some GD watches that he designed at a show at Irvine. A GD rep came out and bought one of his watches "to show Phil", the next week the same design was for sale on their website.

 

There is a difference between hearing music as the soundtrack for a Bugs Bunny cartoon and hearing it used and abused ad nauseum in a car commercial.

 

Hi Mike,

Is this the same thing as selling out the music? I don't know either.... it just seems different than having "Truckin'" used for a Ford pickup commercial. Though Billy & Bobby may sign up for that program, I don't think it will ever get Phil's approval.

-Jeffrey

 

Hi,

I agree 100%!!!

-Jeffrey

 

I don't like it.

 

What about lesser-known artists? I mean, I'll bet there are lots of people out there who got turned on to Nick Drake's work thanks to that VW commercial from a few years back. They still might not know who Nick Drake was otherwise. Isn't anything that helps a long-underexposed artist find a larger audience a good thing?

Unless you're one of those snob/cultist types who think certain artists should be confined to the cognoscenti, and let the masses eat cake (or listen to Britney).

 

Doesn't bother me if they actually use the real song or parts of it. What bugs me is when they change the lyrics to fit the product.

Ray

 

Have the Beatles actually done it? I mean, I know their songs appear in tons of commercials in the form of cover versions. But have any actual Beatles performances ever appeared in a commercials (aside from that infamous Nike ad done without their permission and then quickly withdrawn)?

 

When Cadillac started using a Zep tune for advertising, I knew it was the end times.

Mud-

 

Apart from Revolution, it has just been cover versions except for the occasional charitable commercial.

 

All of this music was a for profit venture in the first place.Now they're just finding a new revenue stream from it.I would'nt be above it if I needed the money.Neil Young may wear Sears finest flannel shirts but he's a very rich guy.

 

It is my understanding that Michael Jackson owns a lot of the Beatles publishing rights - is this true? Also, if it is true, does that also include the actual performances? I'm guessing it doesn't.

I know that Van Halen initially said no when Nissan approached them for the infamous GI Joe/Barbie commercial, but acquiesced when they were told that the song (in a cover version) would be used anyway. Why not let them use the original and make some money?

What would happen if someone used the original performance of a song, altered it very slightly (so any waveform comparison would show a slight difference), and claimed it was just a really good cover version?