Pete Seeger in a COMMERCIAL?????

In our modern age of many artists having to use the medium of commercials to get their music out there, it's rare for me to feel upset when another instance occurs; it's just part of the business today.

But using Pete Seeger's music in a commercial is beyond tacky.

 

That's kind of the reaction I got when I heard a Clash song being used in a Jaguar commercial.

 

I really don't think this is a big deal. His family makes the call and they are comfortable with it.
It doesn't diminish Pete at all. Could care less if an artist's music is used in a commercial.

 

It doesn't "diminish Pete" at all, I agree. It diminishes those who chose to profit from this commercial. Those who comment in support of the use seem to know very little about Pete Seeger, what he stood for, and what he was against-- and I can tell you that he certainly was AGAINST Walmart. I repeat here something I wrote in another forum:

Folks, maybe it's because I am in an upside-down world here in Australia, where it's summer instead of winter, but it seems to me that if people were outraged at the initial news of Pete singing for Jackson Hewitt and Walmart (yes, Walmart will make much money off this commercial, since you have to shop at Walmart to get the discount from Jackson Hewitt), shouldn't we be "more" outraged to find out that family approved this advertisement? If it was outrageous to begin with, it is NOT okay now that it is revealed that family members approved of the use-- it seems to me that is even worse!

I understand the desire to be "gentle" in criticism. Maybe I am wrong, but to my knowledge, this is the first commercial featuring Pete's voice since his death. If it had been for Friends of the Earth, or the Green Party, etc., hardly anyone would object. But to have Pete shilling for a tax service tied to Walmart, one of the most despicable companies in the nation? I share Spook's "outrage."

The fact that the family approved this message is shocking. Justifying it by saying it helps Smithsonian/Folkways ignores the fact that both Jackson Hewitt and Walmart will make tons more money off this ad than Smithsonian/Folkways, or the Seeger children, will. But as I said before, expect more of it. The best we can hope for is that the family gets a little "education" about the evils of using a legend's voice to shill for corporate America, and might exercise better judgment in the future.

-George Mann

 

Some interesting things over at Jackson Hewitt's Facebook page.Now,I don't belong to Facebook,will never join Facebook and only visit some retail places(OK record stores)that post incoming titles on Facebook.Evidently,you can't screen,or JH is too lazy to screen some of the nasty,I mean really nasty, comments left by disgruntled customers.The icing on the cake,however,was someone indeed asking who is singing in the ad spot.Their guess-you cannot make this up-Dick Smothers! Was that really Dick singing Waist Deep In The Big Muddy almost 50 years ago on the Seeger Bros. Comedy Hour on CBS,when Pete & Mike did comedy bits in-between protest songs?

 

Obviously the family can do what they decide to do, barring any direction from Pete before he passed.
Just as obviously I can be offended that they choose to besmirch his legacy (my interpretation, which i am entitled to)by using his voice to shill for a less than exemplary corporation, especially one associated with a corporation like Walmart which stands for values, or the lack thereof, which Pete clearly and often spoke against.
What you can do if you are similarly offended: Jackson Hewitt has a facebook page. Go there, Enter a comment voicing your offense. Mine said simply "Your use of Pete Seeger in your commercials is a travesty".
Their reply: "We apologize if we offended you. We've taken your comment into consideration and we are looking into the matter"
They want to make a positive impression with their commercials. If they realize that enough people find it offensive then they will not continue.
Just my 2 cents.

 

I guess some people just know what's best for others.

 

I don't know, but it's all very confusing to me. I was threatened with banishment for commenting--on a thread at the time of Seeger's death--about Pete's one- time support for a certain 20th-century European dictator not named Hitler. "Political commentary is against the rules", I was told. But I notice some comments on this thread are getting very political--while taking cheap, easy shots at a company that thousands choose to work for --and millions choose to patronize. Okay, fine--I won't go there.
That said, none of us know the financial situation of Pete's family and if they have no problem with allowing his voice to be used to hawk tax returns--while allowing his music to be heard--neither do I. I would only point out that Seeger wasn't always a fan of big government either, and it's a bit funny that some would plump for the IRS, a government agency with it's own integrity issues.
Peace.

 

This thread is actually a lot more hilarious in its way than certain of the Beatles threads going on right now. Carry on, comrades!

 

Don't forget though, Seeger supported both of them until the other one invaded Poland.

 

Shhhh!!!!!

 

I agree with Steve.

Back in the 1960s, a lot of folk performers were boycotting the "Hootenanny" TV program because Pete was banned from appearing on it. But Pete didn't think the boycott was a good idea. I think he felt it was better for mainstream America to hear the best folk performers, even if he wasn't included.

 

I agree, and frankly, everybody getting the vapors over music being used to sell products is so...'80's. Yes, back then I would have agreed that it was "uncool" or a "sell-out" to take the money, but who's kidding who? No one on this forum who works for a living works for free, so why should we expect musicians and songwriters (and their estates) to not make hay while the sun shines?
I have found that music that is used for commercials maintains it's integrity in that long after the commercial -or the product it was selling--is forgotten, the song retains it's original meaning.
Also, all the artists who stood on ceremony and vowed they would never "sing for Pepsi" or whatever --were already very wealthy and could easily afford to look "pure."

 

Dunno.I recently commented on another thres,almost in jest,that I can never hear Carly Simon's Anticipation without thinking about a ketchup bottle,even to the point of paging Dr. Freud.But the truth is I can't hear that song and lose the image.I grew up during the waning days of advertising jingles,radio ID jingles and theme songs-all forms of musical presentation pretty much gone because those few seconds are evidently too valuable in 2015.Really,stupid,I think 'cause it's those seemingly idiotic nanoseconds that stay with us.If you can get into the head of the consumer,its difficult for the consumer to get you out of their head.Lessons learned from Don Draper.

 

I take it this refers to Spook Handy. What were his comments about this? Is it possible to link these?

 

I will take issue,here.First off,if the family allowed his song used in a porno movie,would that be alright?If it was used for a political ad that ran contrary to Mr. Seegar's beliefs,would that be OK?
If tomorrow some radio station decided that I've Been Working On The Railroad was placed in heavy rotaion and was wedged between a tax return ad and a Micky D's ad,I'd have no problem.That's the ANYWHERE where it is OK.But embedding it in one of those ads,being used to trigger an emotion that ran contrary to Seegar's intentions,well, that's different.
The fact that A-your kids wnated to hear more of the song and B-you,as parent,took the time to open that door,is commendable.But you gotta admit,that is the exception,not the norm.And really,if Jackson-Hewitt got this response from the ad,they would think twice next time because what they want are folks lined up inside a Wal-Mart or at a stand alone office and pay,on a low average of $150(based on 2014 competiton reports0, to have their tax forms filled out & filed.

 

Maybe his family decided they really wanted indoor plumbing in that log cabin.
And who can fault then for that, even in a mild winter like this one?

 

More important things to worry about in the world.
His family made the call and they knew Pete better than anyone.
Maybe his music as Steve said will get more exposure and that's a good thing.

 

A further thought:

Pete Seeger lived to a fine old age and his death did not come as an untimely surprise. If he had wanted to give his heirs instructions for how to treat his recordings once he passed, he had ample time to do so, and could have even done so in a legally binding way in his will if he had wanted to. If he did not leave such instructions, then by that inaction he was leaving it to their discretion.

In such a situation, I would only fault the family if they were going against instructions he had given them (whether done in a legally binding document such as a will or in another manner).

And that is something only they know.

Of course one could still fault Pete for allowing them this discretion. But then one should be clear about who one is faulting, rather than portraying him as the saint in this situation.

 

I don't like it, but I think @Rfreeman put it well- I'm not going to second guess Pete's family, & if he had been concerned about the use of his songs in such a way, he would have made explicit instructions not allowing it.
Still find it odd he's gone- it seemed like he'd just keep truckin' on forever.

His grandson Tao is a major talent too- worth checking out.

 

Hmmm...

If you are making only $20K a year you are doing a 1040EZ and don't need a tax service for that,
and if you do use H&R, etc., they usually start around $10-$40. Upsells of various other products you may or may not need may inflate one's bill.

More interestingly, this is all part of a rebranding/rebuilding of Jackson Hewitt with a new CEO from the burger chain, Smashburger, re-emerging from bankruptcy, and settling franchisee fraud allegations with the IRS.

 

"Anticipation" is a good example. But I think that's an exception because the song and the the ketchup commercial were almost simultaneous--or so I remember. It was also a very effective use of a song....

 

Look at Nick Drake's music. That Volkswagen commercial played a huge role in popularizing his music.

 

An irony almost lost here is that Pete fans upset about the add are giving JH/Walmart plenty of free publicity on the internet!