Can someone explain to me what's wrong with an actor/musician/other artist being in an ad?

[SteppingRazor]

Between the David Bowie thread and the John C. McGinley thread, I'm at a loss. This idea of "OOooohh!! If you're in an ad, you've sold out!" seems dated. Very 20th Century.

As I said in the Bowie thread, up-and-coming bands today would do anything to be in a major television ad -- it's one of the surest ways to get ones music to the masses while also getting paid for it (as opposed to the free distribution of the Internet, which offers wide marketing but no profits). And as for already-established acts, why not grab a quick paycheck? These are artists, after all, and artists have to sell their art if they want to live.

What the hell's the big deal? :shrug:

[IndianaJones]

1. artistic integrity. nt.

[SteppingRazor]

2. So, artists should never sell anything and starve to death?

Additionally, how exactly does ad work adversely affect artistic integrity? It's not as though you've incorporated ads into your work. You're not writing jingles for the company. They are paying you to use YOUR work.

[IndianaJones]

3. I believe that many people think that way.

I happen to agree with you.

[SteppingRazor]

4. Yeah, I don't get it. The whole selling out thing seems, like, 1978-ish or so.

You know -- punk rock and all that. But, apart from admittedly righteous groups like Propaghandi, punk acts today don't exactly have difficulty signing on with a major label.

[Omphaloskepsis]

63. My problem is when it is obvious that they..

changed their sound when getting a deal with a big label to appeal to a larger audience. That is how I define selling out, appearing on a Pepsi commercial isn't selling out IMHO.

[El Fuego]

40. Careers in pop music are built on personality as much as artistry.

If not more. So using their celebrity status to sell is just par for the course.

[regularguy]

5. I have no problem with an indidual who wants to make a buck.

Though it does sometimes hurt when a work of art that has meaning for me simply becomes another way to move product. I liked it better when commercials were un-cool.

[SteppingRazor]

6. I think this might be one of those generational things.

I'll bet you most baby boomers/older Gen Xers are wary of the notion of "selling out," while younger Gen X/Gen Y and later aren't as taken aback by the idea. What do you think?

[regularguy]

9. Younger folks are usually more comforatable

with a blurring of the line between commerce and everything else. I'm one of the older-gen-X folks you mention, and I do fondly remember there being somewhat of a divide between youth/music culture and mainstream commercial culture. I resist the temptation to use the judgemental and self righteous term "sell-out", though.

[mitchum]

54. Well, maybe they should be called Generation Shill...

and time will tell us just how creative Generation Shill proved to be

[SteppingRazor]

80. I've already coined my own term for my generation

(See my tagline)

[mitchum]

56. I actually agree with you....I suspect that even the most committed and/or...

pretentious "younger Gen X/Gen Y and later" "artiste" realizes deep down that he/she is not going to do any groundbreaking work at this stage of the game. They can only hope to be, at best, mannerists. Consequently, they are not concerned about the sanctity of their "art" and decide to go for the bucks.

[SteppingRazor]

79. Well, I don't know that that's necessarily true.

Yeah, rock 'n' roll's been around for 50 years, but rap's only been around for 25 or so, and electronica less than that. And who's to say what's next? There's plenty of new ground to cover for a truly creative soul.

[Susang]

81. Electronic music's been around for much longer than 25 years

http://eamusic.dartmouth.edu/~wowem/electronmedia/music/eamhistory.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_art_music

[SteppingRazor]

82. That's like saying rock 'n' roll has been around longer than 50 years because...

blues was around way before that, and rock music comes from blues.

I mean, I don't dispute at all the validity of your point -- that electronically generated melodies have been around longer than the last couple decades -- but electronica as we know it today wasn't possible before the digital age.

[Susang]

83. No, it's not

Kraftwerk was formed in 1970, 37 years ago. Lester Bangs, god of rock critics, interviewed them in '75. Eno's been doing electronic music since the mid-seventies. This type of music has been around almost as long as rock.

[SteppingRazor]

84. First off, Lester Bangs is not my god.

So there :P


(Although I do love Lester's writing, if anyone's the god of rock critics, it's gotta be Robert Christgau)

Second, I think you're just making my point for me. Kraftwerk's early work (the two traffic cone albums, and whatnot) have about as much to do with, say, John Digweed as Howlin' Wolf does to the Beatles. There's very little on those albums that can truly be called "electronic," other than analog recordings of VCS3s and Moogs, which hardly compares to a modern dance-music artist like Girl Talk just plugging in a laptop and going to work. Hell, if you want to go back that far, you can call The Monkees electronic-music pioneers -- they had the first major album to include a Moog, as far as I know.

As for Eno, again, his work with Roxy Music involved manipulation via a VCS3 and a bunch of tape recorders -- caveman stuff.

In fact, one could make the argument that the difference between early electronic music and modern is even more extreme than that of the blues/rock comparison, since in the latter case, the instrumentation itself has changed little other than amplification.

[Susang]

88. Sorry, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree

Kraftwerk was pretty popular at the clubs I frequented. Your comparing them to Girl Talk (of all artists!) would be more like comparing the Beatles to Radiohead.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

87. Electronic music has been around longer than rock.

Leon Theremin
(1896-1993, inventor of the theremin in 1919).

Clara Rockmore, theremin performer

Conlon Nancarrow

Vladimir Ussachevsky

Look 'em up.

The theremin was used in The Day the Earth Stood Still (music by Bernard Hermann), and in Good Vibrations, the Beach Boys song for you youngsters.

[philosophie_en_rose]

7. I think it does affect their image.

I don't think ads are selling out per se, especially when so many bands and artists are already blatantly about the money. However, it's not unreasonable to wonder about hypocrisy. For instance, if Bad Religion did an ad for Jan Crouch or if some hardcore rapper did an ad for tampons.

Ultimately, it is about choice. And artists need to make a choice sometimes between what is financially expedient and their image in the long-term. It's up to them.

[SteppingRazor]

8. Oh, absolutely.

I don't disagree that artistic integrity plays a role, I just don't think that selling a song to an ad -- any ad -- necessitates the compromising of artistic integrity.

[Deep13]

10. Song about Heroin Used to Advertise Bank.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38780

I think it is the idea that cultural icons that have subjective meaning for many are for sale for whatever mundane or even underhanded purpose there might be.

When Revolution, written and sung by anti-establishment icon John Lennon, was used to sell sneakers made by slave labor; part of the world died.

[Rabrrrrrr]

11. Once you sell your art to sell a product, you are off the artistic rollcall.

[SteppingRazor]

12. So, Michelangelo's painting the Sistine Chapel for the Vatican is not art? n/t

[Rabrrrrrr]

13. I don't remember Michalenngelo offering fascimilies to sell products.

I don't think you have any kind of point, there.

[SteppingRazor]

14. Oh, I see. So, Michelangelo's OK. But Edvard Munch turning The Scream into a lithograph...

that he then sold to all comers, that means he's off the artistic roll call, right?


(please forgive the silly questions. I know they're silly. Socratic irony, and all that.)

[Rabrrrrrr]

17. You're not even addressing the point of my original post.

When you do, I will respond.

[SteppingRazor]

18. So, it's specifically using your art to sell a product that gets one banned...

from the artistic roll call?

OK, so we can safely say that most of the major actors working today (certainly all the ones mentioned here: http://www.voiceoverresourceguide.com/la/vorgspeak/article_celebchallenge.html) are not artistic?


Also, all the musicians found in the databases here: http://www.whatsthatcalled.com/ are off the roll call, right?

[LanternWaste]

45. You didn't know about the t-shirts and the Nike deal he signed?

You didn't know about the Nike deal he signed with the Vatican? "Transubstantiation-- Just Do It". It got a LOT of airplay in Milan in 1566. And who could forget the Battle of Bands he and da Vinci won sponsored by Pope Julius II?

(Sorry... couldn't resist-- don't blame me, I've been spending too much time in GD today)

[Heidi]

72. It's art, SR, and it also sells a product.

I've got no problem with what artists do with their own art.

[stuntcat]

19. I felt that way, srsly

Then lately I see the iPod ad using Feist's song "1,2,3,4".. they use her video even, she's right up there selling iPods, face-to-face :(

So I have to get with the times I guess, I mean it's least it was for iPods. This kinda stuff just makes me feel dirty.

[Orrex]

25. Why should that be?

I mean, if your art is the product you're selling, for example, is that any different? What if you're commissioned to paint a portrait in a style that isn't really your own? Does that similarly boot you off the rollcall?

Why?

[enigmatic]

66. classic Bill Hicks

except for Willie Nelson ;)

[Heidi]

71. So writers shouldn't allow their novels to be made into mass market films, for example?

And the Sistine Chapel does sell a product. That product is religion.

[Heidi]

74. With all due respect, Rabrrrrrr, you have no authority to boot anyone from the "artistic rollcall."

An artist allowing his/her work to sell a product may change your opinion or others' opinions of the artist, but that's really all it does.

[unpossibles]

15. I think it depends on the product/ad

I don't have any problem with someone selling a song for an ad, although more than not they don't make that decision, their publisher does. Prince changed his name because "Warner Bros owned 'Prince'" and he had no rights to his own music for years until his contract ran out.

Then there's this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article703555.ece

THEY could become the ultimate in manufactured music. Four girls in their twenties have been brought together by Saatchi & Saatchi UK, the advertising agency, as a pop group that can be bought “off-the-shelf” by companies to promote their brands.
Saatchi & Saatchi clients who pay to use the still-unnamed group will have a say in its name, the song style and lyrics, as well as the brands the group wear, drink and eat.

Music industry experts hired by the agency are now grooming the would-be stars.

more at link...

[SteppingRazor]

16. Like I said in an earlier post, I agree artistic integrity plays a role...

I just don't think that selling your creation to an ad necessitates compromising artistic integrity. The one doesn't absolutely, in all cases, follow from the other.

As for the example of the story you posted, that's a whole different conversation. Svengali-led bands geared solely toward commodification of an image are, in general, a worrisome trend. But then again, what were the Sex Pistols?

[MissMillie]

20. I don't think it's a big deal at all

the fact that someone wants a wide market for their product does not add or subtract from the quality of said product.

[formerrepuke]

21. I've always been fond of this one:

[SteppingRazor]

23. I like the positioning of the cigarette in his mouth.

I mean, seriously, who smokes like that?

[formerrepuke]

26. held gently between his teeth so it doesn't touch his lips.. I don't think he

was ever a smoker, come to think of it.

[Orrex]

22. It depends on how they do it

I'm not thrilled when an artist bills him or herself as some kind of anti-establishment anarchist and then sells the rights to his or her song to GM or the like. But it's not a matter of artistic integrity, because the whole idea of a starving artist is a bullshit, bourgeois delusion (wrote Orrex, praying that he'd used the word correctly). Salvador Dali was a tireless whore for commercial self-promotion, but few people today condemn him for selling out.

IMO what bothers people is the forcible reimagining of a song when they themselves had already attached emotional/nostalgic significance to it. When the song to which you lost your virginity is featured in an add for corn flakes, people might feel obliquely violated. But that's too bad, because that's how it goes.

:shrug:

[SteppingRazor]

27. I appreciate that, but regardless of emotional attachment, it's not their song.

That said, Lord knows I have emotional attachments to plenty of songs, so it's not as if I don't sympathize with that view.

[Orrex]

34. I believe that we're agreeing, right?

At least, it seems that we're on the same page.

[SteppingRazor]

35. Yes, I believe we are.

:hi:

[Fire Walk With Me]

24. "This idea of 'OOooohh!! If you're in an ad, you've sold out!' seems dated. Very 20th Century."

Yes. Devo are right, and we are devolving. I'm not kidding.

[Orrex]

31. Pfffft. Mark Mothersbaugh writes ditties for The Rugrats

If we're devolving, then he joined the race down the ladder as fast as anyone.

[Fire Walk With Me]

37. See post 36.

[SteppingRazor]

32. You mean the Devo that's in the new Jeep commercial?

http://adweek.blogs.com/adfreak/2007/08/jeep-busts-in-o.html

The Devo whose song is in a Dell commercial:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhtgw-tOj-o


That Devo?

[Fire Walk With Me]

36. Pandemic

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
pan·dem·ic /pænˈdɛmɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–adjective
1. (of a disease) prevalent throughout an entire country, continent, or the whole world; epidemic over a large area.
2. general; universal: pandemic fear of atomic war.
–noun
3. a pandemic disease.

[SteppingRazor]

38. Ah, so it's like the doctor catching the disease.

Touche. ;)

[Fire Walk With Me]

39. Mind you, my respect for Devo is strong.

Using your considerable talent to make music, even for children's TV isn't too bad, but tele commercials? Well... I still love them, but it's now tempered.

[cemaphonic]

68. There was also a Target commecial using Beautiful World

Although I am convinced that they OKed that one purely for the humorous irony.

Of course Devo staked out an artistic claim in which 'selling out' wasn't really a bad thing in the first place.

[SacredCow]

28. They're just selling their celebrity status...

I certainly don't see a problem with that.

But yeah- you're a sell-out if you endorse a product when you're popular. Then, of course, when a celeb gets classified as a "has-been" and endorses some ridiculous piece of exercise equipment, they'll also get kicked when they're down. It's akin to what Ms. Spears is going through right now. She could donate millions to orphans today, and it would somehow get turned against her. In that way, I do feel sorry for her.

[AngryAmish]

29. A friend of my wife just got his song in a Cadillac ad

I am dying to know how much money they got for that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

48. The Hum song?

I was so excited when I saw that ad on TV this weekend.

I was a big fan of theirs back in college (U of Ill) -- and even had some mutual friends.

[AngryAmish]

70. yup

[skygazer]

30. Well, to be fair, most of us grew up during the 20th century

:P

I've never had a real problem with actors doing ads - they're actors. It's their job to take on roles and if they can find a paying role, why the hell not?

I guess it seems more complicated when it comes to music. Logically, it could be seen as a gig and what musician is going to turn down a gig?

But I grew up in an era when rock and roll was seen as the music of change and rebellion and when it's used as a vehicle of commerce, it seems .... well, wrong. Like the antithesis of all that it was originally supposed to be.

That's absurd, of course, when you think about the fact that these same artists are charging ridiculous amounts of money for seats at their mega-stadium shows and rolling in vast amounts of dough brought in from idealistic morans like myself who saw them as a symbol of something.

But there it is - there's no real logic to the human mind. :shrug:

[terrya]

33. I have no problems with that.

Having a celebrity endorsing a product isn't going to influence me (I won't drink Miller Lite because it's watered down crap, regardless of whether John C. McGinley appears in their commercials)

It's no big deal for me.

[MilesColtrane]

41. I believe that some people think that artists should be...

...,in the words of Bill Hicks, 'agents of evolution'.

Their purpose is to bolster the human spirit and inspire people's better nature, or at least touch them in such a way that they realize that they are not divided from each other.

I think there's a difference between selling your labor, and it's fruits, on it's own merits, and selling it (or your image as an arist) as a means of moving some other product.

"Hi I'm Jimi Hendrix. When I'm on stage burning guitars and being an agent of evolution, I get parched. That's why I enjoy a cold frosty bottle of Pepsi™."

[StrongBad]

43. Good explanation

And Mr. Hicks would approve!

[SteppingRazor]

46. But that makes the assumption that...

allowing one's song to be used in a commercial is tacit approval of the product being sold. That may be the case when one is an out-and-out spokesperson for a product (as Jimi in your example), but I don't think it's the case when it's your music being used in a commercial. The idea that a song being used in a commercial somehow cheapens it just doesn't hold water for me. My emotional response to a song is going to be the same whether or not it's used as background noise in a Volkswagen commercial.

[MilesColtrane]

49. "But that makes...

...the assumption that allowing one's song to be used in a commercial is tacit approval of the product being sold."

I would hope that were true. Attaching your personal creation to a product that you have no feeling for, or actually dislike, for money is a deeply cynical act.

It comes down to the artist's intent in the act of creation. If all you were trying to do when you wrote a song was come up with a catchy little tune that people could sing along with, or dance to, then I'm sure you'd see no problem using it to sell Cadillacs.

[SteppingRazor]

50. Why?

Why is it "deeply cynical" to let, say, Volkswagen use your song even though you don't care one way or the other about Volkswagen, if it gets your music heard by millions of people while also giving you a paycheck?

I certainly understand not offering your work to products/corporations that you don't approve of, but if you don't care one way or the other, letting a commercial use your tune is great marketing. What's cynical about wanting your music to be heard?

[MilesColtrane]

51. I can only tell you that my intent when trying to create something...

...is to share a part of myself.

I won't associate an artistic creation with an irrelevant product being marketed by a company whose sole interest is making money.
That contributes to the belief in our society that the only worth a person (or thing) has is their ability to generate income for someone else.

It is all pervasive, and almost impossible to escape.

There is nothing cynical about wanting your music to be heard, but I don't see many artists giving their music away to companies for free use in their commercials just for the exposure.

Hmm...do you think just maybe that's not the primary motivating factor?

[mitchum]

64. MilesColtrane, you have been giving great responses in this thread...

I sincerely mean that.
And your last sentence was a a beautiful and perfect twist of the knife.
Well done.

[MilesColtrane]

65. Thanks mitchum.

Thanks also to SteppingRazor for challenging me to articulate my beliefs. (BTW Step, if you see this, I'm a HUGE HST fan. Nice avatar.)

[SteppingRazor]

76. Hey, I'm just glad to have a decent conversation about a meaningful subject on DU...

without everyone wanting to tear each others heads off.

And the feeling's mutual with the avatar. Coltrane's A Love Supreme may be the greatest jazz album ever made, and as for the other half of your screenname, let me just say that listening to Bitch's Brew on acid is a terrifyingly enlightening experience.

[enigmatic]

67. Absolutely great post

Once you use your music to move/shill a product, you've prostituted the music. You've sucked all of the soul out of it and replaced it with money. Then it ceases being music and becomes advertising.

[StrongBad]

42. If the original artist condones it I guess I don't have a problem

It is his or her right after all. The problem is that using a song with an ad, especially an ad that's effective, cheapens the power of the song because one will always associate said song with the ad. I would think that a great artist would be sensitive to this sort of prospect and that's why people can get cynical if musicians sell their art to a brand to make some extra money.

Case in point: "Good Vibrations" by the Beach Boys, perhaps one of the greatest recordings ever made, was used quite successfully to sell I believe Sunkist orange soda a few years back. It cheapens the greatness of the song in my opinion, as it becomes little more than a catchy chorus that you remember when scouring the beverage aisle and unconsciously pick up some Sunkist. However, I believe the original composer (Mr. Wilson) was unawares of this song being used at the time so he had no input so maybe this example isn't valid.

[SteppingRazor]

47. See, I diagree that it cheapens the song.

My emotional response to a song is the same regardless of how it's used. And I don't think the greatness of an artist can be based at all on his/her sensitivity to the emotional needs of his/her audience.


Oh, and also, yes. "Good Vibrations" is an awesome song.

[LanternWaste]

44. To paraphrase Kipling...

To paraphrase Kipling, "art is art and commercialism is commercialism, and never the twain shall meet..."

If I see a musician plugging the newest, the biggest and the shiniest, he/she's no longer an artist to me. A musician? Sure. An artist? Nope.

It's a bit like Christian churches to me-- the smaller the church, the more I trust it to be faithful to it's fundamental tenets. As it grows commercially and adds swimming pools, private jets, platinum collection plates, and forty-five hundred dollar suites to the Sunday service, I begin to stop thinking of it as a church and begin thinking of it as an organization that has sold out its beliefs for thirty shekels.

But that's just me...

On Edit: Notice how every time Michael Jackson gets himself into legal trouble, new Beatles tunes turn up hawking a new credit card?

[Jamastiene]

52. It depends on whether the celeb uses the product or not, or

whether they need money at the time. Record labels are notorious for keeping 90% or more of a musician's profits. I can't blame them for deciding to let their music or their likeness get used in an ad. I could care less. It's got nothing to do with the music. :shrug:

[Burma Jones]

53. Warhol did a nice job of turning the tables on this subject

I got no problem with folks making money doing commercials, I mute or fast forward through them anyway.

I have noticed, as a member of Generation Jones, that a lot of the younger folks actually WANT to wear advertising and will pay a lot of money to parade a corporate logo around. So, yeah, it's a 20th century thing to see the Ad Agency guys as adversaries.

Pete Townshend had something to say about this subject. I forget the exact quote, but it was along the lines of "Fuck You, the songs are mine and I can do with them what I bloody well want" And I have to go along with Pete there.

[taterguy]

59. I'm sorry but using songs that Keith Moon performed on to hawk prescription drugs is just wrong

Moon died because he was given a prescription for a drug that should only be used in an inpatient situation. It makes the effects of alcohol more severe. Moon was given the drug and then got drunk, which caused his death.

I'll give Townsend a pass on using Who songs in Hummer ads since I suspect that Moon would have enjoyed something that big bad and destructive.

Maybe Townsend has the legal right to profit but that sure don't make it right.

[idgiehkt]

I know in the 90's it was because people were concerned

about the practices and procedures of the corporations. Do they have sweatshops, are they bad for the environment, are they sexist and homophobic, etc. So an actor/singer hawking something in that more liberal era would be judged if dirt could be found on the corporation. Now no one seems to give a damn.

[Pacifist Patriot]

55. Not a clue. Doesn't bug me in the slightest.

[mitchum]

57. When the public sees "artists" being whores it makes them feel better about being...

whores themselves.

[idgiehkt]

58. that is brilliant

:thumbsup:

Yes, we should be grateful it's okay now and they don't have to go to Japan to whore bath soap and coffee like back in the day. ;)

[mitchum]

61. Thanks...

most people just call that cynicism :)
But it's still not as cynical as people who want to wrap themselves in the sacred cloak of the Romantic artist while at the same just being pitchmen and carnival barkers.

I was always amazed by Western celebrities and their naked contempt for the Japanese. I saw no other way to read their willingness to shill only in Japan while protecting their "artistic
reputations" in the West.

[Twillig]

60. John Densmore's opinion

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020708/densmore">Densmore

Robby stepped up to the plate again the other day, and I was very pleased that he's been a longtime friend. I was trying to get through to our ivory tinkler, with the rap that playing Robin Hood is fun, but the "bottom line" is that our songs have a higher purpose, like keeping the integrity of their original meaning for our fans. "Many kids have said to me that 'Light My Fire,' for example, was playing when they first made love, or were fighting in Nam, or got high--pivotal moments in their lives." Robby jumped in. "If we're only one of two or three groups who don't do commercials, that will help the value of our songs in the long run. The publishing will suffer a little, but we should be proud of our stance." Then Robby hit a home run. "When I heard from one fan that our songs saved him from committing suicide, I realized, that's it--we can't sell off these songs."

[TexasBushwhacker]

62. Considering that no one is buying CD's anymore ....

I think it's understandable that artists are trying to find other ways to sell their music, as well as gain exposure. If they're with a major label, they get less than $1.50 for each CD sold, and no one is selling CD's like they did before downloading was available.

This is something that was written in the Austin Chronicle last year, by editor Louis Black:

"One of the threads I came across while scanning the SXSW forums was posted by someone offering up for discussion as a topic "Why bands sell out." As with many other terms – such as "nepotism," "overpaid and underworked," "getting special privileges," "overly and wrongly appreciated," "morally corrupt," and "whorishly dishonest" – "sellout" is a gift appellation: one that is almost always attached to others rather than offered up about oneself.

Usually "sellout" roughly translates into some combination of the following:

1) On the new album, the band is doing exactly the same kind of material it has always done.
2) The new album is completely unlike anything the band has done before.
3) I'm tired of the old sound.
4) I don't understand the new sound.
5) They are making lots of money; I would stay true to the music and never do that.
6) We were into this band before almost anybody else had ever heard of them, and/or liked them (a lot of time is spent considering how smart one is for getting them and how dumb everybody else is for not), and that now has at last become very popular: "What sellouts!"

And so on. In different words: One's career, decisions, compromises, and experiments make sense to oneself – but in the eyes of others, it is "selling out," which is the worst sin. Often the others have never entertained any kind of offer that might be considered "selling out," but as sure as the sun rises tomorrow, they know how they would act. "Sellout" tells us much more about the speaker's self-righteous self-indulgence than it does about culture, commerce, creative decision-making, and/or compromise."

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/column?oid=oid:351175

BTW, Moby probably wouldn't have a career if he didn't sell his music to be used in commercials, films, TV, etc.

[Va Lefty]

69. As Neil Young so succinctly put it...

Ain't singing for Pepsi
Ain't singing for Coke
I don't sing for nobody
Makes me look like a joke

[Heidi]

73. Absolutely nothing.

If it's their own original work, it's theirs to change, sell, trade, whatever they want. The rest of us can be judgmental/santimonious/critical about that, I suppose, but it doesn't change the fact that the artist's original work product is his/hers to do with what he/she wishes. :hi:

[southpaw]

75. Sometimes it bothers me, other times I find it cool

I think it has something to do with how the song in question is presented and how appropriate it is to the product. The reputation of the product or the company that produces it would surely influence my perception.

Imagine a Dylan song being used in a Halliburton ad!

The DEVO songs in the Dell and Target commercials are cool. I know Dell supports rupublicans, and all, but in the context of the commercials, the Devo songs fit perfectly.

On the other hand, that horrendous series of bank commercials (Chase, I think) using a butchered version of 'I'm Free' by the Rolling Stones! DAMN, that's sickening. Can't even say why. I care little for the Stones and have nothing against the company, but the way the song is twisted out of shape, yet with Jagger's unmistakeable vocal line still intact... nauseating.

Another one that gets me is the KFC commercial that butchers 'Sweet Home Alabama'. Again, I don't hold the song or Lynyrd Skynyrd in particularly high regard, and I have no problem with the KFC corporation, but the mangling of the song for the commercial makes me want to change the channel.

[SteppingRazor]

77. Dylan's a bad example, though, seeing as he personally appeared in a Victoria's Secret ad.

For the record, I think Dylan is a freaking god, and as far as I'm concerned, dude can do whatever he wants, up to and including leering at hot supermodels in a Vicky ad.

[redqueen]

78. No idea...

:shrug:

[CBHagman]

85. Eleanor Roosevelt and Orson Welles made ads.

I guess they wouldn't pass muster with the purity police, eh?

[IntravenousDemilo]

86. Absolutely nothing. Everyone you see in any major TV ad is an actor, even in the background.

And most of them are union, too. Just imagine how rotten commercials would be if they were only populated with Joe Schmoes off the street. They'd be downright unwatchable.

Besides, in residuals alone, an actor can often make more money for one day's work on a commercial set than from a for several days' work on a movie or TV program.

And when you consider that at any given time something like 95 per cent of actors aren't working and yet have to pay bills like everyone else -- well, anyone who would think ill of a performer for jumping on a commercial is either a fool or has never worked as an actor. It's great to land a part in a movie, but in the meantime, you go where the jobs are.

[alphafemale]

89. But for DU'ers of a certain age....seeing "Anticipation" connected to Catsup...

Shocked us to the core. And...broke our hearts a little.

It's gotten easier since then.


Dennis Hopper hocking annuities?

Sure.

Why not?

[Fire Walk With Me]

90. Then again, early on, The Who did ads for Coke and Radio 1.