ads and my saneness (1 Viewer)

[snakybus]

Pantone247 (11 Apr, 2002 04:30 p.m.):

snakybus (11 Apr, 2002 04:23 p.m.):
Moral of the story: we would have been better off releasing our own thing, and richer too. Also, it tells me that anyone who wants to make money quickly out of music is misdirected.

yeah but look at you now with your fancy video on No Disco, Mr fancy pants video on No Disco...

aw shucks, and I fecking missed it too! ah well I don't need to see my green lips again

that wijo cost us the princely sum of zero euro!

 

[figs]

it's quite easy for any of us to cry sellout whenever we see an artist we like allowing their music to be used in commercials, as very few of us are ever going to be in that position. For some bands the money may well be the difference between keeping going or getting a real job. I doubt Smog, despite all their poularity actually sell that many albums, or make much money, so from their point of view an advertising deal (or having a song used in High Fidelity) can provide for a few more years of doing what they love. Or provide a pension... I'm guessing that's why a smaller band might do this.

 

[snakybus]

Yeah Figs I suppose if you need the money you need the money. But as I sit here and munch on my delicious, crunchy cheese and onion Tayto[sup]TM[/sup] crisps I can't help thinking it's still kind of shady.

I remember a photographer was on the Late Late Show a few years back defending an ad campaign for Benetton that featured an AIDS victim on his death bed. He said that this was art, that advertising patronises art in much the same way that the church did in previous centuries, and that artists have to get whatever work they can. It was a very strong photograph, but the world perceived it as a tasteless ad by Benetton, nothing more. So the product being sold effectively took ownership of the art, whose power was lost as a result. I think that's the problem. When people hear that Smog song they will think "Oh there's the Miller ad".

So it's a moot point - of course it's good for Bill Callaghan to make a few quid and I wouldn't begrudge him that, and his real fans won't care, but if it's someone like Iggy Pop, who probably doesn't need the money, doing an ad for the GAP (was it the GAP?) I think that's different.

But to be honest, I don't really know what my opinion on this is. I'm just spouting shite. Now, where's that can of sparkly, refreshing Coke[sup]TM[/sup] I crave so much?

 

[pad]

i'm with figs on this one.

 

[Ex-User (252)]

does this make their music less good? surely it was their music which attracted you in the first place? it was all they were offering you after all...

 

[Ex-User (252)]

ok, you're in say ... joan of arse, you've just got your latest record pressed and for some reason find yourself outside the gates of a sweatshop run by the gap in burma. it's lunchtime and unknown to you, your pal happy sent his long-lost siamese twin, who works in the sweatshop, a copy of your record and he's been playing it all morning over the sweatshop intercom. the rest of the workers are going nuts to get their hands on a copy of your cd and you just happen to have a box handy. the gate bursts open and they charge at you, a month's wages in hand, looking for a cd. do you sell them one?

 

[ronan]

happy (12 Apr, 2002 04:42 p.m.):
does this make their music less good? surely it was their music which attracted you in the first place? it was all they were offering you after all...

nope.
it doesn't make their music less good.

i was just using them as a case in point.
surely if they can advertise GAP, then its not all that strange for modest mouse & smog to advertise miller.

i was just a little freaked out when i saw that billboard in the first place.

freaked out, but not angry or anything.
like you said, i would have no right to be.
i just thought it was strange, especially seeing their connections to fugazi.