Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
...anyone else see this after the football highlights last night?
but let me know when its on youlube and i'll check it out.
i bet Ian Williams got a free Audi out of it.
I saw this and the Bright Eyes-incorporating Halifax ad in the same break last night, in a pub. That's two of my favourite bands. It was a bit weird.
so I missed that. But the battles ad was pretty nifty to be honest. And I normally can't stand adverts.
bands/artists using their music on commercials. I've always thought that it would be ok to endorse a product if you actually liked that product anyway, though I don't actually believe Crystal Castles favourite brand of telly is Toshiba. Is it morally wrong for artists to let their music be associated with a consumer product? I don't really think it is as long as it doesn't compromise the music. Perhaps I'm just basing this on the fact that I still love Play by Moby though.
I did see this ad for Audi last night and recognised the music straight away, I don't watch much telly so I don't see adverts that often, but I found this one as enjoyable as any advert can be. Does the quality of the advert make a difference to peoples attitudes towards the artists that let their music be used for adverts?
they'd starve if they didn't do it, though, is it?
You know that illegal downloading may have had a slightly adverse effect on musician's take home pay?
I think they should all do ads. Good luck to 'em.
His whole life has been based on "i do what the fuck I want". If he feels like doing an advert for butter..he'll do one. Same reason he went on I'm a celebrity... He makes some pretty awful choices of career path yes, but he doesn't give a toss what you think. Hero.
so why the fuck not make some money
But I don't recall ever seeing a single one back in 2001 when Play was doing the rounds, hence why I still love the album.
Weird coincidence: I saw the thread on this yesterday that mentioned that Audi were using a Battles tune for an ad. Tried looking for it on youtube, but no joy. The search made me want to listen to a bit of Battles however, so during the next ad break, I put Race-In on - during which, an Audi advert appeared on the TV. Before I remembered about the thread and un-muted the TV, it was gone.
Now I find out that the song they were using is the one I was listening to anyway.
Second time something like this has happened in the last couple of days.
...am I really in the minority when I feel like musicians SHOULDN'T slap their 'art' all over the media to promote useless, consumerist shit?
And there's been people slagging off the G20 protests for the past two days all over these boards. It makes me feel like I'm walking amongst the comatose. Is everyone REALLY that satisfied with advanced capitalism, and with 'artists' endorsing it, that their reaction to the Battles-soundtracked Audi ad is 'works well'?
Or is this an elaborate joke?
1) Stop being a twat - musicians should be able to do whatever they like with their music without some cretin who's never done anything worth a damn in their life giving them shit for it.
2) I'm pretty sure it takes more 'talent' and accumulated expertise to make an Audi car than it did to make Battles' record - no disrespect to Ian Williams et al.
3) Adverts are clearly 'art', despite their primary purpose. If you disagree with that, then by association, movies, TV programs and music videos are not art either.
4) Pearl, Marshall, Sybian, Fender, Shure, Mackie - just a few of the arch capitalist concerns that musicians the world over use to make the art you love so much. Should these companies stop advertising? Hell, should all musicians be forced to make their own instruments so their art can be pure in the way that you apparently need it to be?
5) Enough of you being a twat, please.
I suppose I am in the minority. Doesn't mean I'm a twat, though...
artists don't owe you shit, its ridiculously selfish to think they do
considering you are wrong.
considering I've never liked Battles' music, nor do I drive cars, nor even watch TV; so the case in point has little impact on my life.
I'm still neither a twat nor dickish though - merely of a different political alignment.
yes artists have to make money, but i still find it unquestionably tacky when you hear certain bands advertising certain products.
also, i think it's stretching it to say that adverts are 'clearly art'. it's very, very low art if that's the case.
Calvin: A painting. Moving. Spiritually enriching. Sublime. "High" art!
The comic strip. Vapid. Juvenile. Commercial hack work. "Low" art.
A painting of a comic strip panel. Sophisticated irony. Philosophically challenging. "High" art.
Hobbes: Suppose I draw a cartoon of a painting of a comic strip?
Calvin: Sophomoric, intellectually sterile. "Low" art.
have you ever heard of anyone's life being enriched by an ad? in fairness.
now i'm morning the loss of Calvin & Hobbes again! :-(
Pull your thumb out, Watterson!
By patronage from the wealthy elite.
Was Michelangelo a sell out? Do you worry about his artistic integrity when you see the statue of David?
No? THought not.
Now jog on sir, jog on.
i drunkedly drummed along in a pub in skegness and talked to the friend i was with about them, and the barman said he was a fan of the band.
think it works well in the advert.
and wondered how long it would be before I saw a thread about it...
Basically, its their song so they can do what the fuck they like with it. End of story.
Oh and the guy who said "Is it morally wrong for artists to let their music be associated with a consumer product?" Firstly its not a question of morals and secondly you bought their album right? So that makes their music a consumer product right? So why is it bad to use it to further the promotion of their consumer product by being connected to another consumer product?
Also the guy who complained about 'advanced capitalism'...to quote Clay Davis "Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitttt"....
isn't a twat - he sounds like a lovely man.
Did I say it was? no, in fact I said exactly the opposite in my previous post, maybe read it all before you try to make me look like I haven't thought it through.
In fact I agreed with most of the rest of your post - which I read btw. Its just not a moral argument. The rest of my post was more general to the thread as a whole not yours.
Fancy a hug?
and I fucking love Audi. I have one. Its as amazing as Mirrored is. I listen to it at way too loud on the awesome audi stereo, and drive around in my lovely car.
and what they might consider to be 'selling out' (as little sense as that concept makes) as to whether they let their music be used on adverts or whatever. Asking if it was morally wrong might have been overstating the matter, but I was just aiming to spark off some debate as I was interested to know where DiS's tolerance of 'selling out' lays. It was pretty much exactly where I thought, as it turns out.
Anyway, yeah, perhaps a hug is in order.
I.e. this is fine, Lydon on a butter advert is fine, but Radiohead playing the Carling Weekend is a sell out.
By the way, get an audi, they are unbelievably good.
If only I had enough money to buy one, or indeed any car.
do they have that on euro models? But I'd still like one of those A6's.
on lots of the euro models. I have grown to like them.
I want an A5. A lot.
the idea of selling out always always always comes from fans selfish belief that bands "belong" to them. if this forum was any indication, some supposed fans would have bands they love living below the poverty line
probably are wildly disparate, but that doesn't stop the artist from having to consider where the point beyond which their art stops being solely theirs lies and whether their actions will involve stepping over that line is.
maybe they really like audi cars? maybe they really need money so they can continue? the idea that art can in some abstract way retroactively lose all meaning to everyone who cared about it up to and including the artist itself seems sorta.. just ridiculous? i think we're in agreement on the general point anyway reading back up the thread so maybe its moot
what i was trying to outline was the general principle, rather than this particular case.
Band of Horses, New Pornos, Cat Power, etc etc. So you'd think there'd be a popularity base. But still Los Angeles can't support one indie radio station (bye 103.1) and yet KLOS has been playing the same 25 "classic" rock songs for 25 years. I don't get it.
Why is it the public can only digest "alternative" acts (eg The Cure) 20 years later? I'm gonna go see Autolux tonight and I'll be surprised if there's more than 50 people there. Weird.
I think the right ad benefits from the right music, if used properly. My only objection to it is that sometimes you begin to associate the song with the ad which is unfortunate. One that springs to mind is Leftfield's 'Release The Pressure' soundtracking a fucking Cheesestrings advert. So wildly out of context, it beggers belief.
But I have discovered a fair few songs and bands through hearing them from ads etc, so It clearly benefits the artist too. But people just need to apply a certain level of quality control. ;-)
Music should remind you of long summers and good times. Not a yoghurt.
I would have thought a lot of people associated summer and good times with a cool, refreshing pot of yoghurt. And not being funny yeah, but given that a song by the Go Team has been used in the past, by Honda to do exactly what Battles are being castigated for here, maybe both of you should STUFFN00B.