might be able to get some singing lessons LOLL!?
fuck it, they deserve some credit
so I don't really see what the big deal is
anyway on the LC front i think being used in BBC ads where they dont get paid or some other ads which ive never seen is on a slightly smaller scale than for a huge ad campaign by Budweiser.
It isnt a big deal either way its just that the band has some links to this forum so thought it might interest people.
Gareth said something about not being able to make a living in music in a world of illegal downloads - there are also 8 members of the band and they're not getting paid twice as much as a four-piece for their music. if thats how you make a living - do it.
just so you know.
was confused. happy now.
+ HAVE YOU SEEN THE T-SHIRT?!
just for the shirt, it's worth.
The same music was used in a Coors Light ad last year:
...they don't buy the rights to the music, just the right to use it in their ad.
Good for them.
It's as cool as that Sleigh Bells/Honda commercial. Or the Grizzly Bear/VW I saw a few months back.
if someone offers you a deal which results in you getting some cash that could be used to pay rent/pour back into the band/whatever, you'd be crazy not to take it.
if you're a painter and someone offers to buy your painting, you're not gonna say no are you? if you're an author and someone offers to buy your book, you're not going to say no. and as other people have pointed out, if the money is going to go back into the band, then surely it's not a bad thing?
because musicians sell their music or play it live. using it in an advert is a different thing altogether and inevitably raises legitimate questions.
relentlessly touring and making records and making merch and seeing people download your records for nothing.
thats not exactly high art is it?
i'm just pleased when people like my band, whether theyve paid for it or whether theyve downloaded it for free. obviously i'd rather recoup costs in recording/pressing our records than not as its more sustainable that way, but i do it because its fun to make music and i'd never expect it to be anything else.
sure it'd be nice to be able to do it full time as apposed to getting a job or whatever, im sure most people would agree, but that doesnt really affect the debate of whether doing an advert harms the art or not.
It usually ends with several things being mentioned:
1. The idea that good artists live in poverty because they are unappreciated, or that hardship inspires great art, is basically a fallacy. Artists have always had to depend on patrons, usually wealthy individuals or the state, and they've always created works to suit these commercial interests. Does it make Leonardo's work flawed, because he lived in a huge house and had a confortable life because he was, for want of a better word, a shill?
2. The moment any band plays live they are helping the barman sell more pints.
but this is a good post.
as both arguments are pretty bollocks.
And the ad's pretty shameful too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111
then they'll definitely have a say in whether their track can be used in an advert, ie. they could veto it. Unless you position yourself as vehemently DIY / anti-corporate, like Shellac, I don't really see a problem with it - I think a lot of bands just see it as good sustainable income for doing nothing, with 'the joke' being on the organzation / ad agency who want to use their money. For example, Diplo gets loads of money for sponsorship / corporate endorsement and throws it all back into his label, Mad Decent, and throws block parties with the proceeds.
and its suddenly all HERP DERP BEER AND FOOTBALL AND BBQS. Confusing.
But still, good for LC!
drinking and driving causes over 25,ooo deaths a year. overall 100,000 deaths occur each year due to the effects of alcohol.Correction: According to the NHTSA web site (nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/RNotes/2006/810686.pdf), there were 43,443 alcohol related traffic fatalities in 2005 in the USA. As a comparison, AIDS claimed 18,000 lives in 2003.
How can alcohol be blamed for 100,000 deaths each year?
* 5% of all deaths from diseases of the circulatory system are attributed to alcohol.
* 15% of all deaths from diseases of the respiratory system are attributed to alcohol.
* 30% of all deaths from accidents caused by fire and flames are attributed to alcohol.
* 30% of all accidental drownings are attributed to alcohol.
* 30% of all suicides are attributed to alcohol.
* 40% of all deaths due to accidental falls are attributed to alcohol.
* 45% of all deaths in automobile accidents are attributed to alcohol.
* 60% of all homicides are attributed to alcohol.
(Sources: NIDA Report, the Scientific American and Addiction Research Foundation of Ontario.) Also see Alcohol Consumption and Mortality, Alcohol poisoning deaths, CDC report,
100,000 deaths. That's more than a statistic. That is 100,000 individuals with faces. 100,000 individuals with lives not fully lived. 100,000 individuals grieved by mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, and children. Every year.
...and that's just in the US
have I just been trolled?
out of those 100,000, plenty of them will inevitably be tramps who lost all contact with their family years ago
then I probably wouldn't mind. But it does, so they're sell-outs.
I like the titillating shots of the woman getting dressed, very riot grrrl.
unless they're giving the money to charity.
However, when it's someone who just about gets by then I'm more than happy for them to take the dough.
not even an issue. i thought DiS was more enlightened to be honest
Probably should have read the whole thread before I got my cock out again.
just steal it off the internet, that a band would want to make a bit of money to fucking live on by using one of their songs in an advert.
Only Steve fucking Albini would turn down money from advertising for his music these days - so many other revenue streams are dead. And lest we forget Albini didn't mind eating Universal money for Nirvana or PJ Harvey, eh?
Anyway, I'm becoming a parody of myself. The core of the matter and the irrefutable fact is: if you've got a problem with this, then you've got a problem with you favourite bands eating or making more music.
once the label and management types take their cut...
It all goes back in a relevant pot somewhere along the line.
i'd partner the flat blandness of Bud with something like the Arcade Fire. LC would be better off with something like San Miguel. Sharp and acidic and with a disgusting aftertaste, it seems good when you're in a certain time and place, but in the cold light of day it's actually quite unpleasant. And it makes your barf taste like ham.
you can count on it coming on in the big room in cockpit every friday without fail woooooo
I might've agreed with you on this not so long ago but I agree with josh up above, especially as the times they are a-changing... Being in a band can be a fucking struggle these days. Take The Boxer Rebellion - their label Poptones imploded just after their debut album got released in 2004 and they've been without a label ever since. Without a leg-up from i-tunes last year, their self-financed 2nd album might never have seen the light of day and they might've had to quit. Someone offers to put them in a film just for playing their own music, which has probably massively boosted their profile - should they have said no to that? If it's your passion and you want to keep doing it, even while you stick to your musical ideals (I'm pretty sure they have) maybe you need a helping hand very now and then...
Your posts on this subject are idiotic.
Also, how is it different to this, apart from this being far more direct (the bands in question applied themselves to be publicly associated with the company)? http://pitchfork.com/news/40312-taco-bell-gives-500-worth-of-free-food-to-passion-pit-wavves-best-coast-les-savy-fav/
They don't make money from touring.
So when an ad agency rents their music for an advert, can you really begrudge earning a few bucks?
I like the new HBO montage featuring Antlers' "Kettering."
I think I'm more inclined to side with the jist of that Sigur Ros thread: where the ad company rips off enough of artists' song-- where you go: Oh, I know that one, or...erm, what-- which really kind of sucks.
I would much rather have the cash from them using your song than just have the bastards rip it off anyway with giving you a penny.
Nobody in this thread has mentioned the "Little Drummer Boy" GAP ad with Low's version of the song. I'd post a link for the video, but I can't find it.
On one hand, it's one of the biggest clothing corporations in America. On the other hand, Low has never been what one would call "commercially friendly," with their only other jaunt into the mainstream was a song for The Mothman Prophecies.
Is it better or worse when a band like Low does it?
Low might not have known about it, they'll have gone to whoever owns the publishing.
The publishing thing is what Nescafe used to get around Muse turning down their request to use Feeling Good, but even then they still had to get a soundalike cover version.
I know they're Mormon weirdos, but they must watch TV from time to time.
I can't wait to have every single one of the songs from my albums featuring in dozens of adverts, so every day everyone will be able to hear my wonderful music all the time and I'll make loads of dosh to build a mansion in the shape of a giant hand giving all da h8rz the middle finger.
Would it be weird if I said I didn't like you using your music in ads? Doesn't attaching your music to a product kind remove what the music means in a way? I mean, what's your view of it, indie bands and commericals?
It'd not be weird, but it'd also be completely redundant.
It's a matter of fact that bands need to make money to exist, and so long as people are illegally downloading music, an 8 piece band is going to need to find ways to supplement its income.
Don't worry though, we're all still very much broke. All the money goes against debts we owe, and towards touring/recording.
As for any notion of doing an ad reducing a song's meaning or some shit...it's a song...about...dancing...
They will have the right to demand integrity from the bands they love.
Until then, we should all probably shut the fuck up and let the starving artists whore themselves so they can eat occasionally.
if you illegally download, it's kind of hypocritical to expect bands to adhere to the 'old' honour code.
But how would stopping Spotify or illegal downloads make it any easier for online radio stations to exist? I don't see how there's a connection.
You're arguing that people listening to an online radio station are more likely to spend money on artists than someone who listens to spotify? I'm no advocate for illegal downloading, but there are plenty of people who're willing to quote studies pointing out that people who download more are also more likely to spend more on music.
Not to mention, the real reason why online radio failed is that the potential revenue couldn't (and can't) licensing costs in the vast majority of cases. Even if you were able to stop all illegal downloading and all legal licensed services like spotify, music fans have shown a great reluctance to embrace old-media style models that have simply been transferred online. People like choice, and when there's as much choice (both legal AND illegal) as the internet currently offers, who in their right mind wants their musical exploration dictated to them?
Absolutely no fucking idea whatsoever.
is a more valid use of the post than 99% of your musings on "indie music"
Please just go away
Your question is loaded and stupid.
People buy records, buy t-shirts, go see bands play. If they didn't do these things labels like 4AD, Jagjaguwar, Sub Pop, Rough Trade etc wouldn't be releasing more records now that they ever have.
The DIY spirit is alive and well, be it in the myriad of bedroom labels releasing 7"s and CDRs to events like the upcoming Edinbugrh Popfest, which people from all over the UK appear to be going to.
Now, please please please just FUCK OFF.
including an alive and well DIY spirit and labels releasing more records than ever. On the other hand, you've complained or this'd comments complaining about downloading of music (in this thread and others previously). Aren't these two positions contradictory? I.e. is there a problem with the current system/culture, or not?
People still value music, they just value it in different ways - it's interesting, for instance, that people will accept 50% hikes in the price of live music yet don't rejoice over a similar sized cut in prices of recorded music.
I do think that a lot of people have a pretty cavalier attitude towards recorded music and the economic culture around it, which manifests as anything about arguing it in terms of pure economics to constant, often fictional or exaggerated, complaints with the industry. but, at the end of the day, these people still value the music, they're just doing it in a different way to ten years ago.
does that mean i didn't wish they would buy it? no, not really. i think "indie music" as a whole has massively benefitted from the internet, and largely i just wish that people would buy everything they liked because it would put the labels that released in a totally secure financial position and make them able to take far bigger and more risks on bands. imagine a world where, instead of say a dozen large indie labels, there were three dozen, all releasing music with the quality levels of 4AD, Jagjaguwar, Arts & Crafts, Thrill Jockey, Sub Pop etc
Something brightonb painfully seems to miss, and what I was trying to get across, is that "indie music" isn't a singular. He talks about it as if it's a giant generic mass, as if there are no subgroups or subucltures within it. He's wrong and talking total bs and it winds me up.
and this: "'indie music' as a whole has massively benefitted from the internet".
The only point I'd still differ on is regarding the financial stability of labels - I guess it would be 'nice', in the sense that these people work on things we value and enjoy, but its also not especially realistic, in that I don't think the portion of income that your average music fan has changed substantially - less spent on recorded content, more on live/festival stuff. Music expenditure will always come after rent, bills, food etc, so for the most part it's difficult to see 'indie' musicians as anything other than successful hobbyists, and I always cringe terribly when musicians complain about their lifestyle as though they have a real job.
"imagine a world where, instead of say a dozen large indie labels, there were three dozen, all releasing music with the quality levels of 4AD, Jagjaguwar, Arts & Crafts, Thrill Jockey, Sub Pop etc"
Accordingly I sort of get where you're coming from on this point, but are you saying there is a shortage of good music made ('cause if so I'm calling you crazy)? If not, then why do you need a larger quantity of big indie labels. What's wrong with smaller indie labels?
Nothing! It's just that they're mostly run (a) part time and (b) often at a loss, and as someone who has done this in the past it's time consuming and often stressful, and there are times when you really want to take a risk on something but can't for financial reasons.
I'm basically just thinking of all the wierd and wonderful music that would see a larger audience :) I always liked the way, for instance, somneone like Rough Trade would take the money they made from The Strokes and The Libertines and released records by Oneida.
and your response is to label the questioner dense by definition, and then proceed answer the question with an unsubstantiated ramble which advocates banning completely legal and ubiquitous streaming services such as spotify, which is internally inconsistent with the results you predict, completely at odds with modern technology and economic practice, and luddite in the extreme. You are a complete tool.
the request will invariably approach the artists publishers, label or management who in turn have to ask their artist, it could be politically motivated reasoning for a bands decision but it will be their decision.
I've said yes to some adverts for some bands and no to some adverts for some bands. I personally didn't necesarily agree but you can only explain your rationale and allow them to make the decision. Some artists aren't happy endorsing a chocolate bar, some artists would happily take the money for a company advertising dartboards made of babies. Its a case by case question and we'll never know all the details so can rarely have an informed decision, the wrong decision (which can be a yes OR no) can be the thing that allows a band to continue or the reason a band can't keep going.
on bands making money - if you aren't making *enough* money from your music, you obviously aren't good enough or your music doesn't really appeal to the majority of people. i hate this bullshit about bands thinking they have a god given right to live off their music because they tour all the time and put out a couple of records on an indie label.
thousands of people have failed at making music their career, and blaming the internet for this is mostly crap. sure, its not exactly helping, but indie bands have always been pretty poor, and chart pop musicians are still minted despite everyone downloading their records illegally.
basically, beer companies picking up songs like this is a good thing.
You are saying:
- if your particular form/style of music doesn't appeal to 'the majority of people', give the fuck up or make 'chart pop'...
- "Indie bands have always been pretty poor" - have they? Comes down to the definition of 'indie' I guess, plus a massive census on how much money has historically been made by all indie bands that I can't be bothered to run.
Did I get that right?
Have you read Our Band Could Be Your Life? Most of the portraits it paints are of bands living completely on a knife edge, of living basically hand-to-mouth, show-to-show, getting enough from one show to hopefully make it to the next. It's to be expected I guess as they pioneered a lot of the modern DIY ways of working, but the Black Flag chapters are especially horrific.
but sounds like an interesting read.
Might check it out, cheers man.
Its well worthy of your time.
so if people are watching said programmes they often end up watching the ads as well.
I keep it old school.
and read it everytime you have a thought for threads that aren't about dweebo dance music.
They let the same song be used for a Tv spot for Scrubs
and the other's Budweiser! Amirite?
Srsly though, good luck to them. I'm sure we'd all do the same.
I have no ethical or moral problem with a band using their songs on commercials so... seems like a perfect synthesis to me.
is to write songs a large alcohol selling conglomerate cannot love
"i'd partner the flat blandness of Bud with something like the Arcade Fire. LC would be better off with something like San Miguel. Sharp and acidic and with a disgusting aftertaste, it seems good when you're in a certain time and place, but in the cold light of day it's actually quite unpleasant. And it makes your barf taste like ham."
douchebag is slowly turning from wannabe kissinginkansas to man of the people. i like it.
Report this thread