The Weekly DiScussion: 'selling out' to sell stuff on the telly...

if band that dont normally get much coverage get offered an advert then it seems churlish to say they arent allowed to, but generally i would prefer songs not to be tainted by being associated with them. And once you are rich then there is absolutely no justification at all.

I just object to the whole concept of television advertising, in the same way that I'd object to having ten salesmen in my living room every 15 minutes.

When a track I know is soundtracking that it makes my guts whirl, even if it is like seeing someone I know in the paper at first.

Sorry
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSj8-SxYawE

also i want that mr oizo remix of killing in the name.

on the topic, I think bands should be alowed to do what they want, though i prefer bands that have some kind of social responsibility, but that's up to them.

I remember Muse refused to let their version of Feeling Good (i think) be used by Nestle, so Nestle went ahead and pretty much covered it, that was gheyness.

At the end of the day advertising is a massive part of life, sometimes it is amusing, othertimes it gets in your face, but why should anyone miss out on a break, people do hella worse things than sign a contract which maybe goes against their musical message, and if they can get more people listening to their music, great. hmmmm i sidetrack

As soon as a band is full-time, or has the desire to be so, then they must sell something to make a living. Some promotion is required. Prime-time exposure on television to millions of people is useful. The fact that this is associated with advertising a product is not important. It is not selling out. Selling out is changing your musical style to appeal to more people.

The fact that, as an example of your's, Stiltskin and Babylon Zoo achieved nothing more than one hit single as a result of their music being used in adverts is due to the fact that both bands were crap.

those that know the band feel upset.

those who don't know the band, get to know a song but don't, most of the time, bother to find out who it is.

end result = bands fans feel like something special is being diluted, band doesn't gain many new fans, band then uses money to build studios (i.e. see James Mercer from Shins doing McDonalds advert)

What I wanna know is: is it worse to have your music owned by Starbucks or your career funded by exposure? and in these fractured times, is there such a thing as over exposure any longer?

It was my favourite song on the album until I saw that stupid ad. Hearing a good song on an advert completely devalues it. End of.

Q: Is there anyone who has approached you on your music?

A: I've been approached lots of times. We're in the process of suing a tampon company for ripping off "Red Right Hand," which I think is a great idea actually, particularly the title and everything. Not a very good advertisement for their tampons, you know what I mean. Anyway, it seems they have done that, but I absolutely refuse to let an advertising company use my stuff.

i find myself changing my mind on a regular basis about this. I can understand the artists right to make money off their music and lets face it no-one buys many albums these days but i do find it a bit cynical that people such as those old hippies banhart and bunyan can allow their music to be used to sell mobile phones. i can't really treat either artist seriously anymore. the thought of selling phones is just so alien to how they like to portray themselves. i was upset for many years about the shins macdonalds/gap flirtations. i don't really know how anyone could align themselves with such irresponsible companies. it did make me think i'll just download or copy their music as they obviously now don't need the money.

as someone who has released the odd bit of music in the past, if i were ever to be asked (which lets face it it aint gonna happen), i could probably bring myself to license stuff to tv docs or ads by ethical companies.if i were a huge artist like the white stripes theres would be so many other ways to make money. tom waits & bruce springsteen seem to do ok for themselves & correct me if i'm wrong but both have said they would never license their music to ads.

helped some unknown band to discover there was another band to the same name, forcing the 'well-known' Mazarin to have to change their name...

i knew from a few years back have split up recently no?

also, the fiat referred to as 'crappy' in the above artcile (fiat grande punto) is actually pretty ace, as i have one. but no it wasnt to do with the music.

i say 'let them eat cake'

contracts and so on, not the band.

Besides, Feeling Good is a cover anyways!!!!!

is it?

... that there are now a load of people working at ad agencies that happen to like left-field music? And is that so bad?

then gave their compensation to a baby milk charity or somesuch, if I recall. Good guys.

i can always make more music

If an artist wants to make a living out of their music, they've got to actually sell some! I really don't see how promotion like this can be bad for an artist, unless its advertising weedkiller or something.

I used to work in HMV and there would be so many people asking for "that song from the car advert" or something similar. It sells music, can't argue with that

While the current of 'why buy?' continues(and dont deny it..), alternate revenue streams will be sought. This is the outcome.

sorry it is....how to TV makers get money to make shows you watch? i hate ads. i always muter them or turn over. always.

clearly just an excuse to have Babylon Zoo on the front page of DiS.

i'd sadly forgotten that it was polyphonic spree on the sainsbury ads, it just drifted over my head as the sainsbury/jamie oliver theme tune.

it's just another new way of getting my attention for their product, it's got nothing to do with band exposure. i'd be concerned about what product / corporation i'm advertising and how my song was chopped up + talked over, which the band wouldn't have any say on.

i'm assuming there's more money in music on adverts rather than on a film, does anyone know? i guess it's quicker money + not enough to tempt those who feel they need the cash into using their music on a film rather than ads.

i've found myself asking the question of whether i should just make up a beaty generic sht novelty NME indie hit that 'the kids' would love under a different name, maybe it could even go on an advert, or maybe i could produce a really bad dance record for the summer - surely they're easy peasy..

i got offered Steriogram for a show a couple of months ago and it was basically sold to me as "remember Steriogram off-of that advert??!! well they're back!!"...

about Mazarin having to change their name - Nirvana didn't have to despite clearly having come a not-so-close second to calling themselves by that name - obviously having corporate heft behind you is the way to get what you want moniker-wise.

Many many moons ago a band by name of Bennet recording a ditty that went 'Thank God Mum's gone to Iceland'. Unsuprisingly Iceland shoved a wodge of cash in their face to use it in tv saturation advertising. Bennet refused, citing 'artistic integrity'. Heard of them? I thought not. In the words of Thom Yorke 'take the money and run'

Is that this post has become a fucking hive of adverts... to stop being pissed off when the adverts come on press mute, make a brew, read a magazine, have a quickie... simply just don't watch them and then when someone finally tells you about it you won't care because you won't have been tainted by it constantly.

Whether you bitch about it or not bands are going to do it anyway because not only does it get them some cash it gets them exposure and apart from the complete indie stalwarts that's what they want, for more people to hear their music. People who like a song on an advert may not be pure of spirit when it comes to finding out about music but at least they know a good tune when they hear one.

justified it to support their studio time