wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

What does George Martin think?

What happened to writing memorable commercial
jingles: "Big Fig Newton," the "Lee-hee-hee-hee-
hee-Vi's" commercial," etc. Instead of raiding the memories of people's souls that is not an extreme description of using songs first heard as art, for commercials.

And all the examples are as if intentionally provocative--"Revolution" and "Times they
are a Changin'" for Huge Corporations; Etta James' song for a car commercial. "All You Need is Love" about wish for world peace for diapers?
It's feels like baiting Beatles appreciators.

The argument from the female guest equating making their living from their music with it being used to sell products is specious. And empty. Are her opinions less credible because she makes a living writing them?

Hearing one's favorite songs in jingles or commercials can have a dual effect: the listener either grins in recognition of music that makes him happy, or he grimaces because he feels his favorite music is being cheapened and exploited.

It's all about money, money earned by both the vendors and the performers.

Remember the Mitsubishi car ads a few years back that had people running to their website to identify the artists ("Start the Commotion" by the Wiseguys in particular)? That was undeniably cool.

What's worse that using someone's music, for which he or she will be handsomely paid, is to use a rearranged or altered or bouncy version of the original. Now that's cringeworthy.

PS- I really hope John and Co. devote more programming to the business side of music in the future. I thoroughly enjoyed today's segment, and it was only the tip of the iceberg.

With the rapid decline of the music industry, everyone is looking at new ways to make money. Licensing and publishing are obviously two of the more successful avenues in this regard.

I believe that television is the new radio in terms of effectiveness of "breaking" a band to a general audience. With the fragmentation of culture into smaller and smaller niches, bands can now brand themselves and reach specific demographics.

I am undecided on whether this is a good or bad thing and how it effects the artform itself, but one thing is clear: it is vital that artists fight to maintain control of their catalog as much as possible in this new era. Apparently, this was at the center of the fallout between Radiohead and EMI.

I believe that the creator of the art has the right to place it where he/she/they chose. It becomes murky when the artists who created the work no longer have a say in where their art ends up.

Well, BORED, you cared enough to post a comment.

I've always thought that using anybody else's music for an ad cheapens the ad, not the music. It speaks to a paucity of creativity. The particular penchant for hip-hop to "sample" other people's music I find to be absurd. Write your own music if you can and let the public decide. It's akin to me writing a novel and then "sampling" Hemingway for a chunk of it. Who in the literary world would stand for that?

The Beatles were the users of other people's music, from covering songs in the early days to aping the styles of others on the White Album ("Back in the U.S.S.R." is a nice take on the Beach Boys, for instance) and Let It Be. They were (and I guess, still are) businessmen and if all four original members were alive, you can bet they would be using the artistic integrity of the music as a bargaining chip, but eventually they would sell to the highest bidder. Since Lennon was murdered, though the music has become more an important cultural relic, and the business decisions regarding it necessarily carry more weight for them personally and for all of us.

In short, I think they're right to have such tight controls on the music, but I'm guessing that Lennon at least would be the first to applaud if somebody made a new hit song that built on his contributions. Advertising is more troubling aesthetically--the problems there are steep, but not insurmountable.

--C.

"Don't want no cash
Don't need no money
Ain't got no stash
This note's for you.

Ain't singin' for pepsi
Ain't singin' for coke
I don't sing for nobody
Makes me look like a joke
This note's for you.

Ain't singin' for miller
Don't sing for bud
I won't sing for politicians

Ain't singin' for spuds
This note's for you.

Don't need no cash
Don't want no money
Ain't got no stash
This note's for you.

I've got the real thing
I got the real thing, baby
I got the real thing
Yeah, alright." ~ NY

I agree, yet "the times they'are a-changing..." ~ BD

Hey, Bob Seger did it ... The Who did it .... why not The Beatles ?

Could you please repeat the name of the company that incorporates lyrics into clothing?

Thanks!

Elvis Costello selling cars and Joe Strummer as a tv show theme song - aaarrgghh!!!! All music I have loved as music hurts when it shows up in a commercial use.

see Neil Young's "This Note's for You"

The owners of the The Beatles catalog have held onto it and not let it be used and as a result it appreciated in value. However now with stagnant record sales companies are looking for alternative ways in which to generate income.
To continue to hold on and restrict the use of the songs will only further remove the material from the publics eye and eventually have a negative impact on the investment that a company has made in purchasing the songs.
These are no longer pieces of art as they were when they were originally conceived. They are now commodities to be used, bought and sold in the interests of generating a profit.

If Jaguar can use a song from The Clash to sell cars then anything can and will happen.

Doesn't Michael Jackson still have control over the catalog? Didn't he leverage the rights to Sony for money to pay for his defense during his molestation trial? Maybe I'm wrong.

As far as the publisher is concerned, licensing this music is an excellent means of advertising The Beatles catalog since most music, in the current age, is exposed to people through commercials or these glorified commercials we call music videos.

It's a win-win for those who are financially involved. Now whether this destroys the music's integrity is a whole other matter.

Of course it will damage the music. Every band that prostitutes its art has done an incredible disservice to its legacy. And no, it is not something that has always been done. Pop acts like The Everly Brothers might have done things like singing the Coco-Cola jingle back in ads during the '60s but they never gave any of their legitimate work to be used in shilling for some BS product.

I agree with Cheryl. I think better music in ads is actually inspiring more innovative campaigns with more interesting visuals.

WHO CARES THE BEATLE OR OVERRATED.

To my experience, pop music is being used for commericals in much more organic ways than the past - used to evoke the feeling the ad is trying to convey, less with silly puns and plays on words. I have actually discovered artists whose music I have purchased because I first heard the song on a commercial. If I have to be assaulted by advertising, I'd rather have ligit music behind it than stupid jingles.

Responding to Mayor Bloomberg's comment -- As I understand it, in this case the Beatles aren't getting a piece of the action as their songbook has long been owned by others. Nevertheless, no matter what Sir Paul believes, having their music used for advertisements does, indeed, tarnish their legacy. Lennon and Harrison would not have wanted it (especially Lennon), and without Lennon's approval, Sir Paul is just another rich guy wishing to get richer.

I don't find it especially troubling. Every other band these days licenses their music. Why shouldn't the Beatles get a piece of the action?

SOUNDCHECK SAYS: Mayor Bloomberg, do last night's Iowa caucus results change your stance on a possible presidential run? Just askin'...