Okay, so this one is a little different… Like Couch’s topic last week, this isn’t a recommendation topic so much as a discussion thing. This could get a little soapbox-y, but bear with me… Anyway…

MUSIC IN ADVERTISING

This thread is about the ethics of bands allowing their music to be used in commercials… Basically, is it cheap corporate whoring or just a more pragmatic approach to selling records? Do bands have a responsibility to maintain ‘artistic integrity’? Is the TV advertisement merely an updated music video? Does it devalue a song to hear it used in a car commercial? More to the point, is the whole issue actually that black-and-white or is the whole thing more complicated than that? Anyway, here’s a brief look at some of the different factors and ideas surrounding the issue.

Why do advertisements use music?

Because it works. The advertising industry has done a shitload of studies on this subject, and it turns out that prominently featuring music in an ad has three benefits:
- Draws attention to the advertisement. Basically, an ad with music is that much harder to ignore than one without music. A catchy or familiar tune can also make people focus.
- Increases ability to recognise and process a product. This means that music can help you understand what kind of thing the product is selling and process that information faster... It's hard to explain, but it's like how the ad's use of music can tell you which demographic they're aiming for, and whether you yourself are a member of it.
- Can produce stronger emotional reactions. This part is key. The right music can convey emotional responses like happiness, excitement, sadness, tension, etc. Sometimes this music is created by a special agency, but more and more of the time advertisers are beginning to use ‘proper’ songs to convey feelings, which also have the added benefit of also being able to induce stuff like nostalgia, familiarity, etc. In fact, the Wiki article on advertising states that “Songs can be used to concretely illustrate a point about the product being sold, but more often are simply used to associate the good feelings listeners had for the song to the product on display.”
Of course, badly used music can actually hurt an advertisement… If an ad focuses on product information, music can distract from that. But ads that do this are in the minority nowadays (only something like 15% of ads don‘t feature music, if I remember right), mainly because it’s much easier to affect people than to persuade people.

Why do bands allow their music to be used?

At the risk of stating the obvious, money. But there are also factors like recognition, fame, or even just because they think it‘d be funny (John Cooper Clarke’s ‘Sugar Puff’ ad is a good example of this, despite not featuring his music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0xZq7-f2XU#). It should be noted that sometimes music is used without the band’s permission… Something which still continues today through ‘soundalikes’, or the practice of hiring musicians to replicate someone’s sound without infringing on copyright (Tom Waits and Final Fantasy have both been victims of this). But the practice of licensing songs out to commercials (hereafter referred to as ‘shilling’) has become less and less of a taboo, so that it’s fairly common practice for even self-proclaimed ‘indie’ bands to shill for ads (Modest Mouse and Feist are just two examples).

Does it diminish the music itself to be used in an ad?

It’s tempting to say ‘no, of course not’, but… For me personally, it kinda does. And I’m not talking about “EWW POPULAR NOW IT SUCKS” or any of that shit, I’m just saying that for me it takes away a lot of the song’s original power and message, not to mention cheapening the memories I have of it: something like ’Blitzkreig Bop’ meant a lot to me back in secondary school, so hearing it turned into some fucking jingle for a car commercial feels like someone’s taking all the feelings and memories I associate with that song and pissing all over them. I mean, okay, the song itself is exactly the same from an objective point of view, but who the hell listens to music objectively? I listen to music because it affects me on a personal level, and I don’t like to feel like someone’s using the emotional attachment I have for a song to manipulate me into buying a product.
Besides, if nothing else, the sheer ubiquity of music in advertising diminishes it. I mean, an ad using music basically trims the song down to a single hook or soundbite that plays in the backround. Then the ad comes on again 15 minutes later. And again. And so you get desensitised to it: what was once something ‘important’ becomes just backround music, aural wallpaper that you learn to tune out.

What’s the difference between music in film and music in ads?

Music in film isn’t trying to sell you something. Whatever emotional manipulation does occur through the use of music in a movie, it’s done for the sole purpose of enhancing the movie and making it more evocative,  rather than just being a quick line to the viewer’s wallets. I mean, you could say that since ads and films both use music in the same way then they’ll both devalue the song used in the same way, but for me personally the sense of betrayal I get when a song is used in an ad is completely absent when it’s used in a movie. Unless the movie is ‘White Chicks’ or something, in which case it’s still horrible.
Besides, the whole thing about overexposure comes into play again… While you’d see a movie maybe once or twice, ads come on at least three times every half hour so it’s a lot easier to be desensitised to them.

Why has music in ads become less of a taboo?

Well, mainly because nowadays it’s viewed as a ‘necessary evil’, the only way for a band to stand out from the thousands of other bands now available on Myspace and the like. After all, radio is dominated by preprogrammed ’top 10’ playlists and music videos cost money, so shilling for a product is a more and more common way for bands to break out. Also, some fairly respected bands and artists did commercials in the late Eighties, so you could argue that they paved the way for the idea that you could make money while still retaining artistic credibility. I mean, no-one’s going to call Bob Dylan a sellout, or not again at any rate.
One thing I do find interesting, though, is the change in perspective among many current ‘indie’ bands, who seem to be a lot more pragmatic and almost mercenary about things like this as opposed to the idealistic, defiantly anti-corporate founders of the movement. I’m not sure how it happened or what it means, but it’s pretty depressing to see the independent ethos turn from “fuck the corporate whores” to “work with the corporate whores”.

Is selling music to commercials ‘selling out‘?

That’s a tough one. It’s tempting to say that yes, using your music to sell brand-name jeans shows an indefensible lack of artistic integrity… The thing is though, generally the bands aren’t actually changing their music to suit the ads. They’re not pandering to the market or dumbing-down their sound. So musically, no, they’re not selling out. And while you could argue that it’s unfair to the fans of a band to ‘ruin’ their favorite song by putting it in a commercial, that song is still the band’s property, so they can do whatever they want to it. Besides, I think a lot of that stuff about ‘authenticity’ and ‘credibility’ is bullshit anyway. If a guy like Bob Mould wants to actually be able to make some money and maybe some new fans, then more power to him… He shouldn’t be attacked for selling out someone else’s projected ideals. Still, using music in ads does cheapen it, so I guess musicians will have to make some sort of compromise between ‘deliberately obscure but still important’ and ‘very popular and very trite’.

As licensing fees continue to drop and as the amount of new musicians looking for recognition keeps growing, it's fair to say that the trend of using music in advertising isn't going to stop anytime soon... And that the problems it brings, of devaluing music into something stale and uninteresting, aren't going to go away either.

Okay, that’s it. Post your thoughts/opinions/relevant Bill Hicks quotes!

Nice work, man! This is something I've thought about before, and have discussed with people. And I think remember I modded this forum (couple of years ago) I made a topic about this too--though not in the same level of detail. And yeah, Bill Hicks quotes were some of the first things I thought of when I read all this! However, I'm gonna post Tom Waits instead: "If Michael Jackson wants to work for Pepsi, why doesn't he just get himself a suit and an office in their headquarters and be done with it?"

Generally, I am against it, though it is of course kind of a tricky subject. On one hand, I dislike the fact that someone's creative work is now used to sell cars or whatever. It's a shame that bands have to be turned into spruikers. You'd kind of hope that art and business could stay separate. I don't want to think about cola or cars when I hear what used to be a favourite song!
On the other hand, it is definitely more exposure for struggling artists. It does mean they'll probably be "that band from the ___ commerical" for a while, but it'll get them recognised. If I didn't know them before I heard em in an ad, I probably won't care too much though. I'll probably just get sick of the song!

I don't know, but lately I lean more towards DON'T FUCKIN DO IT. Especially well-established artists who already have a decent audience, or are at least attracting one--what defence do they even have for that? I find that:
If it's a song I liked, I might just get slightly tired of, and will be slightly disappointed in the band.
If it's a song I just knew or disliked, I'll probably come to hate it.
If it's a song (or band) I'd never heard, I'll get sick of it and will avoid their subsequent work. Which I think is another risk of going into advertising, with little-known bands. I'm sure there are bands who've shot themselves in the foot this way. Try to get exposure, end up being avoided.

I don't really know if I'm for or against it, it depends on the situation, but like I said in some other topic before if I see another video game ad with White Rabbit in it for no reason I will be pretty upset.  It's one thing if the song is at least...relevant...or something, but this doesn't make sense.  Some commercials just throw songs in so that the song catches the viewer's attention, but the song has nothing to do with what they're advertising.  It's just frustrating.

Also some songs used are by artists who are dead, so it's not their fault if their songs are used in commercials, therefore it's not always the artist selling out.

It's just as bad as product placement in movies.

Total bullshit.

I dont watch popular television channels enough to see this kind of stuff, but usually when I hear a popular song in a tv commercial its like... an iPod commercial or something so I don't really care heh

no topic about this is complete without


you know whats gonna be good for our game about generic aliens attacking earth, a shitty cover of an already kind ofs hitty song, that will add some nobility.

As much as I don't like it, I find it hard to condemn, because I admit that if the situation ever arose, I would let some company put a song I wrote in a commercial if it involved a decent amount of money and wasn't all that terrible of a product



sellloutz

I don't agree with music in outright SELLING SHIT, like coke or nike.

But I can deal with it if its in movies and games.

I guess it probaly also depends on what music is being played for the commercial, because the music industry is heavily commercialised, so I can totally accept some gay metal/rock song being played on a commercial, they aren't usually deep emotional songs with amazing meaning, they are usually a product of their times. Like Steve Vai he's a composer as well as guitardude, so I can accept him getting comissioned to do a game soundtrack or a car commercial, it' a job that pays for him to do his other stuff. That music is written specifically for that, it's not an emotional guitar solo or anything interesting.

What gets me is when they'll use something that means something and cheapen it. These days I tend to listen to far out shit that wouldn't get played in adverts , but man. You've written/performed something and you're letting a company distort that piece's meaning. There's no integrity in that. It can get really hard to appreciate music when it's being used to advertise products during afterschool cartoon time.

But yeah fuck I'd probably do it. Gimmie them dollar$

people who think EW POPULAR MUSIC IT SUCKS are just stupid and just want to be original and oh, different.
Popular music has its good and bad, just like any other sort of music (except metal imo, lmao)
So advertising music is the same. What is this shit about DIMINISHING THE MUSIC because it is in an ad. THAT'S A COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS ASSUMPTION. The music in an ad is.... still fucking music. NO SHIT!
GEE Jesus Christ!

"What’s the difference between music in film and music in ads?"
Who cares? It is still music, one works betters in films other in ads, end of discuchcchchchion.

"Why has music in ads become less of a taboo?"
what? it became a taboo? THIS IS NEWS TO ME!
if someone thinks it is a taboo, man you're pretty retarded sry.
music doesn't have a set of morality in which you're supposed to preach for.

"Is selling music to commercials ‘selling out‘?"
If making music for ads is your job, it isnt.
and no, the term selling out is used when you EXCHANGE CREATIVE FREEDOM FOR MONEY.
When you get a huge contract and you are free to do whatever the fuck you want, such as making a tribute to Metal Machine Music, then you didnt sell out, you just did the best deal ever. When you find that the contract that limitates your creativity in an evident way but that's ok you get the moneys, that's selling out.




EDIT: now, there is one big thing I'm against. Them using your music without your permission.
To simplify my argument, tom waits.

people who think EW POPULAR MUSIC IT SUCKS are just stupid and just want to be original and oh, different.
Popular music has its good and bad, just like any other sort of music (except metal imo, lmao)

Nobody said this at all!

So advertising music is the same. What is this shit about DIMINISHING THE MUSIC because it is in an ad. THAT'S A COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS ASSUMPTION. The music in an ad is.... still fucking music. NO SHIT!
GEE Jesus Christ!

weiner weiener weiner weiner weinwre weiner weienr
When you hear a john fruscaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiante song and it makes you think all sorts of wonderful things and it makes you feel very nice, that is very cool.
now lets saaaaaaaay that a company bought the right to use that very song to advertaaaaaaaaaaaaise bacon flavored condoms.  You know what you would thinaaaaaak of when you heard it?
BACON FLAVORED CONDOMS.

that is how it cheapens it and diminishes it.  because it associates it with something else, with trying to GET something from us instead of trying to GIVE something to us.

And I’m not talking about “EWW POPULAR NOW IT SUCKS” or any of that shit

there you go couch, he mentioned it, I took it.

weiner weiener weiner weiner weinwre weiner weienr
When you hear a john fruscaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiante song and it makes you think all sorts of wonderful things and it makes you feel very nice, that is very cool.
now lets saaaaaaaay that a company bought the right to use that very song to advertaaaaaaaaaaaaise bacon flavored condoms.  You know what you would thinaaaaaak of when you heard it?
BACON FLAVORED CONDOMS.

that is how it cheapens it and diminishes it.  because it associates it with something else, with trying to GET something from us instead of trying to GIVE something to us.

Why do you assume I'll feel that way?
whywhywhywhywhywhywhywhywhywhywhywhywhywhywhywhywhywhywhy?

because I don't.
I don't feel it cheapens it, at all. I don't take the association with the product seriously. MAYBE THAT'S JUST ME, I CAN SEPARATE ONE THING FROM THE OTHER.
you can't?

there you go couch, he mentioned it, I took it.

Why do you assume I'll feel that way?
whywhywhywhywhywhywhywhywhywhywhywhywhywhywhywhywhywhywhy?

because I don't.
I don't feel it cheapens it, at all. I don't take the association with the product seriously. MAYBE THAT'S JUST ME, I CAN SEPARATE ONE THING FROM THE OTHER.
you can't?

I guess I should clarify that I only think it is shit if people who are not in dire straights for cash blah blah do it.  I would probably take a million dollars and let them use my song for bacon flavored condoms because I don't have an established career and could definitely DEFINITELY use that money.  But if I already had a billion dollars and let them use my song, it would just make me a shit.

In fact, in that situation, it cheapens the song because it shows what the artist REALLY thinks about their music obviously.

ultimately all that matters is what YOU think about the music. Not the artist's.

and again why would that make you feel like shit? There's some moral issue that shouldn't be there. Music doesn't have morals, it's not like centuries back then when you played the PROHIBITED CHORD they would set you on fire.

this is where you go beyond the argument and just directly attack the speaker.
pointless, it adds to nothing.