Jump to content
Jambands.ca

What's your thoughts on bands selling their songs for commercials?


wavinginthewind

Recommended Posts

What Wilco did was shit. You can justify it a million ways til Sunday, it was soul sucking commercialism.

Lets make an album of music that expresses something deep about the way we're feeling and then sell the whole thing to be used in commercials.

Can't wait until bands start getting sponsered by companies to make albums.

This just in, Coors light has just signed [ insert favorite band here ] to a 3 album deal. Release date for the first tune will be during this years Super Bowl commercial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Yeah and rock and roll used to be about excess. And cars used leaded gas. We all drank whole milk. And no one knew what a carbon footprint was. Times change............

I say get paid motherfuckers, but I am true blue conservative.

And no BGT and GD are not mainstream, but they got a lot of recognition as unknown bands when those commercials came out (I think they were one of the first ads to list the artist and song title on screen during the ad too).

S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's weird (to me) how this has become totally acceptable' date=' even encouraged. [/quote']

It's weird (to me) how not paying for music has become totally acceptable, even encouraged.

A brother's gotta eat, yo.

I pay for music. I go to shows. I buy merch at shows.

People downloading music illegally is not a justification for using your music to sell Volkswagens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno, until Jeff Tweedy interrupts a Wilco show to announce that the new VW hybrid series is now available at the Lancaster Volkswagon on McDonnell Street and Wilco ticketholders get free detailing, I still don't find it that intrusive.

Sky Blue Sky is *still* an amazing album (imo), the licensing of the material doesn't change that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Licensing songs that are already written is like getting a gigantic raise and promotion at work for doing nothing extra.

Picasso, Warhol, tons of painters / artists etc all had patrons that paid them to create. Do you have issues with that? If no, what’s the difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If no, what’s the difference?

The difference is not the medium or message, its the audience. When you frequent online communities that involve people who are left leaning (or stuck), you get this type of stuff: TV sucks, the govt sucks, bikes rule, music rules, money is evil and so are corporations.......

Warhol is cool cause he only painted Campbells cans and there was internet to beam up every detail of his finances and supporters of projects he sold; Wilco sucks because we are all aware of their windfall and are reminded of it during every CSI. Its like the article above, the easiest thing to do is dismiss. Maybe Wilco sold their songs to VW because they are doing great things with internal combustion engines (wait till they release the new diesel engines!)- or maybe they just thought "fuck yeah, lets take that $200,000 and buy some big ass TVs and lots of Pizza Hut."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you frequent online communities that involve people who are left leaning (or stuck), you get this type of stuff: TV sucks, the govt sucks, bikes rule, music rules, money is evil and so are corporations.......

This is some pretty awesome stuff, right here! Almost as awesome as big ass TVs and Pizza Hut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...