Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Violent Femmes advertising Fosters

Actually if there's one thing worse than music being used in adverts, is when the artist has obviously refused to give permission to use their music, but the advertisers then go ahead and use essentially the same song, but slightly alter the music.

I remember not too long ago an advert for some new digital channel, which just blatently used Rebellion (Lies) by Arcade Fire, except all they done is slightly change the key at the end. :rolleyes:

I imagine this goes on all the time; a friend of mine used to do rather well for himself in this line.

Cable channels would come to him with their favourite song by The Prodigy (-or whoever) and just ask him to knock up a version as close to it as possible (-but different enough that they'd avoid copyright infringement and major royalties, etc).
 
I wonder if the abovementioned Mr Ritchie is getting any of the residuals off this (because from the look of it he isn't) and how deep his 'principled' comments go if he was getting a residual for this...

Yes, I wondered that myself. :hmm:

It's not specifically clear what the royalties deal is, but there's no denying he sounds a bit miffed. :D
 
I used to hate the idea of artists I like giving their songs over to big business to sell their products but the music industry has changed. Thanks to the ineptitude of record labels allowing a climate to exist where people no longer feel the need to pay for music, artists have to find monies from somewhere.

what twisted said. i think you can only really criticise an artist for selling their music to an ad if you've never illegally downloaded any music.
 
Actually if there's one thing worse than music being used in adverts, is when the artist has obviously refused to give permission to use their music, but the advertisers then go ahead and use essentially the same song, but slightly alter the music.

I remember not too long ago an advert for some new digital channel, which just blatently used Rebellion (Lies) by Arcade Fire, except all they done is slightly change the key at the end. :rolleyes:

Best example of this was Moby suing Toyota for using a reworked version of Go! for a Corolla advert, winning, then 2 years later allowing something off Play to be used...by Toyota to advertise teh Corolla...in fairness tho, every single track on that album was licensed for use in ads and movies becaue it bombed on initial release...
 
1. Commercial patronage of the arts, including music, is as old as the hills. That brands want to be associated with music is no different from the Medicis wanting to be associated with Da Vinci, or Michelangelo.

I think there's a substantial differnce myself -the medici's wanted to be viewed by the public as cultured etc their wealth and power wasn't in any way based on this patronage. Modern day equivalents use music etc as part of a marketing strategy, it's integrated with their power and influence, it's part of i rather than just being something which sits on top of it.
 
Best example of this was Moby suing Toyota for using a reworked version of Go! for a Corolla advert, winning, then 2 years later allowing something off Play to be used...by Toyota to advertise teh Corolla...in fairness tho, every single track on that album was licensed for use in ads and movies becaue it bombed on initial release...

There's deep levels of irony in there...
 
what twisted said. i think you can only really criticise an artist for selling their music to an ad if you've never illegally downloaded any music.

Yeah, unless you're a huge band, you've got to tour tour tour to make any money these days. If you're a band that's defunct, then touring's probably not really going to be an option. So, ads and film soundtracks must look like very attractive options...
 
I think there's a substantial differnce myself -the medici's wanted to be viewed by the public as cultured etc their wealth and power wasn't in any way based on this patronage. Modern day equivalents use music etc as part of a marketing strategy, it's integrated with their power and influence, it's part of i rather than just being something which sits on top of it.

I just wrote a long post disagreeing with this, and it got lost cos of auto sign out...grrrr...

Suffice to say I disagree. The Church, Aristocracy, and families like the MEdici (who are the early template for the modern corporation) used their partronage in exactly the same way - that it was part of the power and influence. Not to say that this was true across the board of course - some farm baron commissioning a portrait from a local dauber is one thing, but patronage is a tool of statecraft as much as any other.
 
uffice to say I disagree. The Church, Aristocracy, and families like the MEdici (who are the early template for the modern corporation) used their partronage in exactly the same way - that it was part of the power and influence. Not to say that this was true across the board of course - some farm baron commissioning a portrait from a local dauber is one thing, but patronage is a tool of statecraft as much as any other.

Quite: the Medici (and to a lesser extent other families like the Strozzi) were expressing their new power in what was nominally a republic, making it clear their pre-eminent place in a society that had previously been more egalitarian and less conspicuous in its displays of wealth.

Through his funding of the rebuilding of the Church of San Lorenzo in Florence, Cosimo de Medici had enough rights and control to rule that the crest of no other family appear in the building.

There was also some direct economic gains to be had. Private chapels were in great demand - those that made the initial funding of the complete rebuilding of a church could recoup their costs by selling on chapels to the highest bidder (and ensuring the design of the new building allowed the maximum opportunity to do so).
 
I'm sure it's not the original in that ad - the words are slightly changed and it sounds different.....

:hmm:
 
I just wrote a long post disagreeing with this, and it got lost cos of auto sign out...grrrr...

Suffice to say I disagree. The Church, Aristocracy, and families like the MEdici (who are the early template for the modern corporation) used their partronage in exactly the same way - that it was part of the power and influence. Not to say that this was true across the board of course - some farm baron commissioning a portrait from a local dauber is one thing, but patronage is a tool of statecraft as much as any other.

I wouldn't disagree (in fact, i already agreed )but the medici's power didn't rest on them looking cultured - it was an added extra. Their active power was unrelated to ongoing PR, whereas today the companies PR is part of what makes them poweful. There's a distinction there between what they might choose to do and what they have to do.
 
Quite: the Medici (and to a lesser extent other families like the Strozzi) were expressing their new power in what was nominally a republic, making it clear their pre-eminent place in a society that had previously been more egalitarian and less conspicuous in its displays of wealth.

Through his funding of the rebuilding of the Church of San Lorenzo in Florence, Cosimo de Medici had enough rights and control to rule that the crest of no other family appear in the building.

There was also some direct economic gains to be had. Private chapels were in great demand - those that made the initial funding of the complete rebuilding of a church could recoup their costs by selling on chapels to the highest bidder (and ensuring the design of the new building allowed the maximum opportunity to do so).

Exactly, they were 'expressing' their power rather than it being the base of their power itself. It was something 'on top'.

I think the economcic benefits, when when measured agianst the rest of it are minor and not motivating.
 
I personally, if I were an artist, would not allow my work to be linked to a product that I myself would not personally endorse. But then if I ruled the world it would be a bad time for adverts and advertisers as I think they're fucking horrific for the psyche. All this happiness everywhere and all you gotta do is spend spend spend.
 
it's disappointing. but then ads in general feck me off.

oh and in a band? thinking of licensing your songs to burger peddlers and the like? yes?

one word for you: Stiltskin.
 
I personally, if I were an artist, would not allow my work to be linked to a product that I myself would not personally endorse. But then if I ruled the world it would be a bad time for adverts and advertisers as I think they're fucking horrific for the psyche. All this happiness everywhere and all you gotta do is spend spend spend.

Unfortunatly unless you own the publishing(ie have made a hell of a lot of money and can afford to buy it back) then you wont get a choice in the matter.

Most of the times its the recored company that do the deals without even consolting the bands.


Levi's have killed so many bands! Almost ruined shaggy and all. Took him years to recover from mr boombastic being used.
dave
 
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Levis-Advert-Collection-Various-Artists/dp/B00005JCQ6

find someone who has had another big song on that list. Babylon zoo got killed cos the sample being used was better then the rest of the song, stiltskin did nothing. Shaggy disappeared untill it wasn't me came out years later. Freakpower i had forgotten about and almost the same with everyone on that album.

dave

Bollocks in Shaggy's case, Dave, which was what I was talking about. Shaggy had a VERY successful career in the States and more importantly back home in Jamaica. In case you hadn't noticed, the UK charts aren't exactly rammed with dancehall artists and never have been. With Shaggy, he made the odd track that crossed over but in the meantime went about his business.

So, in short, bollocks.
 
can't music be used without asking as long as:
1.you don't change the arrangement
2.pay the stated royalty

maybe Gano didn't have a say?

The BBC has a deal with many record companies and bands to have use of their stuff. For instance the BBC can play Beatles songs exactly as you state, don't need to ask permission or pay any special fees.

That isn't the case for most uses though, that is a bit of a special place the BBC holds, probably down to the lack of advertising, since the BBC isn't using that music to sell anything.
 
Bollocks in Shaggy's case, Dave, which was what I was talking about. Shaggy had a VERY successful career in the States and more importantly back home in Jamaica. In case you hadn't noticed, the UK charts aren't exactly rammed with dancehall artists and never have been. With Shaggy, he made the odd track that crossed over but in the meantime went about his business.

So, in short, bollocks.

midnight lover did fuck all. No singles in the states one did go top 10 over here though. Don't think the album even entered either our charts or the billboard charts.

He dropped off for 6 years or so though.

In fact what has shaggy ever done in the states?

Albums
1993: Pure Pleasure
1994: Original Doberman
1995: Boombastic US #34, UK #37 (Platinum)
1997: Midnite Lover (Platinum)
2000: Hot Shot US #1, UK #1 (6x Platinum)
2002: Lucky Day US #24 (Gold)
2005: Clothes Drop US #144
2007: Intoxication

singles barely sharted ever in the states either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaggy_(artist)

dave
 
Like your not. Where is his very succesful US carear?

He may have still released stuff in jamica and sold very well i cant find anything saying otherwise at least. But he did very little in the big markets for a long while.

I do agree with killer b in the fact that many people had thier one hit off the back of levi ads but without the expectation and hype they may have been able to have less intense logner carears.


dave
 
No fuck you. You say im wrong at every possibly fucking oppitunity for even daring to have a different view then you the almighty dub, leader of the music forum and the second i have any facts that say your wrong you tell me to drop it.

I expressed an opinion got called on it found some facts to back me up get told im chatting noise still and you have come up with nothing to show that im wrong. Just your nromal bullshit that im always wrong that im sick and fucking tired of quite frankly.

I fucking loved it when you weren't here/known about i got so much less shit second your outed its straight back to the same bullshit from you and your bum chums. Its fucking pathetic.

dave
 
Holy fuck. i completely missed this story but was reading The Stool Pigeon at lunchtime and they were giving Groove Armada an almighty slagging for signing to Bacardi (or, "the shit drink for orange women" as they put it) instead of a record label.

Similar deal to McCartney and Starbucks or Madonna and Live Nation.

Interesting and worrying times we are in especially when you bear in mind that EMI is basically a hedge fund.
 
Back
Top Bottom