art vs. commerce, part XVII
Mike Oxlong
tune.
lately, there seems to have been an influx of solo lennon stuff in
teensploitation dramas here in the states... "oh my love" and "love" have
both been featured as sappy mood music over some melodramatic breakup or
make-up on the WB.
then there's the infamous re-recorded (read: emasculated) versions of "come
together" and "getting better" that are being used to hawk corporate wares.
it's like you can't get away from it. nearly every artist's work has been
licensed to sell cars, beer, or computers. once they get around to getting
a hold of neil young's and zappa's tunes, the irony will be complete.
it's disgusting.
the most nauseating thing about this whole trend is the use of songs to
manipulate our emotions and sell us products. i can't believe yoko's
complicity in this trend to see lennon's works desecrated by use in cheap
bratcoms and hack soap operas, although at least she's seen to it that these
works aren't used in commercials themselves.
but the whole idea of companies borrowing these songs, and then attempting
to use the strong attachments and emotions that these songs evoke in us to
gain entrance to our wallets is just so 180 degrees from the integrity and
honesty that john championed in his music.
when struggling artists sell out in this manner, at least they have the
excuse that they need the money... but when the hendrix estate and the
lennon estate start pimping out these songs, just to add additional millions
to the hundreds of millions already in the bank, that i find hard to
stomach.
i'm well aware that the beatles do not control the use of their songs in
commericals, especially re-recorded versions of their own tunes. i'm under
the impression that yoko DOES have control over solo lennon songs' use in
licensing ventures, however. if i'm wrong, i'm sure someone will set me
straight.
Mister Charlie
>complicity in this trend to see lennon's works desecrated by use in cheap
>bratcoms and hack soap operas, although at least she's seen to it that these
>works aren't used in commercials themselves.
music was made to be heard. from the time gramphones etched out scratchy wails
to now, good quality music was always surrounded by a commercial for Lux brand
dish soap powder. Or Geritol. Or whatever the demographics suggested.
to blame yoko for the whole of that seems a tad excessive. Most musical
property is created to share, sure, in an artistic sense, but what drives it is
the commerce. Publishers (and their owners...yoko) job is top exploit their
catalogs to the greatest degree. Artistically, with some pieces, it is hard to
imagine them ever smudged by commercialism, but for the most part yes, they are
manipulating our emotions with the music of our youth. big ass baby boomer
bubble boys and girls, we are.
>
>but the whole idea of companies borrowing these songs, and then attempting
>to use the strong attachments and emotions that these songs evoke in us to
>gain entrance to our wallets is just so 180 degrees from the integrity and
>honesty that john championed in his music.
Yes, but even John knew the only way to get those songs to you was through the
'show BUSINESS' end of it. It was all part and parcel of his daily work world.
I don't know that any of this diminishes the impact of his work. Look at all
the ads that have used Mona Lisa, or even desecrated it and made fun of it
somehow. Yet the impact on the actual artwork's worth is nul. It doesn't
change what the art means to you or me or whomever.
That said, of course you are right and I hate to see the music in the damn
things myself. But I just can't blame yoko for it.
>
>i'm well aware that the beatles do not control the use of their songs in
>commericals, especially re-recorded versions of their own tunes. i'm under
>the impression that yoko DOES have control over solo lennon songs' use in
>licensing ventures, however. if i'm wrong, i'm sure someone will set me
>straight.
I dunno. But it's never going to go away. If we can still be sold on rest
homes, funeral plots, and Rogaine (not necessarily in that order), by pumping
the most popular art form coming out of the 6th decade of the 20th century,
then they will continue to use Beach Boys to sell orange juice.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
robertandrews
>I don't know that any of this diminishes the impact of his work. Look at
all the ads that have used Mona Lisa, or even desecrated it and made fun of
it somehow. Yet the impact on the actual artwork's worth is nul. It
doesn't change what the art means to you or me or whomever.
You've tripped over an interesting point. One could argue that Duchamp's
"desecration" of the Mona Lisa changed our view of art & our perception of
the original by da Vinci. Much modern art is concerned with questioning the
nature of art, & recycling, rearranging & subverting the older styles &
forms. Yoko's pre-Lennon work engages us in some of these ways. It would
be most amusing for her to argue that using John's songs to sell soap have
no effect on the original -- I'd pay to hear that one!
In my view, there's no doubt that hearing a snippet of "Come Together"
blaring from the tube 28 times a day has some sort of effect. The harder
question is what kind of effect. Does it diminish the original -- and how?
Do we immediately think of the Beatles, or just Lennon? Abbey Road? How do
we relate to the message of "come together" when co-opted by the
corporations? Do we have renewed reverence for the original?
An artist can dissect a song for emotional or intellectual purposes. The
corporate motive is to sell product. Rather than embrace the product, many
of us shut down, tune out & turn off. To some extent, these negative
reactions become wedded to our experience of the song. In the most obvious
way, the message of "come together" is blown to pieces. But for those who
forgot or never heard the original, the song is a potent advertising tool.
As to the motives of selling the songs, it's obvious that money rules the
roost. I'd like to imagine that John Lennon would have objected, but I'm
not so sure. Pop art blurred the distinction between art & advertising, &
since the early 70's the general tenor has been to get all you can by any
means possible. I expect every last piece of rock 'n roll to be bought &
sold a thousand times. There's a lot of money in misery.
But some days I just have to laugh.
Pjschindel
ads, it bothers me less to hear a cover version of the specifically made for
the ads. I still dislike the attachment of the song to a commercial since the
song is lowered a bit by being used to hawk who-knows-what, but in a sense it's
just another cover version which I can ignore, curse at, or laugh away.
Hearing The Beatles' version of "Revolution" in the Nike ad back in '87 or so
definitely angered me, especially since I knew it was without their consent
(and though Yoko is legally a big part of The Beatles corporate structure, she
is not/was not one of the Fab Four who comprised the musical entity known as
The Beatles). Actually, it was great to know that the surviving 3 who, with
John, made the music, objected to the commercial use of their song/sound
recording and were not the ones responsible for selling out their music.
From what I can tell (interviews, etc.), John objected to and thus would not
have approved of the use of either Beatles or his solo songs for commercials.
Thus, Yoko's justifications of her approval of such use ring quite hollow with
me (not that she cares).
[On the other hand, I do thank her for releasing many of John's demos/
unreleased takes, etc., both via radio shows and cd, another act John may well
not have allowed were he still alive.]
Peter
http://www.ampcast.com/peterschindelman
http://www.iuma.com/IUMA/Bands/Peter_Schindelman
Mister Charlie
>From: "robertandrews" robert...@hotmail.com
>Date: 4/2/01 4:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <wOZx6.40$Ln6....@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>
>
>"Mister Charlie" <tenseven...@aol.com> wrote:
>>I don't know that any of this diminishes the impact of his work. Look at
>all the ads that have used Mona Lisa, or even desecrated it and made fun of
>it somehow. Yet the impact on the actual artwork's worth is nul. It
>doesn't change what the art means to you or me or whomever.
>
>You've tripped over an interesting point.
Tripped?! My revelation did not appear to you as that of a man tortured by a
towering intellect, struggling to show the other puny beings on this planet the
thoughts that could turn a mountain to dust?
Ah, I just had a flashback, that's all....
One could argue that Duchamp's
>"desecration" of the Mona Lisa changed our view of art & our perception of
>the original by da Vinci. Much modern art is concerned with questioning the
>nature of art, & recycling, rearranging & subverting the older styles &
>forms. Yoko's pre-Lennon work engages us in some of these ways. It would
>be most amusing for her to argue that using John's songs to sell soap have
>no effect on the original -- I'd pay to hear that one!
I would say it, once one got over the shock of hearing a favorite piece of
music used to hawk preparation H. For instance, the Phillips campaign. When I
heard "Getting Better" I was appalled, especially the hokey damned version they
use. But then, the more they played it, the happier I was it was NOT the
original or a copy band...removes the desecration by one generation or so.
>
>In my view, there's no doubt that hearing a snippet of "Come Together"
>blaring from the tube 28 times a day has some sort of effect. The harder
>question is what kind of effect. Does it diminish the original -- and how?
Here I would have to say NO. Does playing a song 28 times a day (or, in some
formats, daypart) subtract from something? What would the actual difference
be? Since we automatically tune out commercials, would we even hear the ones
that offend us? Like bad songs we hated way back when. Except now we remember
every damned lyric, and we hate ourselves for doing so.
I don't think there is any effect beyond aesthetic.
Mister Charlie
when it was made clear they were losing apple money hand over fist.
Since the last time he spoke on any subject it was 20 years ago, forever frozen
at 40, it is incredibly difficult for any of us to try and second guess what he
would do now. I think he would have retained his integrity thru his life, it
wasn't politics. But his reality now would have to have been way different
than what it was when he left us