Hello Goodbye on Target Commercial
mds...@gmail.com
Shampoo at Target Stores. It's not a bad version of the song ... but
I am surprised they allowed it. I thought the licensing for
commercial usage was pretty restrictive on the Beatles catalogue.
Barrabas
Possibly because of who owns it, there aren't really restrictions.
I've heard intermittent use of Beatle's songs over the years in ads.
I particularly hate ads of other artist's songs.
As if they think, what a great song, that people know but never really
hear, we can use that to make ourselves look good. And they are covers.
'Happy Together', 'Good Vibrations', 'Wouldn't It Be Nice', I don't
watch those ads.
marcus
See the "Luvs For Sale" thread in this newsgroup.
fatt...@yahoo.com
This ad campaign is not new. Its been around on TV and in print for a
while.
I assume the Beatles are getting paid . . .
I personally don't like this type of stuff; the Beatles are too
important to be hawking Target or other products.
mds...@gmail.com
>
> Possibly because of who owns it, there aren't really restrictions.
> I've heard intermittent use of Beatle's songs over the years in ads.
>
catalogue, but I thought that after the infamous use of "Revolution"
to sell Nike shoes there was a backlash, and subsequent challenge to
his ability to freely license the Beatles' songs for commercial use.
Does anyone know if it's actually unrestricted or not?
dahldude
An actual Beatles recording cannot be used without the artists'
permission. That's why remakes abound...
mds...@gmail.com
> An actual Beatles recording cannot be used without the artists'
> permission. That's why remakes abound...
OK -- that makes sense.
O'Leary
> This ad campaign is not new. Its been around on TV and in print for a
> while.
>
> I assume the Beatles are getting paid . . .
>
> I personally don't like this type of stuff; the Beatles are too
> important to be hawking Target or other products.
What I do like, however... is sentences.. with lots of.. dots......
O'Leary
> I realize that Michael Jackson still owns the Lennon-McCartney
> catalogue, but I thought that after the infamous use of "Revolution"
> to sell Nike shoes there was a backlash, and subsequent challenge to
> his ability to freely license the Beatles' songs for commercial use.
> Does anyone know if it's actually unrestricted or not?
Does he then?
dahldude
Cool. (single period; succinct; possibly construed as abrupt. or rude.
unlike a mellow trailing off in the usenet sunset reply...)
Here's something also succinct:
< smooch >
Love,
dahldude
t...@aerovons.com
.
I especially like the "Hello Goodbye" spot, it's a cool arrangement
and Sophia Peterson has got a unique pop voice....
TH
marcus
> >
> I personally don't like this type of stuff; the Beatles are too
> important to be hawking Target or other products.
Yes.
t...@aerovons.com
Using this thought process, we shouldn't have Strauss being used in
"2001" ;)
O'Leary
> Personally, I think there is no greater victim of this sort of thing
> than Frank Sinatra and his "Love & Marriage." I can't think of a
> song reused in a 30-second commercial which was tainted even
> remotely as much.
Funny you should mention that. The earliest commercial I can recall that
uses an existing song was "soup and sandwich", and it was that song.
marcus
"Married With Children".
O'Leary
>>Funny you should mention that. The earliest commercial I can recall that
>>uses an existing song was "soup and sandwich", and it was that song.
>
>
> "Married With Children".
No, I think it may have been Campbell's.
marcus
Right, I was just mentioning another show that used that song.
O'Leary
>>>>Funny you should mention that. The earliest commercial I can recall that
>>>>uses an existing song was "soup and sandwich", and it was that song.
>>
>>>"Married With Children".
>>
>>No, I think it may have been Campbell's.
>
>
> Right, I was just mentioning another show that used that song.
So why not respond to him? Besides, that was the show he meant, unless
there was another.
marcus
Huh?
Barrabas
I think that's true too, but I would want to double check now.
I thought he might have sold them again.
Another point is that Holmes a Court in Australia was the person
who sold what he had to Jackson. He gave his daughter or wife or
someone their choice of Beatle's songs though, which was Penny Lane,
which Jackson might never have actually owned.
O'Leary
>>>>>>Funny you should mention that. The earliest commercial I can recall that
>>>>>>uses an existing song was "soup and sandwich", and it was that song.
>>
>>>>>"Married With Children".
>>
>>>>No, I think it may have been Campbell's.
>>
>>>Right, I was just mentioning another show that used that song.
>>
>>So why not respond to him? Besides, that was the show he meant, unless
>>there was another.
>
>
> Huh?
CAMPBELL'S SOUP!
fatt...@yahoo.com
What is a "Strauss"? ;-)
marcus
You take Vitamin B1 to relieve it.
Then go waltz.
marcus
I knew that...geez!
I just couldn't understand why you said I couldn't reply to you, when
it was your post I was replying to.
O'Leary
Was not!
marcus
When I was 17, it was a very good year....