There’s an article in Slate discussing Paul McCartney’s appearance in an ad for Fidelity Investments. It’s notable because the cute Beatle was a long-time holdout when it came to cashing in on his songs or image. Until now, it would seem. But Seth Stevenson writes
But when I talk to younger people, the sellout label seems not to exist anymore. They expect TV ads to introduce great new music. They don’t care when Oscar-winning actors turn up in spots for Diet Coke. To them, endorsement deals just seem like a natural byproduct of fame, and nothing to get worked up over.
Though the details of which “younger people” he’s talking to are unclear, I’m not so sure that the idea of selling out doesn’t exist anymore. Personally, I found it somewhat jarring to hear Franz Ferdinand’s “Take Me Out” vamping in the background of advertisements for Sony’s PlayStation Portable… bands who open for U2 notwithstanding, has the term “selling out” really lost its meaning? Or just its negative connotation?
 |
 |
%s1 / %s2
It’s weird… In a sense older musicians like McCartney, The Stones, etc. have to sell out because there’s no other way to get their new music out. MTV won’t play, the radio won’t. If Macca’s new single “Fine Line” wasn’t in a Lexus ad would anyone have heard it?
Probably not…
I still haven’t heard it.
Hating on McCartney, selling out… aren’t we thinking too hard? The guy has more than earned the right to do whatever the hell he wants, and even the dregs of his catalog beat the holy hell out of 73.1% of what’s out there.
BACK TO BRITNEY COVERAGE, STAT
I guess it is ok to sell out if it gets you some exposure and do see Mike’s point. Especially if you are a talented striving indie band. What’s a little sellout among friend? But I can’t believe McCartney is broke and needs to sellout, does he really need the money? The man has got to be filty rich…
And I may go to hell for saying this but I think it was Jed who commented prior to another McCartney post something to the effect that the Beatles are dying in the wrong order.. Gotta say again that I couldn’t agree more…
There’s a Postal Seervice song in the new Honda Civic commercial.
In other news, Ben Gibbard officially world’s biggest pussy.
the classic rock giants are one-by-one selling out to commercials. Macca would just be the latest in this long list. i hate zeppelin for selling out “rock n roll” because now i can’t listen to that song anymore. it’s butchered.
jed, give up. you have neither the insight nor the astute judgment that makes a good blogger. also the fact that you do not get wolf parade but probably like crap your pants say what the fuck means you should just go back to your dave matthews albums. back away from the link to pitchfork dude, and give up, listening to new good music is not going to get you poontang dressed as underage elementary schoolkids in a gifted program.
“It’s notable because the cute Beatle was a long-time holdout when it came to cashing in on his songs or image.”
unless you count the first half of the beatles career when they did more cashing in on their image on products, in films, etc. than any artist in pop music history other than maybe elvis or the spice girls…
“It’s notable because the cute Beatle was a long-time holdout when it came to cashing in on his songs or image.”
unless you count the first half of the beatles’ career when they did more cashing in on their image on products, in films, etc. than any artist in pop music history other than maybe elvis or the spice girls…
What’s that, Yoki? I can’t hear you over all that axe grinding.
Earlier: “Scott, shutup. A personal attack on Meloy without any substantiative claims as to why.”
And after that: “hey jed managed to post without making an offhand dickhole comment directed at Colin Meloy.”
Or are “Milo” and “Laughing Man” really different people who also happen to get really, really mad when you make a joke about a singer?
Adding to what Cutter said.. Such Great Heights is featured on a Kaiser Permanente (HMO) commercial too… I suppose its better than hearing it on a Burger King commercial.
You’re right, scottpl, but I think that The Beatles might not have had the same kind of control over their images at the height of Beatlemania that Paul has today. Also, it’s one thing to be in a movie as a Beatle, and another to be in a commercial selling someone else’s product.
It’s just about impossible to sell out any more. Some bands may cling to the dated concept but they’re looking for cred in all the wrong places.
Fans are just *so* accepting of endorsements and licensing songs to commercials and the like. The stigma is gone. Saving credibility means a band passes up money and/or exposure.
Problem is that five years ago getting into a commercial was a big deal, and the resulting exposure was like money in the bank. That’s hardly the case now. The promotional value has been watered down by the sheer number of licensed songs.
It would be nice to see a commercial that *doesn’t* have a classic rock song playing in the background. The novelty is long gone.
i’m 21 which makes relatively young and if a band that i like puts a song in a commercial i am not pleased. oasis is the perfect example they gave meaning of soul to sky tv, and even though i will never see the commerical since i live in the us, it still bugs me. it goes against everything the band has stood for their working class image squandered within minutes.
I think you guys are missing the point. The whole concept of selling out never really even applied to Paul McCartney. The Beatles predated the entire concept. They were never trying to keep it indie. They wanted to play music, get girls and make money, and they wanted to do it in the biggest way possible. If that is your goal, then you can never sell out. C’mon, we’re talking about Sir Paul “Jet” McCartney not Fugazi.
Wasn’t “Come Together” in an ad several years ago? I’m sure Paul had some say over that.
yeah, i was gonna say “Imagine all the people living in peace”…. but shit that was another Beatle…
Actually, Paul had no say over the use of Come Together. And Michael Jackson was probably the only one that got paid for it.
“Come Together” was performed by a cover band. It’s the same with those Phillips ads that use “Getting Better”. The reason they used a cover band is that an artist can’t stop someone from recording his song. They can only demand that the covering artist pay royalties as set by the mandatory licensing regulations. Once the covering artist has recorded the cover and paid the royalties, he can license his recording to whatever ad he wants. Or more likely, a company like Phillips hires a band to record the song and owns the rights to the sound recording outright. So long as the royalties are paid to the songwriter (in this case Michael Jackson, as owner of the publishing rights), the owner of a sound recording can license it to whomever he wants.
i don’t remember if “come together” was in an ad a few years ago, but “getting better” definitely was. however it was a cover version, not the original.
How does Tom Waits feel about all this?
I think selling out still exsists. Imagine hearing the song that you and your woman dance to, or had sex to, whatever the one where you think “They’re playing our song”, the one song that defines a certain special moment in your life.
You link that song with a moment in your life. Whenever you hear it, it takes you back to that moment, happy or sad. Now, it’s linked to a commercial. One you hear every day. So now the song you lost your virginity to is a budweiser commercial. The song you heard while having your first kiss to is now an underwear advertisement.
The advertisers are trying to make you think their products will bring you the joy you experienced on your own, when a song just so happened to be playing.
And then they over play it. The song you heard before and thought “wow, that takes me back” is now a McDonalds commercial, and they play it all the damn time. How special is that memory now?
Yeah, selling out exists, and it sucks.
Nike used “Revolution” by the Beatles (or wanted to) a long time ago…..I wonder if he’ll ever get the Beatles catalog back, the cheap ba$tard……I mean, he’s worth like $700 million…c’mon, what’s he waiting for?
“Selling out” is an totally antiquated term that is selfishly applied to bands or artists who are simply interested in having their music heard by as many people as possible. It’s issued forth by “fans” interested less in the content of the music than in the context in which it’s played, and for whom.
Before blogs, it was true that, for a few years, commercials had better music than radio did. There was no real association made with a brand–you could just go to VW’s website and find out who was responsible.
It’s true that commerical advertising is shallow and heartless, but if a fringe benefit is turning someone on to Broadcast, then that’s not so bad.
I saw an episode of “Dinner for Five” on IFC a while back, when Liev Schreiber answered a question about his acting in one of those blockbuster Michael Bay films. He said something to the effect of: “I can do one of those blockbuster movies and then do Shakespeare in the park for two years.” It’s nothing more than commercial pragmatism.
You make a record and you sell it to people–you’ve already sold out. I don’t care if you want to say commercials, singing a major label contract, advertising banners at concerts, triple-digit ticket prices, etc. are all true forms of selling out, once you make a cent off of any music, you’ve sold out–and that’s fine.
Isn’t it the dream of any musician, both mainstream and underground, to make a living playing music and to do what they love? I get sick of calling bands sell-outs because they start to get major press and buzz. Good for them. I smile when I see bands I like getting a video aired, or getting inserted into a commercial. Considering the sad state of radio these days, commercials are where many people discover Brendan Benson, The Walkmen, M83, Franz Ferdinand, etc.
It never had any meaning. When exactly was Franz Ferdinand and underground act struggling for years and years with a cult following just barely making a living? I mean seriously. Indie rock has been medium-sized business for at least a decade.
and besides, it’s all part of the push. the lexus ad and the fidelity ad tie in nicely with the release of the new record and the impending tour and the resultant dvd and live album and the inevitable appearance at next year’s super bowl. sounds like someone understands marketing. it’s all very calculated, don’t kid yourself. this is how sir paulie makes money, filling arena seats at 75 dollars a pop and up on this endless nostalgia tour of his. and really, if anybody’s earned it, he has right? so good for him i say. more power to him. i mean, wouldn’t you?
People are seriously living in ignorance…BIG indie bands make $$$$. If an indie band has a booking agent, and plays mostly clubs, then they are doing fine off of guarantees and merch sales.
I was told Death Cabs guarantees before transatlanticism were almost 500 a night, so just imagine touring after that record blew up.
These big indie labels, they all have upstream deals. They all get kickbacks from majors. Don’t dilute yourself into thinking that such and such indie band has been struggling and that by being on this new IPOD commercial their not selling out.
All of these bands are sellouts. That doesn’t mean their bad bands, but it just means they don’t mind compromising themselves.
For example: Modest Mouse on a Mini-Van commercial?! Hmmmm, I don’t know, but I’ve read their lyrics and ah, for a band that seemed so ‘critical of the burbs’ being played on an advertisement for the burb vehicle of choice is pretty amusing?
Well, to answer Appleseed, yes, he’s filthy rich, in fact he is the richest rock star in the world (worth about 800 million pounds) by far so he’s obviously not doing it for the money.
I actually do think he sees it as pretty much the only way he’s gonna get some exposure for his new music. His recent albums have all been decently reviewed but all sank without trace, and he didn’t seem to care that much. But he’s been vocal lately about wanting to make music that actually matters again, in a sense, so he wants that one to be heard.
As for the whole sellout thing, it’s nothing new, he’s part of that on-going mammoth Nostalgia Tour, that he and the Stones kinda pioneered, and I think he realizes that.
As for the ones saying that the Fab Four are dying in the wrong order, you unsensitive cunts are just saying that because it fits the widely-spread notion (and fallacy) that Paul is “the crap one” and John “the good one”, borne out of a stupid mythification of Lennon (that the man himself would have been the first to denounce).
Is there really that much of a gap on the continuum between having your tour sponsored by MasterCard and your music on a Fidelity commercial?
What about the Yo La Tengo model, where they compose songs specifically for commercials? That way, the ads have that “Yo La Tengo sound,” but their songs aren’t then associated with diapers or SUVs.
even more jarring is hearing Franz Ferdinand on Madden Football ’05. I think these days musicians no longer depend on MTV or radio in order to promote and sell their music. I don’t watch that much tv or MTV for that matter, but I don’t recall ever hearing or seeing Bloc Party, Kaiser Chiefs, or Arcade Fire on the radio or MTV. Without such tried-and-true avenues for exposing these bands the masses, bands and even Sir Paul McCartney sell out to videogames, commercials, tv shows, etc. etc. People got to pay the bills.
The Macca debate rages!
Word to CeeCee who finally pointed out that McCartney isn’t – and never was – the “crap” one, just like Lennon was never the “good” one… Lennon just had the hits after he went solo, that’s all. Oh, and he was assassinated. And has a crazy widow who thinks the world revolves around Lennon (as long as it’s not the Lennon who was in the Beatles and was really close friends with his bandmates and had another wife and a son other than Sean or basically ever existed before he met her).
The Yoko PR campaign for Lennon has distorted how valuable the Lennon-McCartney partnership is… Listen to some Beatles albums and then toss on either one of their solo work… it sounds like total crap next to their collaborations.
And whoever mentioned McCartney’s inability to buy back his catalogue… I remember that Michael Jackson outbid him for it in the 80s, which is why he has it now (it was a time, I believe, when Macca had less money than he currently does). The publishing rights only go up for sale when the owner decides to sell them, or when (s)he dies, so I’m sure Paul is just waiting for them to hit the auction block. I am too– no one deserves them more than Paul and LESS than Michael Jackson.
I also caught VH1′s “Chaos and Creation in the Backyard Special” (that new album of his) and I was a little blown away. I’ve never been a fan of the man’s solo work, but this one’s GOOD. Sounds a lot more like Paul-the-Beatle than Paul-the-struggling-solo-artist-without-a-good-collaborator. Nigel Godrich produced, and the outcome is almost astounding.
Ahem. Sorry. Writing my senior thesis on the Beatles. I should hush now.
“It never had any meaning. When exactly was Franz Ferdinand and underground act struggling for years and years with a cult following just barely making a living? ”
Uhh for 15 years in Glasgow?? Dudes have been AROUND the town holmes. Just not under that name.
i’m not completely sure why i’m so bothered by the thought of ‘selling out’. it seems that a band like The Who for example, who stood for (at least initially) rock and roll rebellion, has every right to sell their music, but it becomes annoying when their songs (and other bands large or small) become mindless commercial fodder. i’m only 23 but it seems that these bands are more concerned with making money off of their legacy, rather than letting their music stand on its own. and it’s a pretty sad commentary on contemporary music’s place in popular culture when you need a potato chip or minivan or credit card commercial to introduce someone to a new band. if no one cares about a band unless they see their music transformed into a jingle, then really what’s the point?
I think it is a matter of exposure. The new Mccartney album is really good, but radio won’t touch it, simply because people aren’t interested in new Paul McCartney songs, plus, there isn’t really a radio format that it would fit into. People want to hear “Hey Jude” for the billionth time.
I agree with you that the smaller, newer bands definitely gain exposure from commercial usage of their music. But honestly, if someone doesn’t have a pretty solid fucking idea of the music that McCartney or the Stones produce I don’t think they’re in need of a Fidelity commercial to enlighten them, b/c they’ve missed out on about the last 40 years of popular culture. It seems pretty logical that the people who like the Stones or McCartney are going buy the albums and go to the concerts, I just doubt that there are really going to be individuals out there surprised or suddenly awakened to this music through an ad. It’s all about continuing the cash flow.
Selling your music as representation of a product will always be dirty, and it scares me that we may live a time where it doesn’t carry any negative meaning anymore is a little rattling. However, the bands that are selling their shit to commercials are doing some good. They’re drawing a definite line between the douche bags and legitimates, those in it for foldin’ cash and those in it because they can’t do anything else except make music. I’m sadly from a generation that maybe would have never heard of Nick Drake had there not been that VW commercial. Now, I’ve been through his entire (released) catalogue. However, Drake was long dead, therefore unable to “sell out.” The man was sold.
Selling out – Black Eyed Peas. I don’t think there is a product or service they have not shilled for.
When I hear people bitch about bands selling out one phrase comes to mind “Don’t be that guy”.
Who cares
Remember when Dylan showed up in a Victorias Secret ad and everyone got pissed? Guess what? Dylan’s earned the right to do whatever he pleases. So has Macca.
While it is kind of cliche and silly to get all mad about “selling out,” a musician putting their songs in commercials is shitty. You can’t ever hear that song again without thinking of some stupid product, and no musician wants that. Therefore, they must either do it for the exposure or the money. I don’t like or respect normal people who do things just for money and the same goes for famous musicians.
If it’s for exposure I suppose it’s a slightly different story, it just strikes me as odd that that’s the kind of exposure anyone would really want.