Hehehe, I like it as well, but that sounds like a terrible commercial (good bourbon should be tasted, after all).
Hey Grammarly, you know that the characters in your commercial that are able to speak aren’t really under water, right? Ok, quit having them refer to themselves as being under water. Those guys are waist deep, max.
I dunno why it bugs me so much, but it does.
The large real silver dollars? They were last minted in 1935, and i will take all they have thankyouverymuch. Some early Ike dollars were made with 40% silver, and i will take them also.
Maybe you are talking about the Sacagawea dollar? Slightly larger than a quarter and goldish colored? I will still take those, but I wont ask for them, nor will i accept them with glad cries of glee.
The Ike dollar- that same size as the old real silver dollars, perhaps minted by request of the casinos for use in slot machines, etc. Some have some silver and are worth more. The non silver ones are worth a trifle more than a dollar.
That depends on your definition. Silver silver dollars stopped being made in 1935; but full-size ‘silver dollars’ were minted until 1978.
Yes, the Ike dollars. Some few had 40% silver, and if you called any Ike dollar a “silver dollar” you are okay in my book. But not the sacky dollars.
I have a pouch with (I think) 39 Suzies and Sackies in it. I’d spend them, but I don’t get out and about much anymore (only go the office once a week), and it’s easier to use a credit card.
I believe the song was written to reference another time. Not many Midnight riders-outlaw types, either.
(On horses)
Poetic justice. And all.
The ad is ridiculous tho’
Speaking of shiny metal, Tom Selleck is pitching silver and gold. Maybe the reverse mortgage market has dried up. The effort he puts into this commercial, you can see why he’s considered America’s greatest actor /s
Well, when says “…this isn’t my first rodeo…” in the reverse mortgage commercial, that’s gotta count for something. He had me there…go on, Tom!
I automatically hate any commercial that bastardizes a classic Rock song that I like, so I hate the new Walmart commercial where they play The Who’s “Who are You”, singing “who knew? who knew?” at the chorus.
I wonder if The Who sees any of the proceeds from the selling of their music.
Here’s an annoying commercial for (I guess) a chain of likker stores. The salesperson is like she stepped out of a SNL skit.
I googled “do the Who own their own music catalog?” and didn’t get much in the way of ‘real’ hits, but according to AI (if it can be believed):
While it’s a bit complex, generally, The Who’s music catalog is partially owned by the band members and partially owned by external companies. Specifically, Pete Townshend sold the publishing rights to his songs (the rights to license the music for uses like film soundtracks, covers, etc.) to Spirit Music Group. However, the band members still retain some rights, including those related to live performances and possibly some other aspects of the recordings.
Here’s a breakdown:
Publishing Rights: Pete Townshend sold the publishing rights to his songs to Spirit Music Group. This means Spirit now controls the rights to license the music for various uses.
Recording Rights: The band (or more accurately, a company representing them) still owns the rights to the original recordings.
Name and Likeness Rights: These rights are also likely retained by the band.
Live Performance Rights: The band continues to own the rights to their live performances.
Essentially, while the band members no longer control all the rights to their music, they still have a stake in it and continue to profit from it in certain areas.
So it sounds like The Who may not have had a say in marketing the song since Spirit Music owns the publishing rights, but were probably compensated for the use of it.
I haven’t seen the commercial, but from solost’s description, it sounds like it’s not the original recording (apparently the lyrics were changed). Here’s what ChatGPT said about that:
If someone other than The Who performed “Who Are You” in the commercial (a cover version), the financial picture changes:
⸻
1. The Who Do Not Get Paid for the Recording
• If the original recording by The Who is not used, they (or their record label) do not receive any money for the master recording.
• No sync license is needed for their specific recording because it isn’t being used.
Bottom line: No money goes to The Who for the sound recording unless their version is used.
⸻
2. Pete Townshend (as songwriter) Still Gets Paid
• The composition (melody, lyrics, chords) is still copyrighted, even if someone else sings it.
• A synchronization license is still required to use the song in a commercial, and that money goes to whoever controls the publishing rights — usually split between the songwriter (Pete Townshend) and his music publisher.
• Performance royalties may also be paid when the ad airs, depending on the platform and usage, again benefiting the composer.
Bottom line: Pete Townshend still earns money, just not from the performance of The Who.
⸻
Example Scenario:
Imagine a car commercial uses a cover version of “Who Are You” sung by a session vocalist:
• The ad agency negotiates a sync license with the publisher.
• Pete Townshend and his publisher get a cut of that fee.
• The session artist who recorded the cover may get a flat fee but no ongoing royalties (unless they have some special contract).
Maybe just hearing his tunes in a Walmart commercial is reward enough.
You gotta understand; the man needs the money from the commercials. (He told CBS Sunday Morning when Blue Bloods was cancelled that he needs to work to keep his 63-acre ranch in California. The struggle is real.)
Why doesn’t the Asshole just Reverse Mortgage it???
I just saw a BMW commercial with a series of people calling off work to go do fun stuff with their new cars with punny wordplay.
“I’ve got a board meeting.” (She’s going surfing.)
“I’m doing a performance review.” (He’s enjoying the performance of his BMW.)
“I’m working with a new trainee.” (He’s training his dog.)
So these people are calling off work with excuses that are work-related. How are their bosses not going to instantly know they’re lying? So stupid.
Maybe not instantly, but yeah. Say “I am taking a day off for personal reasons” or “a mental health day” 
But if you lie, that is grounds for termination.
There’s a Swiffer ad that’s been annoying me lately. It’s implying that Swiffers are better than a broom, because all brooms do is “push dirt around”, with some footage of someone who looks like they have absolutely no idea how to properly use a broom and has apparently never heard of a dustpan.
Yes, brooms push dirt around. That’s how brooms are supposed to work. You use them to push the dirt into a little pile, and then you can push it into a dustpan at which point you can dispose of it. The fact that they push dirt around is a feature, not a bug.