It’s one thing for artists to voluntarily use brand-names as pop culture references. It’s quite another for record companies to pimp them out for money. Will there come a time where it is a standard part of record contracts that the artist will comply with product-placement requirements in their own lyrics? Can you see John Lennon going along with something like that, or Janis or Jimi or Marley or Dylan?
This is going to ensure that only the most shameless, fatuous whores will get record contracts.
As opposed to the modest, forthright pillars of the community that get them now?
No, I think that all this will result in is a backlash (albeit a small one) against the record companies. The people that this marketing will be aimed at (teenagers and such) don’t care that their favorite artists are whoring for corporate advertising. Especially if they can figure out how to rhyme an advertising adjective with ‘angst’.
The only people who might complain don’t buy many records already, or parents. But they probably don’t care too much either. As long as the product placement isn’t advocating violence, they probably won’t notice. I mean, there’s already oodles of ‘artists’ who advocate sex, drugs, alcohol, and more sex. What’s it going to hurt if a Happy Meal is thrown into the mix?
Actually Misatonic, we are the John and they are the prostitute and the pimp.
“Bye bye Miss American Pie. Drove my Chevy to the levy…”
Just thinking of product placement in older songs and this popped in my head.
I do not in any way agree with the music/advertising industry and find it disgusting that an aritst would do this. If they write a song that just happens to mention a product, fine. As already shown this has been done for quite some time. But don’t write a song specifically meant to include a product because you are getting paid to mention them.
there’s a difference between product placement and mentioning a product.
“Mercedez Benz” was not a promotion of Mercedes, but actually an indictment of materialism.
“American Pie” mentions a Chevy not to sell it, but because it’s a convenient rhyme and it’s also a slice of americana - not unlike “It’s a girl, oh Lord, in a flat bed Ford, slowin’ down to take a look at me”.
If they had constructed the songs around those words, maybe. If the words happened to be convienient vehicles (pun acknowledged) for their message, it’s not product placement. The analogy between Film and Music is not perfect.
Actually, Fieldy, the bass player, told Chuck Klosterman, that he (and the rest of the band) feel that Adidas should cut them a check for at least $50,000 for Korn’s constant references to Adidas.
Sure guys, tell me when the shuttle lands, okay?:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Your entire post baffles me, seeing as it is full of so much mis-information and outright bullshit.
Contrary to what you seem to believe, musical instruments are not what I would call cheap and studio time is fairly expensive as well, (upwards of $250/an hour).
As far as paying the artists peanuts, well it’s the artists OWN DAMN FAULT for not bothering to read their recording contract, but instead going off and getting high/getting laid.
The songs are NOT “advertised for free” on the radio.
And I don’t recall any record company having said that they made NO money at all recently.
::Snort:: indeed! Everyone knows that musicians are just a bunch of horny, drug-addicted, brain-dead losers
Besides, last I checked artists generally had to provide their own instruments, or has my $15,000 been woefully misspent?
That said, it is a good idea for musicians and artists to acquire basic business skills that relate to their field. Not that it by any means levels the playing field, but it means maybe you might get a reach-around while they go at you with a sandpaper dildo.
Ok, as has been mentioned, the artists generally provide their own instruments. Studio time may cost YOU $250/hr, it most certainly does not cost the studio itself $250/hr. Even if it did, a 4 week stint in a studio would cost about $40,000. Spread that over 50,000 units and the cost per CD gets pretty small
How much money does it cost a recording company to get their songs played? As far as I know, payola is illegal.
Given the way the companies squawk about how P2P and CDR’s are destroying their industry, I foolishly assumed that their profits were really at risk. ooh, don’t forget, they’re thinking of selling product advertisements in the middle of their songs, which was the point of the OP in the first place.
Fact is they sell CD’s at well over $10 each. The physical materials themselves cost well under a dollar. The production cost of the music (outside of the artist) is paltry when spread over the number of units they sell. The artists themselves often don’t make all THAT much. The rest of the dough goes to the company. I have zero respect for a company that makes money hand over fist, then complains that they’re not making ENOUGH because their practices drive customers away.
WAAAAAA! Peer to Peer is killing my company! well, maybe if you sold CD’s at a reasonable price, people would buy them instead of going through the trouble.
That’s the point I was trying to make but should not have used the industry term “product placement”. Incidentally, Janis’ song was used in a MB ad a few years ago. Granted she is dead and her estate probably has no control over the song (assumption on my part). I know what the message was in her song but using the brand names did bring awareness to the products. Which is what advertising is all about.
AFAIK, none of the older artists mentioned (as well as others) used their creative gifts to sell the products mentioned in their songs at the time they wrote them. My point was merely that we have become accostomed to it but not as an intentional advertising vehichle.
Also, saying that it was a convenient rhyme as reason to add the products I don’t buy. They included the name brand not because the had to but because the wanted to and it felt right with the feel of the song. The Eagles could as easily said “It’s a girl, what luck, in a flat bed truck…” IIRC, this was supposedly an actual occurance, or at least rumored, in Winslow, AZ at the time.
Did Lola loose anything by saying cherry cola instead of Coca Cola? I don’t think so.
Janis and the Eagles did not get PAID to incorporate brand-names into their lyrics. More to the point, their record companies did not offer them up like crack-whores to potential advertisers.
Anyway. Yes, Dio, they did not get paid and I was not trying to imply that they did. I was only showing that we were accostumned to hearing brand names in songs before. I understand the differnce between what Janis, The Eagles, et al did and what the Record/Advertising companies are trying to do.
I agree with your rant 100% and I am not trying to argue with people I agree with. I was only jumping on the band wagon of listing names of songs that mention products. Things got a little lost along the way. Sorry about that Chief.
Side note: What about the sponorship of concerts? Isn’t this the same thing? They get paid a lot money to have their concert tour associated with a product. I know the Rolling Stines are guilty of this (can’t remember what product). Didn’t Paul McCartney have Visa? Haven’t many big name tours, reunion or other wise, sold themselves this way?
What I thought was the most hilarious was when Ford took “I wanna buy me a Mercury” and changed it to “Ford Truck”. Way to fuck with the cultural memory you goons.
“Look out momma, there’s a FedEx boat comin’ up the river…”
Gotcha NY, I was only attempting to expand on your post, not disagree with it.
The concert sponsorship has always bothered me too, but at least the advertising was obstensively separate from the actual music. The selling of space in the songs themselves is a brand new low for both industries.
Can you imagine the Mona Lisa with a Pepsi logo in the background or Hamlet working “obey your thirst” into his suicide soliloquy?
This idea would corrode artistic integrity for musicians in an unprecedented way.
Is there any aspect of entertainament or art that will not eventually be poisoned by advertising?
Originally I wrote this post as a disagreement with NYR, but on re-read (thank god for double-checking one’s sources) I see that it’s actually an agreement/expansion of NYR’s (sorry, no gender clues) post.
“It’s a girl, what luck! in a Flat bed truck” does not have the same down-home american feel as the original lyrics. “Oh Lord” is as important as “Ford”.
“Mercedes” is obviously a special case, as the whole point of the song relies on the audience identifying not only the car, but the cost and image associated with it. And that MB co-opted the song is just horrifically woeful irony.
“Drove my Chevy to the Levy” has a neat internal rhyme, and again has that “down-home american” sound to it. What would the alternative be? “Drove my bitch to the ditch. . .?”
The Kinks wanted to use “Coca Cola” originally, and were /stopped/ by the company. They didn’t on their own choose “cherry cola”. “[C]o[c]a [C]ola” also adds aliteration to the lyric that “cherry cola” doesn’t have.
The songwriter may choose icons from everyday life, but not in an effort to promote them - even if there are other rhymes that carry the same connotation, they don’t necessarily speak with the same voice. Back to “ford” - what back-roads hick guy would say “what luck!”? Maybe if he also happened to be a thespian or lit major… they’d jus’ say “Oh Lord!!!”
shite - DoC, imagine Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy” with “oh what a feeling, Toyota” as a motif?
