What the fuck should they do?
Ok guys they’ve played it enough, pull the plug on that one?
They probably are painfully aware that they are a one hit wonder, and they are trying to milk it the best they can. If only I could do the same with my band. Besides they probably don’t even own the rights anymore, which means they can’t stop it from playing even if they wanted to.
Well, yeah.
Basically, I simply can’t imagine how anyone in the advertising world could possibly think that the American consumer hasn’t heard “All Star” enough. That it’s a great, unknown gem of a song that people will really like if they only have the opportunity to hear it. It’s as if no one even considers that this song might possibly be just a little overplayed and irrelevant.
To me, this is the worst example of uncreative thinking and horrible advertising. They’re using a song that has been used in tons of ads and movie soundtracks before this one, and for some reason the ad people think that they’re being hip by using this overplayed, dumb song in yet another ad. I realize that I’m expecting a lot to have creative, original thoughts and ideas expressed in my Tostitos ads, but this isn’t even trying.
This is true. However, I doubt that the singer from Smash Mouth signed a contract that allows the record company to put him in any commercial that they choose - he actually appears in the Tostitos ad. There’s a big difference, to me at least, between having a song used in a commercial and actually appearing in the commercial, lip-syncing like a trained monkey to your non-specific jingle of a song long after it was popular.
Unless they made a Jar-Jar Binks / Gollum CG version of the lead moron from Smash Mouth. Which is a far scarier thought…
Considering that beating dead horses is becoming more of a trend, perhaps they’ve thought of this, and passed over it. You are aware that they do a considerable amount of market research on this, yes?
**
Record companies rarely if ever give an artist they are signing the rights to their music. You should see a recording contract, they are perhaps the perfect example of one party legally screwing over the other. Say Billy Joel wants me to play a duet on his next album. I would actually need permission my label to do this, and if they say no, then tough beans, I can’t do it. You simply aren’t aware of how much control the record labels hold over an artist. So if “Rock Star” Barbie comes out, and Mattel wants that song for a jingle, Smash Mouth has no say whatsoever (assuming the label says yes). If they want the singer in the commercial wearing a pink dress, lip synching, I’m sure they could arrange that as well.
Remember money is the bottom line here. If the label could get away with leasing the song out 50 times instead of 10 why wouldn’t they? If you could make 5 times more money would you?
What kind of market research comes back with the conclusion that “All Star” is grossly underplayed and wildly popular, therefore should be incorporated into yet another commercial because they can still get a couple of miles out of it?
Now, I’ve never signed a major-label record contract, but as a huge music geek I feel I’m fairly aware of the screwing that your average unproven artist gets at the expense of the RIAA members. I’ve
read some things about record contracts. I’ve heard about all the old blues and jazz guys who are totally bankrupt right now. I read about A Tribe Called Quest, for example, who put out the classic “Low End Theory” album in '91, sold a lot of copies (at least a million, the RIAA’s site lists it as a platinum album), and supposedly made like 50 grand after it was all said and done. I’ve seen bands like TLC sell millions of albums and declare bankruptcy in order to get out out grossly one-sided contracts.
But it still seems unlikely to me that a record company can FORCE a person to appear, physically, in an advertisement that uses one of their songs, regardless of who owns the rights to the music. I can’t see this being a common clause in a record contract. I read that Kelly Clarkston of American Idol infamy, had a really restrictive contract like that basically forced her into things like this for Fox promos and such, but I can’t see it happening to Smash Mouth, or any other run-of-the-mill middle-tier band.
But maybe it does. I’d be shocked, but like I said, I’ve never read nor signed a major label record contract.
If I was the label, of course I would. That’s what the labels do, they screw people for as much money as they possibly can. Same with advertisers - think of Doritos, who couldn’t get Tom Waits to give up a song for a commercial. So they hired a guy who sounded just like him instead. He sued and won.
If it was me, someone who wrote a song and had the opportunity to sell it to an advertiser, I don’t know. It would depend on the circumstances. The Minutemen, for example, recently sold a song for a car commercial because the father of D. Boon (the late singer/guitarist) needs money for medical care - this I can understand.
But the Who or Rolling Stones or Led Zeppelin selling songs for commercials bothers me - how much more money do they need? I’m not saying that they shouldn’t do it, just that reserve the right to think less of them for doing it.
In the case of Smash Mouth, however, I can understand selling the song again - it’s already been used to death. You’re already seen as a shill for whoever will pay you. Might as well milk it while you can. My only concern would be making people totally and completly hate me instead of just being sort of indifferent or mildly annoyed.
No, it wasn’t used everywhere. However, my summer job in the early/mid-80s was as a tour guide at a privately owned set of caverns. The owner of the caverns decided that “Chariots of Fire” was THE perfect song to play when folks walked down the 118 steps into the main cavern.
I bet I heard that song 40 billion times.
I had to go to Kazaa and d/l the darn thing because I didn’t know it by name, and didn’t know which song the OP meant.
Oooooooooooooooooooh! That one. Well, I don’t listen to the radio in a normal way (I’m so picky that I constantly hit the “scan” button in search of songs, or talkshow subjects, I like).
And I have “TiVo” so the rare times I watch TV I don’t listen to commercials, and I don’t watch sports on TV (I only like hockey anyway, and only go to live games)…
So, I haven’t been “overexposed” to this song as the rest of the board apparently has.
My opinion? It’s an okay song, but I can see where I’d be in total agreement with the rest of the board about it’s having been overplayed, were I exposed to it as much as everyone else has been.