This pisses me right off. Has anyone else noticed that there have been a LOT of old songs (most of them were good at one point) are being DESTROYED by
a.) Totatally mangling their beat. Most of the new versions don’t even have a recognizable beat.
b.) Women singing them. I’m sure there are many many women who know how to rock, but certainly not the women in these commercials. They suck!
Anyone else?
I don’t know about the commercials, but I hate the way Bitchy Spears did that one song. And usually when someone sings an old song, everything’s changed and it totally kills it.
I love the new Gap commercials. I love the voices of the women singing them. I love the song they are using, reinterpreted by chicks who rock. I think the Gap has some of the most consistently creative and catchy advertising out there. I don’t even shop at the Gap, but their ads are a welcome breath of fresh air in the midst of all th crap.
Are you even talking about the Gap commercials? Because some of them have men singing. And I’d add “Crow” and “Phair” to the list of women who rock.
You are a cryptic, confusing man. Of course not all songs sung by women rock - Donna Summer’s trauma-inducing cover of MacArthur Park springs immediately to mind - so, what’s the big deal?
Advertising co-opts and prostitutes all culture in service of commerce.
Anyway, it’s stupid to argue about difference of taste.
“This sucks!”
“No it doesn’t.”
“Yes it does!”
“No it doesn’t!”
“This sucks!”
“NO, it rocks!”
I feel like I’m in a Matt Groening strip. Women can do excellent covers of songs sung by men originally, and vice versa. And you, a freethinking human being, get to pick the version you like best!
The GAP commercials are fine with me (besides that GAP blows goat nuts and I hate all of those artists). Yeah, what I think is stupid is that there is a trend recently to think
adding woman to song = better song
If someone wants to remake a song, and they try their hardest to make it their own version, then I don’t care if it’s a woman, and I don’t care if I don’t like it.
But there’s this attitude in commercials now like “Oooh, it’s a woman singing, I have to like this! Fear the female mystique, respect the power of the vagina! DRINK CRYSTAL LIGHT!!! DRIVE A FORD!!!”
Well, I’m not JRootabega, but what I got out of that wasn’t that “female empowerment threatens him”, but that the media’s current trend [as he sees it; I haven’t noticed, but I don’t watch television] of Woman Automatically Means WONDERFUL GOOD YES is annoying. Hell, I’m a woman, I’m all for empowering myself, but I don’t believe in the Magical Power Of The Vagina.
No, what I’m saying is what gasser and magdalene said: advertisements suck. This is just another example of them sucking, when ad writers decide they can sell their shitty feelgood product by legally stealing from someone who put a lot of effort and honesty into a song, and then slapping a pair of ovaries on it. That’s not female empowerment, anyway. It’s marketing directly to women who need someone to say to them “use this airfreshener or drive this gas guzzling semi-tank in order to express your female nature.” And it sucks that people fall for it. And it happens elsewhere in advertising, and I hate it there, too. I hate sweetened cereal commercials that say “Hey kids, you’re cool, and your parents don’t understand you because they eat HEALTHY DISGUSTING FOOD for breakfast!” I hate ads (mostly for technological things like cellphones or CD burners) that, as a rule, feature groups of multiracial indie club rock twentysomethings because That’s How Your World Is. I hate it all, and the woman thing is just the one that I am devoting my hate to right now.
Well, sure, but advertising’s main tactic is precisely “[insert concept here] Automatically Means WONDERFUL GOOD YES”. Whether it’s Woman, or Beer-Drinking, or Sports-Playing, or Big Car, or whatever. It’s the whole point of the game, and the game isn’t designed to stimulate a whole lot of critical thinking.
The OP’s rant isn’t a rant about advertising in general; it’s a rant about using women to sing songs that have already been made famous by someone else in advertising. If they suck, fine, but why point out the fact that they’re women? What possible difference does that make? If their versions of the songs suck, they suck. The mere fact that they don’t have penises has nothing to do with it.
I don’t have a problem with women resinging songs, and I don’t have a problem with any women. But I do have a problem with the concept OF woman that is expressed through the women singing these songs. Frankly, most of the original songs were sung by the societal image of a rebel, an angry, don’t-take-no-mess rocker who had nothing to lose. Then we get the new versions, and substituted in for that image of the singer is that conceptual woman I mentioned earlier. Imagine White Wedding being performed with only acoustic guitars (no drums) and a meandering female vocal part and used to sell laundry detergent! Imagine “I Wanna Be Sedated” made into a pleasant, airy number and used to hawk antidepressants! (There was a funny Onion article about an Iggy Pop song about heroin addiction being used in a bank commercial. It’s even funnier because a real commercial actually used the song for some tropical cruise!)
So I don’t like the image they’re using, I don’t like the fact that they’re replacing a totally contradictory image, and most of the time it’s women singing these songs. If I’m just noticing the women commercials more, then I’ll admit that there are probably less rational factors at work in my head (and there are less rational factors at work in EVERYONE’S head).
Frankly, I am of the opinion that (almost all the time) using previously-published rock songs to sell anything is a Bad Thing. It’s not right for advertisers to use our allegiance to songs we’ve known for years (or months, or whatever) to sell their product. On that point, I fully agree with you.
The problem was that you didn’t give any examples of what you were talking about. You didn’t say, to take a fictional example, “Christina Aguilera’s version of The Times They Are A’Changin’ in that Diet Pepsi ad really bit the big one.” Hell, if you’d said that, I’d be firmly in your corner.
What you said was (without giving any specific examples) that the women in those commercials sucked, and that the songs were being destroyed by being sung by said women. Without cites (even though this is the Pit), how are we supposed to know for sure what you’re talking about?
And, by the way, it’s not at all clear to me exactly what this “concept OF woman” that you’re talking about is.
Oh, right, the old “if you don’t know what I’m trying to say, I’m not going to tell you” ploy. Combined with insincere self-deprecation, no less. Bravo! Auspicious beginning.
Hint: refusal to define your terms/provide cites when asked will get you exactly jack shit around here.
I would like the last five minutes of my life back or at least let us know what commercials in particular you are referring to and we will be able to either agree or disagree.
That Verizon chick sucks worst of all…that stupid “people just want to be free” song sounds like a really fucked up combination of Alanis Morissette, Bob Dylan, and a cat in heat.
Amen, Beelzebubba; I’d like to add to the suckage every commercial song that tries for that same sound (like it was that great to begin with!). Seems like most of the songs I hear in commercials lately have that same roller-coaster volume and copycat styling.
Aaaarrrrgh! I mute that friggin’ Verizon commercial whenever it comes on. She sings like she’s got a phlegm ball in her throat and has her own pronunciations of words, like Scott Stapp from Creed.