The Zone

Heres my little thing, its not related to companies per se, but similar none the less.

Remember a few years ago when Ozzy was at the Presidents dinner? During the 60's and 70's i'm sure these politicians were against his music and deemed it a virus on society. But now that time has passed its okay to have him hang around. And Bush even pointed him out in the audience.

Now my thoughts on the corporate thing. Where is the line drawn? I mean they are going to continue doing this. Its pretty sad actually, like with the Gap commercial and Audrey Hepburne. Kind of disgusting if you think about it. Even with the son's approval. It gives me shivers to think they would exploit a famous dead person for profit! Are there boundries with these companies? nope.

Albums are better than singles.

But singles were always great.

Thats why they lasted so long, they weren't a flash in the pan idea!

Albums, for the last 20 years (would it be fair to say?) have always been brought by the 18+ age gap,t he ones with some kind of disposable income.

Younger teens buy the singles etc

Now correct me if I'm wrong but there are more teenagers than ever. So buying singles should maintian, if not get better.

BUt who wants to buy shit?

The album charts are the best view whats good and whats not.

And while 20's lyrics may suck. OH, TiTG could you giveme an example of some twenites lyrics... could it would be funny and cool to see.... the challenge has been set.

But I don't mind some stuff romteh 30's and 40's.

With regards to popular music I'd say my taste really kick off with ROck N Roll... they rest heavily in the 60#s and 70#s and then go up and down after then.

But anyone who knows me knows that I know fuck all aboutpopular music! So I'm really in here just to annoy yah all. Sorry.

I love Film Music and really just like to piss off everyone else because everyone else always pisses me off when they find out I like film music. "I wondered who shopped in that section of HMV"

Hmmmm.....

So fuck whoever the fuck I should like whose out now and long live Miklós Rózsa!!!1

HAzahhh!!!

Oh and DOC - I too love the days when there is a good tooing and throwing! Didn't know you were from Sevenoaks. Thats cool... I went to uni withsome one from there. You might know her. Or knowing by how it works in Seveoaks, you could very well be related to her...

Have a good weekend guys I'm off to start the SBF Offical Friday 13th Filmathon

I would apologise but I think my stuff is so crass that no one really gives a shit.

All the best

SBF

silentbobafett wrote:Albums, for the last 20 years (would it be fair to say?) have always been brought by the 18+ age gap,t he ones with some kind of disposable income.

Younger teens buy the singles etc

Nope - back in the day, the age range that bought singles was huge. Hence the big difference in single sales. Believe me, if you went back and listened to every number one from 1950-1980, you'd hear a hell of a lot of shit music. Take the rose-tinted specs off! Also, like Dennis says, any teen worth their salt just downloads stuff these days, another huge contributor in the decline of singles sales

SBF wrote:And while 20's lyrics may suck. OH, TiTG could you giveme an example of some twenites lyrics... could it would be funny and cool to see.... the challenge has been set.

Just read a PG Wodehouse book - they are filled with them. I'm not going to go out of my way to reprint lyrics here, because this thread has already gone way too off topic. It's a thread about music being used to sell ads, and you haven't made a single comment on that subject yet. If you want to start a separate thread about the shit state of pop/20s music/ the fact that you love a certain era of music/The Cheeky Girls/The Daily frakking Mail/Maidstone/Burberry check - please do so, but I'll be getting out the deletion stick for any more severely off-topic comments on this thread.

Thank you, and goodnight!

Top Of The Pops was another example of the BBC institution programme- like Only Fools And Horses and The Antiques Roadshow.

The decline of the singles chart was one thing, but the hideously dated formula and its laughable attempts to update (calling something "The New" anything is a mistake, as Popeye and Coke would testify)

The irony is that the singles charts now include download sales, so even with downloads they're still in decline.

ThisIsTheGirl wrote:

DennisMM wrote:They canceled TOTP? For this ignorant American that's on par with The Times going tabloid-format.

It did come as something of a shock, but the show had been on the decline for years.

...and I don't know if you were being ironic about The Times going tabloid - because it has happened! Of course, they'd never use the phrase "tabloid". It's a "compact newspaper", don't you know!

Not ironic. The library gets The Times and I see it regularly. They may call it compact newspaper, but we all know they mean tabloid-format. Those tube-riders don't have room to read a broadsheet. Practical but sad. Who do they think they are, The Guardian?

And I'll stop now.

MonsieurReynard wrote:It always amazes me with people surprised by Dylan appearing in ads- from the start he's sold out (going electric, Starbucks, suggesting American farmers should get money from Live Aid).

In terms of culture, it is indeed true that the mainstream will always clean up the outside threats to its existence. In the 50's the threat of rhythmn and blues became rock n roll which itself has now become a cliche, a word in our language ("Pottery is the new rock n roll!") that we forget was actually a term for sex.

And now in the 21st century the cycle begins anew- Public Enemy yell "Don't Believe The Hype" but this then gives way to rappers telling us how great commercialism is and R n B so slick you could call it hair gel.

I think nowadays the very concept of "selling out" is dated. If you want to get ahead now you HAVE TO sell out, or nobody hears you.

And before anyone says "What about the bands on Myspace?" Who owns Myspace? News Corp, managed by that soft hearted liberal Rupert Murdoch.

Seconded.
I'd go as far to say that the term "selling out" is a complete contradiction in terms anyway. Every musician wants his/hers music to be heard, to be bought, whether that musician be Dylan or the latest nonentity from 'Pop Idol'.

How it's used will always be a bone of contention. Do I not find the sight of Dylan advertising his latest magnum opus on the iPod commercial a tad sad? No, not really. Especially in view of The Man's outright dismissal (in his 'Chronicles' book) of those who labelled him as the voice of his generation, when all he was interested in was hoping his records would sell so that he could look after his family and pay the bills. Dylan purists were apparently non too pleased with that little bombshell. Well, tough. Welcome to the real world. Maybe they've shouldn't have projected their own ideals and values onto another person.

And that really lies at the crux of this, I think. This idealistic notion that any music artist should never sell out, never compromise their work, never lose their cool 'counter-culture' image - well, sorry to say, it's been happening from day one in modern music. The trick is to try and least do it on your own terms - "work from within" as it were, turn it your advantage and, if possible, even try and subvert it. Sometimes, it'll work, at other times not. And the ongoing inclusion of classic songs in inappropiate adverts, programmes, films etc is one more example of that. Does hearing them in such a setting divest them of their original power and importance? Well, maybe. But only if you let it. I personally don't feel any great sense of let-down if I hear a favourite tune of mine in some crummy advert. Well, for a few seconds I do. Then it passes and that's that. It in no way puts me off the song.

I suppose we live in the age of the Global Jukebox now, where almost any tune can be downloaded on corporate or so-called alternative sites in an instant or seen on the countless cable music channels owned by conglomerates; there's simply hardly any difference nowadays between the mainstream and the counter-culture (which surely was just a meaningless notion anyway). It's all one big melting pot and I think most musicians - old and new, established and upcoming, realise that. So though the goalposts may've shifted, a classic song will always stand out no matter where it's first heard or where it ends up.

Well quite. Besides, sometimes they use music which I'd forgotten like the ad that uses "Walk Don't Run" one of the coolest instrumentals ever.

this is going to be slightly off-topic but...

what about indie artists who have to "sell-out" just to survive?

back in my more idealistic days (16-23) I would quit listening to any of my beloved indies who deigned to sign with a major label...I mean, what the fuck was that all about? How can you punk yourselves like that? Heaven forefend they actually sold one of their songs for the quick buck, fuck 'em till they bleed. Betrayal of my trust, betrayal of the indie aesthetic, betrayal of all that's good, yadda yadda yadda...

but then Built to Spill signed with a major and *gasp* THEY GOT BETTER. I dunno what it was, maybe the extra $$ for recording, maybe it was a better studio, but that band's sound was remarkably improved by the move.

what really sold me was an interview I read with Apples in Stereo, a minor indie (combine early lo-fi Pavement with Beach Boys 60's pop) who discussed this in length some years back. They were being interviewed about a new album, and the interviewer rather derisively mentioned how one of their songs had made a national commercial. The band shot back something along the lines of "well, the $30,000 we made by selling that one song ALLOWED US TO EAT, to BUY DIAPERS for our children, to PAY THE RENT". This was a band moving, maybe, tops, 50,000 units (if even that many). A band that would consider playing to 200 people a big night. I dunno what I assumed they were making, but the reality was it was rather paltry. They still had "real" jobs, still had to scrape by, still had to live day to day.

So how could I hate on them for that? How could I thumb my nose at them for simply trying to survive? I was caught...if they didn't "sell out" they would never have been able to record again...jeebus, if I was torn, how must they have felt?

It's easy to be all indignant when you're a wee yoof, when you may not have had to of taken a job that kills your soul ("ain't gonna work...for no soul-sucking jerk") yet.

ETA: I still say "fuck a major label till it limps" (even if the fucker who said that does release his stuff on a major now) and I supported Pusha T's "I want to lynch all the fuckers at Jive who've delayed (and delayed, and delayed...)" the new Clipse album...

Keepcoolbutcare wrote:So how could I hate on them for that? How could I thumb my nose at them for simply trying to survive? I was caught...if they didn't "sell out" they would never have been able to record again...jeebus, if I was torn, how must they have felt?

It's easy to be all indignant when you're a wee yoof, when you may not have had to of taken a job that kills your soul ("ain't gonna work...for no soul-sucking jerk") yet.

i couldnt agree with you more.
however, i do consider it selling out when a band does something that they don't or wouldn't normally do to score a paycheck. like when jewel (bad example, but valid) went from having the most prominent thing on her chest change from her guitar to her tits. that kind of shit pisses me off. or when bands get involved with these major labels that hen try to change them into something more marketable and lucrative, and the bands go along with it. that shit is unacceptable. you gotta go the ween route, and let your music do the talking. the goal is to get onto a major, AND have a solid contract that allows you to pursue your own artistic vision. Tool did it. So did Thom Yorke and Radiohead (editors note: i dont listen to either band). i got no sympathy for a band that pulls a Blink 182 (never liked them either).

Brocktune wrote:or when bands get involved with these major labels that hen try to change them into something more marketable and lucrative, and the bands go along with it. that shit is unacceptable. you gotta go the ween route, and let your music do the talking. the goal is to get onto a major, AND have a solid contract that allows you to pursue your own artistic vision. Tool did it. So did Thom Yorke and Radiohead (editors note: i dont listen to either band). i got no sympathy for a band that pulls a Blink 182 (never liked them either).

too true, too true.

and don't get me wrong, I've got all the more respect for bands that get offered a dumptruck full of money (i.e. Pavement, offered a 7 figured deal and turned it down) and still turn it down.

but yeah, you've got to remain "true" to yourself and your sound if / when one does sign. Otherwise, you just alienate your current fanbase, the ones who've been with you from the get-go.

It's definitely understandable. I'd heard something somewhere that only two major artists refused to sell their songs: Bruce Springsteen and Eminem. Now I don't how accurate that figure is or even what "major artists" encompasses, but the thing that immediately stands out to me is that those two can probably afford to be stingy more than most. So I don't begrudge artists who make their songs available for advertising. It's just that sometimes the way those songs are used are so ironic it just sort of makes me shake my head at the whole situation.

Ribbons wrote:It's just that sometimes the way those songs are used are so ironic it just sort of makes me shake my head at the whole situation.

irony is dead...long live irony.

Ribbons wrote:It's just that sometimes the way those songs are used are so ironic it just sort of makes me shake my head at the whole situation.

how about when Target co-opted Devo's "Beautiful World"?

i was like, you idiots. dont you hear the sarcasm? he is saying this world SUCKS!!!!!!!

fuckin lame.