Posted by Bruce Sanborn on November 22, 2011 - 2:19pm
I've never really understood why prostitution is illegal. You can do anything with your body except sell it for sex. I take that back. You can do porn. You can get gangbanged by two dozen scarred midgets wearing pantyhose and get paid and it's legal as long as the camera's running. Do it behind closed doors and both the moral and real police will be after you. Athletes do all kinds of things with their bodies and get paid for it. In certain parts of the south, donkey shows are quite popular with the rustics and often the cops will drop by for a beer and a front row seat. But if she's fucking a redneck behind a dumpster for 20 bucks, boy, that's bad!
So there's quite a bit of hypocrisy involved here. I have nothing against anyone who'll turn a trick so they can feed themselves. Heck, it's got to be less demoralizing than working at WalMart.
The whores ( and I don't mean to disparage the prostitutes by using that term) I can't abide are the ones in the music industry.
When I was in high school we had a term: selling out. Another one was: going commercial. They were similar. A sellout was one who let their music be used in any forum other than onstage or in a recording. If someone let their song be used in a TV commercial, we lost all respect. It was something that should never, ever happen. I was crushed when Bob Seger allowed "Like a Rock" to be used in pitches for Chevy. That is, until I heard his explaination. Seger said it was his friends who convinced him. See Seger's from Michigan and had a lot of friends who worked in the auto industry. The ad company had done test runs of the commercial using the song. They were off the charts in terms of popularity. Bob said, "No deal." That's when his friends, assembly line workers, cornered him. They told him that they needed to sell cars to keep their jobs. And if he wouldn't let them use the song, their jobs were in danger. Seger relented and the song has had a 20+ year run in commercials.
Whore? Maybe. But one with a heart of gold. I still wonder though if he shared the residuals with his friends.
These days bands beg to get their songs on a commercial. My how times have changed. Part of the reason is that it's one of the few ways to reach a wider audience and to actually make some cash. But I still cringe at the thought of Beatles songs being used in Nike ads. Yoko said John wouldn't have had a problem with it since he was so atheletic. Bob Dylan did a Victoria Secrets commercial. Virtually everyone has had their music used in TV and films. For some reason not as troubling as blatantly hawking your shit between reruns of Judge Judy.
My nightmare is being approached by someone wanting to use one of my songs for a Depends Undergarment commercial. I need the money. Would I do it? I'd like to say no but am I in a position to do so?
Bruce Springsteen and Neil Young both have strict policies against the use of their music in commercials. It has never happened and I'd bet the 9th race it never will. But then again, neither needs the cash. What I hate is when someone like Sting or Elton John, who obviously has more financial resources than most countries, enthusiastically embrace the almighty dollar at the expense of their reputation. To me, they are whores of the most sordid kind. It's not that they need the money, it's that they want more. Greedy buggers who can't get enough of the stuff.
But maybe I'm the only one. Most people don't have a problem with that. But then again, most people don't hate commercials the way I do. With a loathing best described as severe. Regardless, the trend is obviously here to stay. And if you're watching TV and you see a Depends ad, listen closely.
B
So there's quite a bit of hypocrisy involved here. I have nothing against anyone who'll turn a trick so they can feed themselves. Heck, it's got to be less demoralizing than working at WalMart.
The whores ( and I don't mean to disparage the prostitutes by using that term) I can't abide are the ones in the music industry.
When I was in high school we had a term: selling out. Another one was: going commercial. They were similar. A sellout was one who let their music be used in any forum other than onstage or in a recording. If someone let their song be used in a TV commercial, we lost all respect. It was something that should never, ever happen. I was crushed when Bob Seger allowed "Like a Rock" to be used in pitches for Chevy. That is, until I heard his explaination. Seger said it was his friends who convinced him. See Seger's from Michigan and had a lot of friends who worked in the auto industry. The ad company had done test runs of the commercial using the song. They were off the charts in terms of popularity. Bob said, "No deal." That's when his friends, assembly line workers, cornered him. They told him that they needed to sell cars to keep their jobs. And if he wouldn't let them use the song, their jobs were in danger. Seger relented and the song has had a 20+ year run in commercials.
Whore? Maybe. But one with a heart of gold. I still wonder though if he shared the residuals with his friends.
These days bands beg to get their songs on a commercial. My how times have changed. Part of the reason is that it's one of the few ways to reach a wider audience and to actually make some cash. But I still cringe at the thought of Beatles songs being used in Nike ads. Yoko said John wouldn't have had a problem with it since he was so atheletic. Bob Dylan did a Victoria Secrets commercial. Virtually everyone has had their music used in TV and films. For some reason not as troubling as blatantly hawking your shit between reruns of Judge Judy.
My nightmare is being approached by someone wanting to use one of my songs for a Depends Undergarment commercial. I need the money. Would I do it? I'd like to say no but am I in a position to do so?
Bruce Springsteen and Neil Young both have strict policies against the use of their music in commercials. It has never happened and I'd bet the 9th race it never will. But then again, neither needs the cash. What I hate is when someone like Sting or Elton John, who obviously has more financial resources than most countries, enthusiastically embrace the almighty dollar at the expense of their reputation. To me, they are whores of the most sordid kind. It's not that they need the money, it's that they want more. Greedy buggers who can't get enough of the stuff.
But maybe I'm the only one. Most people don't have a problem with that. But then again, most people don't hate commercials the way I do. With a loathing best described as severe. Regardless, the trend is obviously here to stay. And if you're watching TV and you see a Depends ad, listen closely.
B
Comments (3)
Even for guys like Elton John and Sting, I would assume they are very competitive and want their music to be relevant and heard regardless of how wealthy they may be. No one wants to be a "has-been".
As an artist, I never understood the stance on not having one's music hit a main stream level. When Green Day was attacked, I didn't understand it. Artist should have the right to evolve and change. Not only that but make money in the process. What good would it be to see 60-70 year old men on a stage jamming out if you didn't know it was the Rolling Stones?