Essay On Pop Music In Commercials, #578469 In A Series

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
This one's actually pretty well written, though. Some good lines/ideas:

>Pop by its democratic nature has destroyed barriers and prejudices (good), yet by its capitalistic nature has always been available for cooptation by the power elites (bad). Pop stars inspire our best energies and make us feel alive (good); yet virtually all have committed personal offenses and ethical outrages we would never accept from those close to us (bad). Pop's consumers are able to select from a panoply of musical and stylistic options (good); but because millions of other consumers are also involved, engaging with pop often means putting up with other people's dumb infatuations, from The Bay City Rollers to "The Macarena" (very bad).

>Pop was never pure, damn it: Colonel Tom Parker sent Elvis's Cadillac on tour, Brian Epstein signed off on Beatle talcum powder, and Rolling Stone once offered free roach-clips as a subscription premium. Today Shania Twain sings for Target and Bob Dylan has an exclusive deal with Starbucks. But wait, Target gives back to the community, and Dylan is Dylan … Pop-wise, you've got to grade on the curve: Hold the culture, its practitioners, and its consumers to too rigid a standard of purity, and we all fail.

>We're holding bits of ourselves -- heart, values, viscera -- above the chaotic fray in the form of beloved songs. But in so doing, we're also demanding that everyone else recognize our personal bits as inviolate. Don't touch them. Don't even look at them funny. That's when cherishing music becomes a waste of positive passion, a miserly mission -- given, once again, the context that pop culture inevitably, uniquely constructs. What cultural commissar or committee of cool will decide which songs are available for exploitation and which are not? Which artists need defending from the taint of commercialism and which don't? Nike were once assailed for using The Beatles' "Revolution" to sell running shoes; but no furor broke when The Beach Boys' "California Girls" vivified a shampoo ad. Additionally, this anti-commercial bias is a very white thing: I can't remember any controversy over a black artist's music being used in advertising. In fact, back when those Budweiser frogs were crawling around to the tune of Bob Marley's "Jammin'," most people thought it was really funny.

pdf (Phil Freeman), Friday, 28 October 2005 17:40 (twenty years ago)

As long as they leave "The Macarena" alone. That song is holy, and should not be tainted with the stench of capitalist commercialism.

naranjito (Koens), Friday, 28 October 2005 17:46 (twenty years ago)

"Nike were once assailed for using The Beatles' "Revolution" to sell running shoes; but no furor broke when The Beach Boys' "California Girls" vivified a shampoo ad."

Bad example.

owen moorhead (i heart daniel miller), Friday, 28 October 2005 18:03 (twenty years ago)

how so?

Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Friday, 28 October 2005 18:58 (twenty years ago)

Good Vibes for Orange Crush (or possibly Fanta?) was the BEST.

Huk-L (Huk-L), Friday, 28 October 2005 19:00 (twenty years ago)

It made me love Orange Soda AND the Beach Boys. EVERYBODY WINS.

Huk-L (Huk-L), Friday, 28 October 2005 19:02 (twenty years ago)

'Twas Sunkist orange soda what co-opted the Beach Boys.

I'm still reeling from the idea that the Bay City Rollers are a "dumb infatuation."

monkeybutler, Friday, 28 October 2005 19:06 (twenty years ago)

I think there was a furor over "Revolution" since it was a song about revolution being used to sell products for the status quo. And not about something, like, oh, say, California girls.

Whiney G. Weingarten (whineyg), Friday, 28 October 2005 19:44 (twenty years ago)

Pop by its democratic nature has destroyed barriers and prejudices (good), yet by its capitalistic nature has always been available for cooptation by the power elites (bad).

I'd say it's a comination of both that these things happen for better and worse.

Who cares about it? Most of these "rock music in commercials" essays reek of intellectualizing the ol' "MY FAVORITE BANDS ARE BEING DISCOVERED BY BORING PEOPLE OH NOES IF THEYRE NOT INDIE IM NOT INDIE" attitude. When you have the attitude that certain "special" bands and genres are reserved for special people (like yourself) you're gonna go nuts when they get popular or get used in a commercial. That's how I view the hysteria over the issue.

Cunga (Cunga), Friday, 28 October 2005 21:21 (twenty years ago)

I think there was a furor over "Revolution" since it was a song about revolution being used to sell products for the status quo

But Nike products, with their forward-thinking design and progressive technologhy, have again and again created massive shifts in the entire footwear paradigm, quite literally revolutionizing a story that began millions and millions of years ago, when homo airnikepus first began cinching flat sedimentary stones to the soles of its feet!

nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 28 October 2005 22:05 (twenty years ago)

Since the dawn of time, man has been fascinated by ambulation...

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Friday, 28 October 2005 23:14 (twenty years ago)

xpost I don't see any hysteria over the issue in this article at all. Did you read to the end?

Anyway, I found the conclusion a little unsatisfying. I mean this general cooptation thing does sometimes actually create a problem - I'm no student of Che Guevara, for example, but it could be argued that the endless use of his image on products has made it very difficult for anyone to sincerely espouse his ideals and be taken seriously.

Hurting (Hurting), Saturday, 29 October 2005 02:41 (twenty years ago)

My problem with using existing songs in commercials is that it just reduces everything to a jingle, just leaving in the catchy bits and all.

And dammit, there is something wrong with selling out.

Viz (Viz), Saturday, 29 October 2005 04:26 (twenty years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.