The family looked to happy together to be truly Wes Anderson-esque. There needs to be a hell-of-a-lot more barely concealed disgust and simmering discontent for this to measure up.Also, insert Kinks song here.
I know that ship sailed long ago, but I have to admit to being dismayed at how quickly Vampire Weekend sold a song to a commercial. Which raises the question - what major artist still has refused to seel a song to an ad? I think Neil Young and Elvis Costello qualify, but is there anyone else?
I think refusing to sell a song to an ad is silly. Ok, I could see refusing to sell a song to an ad for something the artist personally hates, dislikes, or otherwise would feel uncomfortable, but blanket refusal in today's music business just seems a stupid way to refuse to be paid for your art.
Has Springsteen?<span> </span>
Barbra Streisand? Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart? R.E.M. turned down Microsoft's request to use "End of the World as We Know It."yeah, it struck me as Anderson-y, except the cinematography seemed off. The colors were too bright, as you'd expect from Hilfiger.
CBS News did a piece a few years back:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/26/sunday/main1346174.shtmlSpringsteen, Tom Petty, and John Fogerty seem to be hold-outs. Not sure about REM. ;)
It's just another marketing strategy, and it's can be a very effective one. There's a certain segment of music fans who really value "artistic integrity", whatever that is, and will actually like a band more for not "selling out", whatever that means. It adds some sort of underground/independent appeal to the equation.That said, it doesn't surprise me AT ALL that Vampire Weekend would sell a song for a commercial. They don't aspire to be "hip" or "chic" or the eye of the hipster music press's eyes. They openly trade on their preppy Ivy League persona and relish the largely unironic quality of most of their work. They're certainly twee, and even a tad precious, but that certainly doesn't preclude them from profiting off their music.
Yeah, this seems to be an idea that has finally become accepted. Back in the '80s when Michael Jackson allowed the Beatles' "Revolution" to be used in a Nike ad, there was outrage. Now, bands chomp at the bit to have a song in a commercial. With the current state of the music industry, it is one of the few ways to get paid for one's art. In fact, I interviewed an indie band who had a song in commercial years ago and when I asked the lead singer about it, he noted that said commercial allowed them to afford to tour because the money paid for a new van.
I was a little depressed earlier this week to hear Seasons of Love from Rent in a commercial.
And it clearly wasn't a very effective commercial, because I can't remember what it was selling.
There was a stir back in '02 (verbalized as "ought-two" from where I sit) when Led Zepplin licensed their first song for a commercial ever. The song was "Rock and Roll" and the ad was for Cadillac, which is probably one of the few reasons they licensed it at all.It's a really shrewd idea, though, for bands to try and get their songs in ads. Fewer and fewer people are listening to the radio, and the vast majority of radio stations are a slave to genre/format. There aren't really many radio stations where new music (aside from the Top 40 sexpot pop and secretary rock) can get air time. One of the best ways to find new ears is through a national commercial. Many an artist over the past half-decade has gotten a bump from having their music in one of those Apple ads (see: Yael Naim, Jet, Feist, The Ting Tings, etc.)
As I recall, it's a generalized Macy's commercial, marketing everything from coffeemakers ("cups of coffee") to party dresses ("midnights").
http://www.youtube.com/v/iW7bc0lD5gA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="170" height="140
I'll cop to it bugging me. For a very simple reason - when I hear Won't Get Fooled Again these days, the first thing I think of is David Caruso whipping off his sunglasses. And I'd rather not. Similarly, now when that Vampire Weeked song hits on my iPod, I ill think of overpriced designer yuppie clothes. Which I'd rather not. It's a purely selfish reason, sure. But I can't deny that were Springsteen, Young, or Costello to license a song to a commerical I'd be a bit disapointed.
YEAHHHHHH!http://www.youtube.com/v/_sarYH0z948" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="170" height="140