Editorial: Selling Out & Pete Waterman
Pete Waterman recently declared any artist who sells their track for usage in adverts as 'selfish'. Is he right, and is he in any position to talk?
When our favourite television programme is rudely interrupted by a short collection of irrelevant drivel, with ad execs desperately try to con a living by forcing flash images before our seemingly easily manipulated minds, we recognise that the next few minutes are destined to be dire. But how do you feel when, to your surprise, this dreary epoch has been invaded by a song you know and love, attached to an entirely unconnected product. Personally, I find 'Oh dear, I'll soon be sick of that now' to be my reaction, as I realise I'll forever after associate the product with my much loved favourite tune, but that's simply because I spend far too much time plonked in front of the telly, happily being brainwashed.
But the real question is whether this constitutes 'selling out'. In my books, this would require a compromising of one's morals in return for monetary gain, which seems to go hand in hand with the oxymoron that is 'advertising culture'. In a modern, technology fuelled environment, the big names can giveaway their albums with no danger of a public backlash or lose major income (yes, I mean you Prince and Radiohead). But for the emerging artist, there's such a difficulty to start make money in the industry, that this form of exposure becomes an essential part of marketing rather than a vulgar cash-in.
Some might think 'Oh dear, that credible band whose artistic talents I admire has sold itself to the devil of commercialism and I have now lost all respect for it and its members'. But I think that's a bit drastic, especially when such outlandish ideology also comes from 'music connoisseur' Pete Waterman who recently declared any artist who sells the use of their track in adverts as 'selfish'. This is the same man responsible for producing crimes against the honourable name of music with the mind-blowing naffness of One True Voice and the same man that signed the shameless, stereotypically demeaning Sheila's Wheels trio. So should we really take any notice?
Now once again, I have no real issue with people buying memorable songs from an advert like the three lovely ladies who feature as 'Sheilas', or those crazy frogs that hop into the charts over Christmastime. I happen to find it quite endearing, as it always precedes the January rush of new talent clambering to be named 'band to watch' of the next year, so it kinda evens out. However, I haven't quite forgiven the British public for allowing One True Voice to apparently 'lose' miserably, whilst their feable attempt at a pop track (which they themselves acknowledged to be less than average) still rocked their way up the charts to number two, all purely because of their appearance on a hit television show. But I'll let that lie.
But the reality is that for some bands, an advert is the only way to achieve the real commercial success that puts food on the table and pays the bills, just like it does for the suits. Anybody who has seen the flick 'Dig!' will know how self-destructive the musician with a conscious can be, though this is a slightly neurotic, self destructive case. But the Dandy Warhols are a model for achieving worldwide mass appeal, stemming from the use of one track in an unrelated advertising scheme. It famously became their signature tune that people would buy tickets to their gigs to hear. This may, or may not, be a good thing in the individual eyes of the masses, but nevertheless the band experienced a whole new type of success.
Similarly, the Gossip[ received a major second wave of interest when E4 made their little known club track synonymous with Skins. I'm hoping for a mass declaration of love for Bonde Do Role, whose track plays over a Nokia ad that actually acknowledges the necessity for music to be as damn fine as the track itself is. Adverts are a ridiculously successful and essential marketing tool, so why not get paid to achieve such success? People notice what they hear just like they notice what they see, so it's rational to try to optimise the use of both. In fact, if you're the type that likes to see the small guy get one up on 'The Man', it should be pleasing to see small bands getting paid to broadcast their sound to a much larger audience than they'd ever reach simply through touring, and it often means they won't fall at the barrier of success and failure.
Having said all that though, I did feel that Justin Timblerlake's unabashed 'I'm loving it' took the piss a bit. Sometimes, the money will never be worth the dignity of saying no however. So I support The Automatic in their rejection of Bob the Builder's offer to re-make 'Monster', because yes - I, personally, would have sung 'It's Bob the Builder!' back at them when they tried to perform it on stage. But then again, I do watch far too much telly...
RSS Feed
