quoted 99 lines From: String Theory <string@onshore.com>
>From: String Theory <string@onshore.com>
>To: "robert stanton" <industrialrobot@hotmail.com>
>CC: idm@hyperreal.org
>Subject: Re: [idm] Prefuse 73 Tune in Footlocker Ad
>Date: 08 Aug 2002 23:51:51 -0500
>
>"robert stanton" <industrialrobot@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > Supporting any sort of modern advertising scheme is negative in my
> > opinion. Even if you are "just making money to make more music" you
> > are also promoting the system which allows you, as well as many more
> > and less talented music-makers, to be bought and sold like commodities
> > by corporations who treat other human beings as "consumers" and view
> > advertising and profit as more important than future human potential,
> > reform, and the environment.
>
>the music makers are not being bought and sold, what is being bought
>and sold is a license to use a work of art in a short film or video
>that at the very worst misleads people into thinking they need
>something that they do not. since last i checked, nobody needs either
>prefuse 73, the internet or even television, i don't think any harm is
>being done. of *course* corporations treat human beings as
>"consumers" ... those "consumers" treat the products that these
>corporations spend their lifeblood creating and promoting as
>"commodities" which they discard or ignore at their own whim. to
>think that the poor unfortunate consumer gives up their free will by
>watching an advertisement is to ignore the primary function of the
>advertisement itself: to *persuade* other people to *choose* your
>product. brand loyalty is a weak force at best, and a complete
>fallacy 90% of the time. in today's climate of cynicism and suspicion
>of any corporate entity larger than the corner mom-n-pop store, when
>we have personal digital video recorders that automatically edit out
>advertisements, i don't think the naive view of corporations as
>mind-bending propaganda factories really holds up. really, i think
>advertisements are in greater danger of becoming irrelevant than the
>average television viewer is in danger of being influenced; the viewer
>understands that the function of the advertisement is to sell
>products, not to inform them. the only exceptions to this rule are
>the young and the stupid.
>
> > To be so blatantly supportive of such activities seems rather naive.
>
>i think it's naive to simplify the relation between consumer and media
>so much. it's a 2 way transaction these days. we're not living in
>Marshall Mcluhan's universe anymore. The viewers have woken up to the
>realization that they influence the media as much as the media
>influences them. Think about how many Nielsen ratings and focus
>groups and market profiles go into any decision made by any
>corporation. I'm not saying that they are benevolent or even that
>they are devoid of harm but if advertising was the worst evil
>perpetuated by American corporations, we would be living in a beatiful
>world.
>
>I think as long as long as an artist feels morally secure in licensing
>a work to a corporation, then they have every right to do so. I would
>certainly license a work of my own to many companies. There are also
>many that I would not license to. There *is* a danger inherent in
>selling ones' artwork to an advertiser, and that is the transfer of
>perceived "ownership" of the music from the artist to the
>corporation. Nick Drake's song "Pink Moon" will always be associated
>with Volkswagen for an enormous number of people. But the flipside of
>that transaction is that a significant percentage of the people who
>bought a Nick Drake album within the last year did so because that was
>the guy from the Volkswagen commercial. This is possibly not the best
>example since Nick Drake is long dead and does not get to benefit from
>the licensing of his music, but there are many other artists for whom
>this dubious transaction is probably paying off nicely. I would guess
>Dirty Vegas' cover of "Days Go By" would never have hit the Top 40 if
>they hadn't licensed it to Mitsubishi. If they are happy with the
>fact that their song invokes Mitsubishi's logo for the millions of
>people dropping money on the single, well so am I.
>
>In most situations I think it's a beneficial transaction to all
>parties involved. The artist gets a whole fuckload of cash which they
>can then use to develop their art further, and the advertiser
>purchases a couple of things: A catchy tune that the intended consumer
>will associate with their product; and the "hipness" factor if they
>choose the right track (Prefuse 73 fans probably have newfound
>"respect" for Footlocker, as absurd as that is given that it's the ad
>agency not the corporation that chooses the soundtrack).
>
> > If you are interested in these sorts of things, I would recommend
> > reading Robert McChesney's "Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication
> > Media in Dubious Times" for a much better perspective.
>
>I'll definitely look at this book ... as you can guess by the length
>of my reply this is definitely a subject I'm interested in.
>
>Josh>
>
>--
>-- String Theory
>-- http://www.enteract.com/~yoshi/index.cgi
>-- String Theory's Anhedonia CD/LP available at finer music stores
>worldwide
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
Spot fucking on, my friend.
_J_
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger:
http://messenger.msn.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org