Peter Becker said:
quoted 3 lines This is all bad stuff but an artist making money
>This is all bad stuff but an artist making money
>from advertising should'nt be considered an
>*absolute* evil.
In one sense, music can be considered a tool, designed to convey certain
emotions. In that sense, the intent of music and its creator are amoral,
like any tool. These tools are used, however, by certain companies with
specific goals in mind, namely to sell the product.
The larger point is: Where is the moral component in the manipulation that
goes on to sell goods?
This goes beyond sophomoric discussions about capitalism vs socialism. This
involves ad agencies taking sound out of context -- be it electronic,
classical, or jazz -- to manipulate you into buying Brand X.
Simon's article would have been a more vital, important read, had he
provided a little more coverage on this aspect of the issue, going beyond
an ad agency's POV. In particular, how do the musicians feel about the
matter?
(I disagree that the article should not be criticized on the basis of "how
we would have written it." The guy was given valuable space in a
widely-read publication. He has an honest obligation to take a story to its
editorial limits. I just think he got lazy or corrupt with this one.)
Alex Reynolds / Biology IT Support
SAS Computing
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA 19104
V +1 215 573.2818
F +1 215 898.8780
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/biology/