Around the time Radiohead came to Ontario to play Molson Park in Barrie, I
saw an interview with the Beta Band on MuchMusic. The band was asked about
how some music of their's was licensed in a commercial and they responded
that they had hoped that it would put a little bit of money into their
collective purse in order to do more music and art, etc. What they
explained is that they lost almost the entire amount for various
reasons--record label, publisher, etc (I'm not quite sure anymore, it's been
a long time). They then stated that they decided not to license again, for
the earlier stated reason, and because they decided that it might ruin the
emotional connection/attachment that a fan has with a song. They decided
that they'd rather leave commercials alone for this reason as well.
I guess what I got from it was that every artist has a different situation
regarding labels, publishing, etc. Each will see a different portion of the
money and each has different reasons for doing commercials. From what I can
gather it almost seems to come down to issues of money and credibility.
Some bands have even opted to only license music for things like Amnesty
International, and in the case of Yoko Ono regarding John Lennon's
'Imagine', she let them use it for two years for free (not that we haven't
already heard Lennon and Beatles tunes in everything from IBM ads to Air
Canada ads).
Seems to me that it's all in the context of the situation. But that's just
my stupid opinion. :)
cheers
Mark
hellothisisalex
www.hellothisisalex.com
mp3s at www.mp3.com/hellothisisalex
mark@hellothisisalex
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org