IDM Mailing Archive

Hmmm, has anyone noticed these threads always seem to appear whenever a popular 'IDM' artist does a commercial - the last time was the Amon Tobin Coke advert I think... On capitalism and socialism, I think Homer Simpson put it best - 'Maybe Lisa's right about America being the land of opportunity, and maybe Adil's got a point about the machinery of capitalism being oiled with the blood of the workers.' On artists doing adverts though, everyone has their own idea of what constitutes 'selling out' or whatever. Thing it boils down to for me is artists making enough money to dedicate themselves to their music. For example, I believe Autechre make enough money from their music to avoid having to take day jobs, and one of the ways they make money is by licensing music (they did a phone commercial that I saw at the cinema once, and their music always pops up on the TV). If Autechre adopted a complete 'no sell out' approach, then they would have less money - if one or more of them ended up having to take up a job as a result there would definitely be less Autechre music released. As an example there might not have been the money and time to put together the Gantz Graf DVD I would have thought. At the moment I'm trying to finish an EP worth of music while holding down a 40hr a week job and it's taking me absolutely ages - if I was even able to take a month off I'd have it done in no time but as it is it's taking more like a year. I think any producers first responsibility is to actually get the music done and get it out there for people to listen to, and in order to do so they may have to compromise in other areas. When the Rolling Stones are selling absolutely everything, including one of their best songs and even their own image (the Mick Jagger-esque red button on your Sky Remote singing 'you can get what you need' advert) when they really don't need the money I think that's terrible. When 'Impoverished Artist X' is licensing a track for an advert so they can get enough money to keep them going for another few months and allow them to get on with making more music instead of pen pushing in a 9 to 5 then I say good luck to them. Dan. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

Dans un courrier daté du 13/08/02 3:33:01 Paris, Madrid (heure d'été), Dan.Shoebridge@opsroom.co.uk a écrit :

quoted 2 lines if one or more of them ended up having to take up a job as a result there

> if one or more of them ended up having to take up a job as a result there > would definitely be less Autechre music released.

absolutely wrong. they have way more material unreleased than released. your favourite autechre track is probably one you'll never hear. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

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

quoted 4 lines International, and in the case of Yoko Ono regarding John Lennon's

> 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).

Keep in mind Michael Jackson owns the rights to the Beatles' back catalogue, not the Beatles themselves. I wonder how many artists actually had any control over the sale of their music to Madison Ave. Most of the time the sleeve doesn't say copyright control, it says P + C some label (which may be the artist's own, or it may not). Aphex Twin, of course, certainly got his money for that Pirelli Tires commercial so many years ago. Does he still have the tank in his backyard? (Let's not get started on the injustices of the automotive industry, the environmental cost, etc. thanks! We Know! I still drive one anyway!) Anyway. Continue arguing. Tom P.S. I'm starting a Syntax8rror Fan Club. We'll get together on Friday nights in chatrooms and try to guess how old he is, which city in France, and so on - loads of fun! Who's with me? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org