Is the use of "the classics" in advertising a threat to their legacy?

Question

The rumored soon-to-be use of The Beatles' "All You Need Is Love" in a commercial for Luvs diapers.

Led Zeppelin songs in Cadillac ads.

And the one that makes me stop breathing...the "Viva Viagra" spot.

Do you think the use of these, and other, classic songs to sell products does anything to diminish their place in rock music history?

Answer 1

It's sad, and a bit disgraceful, but I think in the end it's all actually a part of their legacy. No matter what rock and roll is supposed to stand for, commercialization is rapidly becoming a significant part of it. Even my dear Bob Dylan was in a Victoria's Secret commercial.

If anything, the fact that their music is used to appeal to mass audiences solidifies their place in rock music history and makes it accessible to today's generation. It's a bit disgusting, but that's the way it is.

Answer 2

I think I would scream with joy if I found gay advertising here.... I find that if you don't stop, take a step back and try to look at things from many perspectives you will miss things. Like the person who said that. Obviously they are looking at it from a heterosexual perspective only. Clearly they do not associate heterosexuals kissing, holding hands, displaying anything that screams heterosexual as advertising yet when people of the LGBT community do the exact same things red alarms sound and the words "advertising homosexuality" pops into their heads. We do need to be shown more and to drill "it's okay to be gay" through people's ignorant heads.

Answer 3

I don't think so. This seems to have been more controversial 10-15 years ago when the concept was universally frowned upon. Now, everyone is doing it. Simply using your music in a commercial is not the same thing as selling out. It shouldn't diminish the level of greatness of a song. Advertising is everywhere and it's not going to go away. I don't take issue with artists trying to cash in this way, they earned their pay. You have to admit it's hilarious having Iggy Pop doing family-oriented cruise-line spots.

The thing that offends me more is that I can hear better music played on TV commercials than I do on commercial radio. It's also a very sad commentary that the commercials often introduce us to new artists instead of the standard outlets.

Answer 4

They don't for me, but they can be quite upsetting. It's sad that the younger generation is getting exposed to all this amking music through advertisemant. Take for example Supertramp's Give A Little Bit, when I was playing my friends knew the song from a commercial, but had no idea who sang it or what an amazing band Supertramp is. Some of the classics just become jingles them, and it's quite sad.

Answer 5

Yes, I feel that it does. And so do (did) many of the artists/songwriters. Paul McCartney was extremely upset when Michael Jackson licensed "A Day In The Life" to sell coffee. Dylan, in the liner notes to Biography took Aretha Franklin & Ray Charles to task for allowing their music to be used in commercials (And then he licensed "The Times, They Are A'Changin' " !!!) Rather than being remembered as songs that encapsulated a specific moment in time, they will now be remembered as "that cool song from the ....commercial'. In many cases, the artist/songwriter has no control over licensing because they signed over their publishing rights years ago. For those artists that retain control and that feel they have the right to do whatever they want with their music, they ought to consider the fact that public appreciation is what put the money in their pocket in the first place, and gave the song in question "value" in the marketplace.

Answer 6

Yeah, I've debated this many times before. I do think it kinda cheapens the song's memory &/or original meaning. Good example was when Nike used the Beatles' "Revolution" back in '87. That outraged many fans. It went from an observation of the tumultuous times to hawking freakin' *sneakers*. That sucked BAD.

I think the whole idea sucks, but admittedly, it's nothing new. They've been using pop songs in tv ads for years now. Since at least the 70s. But it just bugs me that now they've turned to classic rock.

The ONLY up-side of this I can think of is imagining some musically clueless teen watching tv & hearing a "jingle" that catches his/her ear, looking it up online & then lo & behold...a brand new Led Zeppelin fan. I would HOPE that they'd look more deeply into the bands beyond the one song on tv they heard....

Answer 7

I think it's a good way to make a tribute to those excellent hits that almost nobody listen to this days. Using those songs in advertising ads even make them popular again, adding more fans to the club.

Answer 8

if you need a product and you use your head you don't really need music to sell it. but that is only my option
your right it does damage the history of rock music etc
think back when ads were first made, they made their music with their own head and started from scratch. Take the Jello ad from years ago. It still lives on. that is a true ad.

Answer 9

Yeah, I agree. I cringe when I hear a song a like a lot used in an ad. There's something very wrong with it.

Answer 10

How many times can you listen to a song before you get sick of it?

Most of these songs are played out anyway.