by antiGUY

Somehow the Darwin theory has missed the music industry. Survival of the fittest just doesn't seem to apply to the record industry; because talent does not always equal success. What the Hell is here to explore some questionable "Artists" and why they have become popular, let alone got a record deal in the first place. Don't worry if you disagree you will have the opportunity to plead your case for these "Artists". What the Hell is also a place where antiGUY sounds off on entertainment topics that are pissing him off at the moment.

Hey, What the Hell is back!  I saw how much fun everyone else was having with their rants and columns and lately a few things in the entertainment world have slipped by without a comment from yours truly and I wanted to jump back into the pit (so to speak). So I figured what better way to do that then to dust off this series and start some arguments! 

For this relaunch of "What The Hell" I wanted to talk about something that has really began to get under my skin. I can't turn on the TV lately without having one of my musical pet peeves violated. Which pet peeve might that be?  Glad you didn't ask, it's the whoring of the classics. 

This has always been a touchy subject for me, but one that appears to becoming more or more prevalent as of late. Yes, whoring the classics. That's all well and good aG, you are saying, but what in the hell are you talking about? What in the hell is whoring the classics?  Easy answer, whoring the classics is the use of classic songs in television commercials, a trend that seems to be picking up speed these days. 

I find this practice offensive on a few levels and see it as a flagrant misuse of music. I'm fine with commercial jingles that are specifically used to peddle a product or service. What I find offensive is when classic songs are used to do this. I have no problem at all with an under-the-radar artist using this medium for exposure and to make a living. Let's face it these artists make a bundle by doing this, in the case of lesser known artists, they make more from licensing then they do from their record deals. I don't particularly like the fact that some artists cheapen their work this way, but in this instance it's somewhat excusable.  On the other hand, using a well known song to hawk a product or service, does nothing but cheapen the song and destroy its legacy. What's most offensive is when an artist dies and all of sudden their music begins to appear in ads. Most of the time, it's the artist's family dishonoring their memory and legacy to make an easy buck. It's shameful. 

But let's leave the cheapening of the music aside for a minute and pretend that's not an issue. The one thing about this topic that really gets under my skin, and I see as disrespectful, is when the context of the music has absolutely nothing to do with the product or service being pitched. And in fact, is about as far removed from the thing being sold as you can get. 

A few months ago I saw a classic example of this.  I'm watching the idiot box, most likely some insipid reality show or cable news (which is another rant), and along comes the commercial break and I hear a familiar song being used in an ad. I was flabbergasted by what I saw and heard, because it was wrong on so many levels.  The fact that is was a cover song was bad enough and obviously the band that did the cover had absolutely no idea about the context of the song. This ad was such a flagrant abuse of music in a commercial that it still pisses me off when I see it. Here is the problem as I see it and how this shows what is wrong with using classic songs in TV commercials. In this instance it was a Christian group covering a song about heroin that was being used in birth control pill commercial.  Yes, I'm talking about the Ortho Tricyclen commercial with the Sixpence None The Richer cover of The La's "There She Goes". See the disconnect there?  First, what in the hell is a supposedly Christian band doing covering a song about heroin? Second, why would a supposed Christian group allow that song to be used in a birth control pill commercial?  Third, how do you connect birth control with doing heroin? Perhaps they feel heroin will prevent pregnancy too? Or you better take the pill incase you get too stoned on heroin and end up having unprotected sex with someone?

Maybe I've over reacting but this kind of thing has always bothered me. The reason is the fact that classic songs lose all of their original meaning and become subconsciously linked with the product or service being peddled.  Plus the ad agencies that put these ads together obviously have no respect for the music they are whoring. Case in point, do you really think that Marvin Gaye had RadioShack in mind when he wrote "What's Going On?"  I doubt it, but Marvin seems to be at the top of list of artists that have had their music whored out for TV ads. Marvin may have liked Oreos too, but it is doubtful that he was thinking about them when he recorded "Can I Get a Witness".   Even more inappropriate was the use of Marvin's "Let's Get It On" in a commercial selling Lunchables in an ad featuring a young boy and young girl. 

What in the hell does the Hendrix classic "Purple Haze", Van Halen's "Right Now" or Blind Mellon's "No Rain"  have to do with Pepsi? Since when are Iggy Pop fans the target demographic for luxury cruise liners?  Will Polaroid really bring "Joy to the World" What would Freddie think of "We are the Champions" being used to sell Viagra? 

What's worst?  Soon after Johnny Cash died, someone had the bright idea of using "Ring of Fire" in a hemorrhoid cream commercial. Thank God, Cash's family had enough taste and respect to take a pass on that one. 

Some times the songs are used in context, Janis Joplin's Mercedes Benz was used to sell the cars but it still cheapens the songs to have them used in this context and it shows a lack of creativity on the part of the people that throw these commercials together. What's next?  Lynyrd Skynyrd's "That Smell" being used to advertise "1-800-Flowers" or better yet, Monistat?  How about The Beach Boy's "Good Vibrations" used in a commercial for sex toys?  Prozac could use "I Wanna Be Sedated" and Viagra could steal "Like a Rock" from Chevy Trucks. 

I understand why this is done and the advantages to both parties (the artists or their heirs and the company doing the advertising). The company gets a readily identifiable song to associate with their product. The ad agency doesn't have to hassle with lining up a jingle for the ad. The artist, their heirs or the owners of the recording and publishing make a bundle, but again this practice is nothing more than whoring the songs. If the artist had TV commercials in mind when they wrote the song, that's one thing. But it really pushed the boundaries of the artist's musical integrity to allow their music to be used in this way. Plus it destroys the legacy of the song.  Maybe I'm purist and who am I to say something against an artist making money off of their work in anyway they see fit? They have that freedom, and I realize what an advantage this could present for lesser known artist, not only do they get exposure but also a nice pay day, but that doesn't excuse the practice of taking songs that have a long history and whoring them out to hawk a product or service. Plus, this puts the folks that write and record commercial jingles out of business.  I find it more appropriate to find the Oscar Meyer Weiner song in a commercial than to hear John Lennon's cry for "Help!" used by a hardware store chain. Call me crazy, I realize that all songs are open to interpretation by the listener, but the idea of putting these songs in commercial actually destroys that and forever associates the song with product.  So the next time I hear "Let's Get It On", the first thing I'm gonna think about is lunch meat and little kids wanting to having sex.  That's just not right.