The last several of years, I noticed that many groups have been used in commercials, from the Partridge Family to Iron Butterfly. The Partridge Family doesn't bother me too much since they were kind of fake anyway-with only David and Shirley Jones doing the actual singing. But groups like Iron Butterfly, the Zombies, and even the Who have had some of their songs in commercials. The funny thing is, when they were popular back in the late 60s-early 70s, they were somewhat against the establishment. So, are they now selling out for the mighty dollar or is it a way to revive the music?


Thoughts? Comments?




Cat

Myself, I say "Any way you can make money legally and ethically is good".  If they made music that some company is willing to pay to use in a commercial, go for it.

Of course, a lot of times the group does not actually "own" the song.  It may be a situation like The Partridge Family, The Monkeys, or Backstreet Boys.  All of these were pre-fab groups, and the artists themselves did little more then perform the songs made by others.

Then you have cases where the songs were bought from songwriters.  Bruce Springsteen, Burt Bacharach, and Barry Mannilow wrote a lot of songs that were performed by others before they became famous as singers themselves.

Then there are situations where the rights to songs are passed along to third parties.  This is what happened to the "Lennon-McCartney" collection.  Once Michelle Jackson got ahold of it, they suddenly found their way to commercials and movies (something John Lennon and Paul McCartney always refused).

Then there is the issue of shrinking music royalties.  Because of P2P and other forms of piracy, the royalties paid to musicians has decreased sharply over the last 5 years.  A lot of them are simply trying to keep their heads above water, and to find a source of income to replace that which was lost when people stopped buying CDs and simply downloaded them for free.

Thanks for answering, Mushroom. I thought more people would have something to say about this, but I guess I was wrong.  :-\\




Cat

Musicians gotta eat too.

Thanks for answering, Mushroom. I thought more people would have something to say about this, but I guess I was wrong.  :-\\


This is something I have talked about in the past.  And basically, this is another situation where "nobody cares".

The apathy and "something for nothing" attitude is everywhere today, and this is a situation where you have a lot of people basically endorsing stealing.

Oh, they do not claim it is stealing.  They try to keep the artists, actors and musicians out of it by blaming the RIAA and MPAA.  They go on and on about how those organizations are ripping people off, and see nothing wrong with "stealing" from them.  But what they do not mention is who the loss of royalties affects most: the artists who made the music.

RIAA is a non-profit organization, just like the MPAA.  Neither of them is allowed to show a profit.  Everything they make goes to the artists, either in direct royalty payments, or into the pension, health insurance funds, and retirement homes they run.

With the shrinking of royalties, I am not surprised.  This is also why you see so many groups agreeing to be "sampled" in hip-hop and rap music.  Even Weird Al has benefitted, since the original artists make a percentage from his works.  Anything to try and keep their royalties from falling completely through the floor.

So expect more pop songs in commercials.  And even more has-been groups going on nickle "reunion tours".