Ex-Door Lighting Their Ire

[yeahwho]

Drummer John Densmore refuses to let the group's songs be used in TV ads, much to the chagrin of his former bandmates.


John Densmore Fucking Rocks! read on (http://www.latimes.com/business/custom/cotown/la-et-doors5oct05,0,4065911.story?coll=la-tot-promo&vote19806821=1)......

[Drederick Tatum]

that was in a paper here in NZ. If I was him I'd just give it up and get paid.

[TonsOfFun]

^yeah, but if he did he'd lose respect.

It's like when clash sold-out with selling one of their songs to an advert (I forget which one - Levis?) but that is now known as the day Punk Officially Died!

Not that I like much Doors music, but I know probably some do and selling out is the worse.

I don't think the Beasties have done it yet, but when/if they do, then probably a little bit of them would die with it. And some of their fans would lose the respect.

I realise it's just a job and if you need the money then it's a good idea but most big bands don't need the money so...

Good on him (y) Fuck the advertisers.

[ms.peachy]

I've really never understood this whole... whatever, emphatic value some people put on this notion of 'selling out' and using music in adverts, how it all gets bound up with respect and crap. If a song is a good song, how exactly is it less of a good song if it's used in an advert? Makes no sense to me. Musicians make a product called music. Music is used to sell other products. Big fucking deal.

[TonsOfFun]

Cus it means something else when it's on an Advert, rather than a message it's a slogan.

I know I never win arguments and won't this, but that is how I feel.

HOWEVER, like I said, if I was a band and someone asked me to write some music to sell to someone to use as whatever, for a boy band or something and I need the money or the exposure then that is fine by me. Not everything you do has to be your best work or make you proud. But when it is your best work, you don't need the money or exposure - like the clash. But when The Clash signed to CBS and they sold to Levi, it was wrong cus it didn't need to happen. It hurts man.

Same reason why Moby lost all his respect, does he write for commercials or does he write for the music or for how he feels like most musicians. He didn't need to carry on selling the writes after that fuckin alblum PLAY was everywhere...

Music means that much to me Damnit! :D

[ms.peachy]

ToF, I think the problem is that you want music to be some kind of pure "art", untainted by the stain of filthy lucre. But this whole idea of a seperation of artistic vision and commercial viability is a myth. Art, all art, has always been about selling something, whether it's a great Platonic ideal or a toaster oven.

[TonsOfFun]

I cannot beleive you've never grown to hate a song cus it's been on an advert. I hate it, over playing stuff I like is so annoying cus I know I won't like it.

I'm slowing moving to a state of no television status anyway, so then I'll quit my whining then cus I'll no longer be a tool of it.

[Bob]

ToF, I think the problem is that you want music to be some kind of pure "art", untainted by the stain of filthy lucre. But this whole idea of a seperation of artistic vision and commercial viability is a myth. Art, all art, has always been about selling something, whether it's a great Platonic ideal or a toaster oven.

i would like to buy this platonic ideal, how much do you want for it

[FunkyHiFi]

Musicians make a product called music. Music is used to sell other products.
Yikes, this sounds like a press release from one of the Big Four music labels. :(

But based on what I've seen, music to the large majority of musicians is definitely not a product, rather, it is something from their gut, something they have to get out of their system, or share with others. So the paycheck they receive is just a bonus for doing this & NOT their main motivation.

And I agree that using music originating this way cheapens it and makes the artist look like a sell-out. But just to give these people a break: it is not always the artist that decides to sell it. It could very well be what their label decided, something buried in a 20 page contract written in confusing legalize that only a lawyer could understand.

IMO there is nothing wrong with regarding art as something that should be taken care of and respected for its own intrinsic value (i.e. makes you feel good just to look at or hear it) and to get pissed off at people using it to fatten their bank accounts if they don't need to.

I already mentioned this in another forum here, but this seems like a good place to repeat it. If you want to see how so many good things are turned into just a product, drained of their emotion and finally pushed aside for another, watch the 7 minute segment labeled "the mtv machine" (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool/view/) on this PBS show called "The Merchants Of Cool". It's very eye opening & shows how people in a certain age range can be manipulated via the media (actually, the age range that mostly populates THIS forum).

[yeahwho]

It really isn't about what I think or what you think. Which is awesome. He doesn't want his music to be associated with polluters of the earth. That is cool. Jim Morrison is equally cool for his stance when the band agreed to do a Buick Opel ad back in the day w/o his consent,


The Doors had formed in 1965. As the decade was ending, they were hailed in some quarters as the "Rolling Stones of America." An advertising firm came to the band with an offer: $50,000 to allow their biggest hit, "Light My Fire," to be used in a commercial for the Buick Opel.

Morrison was in Europe and his bandmates voted in his absence; Densmore, Krieger and Manzarek agreed to the deal. Morrison returned and was furious, vowing to sledgehammer a Buick on stage at every concert if the commercial went forward. It did not.

The Beastie Boys are part of this group of muscians not for sale to brand products. I respect it and it is a big deal, for me.

[Documad]

I do believe this is the first time I've disagreed with Ms. Peachy.

I understand the arguments, but truly cool artists don't do it.

It bothers me that talk radio shows get to use bumper music without permission, so that the nit wits in my city get to play 5 seconds of John Lennon before they talk about how well things are going in Iraq.

P.S. Don't grease my palm with your filthy cash
Multinationals spreading like a rash
I might stick around or I might be a fad
But I won't sell my songs for no TV ad

[DroppinScience]

Obviously things have changed a lot when it comes to artists and their music in commercials. But who is to dictate what a band should or shouldn't do with their music?

I personally don't mind/care whether a song is used in a commercial or not used in a commercial. But if it is used, I just hope the band gave permission and that it wasn't used against their will.

If the Doors drummer (along with Jim Morrison himself) doesn't want "Light My Fire" to advertise cars or Coca-Cola or anything else, good for them. They have self-determination.

If someone like Moby wants to use his entire "Play" album for commercials, that's okay too. He gave the OK, so again, he has self-determination.

In the article it discussed that Densmore is making a mistake for not letting the songs be used in ads because it risks their music as being "forgotten" in the coming years? Oh what a load of crap. The Doors will ALWAYS find new audiences because the music is just plain timeless. Y'know, there is such a thing as VH1. People don't have to watch car commercials and go: "Damn, who is that dude singing 'Break on Through To The Other Side'?" Really now. :rolleyes:

P.S. - For what it's worth, if I were in a successful band, I'd rather not use songs in ads for soft drinks or sneakers if I could help it. However, music used in films, movie trailers, TV shows... that sort of thing. I'd totally spring for that. Especially if I liked the movie/TV show.

[ms.peachy]

Meh. I just don't think it's a big deal. I can see how lots of people want it to be a big deal, and that it matters to them in some way, but to me the idea that art - whether it's a painting, a performance, a song, whatever - is not a product and therefore not a commodity is patently false. This idea that "oh it comes from the gut and it's pure communication and people write poems/paint panitings/sing songs etc because they are moved spiritually to do so and it isn't about money" is very lovely and all, but I don't buy it. This whole notion that the arts are somehow motiviated entirely by lofty, noble, worthy goals - bollocks.

[thegoodmrbrodie!]

it annoys me when a song becomes popular because it is on an advert. it reminds me that people are paying more attention to the box than they are to the musicism. and that leaves a bad taste with me, but we're not all the same, and the truth is, no money no honey. and i think it is too late for that revolution we're always talking about. too many stupid people are having sex. oh well.

[TonsOfFun]

I do believe this is the first time I've disagreed with Ms. Peachy.

You'll get used to it :p

[ms.peachy]

You'll get used to it :p
yeah. you gotta remember, I'm an Aries - us rams get off on that head-butting, horn-locking stuff ;)

[DroppinScience]

Meh. I just don't think it's a big deal. I can see how lots of people want it to be a big deal, and that it matters to them in some way, but to me the idea that art - whether it's a painting, a performance, a song, whatever - is not a product and therefore not a commodity is patently false. This idea that "oh it comes from the gut and it's pure communication and people write poems/paint panitings/sing songs etc because they are moved spiritually to do so and it isn't about money" is very lovely and all, but I don't buy it. This whole notion that the arts are somehow motiviated entirely by lofty, noble, worthy goals - bollocks.

Do you at least accept the notion that art doesn't have to be a product or commodity? I fully understand there's that factor when it comes to music or films or whichever, but if that's the only thing it is to you, I find it sad.

[SobaViolence]

This idea that "oh it comes from the gut and it's pure communication and people write poems/paint panitings/sing songs etc because they are moved spiritually to do so and it isn't about money" is very lovely and all, but I don't buy it. This whole notion that the arts are somehow motiviated entirely by lofty, noble, worthy goals - bollocks.

well, you're wrong.

[FunkyHiFi]

As far as art also being considered a product: well obviously its a plus that good art also has the side benefit of being able to be sold, so its creator can buy food & have a roof over his/her head. And unless all those stories i've read about various painters, musicians, etc are all lies, those are pretty much all the things many such people care about having........simply so they can continue creating more music, painting another painting, etc, etc.

I (obviously) grew up in a different era that wasn't so crassly commercial-this is why I worry about kids watching so much TV these days, which can present an incredibly twisted view of "real life". :(

[abcdefz]

^yeah, but if he did he'd lose respect.







...didn't being a member of The Doors already take care of that? :confused:

[abcdefz]

I've really never understood this whole... whatever, emphatic value some people put on this notion of 'selling out' and using music in adverts, how it all gets bound up with respect and crap. If a song is a good song, how exactly is it less of a good song if it's used in an advert? Makes no sense to me. Musicians make a product called music. Music is used to sell other products. Big fucking deal.



I know what you mean.

Back in the day, I thought it was cool that Springsteen turned down, like, $5million for Ford Trucks or something to use one of his songs.

Then I thought, "You know -- he could've just given the money to charity and required Ford to run some 800 number at the bottom of the ad..."

:confused:

[ms.peachy]

well, you're wrong.
Only by other people's standards.

[yeahwho]

I know what you mean.

Back in the day, I thought it was cool that Springsteen turned down, like, $5million for Ford Trucks or something to use one of his songs.

Then I thought, "You know -- he could've just given the money to charity and required Ford to run some 800 number at the bottom of the ad..."

:confused:

That is so goofy. To be compromised is to be compromised. Bruce Springsteen has ideals and political causes that every major corporation and politician wants to compromise, co-opt and make their own.

At one point in his life he wanted to make the perfect rock album ala Born to Run, to give more than what he takes and motivate people to act on their own w/o a corporate sponsor ie; "Owner".

I really don't give a fuck if a band wants to sell out to major corporate sponsors, thousands do and some of them really need the cash (ie; grandaddy's Honda ad) others do not need the money nor do they want anything to do with korporate amerika.

Is that OK? Really, is it just OK to not whore out if you don't want to whore out? WTF is wrong with people today?

Workin' in the fields
Till you get your back burned
Workin' 'neath the wheel
Till you get your facts learned
Baby I got my facts
Learned real good right now
Poor man wanna be rich
Rich man wanna be king
And a king ain't satisfied
Till he rules everything
I wanna go out tonight
I wanna find out what I got
I believe in the love that you gave me
I believe in the hope that can save me
I believe in the faith
And I pray that some day it may raise me
Above these badlands

Bruce doesn't want Corporate America on his Jock.

[ms.peachy]

Is that OK? Really, is it just OK to not whore out if you don't want to whore out?
Of course it's OK to not sell your product to certain buyers if you don't want to. That's your right as the artist, the creator of that piece of work. But I just don't think it's all that big of a deal if someone DOES decide it's OK with them if it is used for commercial purposes. As the guy from Dandy Warhols said about the Vodaphone ads "They may pay me however much they like to play my music however often they want." Or, as Iggy Pop said about Lust for Life being used in a car ad, "Hey, I know what I was saying and what I was feeling when I wrote it, and it's a good song and it's out there and people like it and I can't see how it makes anyone want to buy a car but whatever, I'm just glad people like it."

[TonsOfFun]

^tis a good point but Dandy Warhols would probably need the money more than multi-million $£$£$ bands. It's when a meaning of a song is changed, I suppose the product they are selling relates to the song then that is ok. But if a song/band/idea of the art was against corporate things then it become a corporate tool. It's sad and seems wrong.

But now I'm all confused, cus if I took that stance, some of my favourite music might not mean as much.

It's like, what I do for a living, I want to be super-kind to the environment and fairtrade organic stuff etc. When it becomes more profitable (crosses fingers), I wouldn't want to sell the company to Nestle cus they are what I'm against in their production methods. That is what happened in The Clash case with CBS

[TonsOfFun]

Not that I am comparing my self to Joe Strummer, I just sometimes I have an ego. :p

[yeahwho]

Of course it's OK to not sell your product to certain buyers if you don't want to. That's your right as the artist, the creator of that piece of work. But I just don't think it's all that big of a deal if someone DOES decide it's OK with them if it is used for commercial purposes.

I think the difference between you and I on this topic is I do take it into account and highly respect a musicians stance on how their art is potrayed and handled. Where as to you.....not really an issue. Which is fine. I find it incredibly cool and an honor to know some artists will not sell out. At any price. That is just cool. Like Tom Petty, he "won't back down".

Iggy hasn't done anything to enhance my odds of sailing around on a cruise ship dancing and eating. Or to buy his re-issues either. But I did see him and Mudhoney play at a High School Football stadium last month. It was OK. He did invite the whole audience onstage.

[ms.peachy]

Iggy hasn't done anything to enhance my odds of sailing around on a cruise ship dancing and eating. Or to buy his re-issues either. But I did see him and Mudhoney play at a High School Football stadium last month. It was OK. He did invite the whole audience onstage.
Oh wow I say both Iggy and Mudhoney last month as well LOL not the same gig though, but all part of that same tour I imagine - Funhouse and Superfuzz Bigmuff respectively, I presume?

[TonsOfFun]

I've never seen a Mudhoney gig advertised. And I'm always looking at the gig listings. I'd love to seem them!

[ms.peachy]

I've never seen a Mudhoney gig advertised. And I'm always looking at the gig listings. I'd love to seem them!
They were at Koko in Camden Town. We had an extra ticket too :( Sorry, I didn't know.

[abcdefz]

That is so goofy. To be compromised is to be compromised. Bruce Springsteen has ideals and political causes that every major corporation and politician wants to compromise, co-opt and make their own.

At one point in his life he wanted to make the perfect rock album ala Born to Run, to give more than what he takes and motivate people to act on their own w/o a corporate sponsor ie; "Owner".

I really don't give a fuck if a band wants to sell out to major corporate sponsors, thousands do and some of them really need the cash (ie; grandaddy's Honda ad) others do not need the money nor do they want anything to do with korporate amerika.

Is that OK? Really, is it just OK to not whore out if you don't want to whore out? WTF is wrong with people today?

Workin' in the fields
Till you get your back burned
Workin' 'neath the wheel
Till you get your facts learned
Baby I got my facts
Learned real good right now
Poor man wanna be rich
Rich man wanna be king
And a king ain't satisfied
Till he rules everything
I wanna go out tonight
I wanna find out what I got
I believe in the love that you gave me
I believe in the hope that can save me
I believe in the faith
And I pray that some day it may raise me
Above these badlands

Bruce doesn't want Corporate America on his Jock.



My point is that a person's "pride" can sometimes keep them from doing the right thing.

So, let's say that Springsteen (right now) could shell his song for $5 million and give all the money to disaster victims. Do you think the disaster victims would benefit more (short-term and long- ) if he refused and said, "No -- Ford is an immoral company and I won't let them use my song"?

My idea -- go back and re-read it -- would be to go ahead and sell the use of the song if a disclaimer is put at the bottom of the screen. Imagine a crawl like, "Bruce Springsteen does not endorse Ford Motors, but does endorse hurricane relief. Call 1/800/REDCROSS to help."

Personally, unilaterally stubborn "integrity," to me, should be no point of pride. Do you not go see the movie your girlfriend wants because you have an artistic vision to protect?

[TonsOfFun]

They were at Koko in Camden Town. We had an extra ticket too :( Sorry, I didn't know.


London is too far for me travel anyway...

They need to come ooop north. I avoid london like I avoid hard work...

[yeahwho]

My point is that a person's "pride" can sometimes keep them from doing the right thing.

So, let's say that Springsteen (right now) could shell his song for $5 million and give all the money to disaster victims. Do you think the disaster victims would benefit more (short-term and long- ) if he refused and said, "No -- Ford is an immoral company and I won't let them use my song"?

My idea -- go back and re-read it -- would be to go ahead and sell the use of the song if a disclaimer is put at the bottom of the screen. Imagine a crawl like, "Bruce Springsteen does not endorse Ford Motors, but does endorse hurricane relief. Call 1/800/REDCROSS to help."

Personally, unilaterally stubborn "integrity," to me, should be no point of pride. Do you not go see the movie your girlfriend wants because you have an artistic vision to protect?

Mr. Springsteen has never backed away from charity. Little Steven single handedly put together the Sun City benefit. That is mindblowing. Really.

Your talking about a major player here, have you been to the shows? I've seen him live enoughh to know bring a bag of canned foods for the local food bank.

It's called do something nice for somebody and don't get caught. Google (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=bruce%20Springsteen%20and%20charity&sa=N&tab=wn) up Bruce Springsteen and charity (click news) on any given day and see who he's involved with.

It ain't Madison Avenue.

[EN[i]GMA]

I sort of see both sides here. My sentamental side likes having 'my' music 'mine', for example, if I was to hear a Gang of Four song on a commercial (Ironic, eh?) I'd be pretty pissed, not just because I like the band, because of what they stood for. Ditto with the Beasties.

But if the band doesn't really 'stand' for anything, I see no reason not to.

I mean Dostoevsky wrote most of his books just to pay off his gambling debts. He was good at writing quickly and could then submit his works to journals for food.

I don't exactly know which of his works he did like this, but the fact that wrote them so he could eat doesn't change the fact that they're some of the best books ever written. Ditto with a song.

But a band like the Clash, who made songs like Koca Kola shouldn't be selling their songs, I mean, seriously.

[SobaViolence]

GMA'] a band like the Clash, who made songs like Koca Kola shouldn't be selling their songs, I mean, seriously.