Licensing music of deceased artists to Advertising; moral or not?

admin — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 19:20:22 +0000

I am not the best at checking on my social media channels, but today as I was working today I checked my YouTube page and found that the Chevy Corvette spot I finished last month and posted to my YouTube page had some serious comments on it. I felt the need to share this. First, take a look at the spot:

This track is unmistakable if you have ever been a fan of folk or bluegrass from the 60′s and 70′s. It’s timeless.

Here is what my commenter had to say:

A trend in the commercial music industry I have become greatly upset with is the using of classic American music, largely from the 60′s, to sell things on TV. After hearing the Stones or Nick Drake or now (sadly) John Fahey, countless times lined up with AT & T or Chevy I can’t help but think of their products when I listen to these artists albums at home. This makes me sad.

I don’t want to think of AT & T when I listen to Nick Drake, and I certainly don’t want to think of Chevy when I listen to John Fahey. It’s one thing for the Stones to sell the rights to their songs as they’re living, but lending deceased artists’ music to products in a manner they probably wouldn’t approve of is a morally dubious endeavor.

The two recent and unfortunate choices ( Nick Drake & John Fahey) of using tragic folk musicians, (Drake suicide, Fahey died alone and penniless) to sell items for large multi-billion dollar corporations smacks of a sad irony that plagues today’s commercial industry.

It is important that we do not treat art as a mere commodity. Most certainly John Fahey’s music has nothing to do with selling Chevy’s and I hope in the future you consider the importance and seriousness of the artists and their music whom you align with advertisements on TV. I ask you to think twice before lending deceased artists music to TV ads, ( especially people like John Fahey)

MY REPLY:

I think it is an extreme view to say that using their music is a “morally dubious endeavor.” When a piece of music is used, the rights holders are paid quite well. The music is used legally and the rights are given by the “owners” of that music.

As a matter of fact, one of the gentlemen who helmed this project is the son of one of the former members of The Kingston Trio, whom many consider to be as important a touchstone to folk music as Mr. Fahey was. I think he would agree, if the estate needs the money and the music is reflected in a positive light, it is a great thing for all parties.

So, let me repeat – the rights holders AGREED and they were paid well for the use of music in this commercial. I hope that Mr. Fahey was smart enough to see to it that his estate was set up in a way that his loved ones will get to see that money.

Music Licensing is one of the only consistent and reliable sources of revenue and marketing for artists today, and as the music business does, licensing in advertising follows the trends, and dare I say, sometimes we help set them. There are hundreds of artists who will see this spot and be inspired by the music. There are thousands of people who will see this spot and go buy John Fahey’s record, or even pull their old record back out.

You see this as a tragedy, but we see it as an homage that is one way to keep his spirit alive and back into the collective conscious of the music lovers everywhere. For the record, due to the resurgence in popularity of Nike Drake’s music after the Volkswagen commercial “Pink Moon” (which is arguable one of the best commercials ever made) the record label re-released his music with great success.

HIS REPLY:

You seem to miss my point. My point was not that the estates of Nick Drake and John Fahey may or may not being compensated nicely, it is that these artists, especially John Fahey, would not have wanted his music used to help sell Chevy cars. His music has nothing to do with Chevy cars. Fahey was an avidly independent and non-commercial artist by principle. It is simply inappropriate to use his serious and important music for a car commercial without his permission.

You repeatedly point out that , “everyone is paid nicely” . This however misses the principle of my point : John Fahey certainly would not have approved of his music being used to help Chevy boost its image.

MY REPLY

Your point is taken, but how do you know that Fahey and Drake would say no if they were alive today? There is simply no way to know. I staunchly (as said here) support artists right to say no to music licensing in ads or any other medium. I personally have worked with bands that have turned down hundreds of thousands of dollars based on principle. But I, again choose to see this as a positive broadcast of John Fahey’s music. Albiet that I am slightly biased, being a music supervisor in commercials.

This brings me to a larger point that you have helped me make sir:

ARTISTS AND MUSICIANS, be clear in your contracts and in your will what you ARE willing to have your music used for. If you have sold your publishing, then you may have lost creative control. The only REAL way we are to know your wishes is if you clearly leave them behind.

Who is to be held responsible for an artist or musicians wishes once he is gone? If the use of your music is important to you, then think about it, write it down and place it into the hands of people you trust. Music is immortal, and there is no way to tell what is coming in the future and in what crazy ways your music might be heard, but give it some serious thought. Don’t let others decide for you.

In the case of John Fahey, the executors of his estate (or if they no longer own the rights to the music, then the label and the publisher) are responsible for making the decision to lend use of a song on behalf of the Artist, not the Agency or the Brand.

To those of you out there who have additional opinions, lets here them.

Directors and Creatives migrate to Twitter to talk to EVERYONE

admin — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:26:30 +0000

It’s happening whether you believe it or not. The bridge to our island of Commercial Production has crossed the moat and hit land on the other side. Information is being shared with everyday people. OH MY GOD!!! SECURITY HAS BEEN BREACHED!

Hardly. Maybe even more shocking, people outside our industry care!

In an effort “to be heard” or to raise awareness, Agency Creatives from all over our industry have joined the global community of TWITTER to talk to, well, everyone. Its fantastic. I am having more meaningful conversations with the Agency world than ever before, and I have not picked up a phone to call them in over 6 months.

It is high time that the Commercial Production community starts a conversation with the world. The good news is you have a much bigger audience to talk to. The bad news is, chatting it up about kids, sales trips and the state of the business ain’t gonna cut it anymore if you want to snake that board from an A-List Director who is available.

A good friend of mine forwarded me a fantastic article on Mashable yesterday about Directors on Twitter.

I created a BIT link for this link and posted it on my Twitter feed. Check out the results:

In less than 5 hours over 5,000 people from all over the world hit this link. I would say that this is convincing evidence that the public is interested in what Directors have to say! So why aren’t more Directors talking to the public? “Because that’s just not the way we do things,” is one answer I got. “We are doing just fine,” was another answer I got.

Now all of these are Film and TV Directors, granted…..but isn’t cross pollination and raising the celebrity of Directors, of the talent you breed and cultivate what it’s all about?

Here is the main point folks: If you can gets thousands of people online to care about your Director and what he or she says then it’s gonna be alot easier to get a Creative Director’s attention.

Directors of commercials are the Film industry’s unsung heros. They bring ideas to life. Do they get credit on the Super Bowl Credits? No. Will the Agencies ever promote them? Probably not. But the Production Companies and Sales Teams can, and it just might pay off.

Does the general public know how funny Randy Krallman is? Or how Fredrik Bond’s amazing mind works? No. Do they want to know? Yes.

Sarah Gavigan » Commercial Production

Licensing music of deceased artists to Advertising; moral or not?

Directors and Creatives migrate to Twitter to talk to EVERYONE