Scandinavian ad men incur the wrath of Waits

I know a man whose sole purpose is to make libary music, aka, music that sounds like established artists that companies can purchase. Adverts have been using songs that sound like other songs for years and I don't really think Mr Waits has much of a case if it is not actually one of his songs and just one that sounds like him. Anyway I always thought that certain big companies just picked songs without asking the artists then paid them royalties and forcing them to accept it as they had no legal case. This might be wrong.

"Commercials are an unnatural use of my work... it's like having a cow's udder sewn to the side of my face. Painful and humiliating."

What a dude. I love Tom Waits.

This is great - we need someone like Waits to end this useless ad policy of generic background tracks.

Any musician who has been involved in these kind of shenanigans knows what a pain it is.

A story:

While in Paris a few years ago I was asked to 'compose' a piece for a Paco Rabanne advert. They gave me an American Music Club tune and said 'copy that' - I came up with a piece that was similar in style and tone but definately not a copy of said track. They liked it. They gave me money.

Two days later they changed their mind and decided they wanted me to do a copy of Nilsson's theme tune to the Midnight Cowboy movie instead.

Before I could even say Nilsson Schmilsson their ad department decided that they wanted to increase the budget ten-fold (for tax reasons!) and instead they bought the licensing rights to the original Nilsson track.

Fair enough - but lo and indeed behold for said Nilsson track was ALREADY being used in a Renault advert.

Crisis? What crisis? Their remedy to this situation was to fork out again to get Bryan Adams (Bryan Adams!) to do a generic version of the midnight cowboy theme for which he got paid a hefty sum.

The ad finally hit the screens - 15 seconds long!!! Fade as Bryan's gruff vocals come in....

In total the music budget for this 15 second ad was about the equivalent of what it cost to record, mix and master the Bloc Party LP (I'm making an educated - and conservative - guess here).

The moral of the story?

The advertising industry knows less about music than your average Pink fan.

They could have had 15 seconds of silence and no-one would have cared.

Makes you sick.

at least it wasnt for Opel Fruits....i don't think Tom Waits would have a very sweet tooth.

hmmm this is a few months old.
not to criticise of course.

Jamie

Waits has already sucessfully sued a few companies for doing this kinda thing in the past, so he does have a case, and he'll probably win it. I bet he makes more money out of this than his music. And good on him. I don't agree with the whole Bill Hicks argument against adverts, but this is clearly taking the piss.

This line is great - "Like having a cow's udder sewn to the side of my face. Painful and humiliating." Haha.

I wonder if Moby will take heed of what Tom Waits said there about his music in commercials.

"If I stole an Opel, Lancia, or Audi, put my name on it and resold it, I'd go to jail."

well, its more akin to him seeing a hip car, trying to buy one, being told it wasnt for sale and then going to go make one that looks very similar.

i hate it when intelligent people make inaccurate comparisons.

mini disc


reef

the band not the drink...


useless.... both?

and while we're at it ...

good luck to the caesars...


are ipods any good?

i have some cash and want one of the groovy mp3 gadgets...

but need advice ....

Fucking marketing/ad agencies.

I have to speak to people who work for these companies a few times a week.... it feels "like having a cow's udder sewn to the side of my face. Painful and humiliating."

Scum. Of. The. Earth.

I agree - Nestle did the same to Muse, just went ahead and used their version because the song "wasn't originally theirs"

Well, it wasn't originally theirs, it wasn't even Nina Simone's was it?

Moby's argument for letting his music be used in ads is quite convincing - it's the best way to promote his music, which isn't/wasn't the kind of thing MTV would play.

I see no difference between making money for a huge evil corporation and making money for MTV.

The only thing is, for an artist, being associated with "that song out of that ad" which sometimes is a curse (see all those bands in the ipod ads?)

I personally wouldn't let my music be used in an ad (if I made music) but it doesn't mean people who do let theirs are suckers of satan's cock. If they're already signed to a label then they already have a mouthful, so what difference does it make? It's for the artist to decide, not us.

Whose ever it was originally, they had no right to go ahead and use their version.