I recently saw a study Billboard did, on products mentioned in top 20 songs over the last year....
and the top 10 was as follows -

Mercedes Benz
Nike
Cadillac
Bentley
Rolls Royce
Hennesy
Chevy
Louis Vuitton
Cristal
AK-47

The Good in selling out - You make more money, if your song is on a TV commercial, or movie, more people see / hear you..... possibly increasing sales, making you more money. You could use this money for good (donations) or to just buy you another Mercedes, Caddy, or AK 47?

The BAD - Your song you wrote about the love of your life, is now reduced to a car loving the road, or a runner loving his/her shoes. and the other negatives that can come with associating a song to a product.

The UGLY - You are no longer making art.... but instead selling shampoo.

About this list..... obviously its RnB/Rap music that fueled this.
What gets me, is the message its sending to its listeners.....
youre only cool if you have your bling bling, driving a Caddy, drinking your Hennesy, with your AK-47 in hand.....

argh, theres more i wanted to say on this topic but im having writers block.... so ill leave it open for discusion, and come back later

I don't understand how this is selling out. All accountability is on the musician choosing to use the product as a lyric, not on the manufacturer/company.

they (the artist) most likely are getting a free Caddy for mentioning Caddy... they the artist, are writing lyrics about products....

not to mention the artist could possibly even be getting money from the companies for mentioning them.....

its the new form of selling out for the next generation.....


the doors were offerend like 15million to use When the Musics Over in an apple computer commercial..... (John Densmore turned it down.... basically saying "we make music not tv commercials")

There was some debate on this issue back when Jack White decided to do Coca-Cola jingles.

I am 100% AGAINST SELLING OUT

BUT

As I read through that Jack White thing.....
If he wrote a NEW song that Coke used, and the STripes never play it.... its not selling out... not even close to selling out...

Id look at that as a side job...

It would be like if Picasso painted your neighbors house...


In the Magnet Interview EdVed did with Sleater Kinney.... he seemed to say there are certain cases where, it would be allowed... but, he added he doubted PJ would ever do it.... BUT he did try to talk SK into lending one of their songs to Ipod, or one of those things, much like U2 has done.


but again, im 100% against it.....
if a company came to me, id perhaps think about writting a jingle, and just give it to them (for a $$ price of course in which the money would go to charity) but id never allow one of the songs i pur blood sweat and heart into, to sell a pair of jeans or what not.

even with video games.... it would have to be just a straight up fun rock song, nothing with meaning.

movies.... only if the feeling ties in....
Man of the Hour is so powerful at the end of Big Fish

I think you've got this just about backwards as far as I'm concerned. First of all, while I'm not passing any judgment on it, what Jack White did by writing a song for the express purpose of its use in a commercial is the very definition of selling out. Is it artistically more honest than to sell an existing song for a commercial? I don't know, but he is now a shill for Coke.

As for the rappers being given a Cadillac for a mention in their song, I think you're totally off-base. Firstly, I doubt you have any evidence that any artist has ever been given a car (or any other product) simply for placing that product's name in the lyrics of their song. For using the product in a video, definitely, but a video is just an advertisement for a song anyway so that figures. I think that most guys singing about Caddys just wish they had one, or they love the one they do have, because it's cool, not because Cadillac paid them to endorse.

Also, if anyone can explain to me why I shouldn't move this to the Other Bands forum, I'd appreciate it.

With the exception of Chevy, these are all pretty universal signs of money and distinction, especially Cadillac, which has been considered the car to own (at least in the ghetto, but not exclusively). I don't think rappers mention this stuff b/c they're getting paid. They're mentioning these things because they want people to know they've got money.

If you want to know who sold out. Look for rappers rapping about garbage:



http://www.sixshot.com/articles/5038/

You can move it to bands.....
but its the state of the entertainment industry as a whole.

If Jack White wrote the song for coke, and someone else sings it.... he basically wrote a jingle. He wrote a song, about coke. Many song writers will write songs for other singers, for movie soundtracks, and, yes some im sure even have written songs for commercials that we dont know about.

Neil Diamond has some of his biggest chart topping hits from songs he wrote for others, Im a Believer from the Monkees comes to mind.

Now if Jack wrote a song, and coke came and said "wed like to use this" Thats a whole nother ball park. (both are selling out.... I just dont have a problem with a writer writing a jingle on the side..... Hell i wouldnt even be suprised if some song writers get into advertising after their musical lifes end.)

As for the rappers mentioning cars.
Its really got me perplexed..... Why would Rolls Royce, who wants to keep a high society profile, allow their name to be sung in ghetto gansta rap songs? Obviously, the thugs, arnt scaring away the rich, so Rolls has no problem with the free publicity. The rappers are going to drop the names of the bling that gives them street creds, so why not take the free publicity? it beats forking out the rumored 5 Mill Caddy is given Led Zeppelin for Rock n Roll (or at least 5 mill is what they offered the doors for Break On Through, in which the great drummer of the doors, Mr John Densmore turned it down, against the wishes of his other band mate Ray Manzarek.....)

But you cant tell me these rappers arnt getting some sort of kick back? or at least the rappers manegers.... someone in the rappers entourage has to be aware that THEY SHOULD BE GETTING PAID For saying the names. In which im sure some sort of agreement is made.

One thing that I really dont get though,
If I were going to allow one of my songs in a commercial, I WOULD DAMN well have my name, and name of the song, be listed somewheres during the commercial, so people at least know who it is. I think it was Celion Dion who did that, now thats a good idea if your going to do it. Im sure theres plenty of casual rock fans who here the Zeppelin song, and dont know the name of it.... there for dont know what Zeppelin album to get (or possibly not even knowing its Led Zeppelin)



and lastly..... a new form of selling out

"New CD found exclusively at Starbucks"

How much do you think these artist are getting for this deal? Im betting ALOT, because theyd easily sell more cds if the albums were available at all retail out lets. And furthermore on this subject..... I think Dylan had an album that was only at starbucks..... So Mr Dylan.... that mom and pop store thats been open since the 60's, that already was having a hard time competing with the big chains Walmart, Target and Best Buy.... now cant even sell your new album? (If it was Dylan, sorry if it wasnt Bob) So Mom and Pop store, which sold your first albums, helping make your first hundred dollars.... now has to close because Starbucks gave you a few million to let them sell your soul exclusively? (Sorry again Bob if you havnt done this, I know Alanis Morrisette did for the re-release of Jagged Lil Pill)

I agree with this. I think making your CD more difficult for your fans to obtain in order to make more cash shows disregard, even contempt, for your fans.

Mentioning consumer brands in your song hardly equates to selling out. Corporate culture and capitalism are just as much of pop culture as singing about bitches and hos.

Now if you were to accept money from a company to place a product in your movie, song, whatever, that's another thing.

First Amendment. They can't stop them.


First you ask why the companies don't stop them, and then you posit that the rappers are only saying the names to get paid? Make up your mind. The argument doesn't make sense either way though. The only logical explanation is the SIMPLEST explanation. The rappers are saying the names because they WANT to. That's it. Nothing more sinister to it.


My guess is that if you're being paid a couple million for the use of your song, you don't have a lot of bargaining power to dictate the other content of the ad. Besides, the money from the ad should cover the amount you'd make from increased exposure to sell your album.

punkdavid.. the companys can stop them... they just have to trademark the names in spoken form.

Michael Buffer has "Lets Get Ready To Rumble" trade marked, if you say that at a live event, and he finds out, HE WILL SUE YOU

Diamond Dallas Page, the professional rassler actually has a hand sign copy writted (makes a diamond shape with his hands) and is in the process of suing uummmm some rapper? JayZ i believe? who had his hands, in that same "sign" on his album cover.

TV shows are supposed to get clearence if they have a can of pepsi sitting on the shelf, or cover up the word/logos.... Just in case, the show says something bad, that pepsi doesnt agree with.

companies can, and will stop you from saying their names.
I believe Walmart actually looked at filing a lawsuit on Sheryl Crow for her song that had the line "children buying guns at walmart discount stores" But I believe they had no case, as you could indeed buy guns at walmart discount stores, BUT Walmart did pull all those albums from the shelfs.



There HAS to be something under handed going on with these car dealers though. There is something more too it... Because they could easily file a lawsuit on some songs. I would have to believe there is some song out there, that mentions "my bitches and ho's in my caddy smoking a joint on our way to get some crack cocaine....." Im sure Caddy does not enjoy being associated with such things. They could file some sort of suit.....

Ever see those disclaimers on DVDs "the opinions and statements expressed on commentaries on this dvd, are the opinions of those saying this, Sony/Columbia/Paramount/whomever are not responsible...." Well im sure Caddy/Rolls whomever could force an action to get warnings like that put on rap cds.

I would speculate that, the agreement works out like this.....
"heres your Caddy, drive it everywhere, mention us when your on TV, and well keep from suing over using our name/likeliness....." rapper gets a car, caddy gets free hype.

course then again, maybe the higher ups at Rolls and the others are afraid of getting a drive by as well? (bum bum chinggggg JOKE)


The rappers arnt saying the names to get paid.... the rappers are saying the names of the expensive items they own, to brag about their riches, about their bling, about their creds.

The reason they get away with it, is not the first amendmant.... its the evil Green Disease.....



and one last lil point i kinda got at before.
rappers / their manegers arnt stupid. Im sure they see in the news when bands like the doors or pearl jam turn down big lumps of money to companies for using a song..... You honestly think that some rapper who has a song that mentions Nike a few times.... isnt going to go to Nike and say "hey heres are song you we mention Nike in it giving you free publicity, we should work out a deal for you to use it in an adcampainge?" (If they dont they should.... And I guess one GOOD thing would come from the rap world doing this..... the advertising people, would leave CLASSIC ROCK ALONE)




one last thing..... and my ranting is done for the night
Im against selling out 100% (music is art)
and im 100% all for freedom of speach (Michael Buffer should be shot) So if a car company did sue a rapper, id take the rappers side, I simple brought all that up, to show that If Rolls/Caddy/Nike/Ak47 had an issue with Nelly/50cent/Diddy saying their names in songs.... But they would have to show how the song reflects a negative light on thier business.... because other wise the judge would simply say "Well then why did you allow Bruce Sprinstein to sing about a Pink Caddilac? or Chuck Berry sing about a Caddy in Maybellen?" (who knows, maybe the car companies have already tried and failed? or like i speculated before, maybe theyve reached that behind closed doors and under the table deal)

Oh, I didn't realize you were an intellectual property attorney. My mistake, I'll defer to you.

(you're completely wrong about this)

hahhaha, well of all people that should realize that people can stop you from usen their name, it should be fans of a band called

Mookie Blaylock..

and didnt Brad go through something similar?




and besides all the legality in that.....
as someone pointed out on a different message board i started this same topic about..... the rap world has became nothing but a product placement materalistic world. They worry more about making $$$$$ for their bling bling, then making art. which is the definition to selling out is it not? when $ dictates art.

There's a subtle difference here though. Naming a band is a trademarking issue. You are giving a name to a product or producer of a product. A name brand. Merely SPEAKING the name of a product within a work of art however is protected under the First Amendment under the highest standard of scrutiny (for artistic or political speech). Even though the art is for sale, no court will restrict the rights of the artist to say what ever he damned well wishes however he wishes. That's why you can say "President Bush can suck my cock" in a song, or even name the song itself "Wal*Mart licks the sweat off the back of a donkey's balls." Hell, you could even name your band that if you wanted to, however, you could not call your band "Wal*Mart", because the name "Wal*Mart" is trademarked, while "Wal*Mart sucks" may not be (at least not by Wal*Mart).

Do you get it?

I feel like a tool for including the "*" in the name, so as an act of protest, I have made a habit of excluding it. It can be a silent protest against their crappy products.

You raise some good/valid and I agree with you points punkdavid....

BUT theres always loopholes..

EPE (Elvis presley enterprises) has sued impersonators over name issues...
Michael Jackson has a song called D.S. that was supposedly a persons name... changed to the initials incase of a lawsuit.
And i thought I heard something about REM and a name once too?

Hell just look at the guy who broke into someones house, a planed robbery.. got attacked by the home owners dog... and bitten... the home owner wakes up, calls the cops, mans arrested....
then turns around and sues the home owner for the dog bite, AND WINS.

Lawyers will find loopholes and just wait for you to step in it....

People were using the names "Elvis" and "Presley" to name their acts. Both names are trademarked by the Presley estate.

Yes, most likely a lawsuit for libel, not for trademark infringement. And if Michael had wanted to fight it out in court, he probably would have won. It just seemed better business to settle.


That has nothing to do with trademark, copyright, or really even about lawyers. It's illegal in most places to use deadly force to protect property. If the JUDGE and/or JURY decided that the facts fit the law in that case, you can't blame the lawyer who help bring the suit.

Remember, lawyers clean up when society takes a shit on the floor. It's a dirty job, but they didn't take the shit.

haha,
If the guy didnt break in, which is illegal in the first place....
he would never have been bitten.....


The Elvis cases goes even beyond that.
http://www.elvis.com/elvisology/faq/faq.asp?qid=32
was diggin around E's site.. and found that.. notice how it emphasizes NOT an impersonator.


Has there been a settlement in the Rosa Parks vs Outkast case? Her estate sued over Outkast speaking her name in a song (believe it was called Rosa Parks too which maybe gives a little more weight)

the reality of it is..... is that the companies (Caddy/Rolls/Ford/whomever) all want their products mentioned, its free press in their minds.... and everytime 50cent has a vid where hes driven a Caddy.... its a comercial for Caddilacs that Caddy didnt have to go make/shoot/pay for.

is it the same thing as selling a song to caddy for a commercial? yes and no.



If Pearl Jam made a video for "Long Road" and it was simply them driving in a caddy across the country.... with some nice shinning shots of the Caddy... wed think it was a nice video.

If Caddy runs a commercial with a caddy driving across the country well Pearl Jams song "Long Roads" plays in the back ground... wed call them sell outs!


remember, Pearl Jam once got the Greek Theater to take down some Dodge signs... because "we didnt wanna be a fucking commercial for dodge all night"

and i think Ed Ved said that best.

this is by far the best "debate" ive ever read in this forum