I'll quote what I quote every time this topic comes up. Tom Waits:
"Songs carry emotional information and some transport us back to a poignant time, place or event in our lives. It's no wonder a corporation would want to hitch a ride on the spell these songs cast and encourage you to buy soft drinks, underwear or automobiles while you're in the trance. Artists who take money for ads poison and pervert their songs. It reduces them to the level of a jingle, a word that describes the sound of change in your pocket, which is what your songs become. Remember, when you sell your songs for commercials, you are selling your audience as well."
Musicians are allowed to do whatever they want, sell whatever they want to sell to whoever's willing to pay for it. But once our connections to a song are replaced with connections to some product we don't care about, is it even possible for us to still care about the song?
Some songs and memories and associations are powerful enough to stand up against a dumb ad. "London Calling" isn't any less awesome after it was used in a Jaguar ad. "Whip It" on the other will forever be associated with swiffing up dustbunnies.
"Pink Moon" may have been enhanced by that VW ad. The whole "it looks like a great party, but we'd rather stay in the car and listen to Nick Drake" punch line of the ad says more about Nick Drake than it does about the Jetta, or whatever car it was. That was a Nick Drake ad.
Zep's "Rock and Roll" went from being a badass boogie that made me think about adolescent raunch to making me think about impotent old businessmen driving around in big cars. Been a long time, indeed.
So who knows?
The solution, of course, is to just turn off the television.
Spot on, Jake. Spot on.
