"Some people still believe that music is worth something by itself."

[dickmalone.livejournal.com]

Gawker is shocked, shocked, that Wrigley's sponsored Chris Brown's new song.

This is not about a naive belief that pop music is untainted by any commercial concerns. This is about the simple desire to be able to listen to any new music and be secure in the knowledge that it's not an undercover ad. They come for the bad pop music first. Then they come for the music that you like. You think that your favorite indie bands and underground rappers won't be subjected to this same tactic as soon as it proves successful? Ha. This is one tactic that just can't be justified. At least tell us we're being sold to, you shameless, soulless corporate apologists. Some people still believe that music is worth something by itself.

Thoughts?

Comments

[skyecaptain.livejournal.com]

I'm more surprised that they didn't get the MASSIVE PRESS RELEASE about this. It wasn't "undercover" at all! I read about it in the Washington Post like two months ago or something.

[dickmalone.livejournal.com]

Yeah, between this and the britticisms thing, I'm getting a little sick of uninformed people getting self-righteous about music.

[skyecaptain.livejournal.com]

"Music is worth something by itself" -- making its own vague argument since...I dunno, a long time ago.

Oh wait...

[skyecaptain.livejournal.com]

...This WAS about the massive press release (not two months ago, but Jul 28: here's the Wall Street Journal's regurgitation (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121721123435289073.html?mod=2_1567_topbox). GAWKER PARTICIPATES IN INSIDIOUS MAINSTREAM MEDIA CONSPIRACY TO SELL THE SAME NEWS AS EVERYONE ELSE WHILST MAKING ADVERTISING REVENUES!

[skyecaptain.livejournal.com]

Anyway, what happened to the Corporations Are the New Patrons argument that was starting to gain some steam around the time LCD Soundsystem did its Nike mix?

[alexmacpherson.livejournal.com]

UGHHHH lj ate my post. HATE. will respond when have finished smashing computer up.

[koganbot]

I liked the comment that went: "Remember when all Wrigley did was slap their name on some stadium in Chicago?"

But anyway, years ago there was that Steve Winwood song "Back In The Highlife" or whatever it was called, and years before back in 1972 there was "I'd Like To Teach The World To Sing" which was a Coca-Cola ad with slightly different lyrics (slightly different from the Coca-Cola ad, that is).

But the fact it's been done before doesn't mean (a) it's not being done more now, and (b) it has no effect on music. So the question would be:

(a) Is it being done more now?
(b) What is its effect on the form and content of music and how people use it, and whether the music is good or not?

The problem with this piece, as with so much criticism, is it substitutes a (rudimentary) discussion of how the music is made and who makes it for a discussion of what the music is and does and how the audience uses it. Not that the former is unconnected to the latter, but basically if you can't talk about the latter - the music and what it does - there's no point in talking about the former, since it's only the latter that makes the former matter.

Sorry, I meant to include this question in my previous post

[koganbot]

So, what would "Disturbia" be an ad for?

Re: Sorry, I meant to include this question in my previous post

[dickmalone.livejournal.com]

Circuit City, judging by their ads.

Re: Sorry, I meant to include this question in my previous post

[koganbot]

Yikes, you're right! I had no idea.

I am also known as Dickdogfood sometimes.

[epicharmus.livejournal.com]

Hi there.