Car commercial with SRV tune, anyone angry?

So I can drive a caddy? Do I have to wear the black socks and sandals or are they optional?

I wear white socks with my sandals thank you! :P
I would love to be a happy corpse also (I love my Nephews and nieces) :D Maybe Squier will come out with the "Smokindog Memorial 51" 8) I don't mind as long as I'm really dead before they cremate me :twisted:

So I can drive a caddy? Do I have to wear the black socks and sandals or are they optional?

The black socks and sandals are optional, but you have to wear the Sansabelt slacks, preferably in a pastel color, with white shoes.

So I can drive a caddy? Do I have to wear the black socks and sandals or are they optional?

The black socks and sandals are optional, but you have to wear the Sansabelt slacks, preferably in a pastel color, with white shoes.

's after labor day, honey -- white belts (if you are sans Jaymars!) and white shoes are in the closet 'til Easter.

his brother probally needs the money :roll:

his brother probally needs the money :roll:

umm, i seriously doubt it.
Jimmys bio speaks for itself, ain't no moss growin' on that boy.

I heard a Good Season's Salad Dressing commercial once and I swear it was David Clayton Thomas singing it. (Blood, Sweat and Tears). Then there's the JCPenny commercial with the woman singing "It's all inside". Sounded like Kelly Deal to me (The Breaders).

I'd do hour long infomercials for plastic coat hangers if it paid.

I don't understand the sellout attitude about musicians, and by that I mean how if an artist of any kind sells their work, FOR MONEY, or caters their work for the audience, it's an indication of success, except for musicians. If you are in a band but you mostly play covers and don't do originals, you are a sell out, wtf, to me you are someone who's got a great job on the weekends, and if it pays well, all the merrier. Not everyone is out to create new music, some people just enjoy playing it. No matter what you do as a musician, if you can feed the kids, you are considered a sellout for one reason or another, just being signed is enough to be considered a sellout, by all those unsigned no talent hacks who haven't put in the time yet or whatever. One day I'd like to be good to get something in a car commercial.

It's a little less fortunate when the original artist is no longer in control of their work, but if it's truly the family in control that's not so bad, worse things can and do happen, there is a good chance that the publisher is in charge of making those decisions and the family might merely collect a few royalties or the situation with nirvana's music when kurt killed himself, that's all tragic, someone should write a song about it...

Edit to add: I hate commercials like anyone else, I was reading another forum talking about a recent lawsuit where someone got fined $222,000 for uploading music over kazaa and someone said msuic should be free like on the radio, which reminded me that the music on the radio is paid for by advertising... which man I hate all the constant commercials which usually don't feature music I like... so if your music is played on a radio station that earns its money via advertising, is that any different than your music being in the advertising?

so if your music is played on a radio station that earns its money via advertising, is that any different than your music being in the advertising?
In that case, it's being played just to support the advertising.

If you are in a band but you mostly play covers and don't do originals, you are a sell out, wtf, to me you are someone who's got a great job on the weekends, and if it pays well, all the merrier. Not everyone is out to create new music, some people just enjoy playing it.

It wasn't all that long that almost all musicians (even the famous ones) played only or mostly songs written by somebody else. Maybe 50 years ago or so.
I was reading another forum talking about a recent lawsuit where someone got fined $222,000 for uploading music over kazaa

I've been following some of that case and the most egregious thing to come out of it IMNSHO was the statement by a Sony BMG exec. They claim that making copies of CDs that you've bought is illegal - no making copies for the car or ripping CDs for your computer or iPod. The recording industry wants you to pay and to pay and to pay again. You bought it on vinyl, now you've bought it on CD and they want you to buy it again for your iPod (once for each member of the household) and again for the computer/digital music stereo and once again as a ring tone etc.

“When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song. [Making a copy of a purchased song is] a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'.”– Jennifer Pariser, the head of litigation for Sony BMG

I don't understand the sellout attitude about musicians, and by that I mean how if an artist of any kind sells their work, FOR MONEY, or caters their work for the audience, it's an indication of success, except for musicians.

The key to understanding that is realising that most musicians aren't artists and that most songs aren't pieces of art but products. Like bread, milk etc. On itself that's fine, as long as the people who make those products dont pretend to be artists. Nobody accuses the dude working in the local bakery of being sell-out because he doesn't pretend to do anything else. Musicians often do, and that can get annoying.

Example: if you pretend to be anti-capitalism (whatever that practically means) then don't have your songs be used in commercials. And if you do, just say that your songs are not 'from the heart' but simply fake. Like movies are fake. Again, there is nothing wrong with stuff being fake, as long as you don't pretent it's real. But when you pretend it's real you shouldn't be surprised when people get pissed off when they find out you were lying all along. People expect musicians to be artists and don't like to be disapointed. So either make art or stop calling yourself an artist, both should work.

Oh, and be sure you never pay for "art music." That keeps it "real."

That's a lame way to misrepresent my words. In a capitalistic environment it is impossible to keep financial aspects away from any aspect of society. These aspects do not, of themself, define what's art or not, nor did I say they did.

But apparantly to some people anything put in rhyme over three chords is considered art and the quality can be measured in US dollars. :roll:

It wasn't misrepresenting your words, it was sarcasm. I totally disagree with what I understood to be the theme of your remarks, though. Art does have value, and doesn't have to be "fake" to be done for profit. I don't think it's even necessarily hypocritical to protest the excesses of capitalistic society while profiting from it, though some may be hypocritical about it.

so who decides if it's art or not?

Over here in the UK, back in the 90's, Levi's ran a series of ads featuring classic hits.

I Heard It Through The Grapevine - Marvin Gaye
Wonderful World - Sam Cooke
20th Century Boy - T Rex
Should I Stay Or Should I Go - The Clash

were some of them - can't remember the others off-hand. Point is, almost without exception, the record used was re-released and got to #1 in the charts, turning a whole new generation on to these bands. In the Clash's case it was their only #1 hit - in T. Rex's case, it got higher in the charts that it did at the peak of glam-rock.

In each and every case, though, the band/artist whose music was used achieved new popularity. That can't be a bad thing, surely?

:D :D :D

Vic