They are arguing on Paperlate again....well....still...I guess is the right word. They argue about anything and everything pretty much all the time over there. The latest thing is whether or not an artist is invalidating his or her work by allowing a song to be used in a commercial. One of the examples given was "True Colors" by Cyndi Lauper. When you hear that song, do you think of her (or Phil Collins who covered the song a few years later) or do you think of Kodak? When you hear "Like a Rock" do you think of Bob Seger or Ford trucks? (Or is is Chevy? lol) Anyway, the latest thing is that Peter Gabriel has "allowed" or "sold" a couple of his songs to be used in sports and commercials. When you see a Cingular ad on tv, it's most likely playing "Solsbury Hill." When you hear ads for WWF (which I know some of you LOVE), you'll be hearing one of his tunes-Big Time I think-I've forgotten now. They used Sledgehammer a while back for something else. The argument over there is whether or not an artist is basically selling his soul when they give it up to a commercial venture or is it just a way for an artist to get his/her music out there. IMHO, in each of these cases, it has to be a sellout. Those songs have been around forever. Everyone knows who Peter Gabriel is, the question is why is he doing this. Or perhaps, to be fair, is this song so old that it's considered in the public domain? I still think you have to pay royalties somewhere to someone for a song. It's a bit degrading or something when you think about it. And usually something that only "new" artists do. Well like I said, they are all arguing over this and of course, none of it matters in the scheme of things. But Brooksey (who's English, living in France) posted this website for our enjoyment and I thought I'd pass it along. My rant's over, now read this guy's.
http://www.barrybeelzebub.co.uk/