i have a little bit of a beef with this...
there is an interview w/ carl newman from new pornographers on p4k right now in which he discusses the use of the NP song "bleeding heart show" in a commercial for the mostly online-only institute of higher learning (?) University of Phoenix. here is a snippet from the interview:
i find it hard to believe that the primary songwriter for a decidedly (critically) successful indie rock band would agree to license a song to a company/entity of which he knew nothing about - or would just assume that it was a university associated with the city of Phoenix. granted, the name implies that it is, but allowing someone to use your songs in a commercial, movie, television show, etc. is kind of an important decision. and even if he didn't know, it's the responsibility of the band's manager or attorney to inform him of such details...
because i work in the music industry with artists that do a fair amount of licensing, i know the rigamarol that is associated with the whole process - there is generally A LOT of paperwork and back and forth communication between the parties involved before the song actually gets used and the band gets paid. like months sometimes. it (caveat: in my experience) is not just like, someone calls you up and you say yes and don't hear about it again until voila! it's on tv - oooh, magic! you'd think that at some point in all of this someone would have been like, "hey, what exactly is this University of Phoenix all about anyway?" - right?
or am i just a paranoid control freak? eh, perhaps.
it just seems like a cop out to me. it's okay, dude! license those suckers! make some money because lord knows you're not seeing any from album sales or even digital downloads. i don't really care anymore that bands license their songs out to whomever or whatever because shit, they need to get paid. but i think pretty much everyone is over the whole "let's crap on of montreal because they let outback use their song". we get it, it's not hip or cool or indie. and while carl addresses that in the last sentence, and i know he seems to get it too, he also inadvertantly calls them out which leaves a bad taste in my mouth. le sigh.
this doesn't make me love new pornographers any less though, i just found it interesting. i wish the stigma attached to & shame cast on bands that license their music would dissipate and they wouldn't feel like they have to defend their choices to snarky music journalists and too cool for school fans. and yes, i know i've been both at some point, but i'm working on it. promise.
i find it hard to believe that the primary songwriter for a decidedly (critically) successful indie rock band would agree to license a song to a company/entity of which he knew nothing about - or would just assume that it was a university associated with the city of Phoenix. granted, the name implies that it is, but allowing someone to use your songs in a commercial, movie, television show, etc. is kind of an important decision. and even if he didn't know, it's the responsibility of the band's manager or attorney to inform him of such details...
because i work in the music industry with artists that do a fair amount of licensing, i know the rigamarol that is associated with the whole process - there is generally A LOT of paperwork and back and forth communication between the parties involved before the song actually gets used and the band gets paid. like months sometimes. it (caveat: in my experience) is not just like, someone calls you up and you say yes and don't hear about it again until voila! it's on tv - oooh, magic! you'd think that at some point in all of this someone would have been like, "hey, what exactly is this University of Phoenix all about anyway?" - right?
or am i just a paranoid control freak? eh, perhaps.
it just seems like a cop out to me. it's okay, dude! license those suckers! make some money because lord knows you're not seeing any from album sales or even digital downloads. i don't really care anymore that bands license their songs out to whomever or whatever because shit, they need to get paid. but i think pretty much everyone is over the whole "let's crap on of montreal because they let outback use their song". we get it, it's not hip or cool or indie. and while carl addresses that in the last sentence, and i know he seems to get it too, he also inadvertantly calls them out which leaves a bad taste in my mouth. le sigh.
this doesn't make me love new pornographers any less though, i just found it interesting. i wish the stigma attached to & shame cast on bands that license their music would dissipate and they wouldn't feel like they have to defend their choices to snarky music journalists and too cool for school fans. and yes, i know i've been both at some point, but i'm working on it. promise.
Labels: commerce, music, new pornograhpers, pitchfork, rant
posted by ali. at 11:57 AM
2 Comments:
I totally agree with you! When working for the A-Smith, we had a staff member whose soul job was to deal with licensing (music and logo) and no one acted without the consent of the band and therefore, each request had to be researched and presented to them. I don't know if an indie rock band has the staff like that, but you are right. They just don't get a call asking to use their music and then it magically appears. heh.
yeah, an indie rock band's "staff" for something like that is someone like me. ;)
Post a Comment
<< Home