=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
Merrick....
Log In to post a reply
79 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Merrick
Merrick
2148 posts

Re: Merrick....
Nov 07, 2005, 20:39
Sorry, yeah I haven't actually explained what I disagreed with"

I think you misunderstand; the 'what he didn't say' referred to you banning people for disagreeing with me.

Anyway, let's deal with what you raise, let's talk about something rather than talking about talking about something.

"someone over on Unsung recently accused Joanna Newsom of 'sucking corporate cock' for allowing her music to be used"

Certainly, there are shades to it. Like I said in the piece, Cope's offer must've been darn tempting for someone with his creative suprlus but lack of financial security. Ditto Joanna Newsom. Even Hicks said 'if you're a struggling actor well I'll look the other way'.

But with people like Eno, or Paul McCartney, or Paul Simon, they certainly have got enough money to get them through the next couple of years, and the rest of their lives, and their families too.

"With the Eno ad I suppose it's different, I can't really see any justification other than maybe he genuinely liked the film."

There is then the little 10 second version that Orange use, just the music voiceover and logo; the original being so striking as to make them get the same value from this edited version, one with no artisitic merit at all.

"a beautiful and poigniant short film that ends with an Orange logo" let's not kid ourselves it's Orange sponsoring an exhibition or something. It's a carefully worked out advertising strategy that maximises their sales.

"I personally don't think that's really selling out; it's getting value for her art"

No, it's getting *more money* for her art.

Now a struggling artist like her has a stronger case for making more money. But in taking the Orange money, she becomes a musician who is also a salesperson for consumer goods.

" I think it's easy to forget the art and creative energies exercised in creating the film that the music accompanies. "

With consumer-capitalism being the dominant power, it's also the one that hires many of the most interesting creative minds, just as absolute monarchs would hire the great composers.

But those who did write to please the king ,or these days do it to please the corporation's publicity department, abdicate much of their worth as artists. They get to make stuff they'd never otherwise have made, but much of the meaning is hollowed out as it has to fit the brief of the admen.

"Also, I'm not sure what in the context of the article one would make of allowing music to appear on a film soundtrack, something I'm fairly sure Eno has done in the past "

yeah - Deep Blue Day in the toilet scene in Trainspotting for one. Films are different. They are made by the film companies but they are not adverts for them, in the same way that Julian recorded for Island but Jehovahkill is not an Island advert.

Films are a piece of art in their own right. To allow your music in is to condone the art of the film; it is somewhere between endorsing an artist and collaborating with them. I'd rate it like letting your work be sampled.

That's very different to letting it be used by people whose sole objective is to provoke emotional responses simply to get your money off you.

"personally I have more of a bee in my bonnet about the imperial-style arrogance of the BBC having the 'right' to use any music for any purpose they see fit than anything else discussed in this article & subsequent thread."

Yep, in a fair world getting your tune used for a highlights package should certainly require the same level of permission as getting it used for an ad or a film. With you there.
In reply to:
Re: Merrick.... (Holy McGrail)
Topic Outline:
U-Know! Forum Index