Music and Advertising

Recently, it is more dificult to find a commercial without music in the background, and the partnership between advertisement and musician has been becoming more important.
Quite honesly,  I had never asked myself why it was so important, because it was so natural to me to have a commercial with the famous musician's music. However, if I re-think about it, this is a very effective and successful partnership for both advertisements and musicians because they help each other to make profits very well.

First of all, the musicians including songwriter and music publisher get paid from advertsing agency to give the right to use the music. According to this site, "Licensing Hit Songs For Advertisng Commercials" (http://www.ascap.com/Home/Music-Career/articles-advice/ascapcorner/corner14.aspx), fees paid to the songwriter and music publisher can range from over $1,000,000 for a major advertisements and product to $10,000 for the smaller or local campaign.The important thing to note here is that copyright ownership of the song will never be lost for the musicans. It will stay with the musicans, which means that it will never be transferred to the advertising agency. Therefore, this is a very good way to get paid for the musicians, because they only gain without losing anything.

Secondly, according to Hurton (1989), there are 6 basic ways in which music can contriibute to an effective broadcast advertisments:1) entertainment, 2)structure/continuity, 3)memorability 4) lyrical language 5)targeting, and 6)authorty establishing. (http://csml.som.ohio-state.edu/Huron/Publications/huron.advertising.text.html). Because of these factors, music helps advertisments to be more effective, and it becomes more approaching to the audeinces. Music helps to stuck the advertisements in our head, and that is what advertising agencies want. If the music is catchy and get attention from the audiences, it automatically leads to the audences' attention to the advertisements and its products. 

Finally, the commericals are advertisements of music as well. It's always possible that people get to know and become more intersted in the songs by watching the advertisements. People listen to the part of the song in the advertisement, start searching about the song, and possibly buy the song. This leads to make even more profit for the musicians.

Especially recently, the information about both advertisments and songs spreaded very fast and easily by use of technology. For example, this website "Best Ad Song of 2010" (http://adage.com/article/special-report-the-book-of-tens-2010/ad-songs-2010-vampire-weekend-black-sheep/147593/) features both the songs and commercials from 2010. People can get to know about what songs were used in which commercial at the same time, this kind of information is very helpful for both musicians and advertising agencies. Additionally, because it is possible to watch and update video more easily on the internet recently, both musicans and advertising agencies get "free advertising" by the audiences if they get passonate fans

Who Would Have Thought That the Unheard Name of Danger Mouse had a connection to Modern Names like Girl Talk and Super Smash Bro's

Articles like the one we read on the emergence of a group like Danger Mouse and their album The Grey Album have a lot of importance to what we see in the current music industry. First of all, it is important to note that the ability to create digital copies of tracks and then share them over the Internet or file sharing services, have reshaped not only the music industry but all of the Internet. It seems that Danger Mouse was a pioneer of their time.

It comes back to the idea in media that the limits can only be pushed so far. BUT once this limit is pushed someone is able to come along and take it to a new level that will not be questioned. A large part of this is that technology is creating entirely new outlets for sharing and distributing these forms of media. The important part of this is that it creates competition. When competition is created the large media conglomerates have to push the envelope themselves to keep their status.

Music groups that existed like Danger Mouse were large factors in making what we have today legal. In the case of The Grey Album the artist only mixed two popular artists' music together to create this masterpiece that was a mix between the work of Jay-Z and the Beatles. Due to modern technology and the loosening of legal stipulations groups like Girl Talk and the Super Smash Brothers are now even able to make a profit creating musical music consisting of hundreds of musicians original music on their mixes.

http://illegal-art.net/girltalk/ is a link to a website that as they say have been pushing the limits of legal music for over a decade now. This is a group that has been very successful and groups like Danger Mouse and ALSO Technology have made this possible. The Internet and file sharing has created worries but also comfort for those creating and "acquiring" music off of the Internet. I think most of the problem that is seen with toady's society is that people honestly do not know what is legal and what is not. The idea that I am creating is that the issues that have come from the music industry is a lack of information. With more transparent and clear cut laws and expectations I think that the music industry would be more stable but until then, I expect there to be a large amount of controversy.

A Partnership Destined for Success

Music is a media industry that has experienced a significant amount of change over the past ten years. With this change has come the creativity of musicians to get their songs out to the public and hope for a large enough ‘buzz’ to generate revenue (the ultimate goal). Thus the economic condition and desire to sell songs has lead musicians to creating partnerships with advertisers. Through licensing music to advertisers, musicians are able to make a profit off select songs and advertisers are able to have a ‘catchy’ tune to help attract viewers to watch their commercial.

This partnership is incredibly useful for both parties and helps with the exhibition and distribution practices for both the advertisers goods and the musician’s music. Especially because with audiences ability to fast forward through commericals, pressure rises for advertisers to create attractive commericals. Popular music helps to catch the attention of the audience. Additionally, the two work together to create a commercial with music appropriate for the target audience/consumer in hopes of both the product and music being purchased. Finally, this partnership helps musicians enter further into the television industry, developing a new form of distribution.

"The Grey Album" is not so Black and White.

On first thought about copyright laws, it seems difficult to blame the music industry entirely for raising trouble about the legality of certain sample/mash-up projects. After all, the industry is concerned about their well-being, and this is very much dependent upon the profit they receive from the "traditional" manner of distributing music: selling it to consumers who pay to receive it. If obtaining music were still as simple as buying and selling cd's, there would not be much of a problem. The music industry would simply sell what it owns, turn over a cut of the intake to the recording artist, and retain a profit for themselves. The economic drive behind copyright laws is certainly present; by preserving the media content for their use and distribution, the music industry is ensuring its continued success and profit as sole provider of this content to the public.

Similarly, the music industry has a logical argument; they have cultivated a relationship with an artist who, in turn, trusts them with the distribution of their media and receives a nice cut of all the profits. It seems to be a win-win situation for the artist and the industry producers. Copyright laws seem to protect this system; if something belongs to one, another must ask permission before they take it or use it. Any college student with a roommate, or even a kindergartner with a marker, understands the basic premise of sharing. When working with a more complicated content like music, where the nature of the "ownership" can easily be taken away by copying, copyright laws make sense to hold off prohibited copying or sharing.

The side of producers might be the clearest point in the entire debate about sampling and mash-ups. Unfortunately, the music industry as a whole is not so simple. Like Danger Mouse proved in the debacle over "The Grey Album," life isn't always so black and white (the pun is definitely intended). This controversy about "The Grey Album" is certainly a strong example of the tension between record producers, or those who own the rights to the music, and artists who want to make a new creation with pre-existing materials. As it comes down to it, I believe that DJ Danger Mouse technically violated copyright codes, but he also actively complied with EMI's cease and desist orders.

Picture HERE

The real issue in this situation came from the public who already had access to media content that they loved, and could spread it around the world without ceasing. To them, the album wasn't just the center of a particular lawsuit, but was representative of the freedom to creatively act in the music industry and continue to enjoy the gift of music left by The Beatles.

In the video spotlighting the issue of copyrighting as related to "Girl Talk," DJ Spooky made a powerful point about the use of media as creating the culture we live in. In a paraphrase, DJ Spooky noted that society "will use the media around us," as we live in a "media cloud." Whether we like it or not, we are exposed to this content and it will come into play in the way we live our lives and express ourselves. According to Spooky, "we create a culture from media, and so their has to be an exchange," between producers and consumers. There must be a place for this kind of artistic, cultural creation to come to fruition. If artists are truly creating music for the purpose of fulfilling a passion and contributing to the cultural scene we create, the use of that content shouldn't be limited to solely making a profit for a producer.

There is clearly no excuse for maliciously stealing another's work and using it to further one's own name or wealth. Also, the rights of producers need to be considered and not stomped upon. However, in the case of "The Grey Album" and so many others in the genre of samples/mash-ups, intentions are not to be malicious, but to further the original contribution of the artist in a way that adds to the culture of our time. It is time for a reconsideration of the intentions and legitimacy of copyright laws, so the media industry can arrive at a place where the rights of all artists and producers are heard.

Artistic Expression Versus Copyright Laws: The Debate Surrounding DJ Danger Mouse’s Grey Album

As the mash-up has become one of the most popular forms of music in the past few years, thanks to artists such as Girl Talk, Super Smash Bros., Norwegian Recycling, etc., the issues surrounding the legality of this type of musical expression have gained attention throughout the years. We can see this in the example of DJ Danger Mouse’s mash-up creation of Jay-Z’s Black Album and The Beatles’ White Album. The issue that is debated in this article centers upon the opposition that exists between musical corporations, such as EMI, and the musical artists who utilize sampling as a creative means of production.

As we learned from Havens and Lotz, it is not uncustomary for the “big-wigs” of corporate America to restrain technological developments in order to maintain power, both economic and social. This was done with radio when FM technologies began to achieve new heights (Havens & Lotz). In my eyes, the primary reason for this opposition to such developments comes from an economic perspective: why spend money in an industry that is continually evolving? Would this not result in excess spending for years to come, if not forever? Socially, however, it seems that these corporations are simply stifling such forms of artistic expression, such as The Grey Album, in order to maintain their power. We can see this especially in the note that Capitol Records sent to many of the individuals who participated in Grey Tuesday, in which they “’demand[ed’” (151) that these participants contact the corporations immediately.

Should these corporations not be more concerned with the ways in which sampling could benefit them economically if they are so concerned with maintaining such a position of power? As was noted by the executive director of Creative Commons, Glenn Otis Brown: “’Why not just sign the guy…and have everybody make a bunch off of it?”’ (154). The Grey Album was not being used for commercial purposes to begin with, so in that sense, this production should have been untouchable to EMI. How is one to consider projects such as these as “copyright infringement” if the works are not meant to make a profit off of? It seems that, as noted in this article, the corporations are simply taking such drastic action in order to censor and stifle artistic expression in order to assure themselves that the power they have is not being taken by everyday DJ’s and musical artists, or even simple members of the general public.