Are musicans sell-outs when their music is sold for commercials?

[Swede]

I can see it if your struggling,or even out of the business. But if you're a multi-millionaire, everyone knows you don't like Pepsi that much.

[MrSlayer]

1. Yes. But it's different than giving up your integrity for record sales.

As Metallica and Megadeth did. That is the unforgivable sellout.

[jandrok]

4. Hit that one outta the ballpark, ya did.......

Both those bands blew it big time. I actually tried to sit through "Some Kind of Monster" when it played on VH1 a few weeks ago, but I couldn't stomach it. Sad how far they've fallen.

[Strawman]

12. If you thought that was bad

Be glad you missed their appearance on the Jane Pauley Show on Memorial Day.

[Bob3]

2. Like everything else - it depends

Sometimes the Musicians do not have control over the use of their music in commercials - Nike using "Revolution" by the Beatles is a good example - that wasn't the Beatles that was Michael Jackson. J.C. Fogerty hated Wranger using Fortunate Sun since they only used the lines about waving the flag but he had no control - Wranger did change their sales pitch after a while.

I keep hearing Blitzkrieg Bop in commercials - I suspect that when the Ramones they signed with Sire records - Sire got the commercial rights. When your starving you don't worry about stuff like this you just want a share. Same goes for the Clash.

I don't know controls the rights to Pete Townsend and the Who's music I suspect the worst however. I just hope Keith and the Ox's estate and Daltry get some of the money

The Stones selling Start me up to Microsoft was just the Stones being greedy pig dogs. The same for Led Zepplin.

However rest assured if you ever hear a Frank Zappa tune on a commercial it has been approved by the Zappa family.

[woofless]

9. I read a quote from Pete not too long ago.

When questioned about all the Who music popping up as TV themes and on commercials he basically said (paraphrase) "I fuckin wrote 'em, I'll fuckin' do what I want with 'em."

Hard to argue with.

Woof

[MrSlayer]

10. The Stones asked for $20 million thinking they would never get it.

Actually it was 10 mil each for Mick and Keith. I guess it's hard to turn down that kind of payday even when you're worth as much as they are.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

3. Bill Hicks seemed to think so

he expressed it in his Leno piece which is goddamn hilarious.

I think good music from goods bands being used in commercials is disgusting. But I've never been a popular musician so i dont really know the conditions these things happen in.

[Maddy McCall]

5. No, because they may not be the ones doing the selling.

For example, Michael Jackson owns the Beatles' tunes...or at least most of them.

Wouldn't it be infuriating to be Paul and to see Beatles songs being played for Nike or Hummer commercials, and to have no control over it?

[peekaloo]

6. Who is getting all those residuals for the Ramones?

[ldf]

7. i can't help but grin with smug satisfaction

everytime i see/hear the cadillac commercials with the zep wailing away. it's the ultimate seal of approval.

my, how times have changed. and it is SO appropriate for us boomers.

:-)

[johnnie]

8. No

Being a songwriter I can say that if my songs appear anywhere, it's a sellout. I did OK on local radio and that's about the best I did, but I made a little cash. I write tunes for me first and secondly so people can hear them. Like anything else, you would like to be paid for your work.
There is no difference in letting your music be played to help radio ratings as in letting your music be played to help sell anything else.
In my opinion, it is not a sellout.

[kodi]

11. the artist owns the work, all we own is the the affects of it.

.