|
|
"For the record, it was Moby's decision to allow his music in advertisements, and he should be held accountable for that. Not everyone has a positive view of pre-existing music being used in advertisements, and the reasons for being against that sort of thing doesn't have much to do with taste elitism".
What are the reasons? As for not everyone having a positive view of it, I would say me least of all, since I happen to pay my rent and feed my family by composing applied music, and the best paid gigs are adverts, against which I have absolutely no prejudice whatsoever.
I wouldn't do a gig for landmines (depending on the fee, natch), but ads in themselves, so what? Faithless carting a van around to agencies playing their latest unreleased album on a sympathetic system with a biro and contracts ready to follow suit a la Moby is the hard end of cynicism and exploitation, but I very much doubt that this is how the Moby treacks were placed. He had a zeitgeist sound that happened to appeal to a bunch of mooks who wanted to flog stuff and considered his sound to perfectly fit their demographic (maaaaan). He took the lucre and had a hit album to boot.
More power to the man.
My objection is with the 'good he got a kicking' attitude, nothing else. |
|
|