At regular intervals, as I amble through the hours, I hear Buddy Holly singing “Everyday”, and I feel happy because it conjures memories of long-gone inept delight, and being young and about as innocent as I would ever be. But then I cease to be happy because I realize that the song is coming from the TV. It’s the music to a goddamned Blackberry commercial that’s in heavy rotation. Just to make matters worse there’s a thrash style version of “Everyday” in another commercial, but I have yet to ascertain what it’s selling. To complain about the songs we fell in love to being used as TV commercials is hardly original, but in the case of Buddy Holly, it’s a little different. Buddy Holly is fucking dead. If Bob or Pete or Iggy or Brain Wilson want their songs used to hawk automobiles, lingerie, insurance, or a sea cruise, that’s their decision, and we can judge them accordingly. Buddy Holly has no such choice and no such protection from crass exploitation. But that’s not all. A long time ago, no less than Paul McCartney would claim to be providing that protection. Back in the 20th century, I went to a press conference in London, at which Fab Sir Paul announced he had purchased the entire Holly song catalogue, and although he freely admitted he would make a whole lotta change off the deal, he also pledged to protect the material from corporate exploitation such as it’s use in commercials. Seemingly this is no longer so. In this brave new world, such promises are naïve and easily forgotten. A shame really, because now I’m going to have to spend my old age pissing on McCartney’s grave.
Click here for Buddy
.JPG)
4 comments:
I know, Mick. I saw that commercial too and it made me very very angry.
If I believed in hell, I would be convinced that McCartney has already earned a special place.
I totally agree with the unfairness of dead men not being able to make decisions. Younger bands these days haven't got the same concept of "selling out" any more. I remember the post-punk manchester indie-dance scene of the late 80's-early 90's. If a band put out a re-release of a poorly selling album with their hit single now on it, then that was it, their cool had been blown.
Now you get bands using ads as a way to get started. When did that all change?? Can't blame them they got to pay the bills and feed the kids. But yeah, Buddy can't say one way or the other. And surely Macca's not short of a quid or two. Ramble over, John Banks
I concurrrrr. But, the problem lies deeper than on Pauli's shoulders.
considering CD sales have gone down the tubes how else do you think people will make money out of the back catalogue ?
does it matter whether it is pressed in plastic or selling a product, the work is getting an airing, some people will hear it for the first time, your nostalgia will be inflicted on another generation and your bragging rights get a new lease of life
Post a Comment