smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "Lee Elliott" <pop@anotherplanet.ca> |
| Subject | Re: The Kinks |
| Date | Fri, 13 May 2005 11:42:45 -0400 (EDT) |
[Part 1 text/plain iso-8859-1 (1.6 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
>> Paying for the right to associate your product with something that's
>> already cool is not brilliant or original.
>>
> Have you actually seen the ads in question? Your comment assumes that
> the music itself is the best part, which couldn't be further from the
> truth.
The commercial is pretty - but maybe not a "brilliant marriage" -
associating "picture" from the song and pictures from a printer doesn't
seem like much of a stretch. And I do think the song is very important to
it's success. Kinda like a Tarantino movie.
So I guess I like it and don't like it. Like a really cool video that you
find changes the way you think about a song.
Examples - Scorcese owns the solo to "Layla" now, Tarantino owns "Stuck In
The Middle".
Got a new one last night - watching "Life Aquatic" - Bill Murray in a
firefight with "Search And Destroy" cranks was pretty fun - Wes Anderson
is almost as bad as Tarantino for enhancing his work by attaching
something that's already great - they mix the music very high in their
movies. "Making Time", "Ooh La La" book ending Rushmore to great effect.
But I guess it's better being associated with a cool scene in a movie than
a budget inkjet printer.
But always relating this issue back to sour grapes about the cash or the
'pocket band' is kinda cheap - because it's dismissive of a very real
emotional effect and only part of the issue. Like we're not allowed to
comment on it at all because a musician's livelyhood is none of our
business (which I agree with).
I admit I may not be able to argue it very well.
Lee
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.