fredthe3rd wrote:

---

No! He sings about James Blunt Running The World but advertises BT and Reebok! Hmmpth!

---

I don't think it's really too bad for celebrities to be used in adverts (one of the perks of being famous I suppose) and everyone needs money at the end of the day so why shouldn't you get paid for appearing on an advert for a few seconds? after all I suppose it's good publicity.

anyway could be worse - look at what poor Iggy Pop is doing now

This is why Russell left the band.

Pye wrote:

---

i think this is from 1996, the natwest one was from around 98, it was a cartoon of him, in his hardcore era spex. i can remember reading he hasn't happy about it. The BT one, he was hanging from a lamp post, this was around 2000 i think. I can also seem to remember reading that he was in the BT advert because it was made by someone who directed some of pulps music videos (hammer and tongs or something??) and it was a favour.

I don't see an issue with artists being in adverts. To me its just the same as being in a music video and as well as letting companies use their music in adverts and so on. Its their music, they are their own people and they can do what they want. I like it when pulp/ jarvis are on TV. Everyone will have their own views on this though...

Maybe the reason why he was in the reebok advert is i think reebok sponsored a charity football match that Jarvis played in in the 90s.

I could be wrong though.

---

He also said at the time (although I have no source for this) that doing the BT advert paid for his flat in Paris.

thomas_bland wrote:

---

Pye wrote:

---

i think this is from 1996, the natwest one was from around 98, it was a cartoon of him, in his hardcore era spex. i can remember reading he hasn't happy about it. The BT one, he was hanging from a lamp post, this was around 2000 i think. I can also seem to remember reading that he was in the BT advert because it was made by someone who directed some of pulps music videos (hammer and tongs or something??) and it was a favour.

I don't see an issue with artists being in adverts. To me its just the same as being in a music video and as well as letting companies use their music in adverts and so on. Its their music, they are their own people and they can do what they want. I like it when pulp/ jarvis are on TV. Everyone will have their own views on this though...

Maybe the reason why he was in the reebok advert is i think reebok sponsored a charity football match that Jarvis played in in the 90s.

I could be wrong though.

---

 

He also said at the time (although I have no source for this) that doing the BT advert paid for his flat in Paris.

---

 Im in the wrong job then!

caetano wrote:

He's working with Michel Gondry and I'm genuinely excited about that one.

 Yeah I saw that the other day. (https://trainstorming.staging8.com/), seems like they're just making an advert though

I just feel that licensing cheapens the music. What was once an expression of art just becomes devalued when it's used as a background soundtrack for pushing useless product onto a mass audience. It's heartbreaking when you can't listen to a song that had a real personal impact on you without thinking of Toyota Corolla or Depend Adult Undergarments or whatever. Or that someone you really admired is suddenly more concerned about pimping his own image and making a quick buck than about the music. Whatever money you'd make, whatever commercial exposure you'd aquire wouldn't outweigh the respect you lost from your devoted fanbase.

Um. Anywaaaayyy..  Although the Russell remark was a joke (didn't mean to offend!) it might not be such a stretch. After all, he said in that Guardian article a few years back that one of the reasons he left the group was because it became all about the "gold discs, condos, famous mates and people whose reality comes from cocaine, telling you you're great, night after night," and that he felt revulsion that one of the last shows he played was some "corporate gig playing for bored executives." It suddenly wasn't about the Common People anymore. Even Jarvis expressed regret in later interviews about how he became such a ubiquitous media darling during the D/C years. I wonder what he would think of this nowadays...

Holden wrote:

---

I just feel that licensing cheapens the music. What was once an expression of art just becomes devalued when it's used as a background soundtrack for pushing useless product onto a mass audience. It's heartbreaking when you can't listen to a song that had a real personal impact on you without thinking of Toyota Corolla or Depend Adult Undergarments or whatever. Or that someone you really admired is suddenly more concerned about pimping his own image and making a quick buck than about the music. Whatever money you'd make, whatever commercial exposure you'd aquire wouldn't outweigh the respect you lost from your devoted fanbase.

---

I'm not discounting your opinion, but I disagree that licensing necessarily equals cheapened/devalued music; I try to look at things from the other perspective.  Artists should and probably do consider fans' opinions when they decide whether to license their music, but it seems like it's getting increasingly difficult for bands to survive these days (with the slow death of retail, radio, sonic quality, etc.), and licensing allows a band/artist the opportunity to support themselves just a little bit longer and maybe even increase their fanbase.  Just because they are creating art doesn't mean they don't still have to consider how to support themselves and their families.  If a song means something to me, I try not to let other people's opinions on that song and/or other uses of that song affect how I feel about it, it's still the same song, and whatever memories or emotions it evoked in me are still there (hopefully)--I will admit to feeling some brief pangs of pain from hearing some meaningful tracks used in questionable ways in the media, but I haven't yet heard the use that ultimately devalues a song to me.  Most musicians' careers are very short in relation to the years of struggle they often have to endure, and if they can make some money in that short period (in my opinion only endorsing products they personally believe in) to extend their careers for however long they can survive, I think it's great. 

I choose to believe that Russell left the band because "it wasn't creatively rewarding".  I'm sure it was very trying to be around Jarvis and his antics back then, especially for someone like Russell, but you're always going to be annoyed by people around you if you're around them long enough.  I'll leave it at that before I get all philosophical...