I agree with Holden's comment. Definitely makes me feel a bit pimped out hearing one of my favourite songs used in an ad. Even worse, seeing someone you respect and admire appear in person in an ad. Although I will forgive Jarvis almost anything, and maybe it's easier to hold a strong moral stance on the issue when it's highly unlikely you're ever gonna be approached with such an offer yourself.

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... 

"and that he felt revulsion that one of the last shows he played was some "corporate gig playing for bored executives.""

Details Date: 24 August 1996 Event: Holsten Pils Concert (private event) Venue: Teatre Grec Ampitheatre Location: Barcelona
Other band: Leftfield

Eek!

I never had a problem with Jarvis advertising the things he advertises. I think his approach was like that of John Peel - "I'd never advertise anything I don't use myself".

Plus I quite like Johnny Rotten's butter adverts. He's still irreverant and as much as a ridiculous characature as he ever was. That said, the Iggy Pop ones make me wince. Especially given the fact that Swiftcover won't actually insure musicians!!

I don't mind the Iggy ones really... surely it was a lower point for his dignity in 1974 or whenever when he was living rough on Sunset Boulevard in a pool of his own puke?