BuffettNews.com

Were there any subliminal messages in there, Mermaid? Me thinks they're all smokin' something.

I am taking the 5th........ of vodka that is

I have to behave - or I tend to get in trouble... back awaaaayyyyy from the political thread.... that's it Megan.... pour another rum and coke, turn up the Buffett.... lol

mermaidindisguise wrote:I am taking the 5th........ of vodka that is

I have to behave - or I tend to get in trouble... back awaaaayyyyy from the political thread.... that's it Megan.... pour another rum and coke, turn up the Buffett.... lol

First, you wanna get naked and do shots, now you are gettting a 5th.. if I wasn't married I'd be in love.. ahh what the hell I LOVE YOU woMAN!!!

live2ski wrote:

cartmill72 wrote:

Jahfin wrote:

cartmill72 wrote:Alice Cooper?

The same Alice Cooper who's been reduced to doing commercials for an office supply company?

Move on. (oops)

I may not agree with him but doing a commercial for Staples doesn't detract from his credibility anymore than Buffett rounding up a stable of well known country stars in order to assure airplay. And yes, I like License To Chill...

I politely beg to differ. But, hey, some think the commercial is funny and cool. Maybe he'll get an MTV reality show next.

Perhaps a better analogy would be to compare Alice's appearance in the Staples commercial to Buffett's Miller Time spots from quite a few years back which I also don't think compromised his credibility. By the same token I've never been too fond of artists lending themselves (or their music) for commercial purposes. Mixing politics and music just seem to go hand and hand, all the way back to the early days of protesting folk singers of which Buffett was most definitely a part.

Jahfin wrote:By the same token I've never been too fond of artists lending themselves (or their music) for commercial purposes.

I think that happens the moment they sign a record deal and as such formally declare that their music IS a commodity.

Key Lime Lee wrote:

Jahfin wrote:By the same token I've never been too fond of artists lending themselves (or their music) for commercial purposes.

I think that happens the moment they sign a record deal and as such formally declare that their music IS a commodity.

Yes, that's true but I mean licensing your songs for use in commercials. I know I had a lot more respect for Led Zeppelin before they allowed "Rock n' Roll" to be used in those Cadillac commercials. Neil Young, R.E.M. and others have also been very outspoken about the use of their songs in commercials and they've earned my utmost respect for it. It would be much easier to give in to the obsene amounts of money they've had dangled in front of them (case in point, Bill Gates' offer to R.E.M. for the use of "It's The End Of The World As We Know It" for one of his Windows campaigns), so turn them down in the name of artistic integrity means a lot to me.

Jahfin wrote:so turn them down in the name of artistic integrity means a lot to me.

I just think that "artistic integrity" is a misnomer for any band that's financed by a major label. Once you agree to work for a major corporation/label, you've already declared that your songs are products. After that it's merely degrees of commercial.

If you decide to sign with a label you've already committed to attempting to cash in on your art. Why not cash in big?

Jahfin wrote:

Key Lime Lee wrote:

Jahfin wrote:By the same token I've never been too fond of artists lending themselves (or their music) for commercial purposes.

I think that happens the moment they sign a record deal and as such formally declare that their music IS a commodity.

Yes, that's true but I mean licensing your songs for use in commercials. I know I had a lot more respect for Led Zeppelin before they allowed "Rock n' Roll" to be used in those Cadillac commercials. Neil Young, R.E.M. and others have also been very outspoken about the use of their songs in commercials and they've earned my utmost respect for it. It would be much easier to give in to the obsene amounts of money they've had dangled in front of them (case in point, Bill Gates' offer to R.E.M. for the use of "It's The End Of The World As We Know It" for one of his Windows campaigns), so turn them down in the name of artistic integrity means a lot to me.

Can R.E.M. really be mentioned in the same sentence as Zed Zeppelin and Dylan?

live2ski wrote:
Can R.E.M. really be mentioned in the same sentence as Zed Zeppelin and Dylan?

Absolutely.

Key Lime Lee wrote:

live2ski wrote:
Can R.E.M. really be mentioned in the same sentence as Zed Zeppelin and Dylan?

Absolutely.

Back to the "day the music died" thread. I always get them confused with INXS. Is there a difference?

live2ski wrote:

Jahfin wrote:

Key Lime Lee wrote:

Jahfin wrote:By the same token I've never been too fond of artists lending themselves (or their music) for commercial purposes.

I think that happens the moment they sign a record deal and as such formally declare that their music IS a commodity.

Yes, that's true but I mean licensing your songs for use in commercials. I know I had a lot more respect for Led Zeppelin before they allowed "Rock n' Roll" to be used in those Cadillac commercials. Neil Young, R.E.M. and others have also been very outspoken about the use of their songs in commercials and they've earned my utmost respect for it. It would be much easier to give in to the obsene amounts of money they've had dangled in front of them (case in point, Bill Gates' offer to R.E.M. for the use of "It's The End Of The World As We Know It" for one of his Windows campaigns), so turn them down in the name of artistic integrity means a lot to me.

Can R.E.M. really be mentioned in the same sentence as Zed Zeppelin and Dylan?

Don't forget, Dylan sold out to Vickie's (in the grossest VS commercial in history, IMHO).

live2ski wrote:

Key Lime Lee wrote:

live2ski wrote:
Can R.E.M. really be mentioned in the same sentence as Zed Zeppelin and Dylan?

Absolutely.

Back to the "day the music died" thread. I always get them confused with INXS. Is there a difference?

INXS was a decent band... their live show was amazing, but musically they were just okay.

REM was great musically - innovative in numerous ways in their writing and arranging. Michael Stipe is a brilliant lyricist. Plus REM was a real believer in building a following in a grass roots way - in many ways one has to wonder if Dave Matthews simply stole a page out of the REM instruction book.

Key Lime Lee wrote:

live2ski wrote:

Key Lime Lee wrote:

live2ski wrote:
Can R.E.M. really be mentioned in the same sentence as Zed Zeppelin and Dylan?

Absolutely.

Back to the "day the music died" thread. I always get them confused with INXS. Is there a difference?

INXS was a decent band... their live show was amazing, but musically they were just okay.

REM was great musically - innovative in numerous ways in their writing and arranging. Michael Stipe is a brilliant lyricist. Plus REM was a real believer in building a following in a grass roots way - in many ways one has to wonder if Dave Matthews simply stole a page out of the REM instruction book.

But in 20 years will anyone really consider REM a legendary band. I say no.

Key Lime Lee wrote:

Jahfin wrote:so turn them down in the name of artistic integrity means a lot to me.

I just think that "artistic integrity" is a misnomer for any band that's financed by a major label. Once you agree to work for a major corporation/label, you've already declared that your songs are products. After that it's merely degrees of commercial.

If you decide to sign with a label you've already committed to attempting to cash in on your art. Why not cash in big?

To me, there's a difference between signing a record deal in order to get your music out there and compromising your principles in order to receive wider exposure. These days it's kind of a double-edged sword since it's often times the only way to get your music heard by a wider audience (witness the use of a Richard Buckner song in a Volkswagen commercial).

live2ski wrote:

Jahfin wrote:

Key Lime Lee wrote:

Jahfin wrote:By the same token I've never been too fond of artists lending themselves (or their music) for commercial purposes.

I think that happens the moment they sign a record deal and as such formally declare that their music IS a commodity.

Yes, that's true but I mean licensing your songs for use in commercials. I know I had a lot more respect for Led Zeppelin before they allowed "Rock n' Roll" to be used in those Cadillac commercials. Neil Young, R.E.M. and others have also been very outspoken about the use of their songs in commercials and they've earned my utmost respect for it. It would be much easier to give in to the obsene amounts of money they've had dangled in front of them (case in point, Bill Gates' offer to R.E.M. for the use of "It's The End Of The World As We Know It" for one of his Windows campaigns), so turn them down in the name of artistic integrity means a lot to me.

Can R.E.M. really be mentioned in the same sentence as Zed Zeppelin and Dylan?

That's a matter of opinion, my point isn't whether they deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as Zeppelin (I never mentioned Bob Dylan but I did list Neil Young), it's a matter of standing by your principles by not allowing your songs to be used in commercials.

live2ski wrote:But in 20 years will anyone really consider REM a legendary band. I say no.

I think it depends who you ask.... if you ask the average music fan, probably not. If you ask a bunch of musicians, probably yes.

live2ski wrote:

Key Lime Lee wrote:

live2ski wrote:
Can R.E.M. really be mentioned in the same sentence as Zed Zeppelin and Dylan?

Absolutely.

Back to the "day the music died" thread. I always get them confused with INXS. Is there a difference?

There's a huge difference. About the only thing they have in common is being considered a "new wave" band back in the 80s.

live2ski wrote:

Key Lime Lee wrote:

live2ski wrote:

Key Lime Lee wrote:

live2ski wrote:
Can R.E.M. really be mentioned in the same sentence as Zed Zeppelin and Dylan?

Absolutely.

Back to the "day the music died" thread. I always get them confused with INXS. Is there a difference?

INXS was a decent band... their live show was amazing, but musically they were just okay.

REM was great musically - innovative in numerous ways in their writing and arranging. Michael Stipe is a brilliant lyricist. Plus REM was a real believer in building a following in a grass roots way - in many ways one has to wonder if Dave Matthews simply stole a page out of the REM instruction book.

But in 20 years will anyone really consider REM a legendary band. I say no.

Considering it's already been over 20 years since they formed and they're still being talked about, I'd say yes. Rather unwittingly they paved the way for what would later become known as alternative music which opened the doors for a lot of bands that chose to "do it their own way" rather than falling prey to the machinations of the major labels' way of doing things.