Using An Artist's Music In Advertising

In addition, Stacia Coates quotes “For years, they’ve allowed corporations to use their music in advertisements for cars, electronics, and jeans, among many other goods.” This shows, that Black Eye Peas just kept on doing many contract with endorsement to get well known and more money. Another, Coates quotes “At times, it’s not only necessary, but a smart way to make it in today’s music business.” Coates states that it’s better if they don’t decline offers when it comes to commercial advertise because they miss a great deal. Thus, my beliefs that performer should advertise by gaining

Advertising appeals to emotions, rather than reason. Most ads try to attract your interest or stimulate your desire by either scaring you into doing something or appeal to your emotions by tying a product to your “happiness or well-being”. Successful ads also use compelling visuals to entice the audience into action. Many also use celebrities because research shows we are more likely to associate truthfulness with a known celebrity figure.

Many artists and record companies do not think that it is a good thing to have their music available for free because they feel that they will lose a lot of money. The thing that they need to realize is that technology is only going to get better and they need to use it

This amendment gives people the right to voice their opinion and speak out in what they do and do not believe in and gives them the right to express themselves. Expression equals art and there is no question that music is an art form. The act of censoring music is the same as if we told Picasso what colors he could or could not use.

Furthermore, various songs are specifically written with certain intentions and nuances to express the artist’s values and beliefs about a topic such as, love or the natural phenomena. Based on the passage, “ Source 2: Selling Out Not Worth the Risk”, it states “ But when outside interests enter the mix, they can replace the passion in an artist’s music and turn the art into just another tool for corporations.” To emphasize, businesses have the power to change any lyric in the song, so the song would lose it’s meaning and instead be about the product the business is selling. Even though, allowing corporations use an artist’s song for advertising a product, enables the artist’s song to be heard from an even more

When wanting to listen to a song today, one no longer has to buy or download a physical copy. In today’s world, streaming has become one of the top ways of retrieving music content. This major change has led to a profound shift for the music industry and its artists. It has developed a continuous conflict that affects the way music is distributed and how artists make a living. Listeners stream music electronically through their computers, phones, cars, and more. Most of these streaming platforms allow for the content to be free, which directs to the question of whether music should be free or not. Streaming is a topic that has presented itself to be a valid issue on whether it ultimately hurts or helps artists and their careers. Streaming has both pros and cons, but in order to aim to figure a possible solution there needs to an examination of the history of the issue, a proper analysis of both sides, and evaluating its importance.

The music business is changing rapidly, and artists have to find new ways to adapt to the changes. Among the many changes is the selling of artists' music. The way artists sell their music has drastically changed from CDs, and cassettes to streaming, and online purchases. This new change has brought with it many adverse side-effects; including, the huge loss in revenue for artists brought in by these new changes. Artists have had to adapt to this by touring more often and using their music in advertising. Artists should be able to use their music in advertising because it helps the artists and the companies in numerous ways.

Over the past fifty years, the British Music Publishing industry has undergone dramatic changes. It has evolved as an entity with innovations in technology, changes and creations of laws and new mediums to promote and exploit songs to a wider audience. Therefore, the way in which the music publishing industry operates and exploits its assets has completely transformed, and continues to do so at a rapid pace. This paper will attempt to explore the ways in which publishers exploit song copyrights and the way in which this has changed over the past 60 years. It is important to define what is meant by copyright and its role within the industry. The Performing Right Society website states: “Copyright

Others believe that the music should not be on the market for the public to access at all. Many believe that censorship should not be allowed at all because it

Music is one of the most popular ways of expression and has been for generations. It makes us want to dance, inspires, soothes, relaxes, and sometimes tells us a story. Music is something the whole world shares and has brought together different kinds of people. However, there has been a question on whether some music has affected society negatively and crossed the line with some of its lyrics, content, and the persona of the artists. Certain music has been boycotted and even banned in the U.S. Pro-censorship supporters say that music is something that can deeply affect our society especially children who should not have to be subjected to things like violence, sex, drugs, or hate. However, being that music is a form of expression,

Throughout the years, music has evolved and transformed in many ways. However, there are restrictions in today’s music, otherwise known as, censorships. A crisis has emerged concerning the issue of censorship. This argument consists of two possible stances: one, supporting the continuation of censorship, and two, eliminating the status quo of censorships in the music industry. There have been countless debates and arguments regarding the issues of censorship ever since the U.S. Congress passed the Radio Act in 1927 (The History). The time has arrived for censorship to be brought to an end. The government should release their grip on the censorship of music for the following reasons: it obstructs the public’s freedom of choice, it

The definition of advertising is outdated. It was previously, to endorse a product and praise goodness to induce the public to buy. They are now brainwashing consumers to buy their products using images to sell the product. The advertiser’s aim is to make the product look as good as it can through an attractive image. There are statistics, which I obtained from a Dolly Magazine, 16th May 2000, which proves that one out of four people in Australia buy a product because of the image shown in the advertisment. The images are eye catching and mention something important about the product. Ultimately it is true that, “Advertisers sell images, not products.”

The music industry is an oligopoly. Since the late 1800’s people like Thomas Edison have been buying up patents in communication technology, forming monopolies, leading to a non-competitive entertainment industry. With only a handful of corporations controlling all aspects of acquisition, distribution and marketing of music, harsh business principles create an exploitative industry that takes the best of what artists have to offer and leaves many of them unable to support themselves. Beginning in the 1950’s with payola and white cover music and ultimately evolving into iTunes and Spotify, the music industry has grown into a billion dollar industry with far-reaching influence and control. Contracts rarely serve the artists’ best interest and many are left out to dry when their usefulness has expired.

The internet is the one media that brings up the most controversy in bands spreading their music. Whether they promote it or not their music is downloaded for free on the internet. Most bands do not like that their music is downloaded for free, but they can’t do much to stop it. In a way downloading music for free could bring the musicians even more money. If a person likes one of the songs they downloaded off of the internet they may be inclined to buy the entire album or at least the single. After the person buys the latest album they may even buy earlier albums from the same artist if they like the music enough. The internet has

There are several ways in which art is commercialized; especially within the music industry. Classic bands such as the Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan were criticized for allowing companies to use their material to sell products and services. However, this is a common avenue for a musician or an artist to profit from their works. Many companies are willing to pay a hefty premium to have their products associated with music that has broad emotional appeal to many potential consumers. However, many people feel that when an artist licenses their material it is a loss of integrity and that something is lost by the commercialization of their songs.