7 responses so far ↓

• 1 Trey // May 6, 2008 at 8:11 am

  before Tom is elected to sainthood for the not selling out thing – I would like to point out that he hasn’t flinched from selling his music to just about any tv show or movie that will have him – not just the stuff he’s been in or his director friends either. Shrek 2, ER, Trojan War, The Prince & Me just a few of many.

• 2 Eric Greenwood // May 6, 2008 at 8:49 am

  apples and oranges, i say. he was on a major label, so we could argue a sellout from that angle. licensing his music to film is a far cry from shilling for chalupas. and, if we’re talking sainthood, this might actually help his case: “In 2005, Waits sued Adam Opel AG, claiming that, after having failed to sign him to sing in their Scandinavian commercials, they had hired a soundalike singer. In 2007, the suit was settled, and Waits gave the sum to charity.”

• 3 Trey // May 6, 2008 at 9:10 am

  I don’t dispute the guy is a bad ass, but I don’t draw much distinction between letting NBC studios use your music in a TV show to help sell ads for chalupas than being in the ad itself.

  He also has the luxury of being independently wealthy (he makes over 6 figures a concert which is why he has the luxury of perfoming so seldomly) and can afford to make such principled choices. His refusal to be in commercials is well known and is completely entwined in the persona that has made him rich and famous. I just find it ironic that someone who so publicly refused to be in commercials and lampooned those that did would license his music so freely to a Jennifer Love Hewitt feature.

  I was as much replying to the Chris Knox post as this one (but didn’t want to steal any thunder from Mr. Knox himself) and if he’s going to take a knock for selling to Heineken, and Tom Waits is the pillar to be compared against, it should at least be acknowledged that Waits has in fact taken money for the licensed use of his music.

• 4 Eric Greenwood // May 6, 2008 at 9:47 am

  that’s where you and i differ in this matter. i do draw much distinction between licensing to NBC versus shilling for chalupas. and i think how waits has handled his licensing is more reputable than how knox has. your theory for the reasons behind waits’ principled choices is neither her nor there. oasis isn’t hurting for cash, yet they openly allow their music to be whored out to AT&T. so, it’s the character of person, not that person’s means, that dictates choices.

• 5 Trey // May 6, 2008 at 10:51 am

  But I wasn’t comparing Waits to Oasis, I was comparing Waits to someone who has spent a comparable amount of time in music and who financially has little to show for it. I don’t have any problem with such a person selling someone a song. Of course, I would place a group like Of Montreal ahead of all these guys in the whoring yourself out department for not only selling the music but giving the company free reign to manipulate it however the hell they want. (Oasis may have done the same thing – I don’t know the commercial).

  Obviously, if there is a hierarchy Tom Waits wins the hands down as one of the most principled careers ever – it just so happens that he has been extremely successful at it and hasn’t had to make some of the hard choices others have. Not from you or here, but I often get the impression that a lot of people really buy into Waits’ vagabond poet, lives in a trailer persona and don’t really realize just how successful he is. A lot of Tom Waits’ fans seem to think they are the only person to have ever heard of the guy. If you believe the guy is dirt poor and still turning down Chrysler commercials, right or wrong, it makes it a more romantic story. I think it would be naive to believe that it isn’t easier to turn down money if you already have it than if you are struggling.

• 6 Eric Greenwood // May 6, 2008 at 11:03 am

  whether or not you were making the comparison, the analogy stands. you argued that waits was in a position to turn down offers because he has the means to do so. i pointed out that even people with means (oasis) still make bad decisions (AT&T), so that has nothing to do with the actual principle at hand. sure, it’s easier to turn down money when you have it than when you don’t (no one said it wasn’t), but i give waits the benefit of the doubt there, given how principled he’s been in so many other areas (jennifer love hewitt features notwithstanding). i think it’s super you don’t have a problem with someone of knox’s stature selling his song to a product. that’s very generous of you. i happen to find it annoying. i find hearing a waits song in a feature (even something of shrek 2’s caliber) less annoying, but that’s just me.

• 7 K // May 6, 2008 at 3:34 pm

  Wow. The content of this conversation hearkens back about 15 years. Glad to know we’re all still of the same opinions a decade and a half later.