Bob Dylan/Victoria Secret vs. U2/IPOD

[asr]

I never understood why U2 recieved so much bashing by media and public alike for selling IPODs while Bob Dylan appeared as a dirty old man stalker in a Victoria's Secret commercial and gets away with it. For example, those two idiot Chicago radio talk-show hosts Jim Derogatis and Greg Kott never let U2 off the hook
for selling a MUSIC-related object. Yet, being the biased Dylan fan that they are, never held Bob to the fire for being such a gross pedophile. Why the hipochrisy?

 

[BVS]

Pedophile?


I don't know about that, but now Dylan has an iPod commercial as well.

(although this is totally the wrong way and forum to invite such discussion)

 

[Meghan]

There's nothing wrong with biased Bob Dylan fans. And anyway, Bob Dylan has done so much for the music industry over the years that you know what? If he wants to do a Victoria Secret commercial just because he feels like it, he can go ahead and do it.
That isn't to say that U2 deserved the bashing they got after the iPod ad, but don't blame little Bobby Dylan for that.

 

[Val]

Nothing little about Bob Dylan. He is arrogant, has a face only a mother could love, and a poet genius to boot!

He can do a pepsi commercial and I'd still think him a treasure. I hope to see him in concert someday.

 

[doctorwho]

I don't think anyone is bashing Dylan here. I think ASR was complaining about the double standard. Madonna, Led Zeppelin, the Beatles, Michael Jackson, Sting, Iggy Pop, Dylan, and on and on have had their songs used in commercials. They appear in commercials. So why does U2 get bashed, while none of these artists do?

I guess some feel that U2 are this "holier than thou" band. But is that really U2 - or was it the media? I think the latter. Hence, it's ironic that when U2 actually do "human" things, like sell music, they are scorned. LOL! Then again, this is human nature. Even Jesus was scorned one week after he was loved. Talk about your backlash!!

 

[Lemonfix]

Didn't U2 say at one time that they would never give their songs to be used in commercials? I think that this may have to do with the backlash (though I personally don't think that appearing in an Ipod ad for an Ipod BASED ON YOUR BAND, singing a new song, and not taking any money for it is the same as selling Streets to Nissan.) I think Springsteen, or Tom Waits, or anybody else with a no-commercial stance would be treated similarily. Zeppelin did get some shit over selling songs to Cadillac, but they have the luxury of not being a band anymore.

As for Dylan, had he done this years ago there would have probably been riots in the street--this was a man who was called Judas for going electric. But as his career progressed he became known for various eccentricities that made the VS commerical easier to take. And, for the record, he did once say that he would not do any adds---unless they were for women's underwear I guess VS got wind of the interview.

(Listening to Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands as we speak.)

 

[asr]

The reason why I called Dylan's Victoria Secret commercial peodophilic is because IN THE COMMERCIAL he flew around the world just to see a young lingere model strut her stuff. I was not saying that Dylan is a peodophile IN REAL LIFE. Women's underwear is not selling music or anything music-related[a la guitar, IPOD ect]. It was Saint Bob's sick attempt to sex himself up for this generation. By the way, I have 15 Dylan CDs in my collection and saw him live on his Love and Theft tour. So don't accuse me of slandering Dylan.

 

[ozeeko]

I never understood why U2 recieved so much bashing by media and public alike for selling IPODs while Bob Dylan appeared as a dirty old man stalker in a Victoria's Secret commercial and gets away with it. For example, those two idiot Chicago radio talk-show hosts Jim Derogatis and Greg Kott never let U2 off the hook
for selling a MUSIC-related object. Yet, being the biased Dylan fan that they are, never held Bob to the fire for being such a gross pedophile. Why the hipochrisy?

Never saw this commercial. How was Dylan portrayed as a dirty pedophile? Are you sure you meant to say pedophile?

 

[Lemonfix]

^ I still don't see why you use the P-Word, which refers to someone who's into, um, little kids, not twenty-something models with enough cleveage to model bras.

 

[BVS]

The reason why I called Dylan's Victoria Secret commercial peodophilic is because IN THE COMMERCIAL he flew around the world just to see a young lingere model strut her stuff. I was not saying that Dylan is a peodophile IN REAL LIFE. Women's underwear is not selling music or anything music-related[a la guitar, IPOD ect]. It was Saint Bob's sick attempt to sex himself up for this generation. By the way, I have 15 Dylan CDs in my collection and saw him live on his Love and Theft tour. So don't accuse me of slandering Dylan.

You still don't get it. What would you do if you had the chance to fly around the world, hang out with beautiful models, and play your music for a good sum of cash?

Look it's his music he decides what and where it stands for...

Why do people have such a big problem with this?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I guess having Scarlett Johansson in his new video is sexing himself up and being a gross pedophile too

Gorgeous video

 

[CTU2fan]

Becaue Apple/iTunes/iPod sucks?

Seriously, the iPod is the most overpriced trendy mp3-player out there, and U2 promoted it.

It's not a double standard...if Bono did a Vicki ad I'd love it, VS is much cooler than Apple.

And IMO the fact they did the ads for nothing indicates they felt they needed the promotion...personally I'd rather they took money for it; doing it for free sounds like desperation. Also if they felt the need to hock an mp3-player & not get paid for it they shouldn't have picked the least fan-friendly brand out there.

 

[Lancemc]

I love the spewings of disgruntled PC/Microsoft fanboys!

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

 

[Lemonfix]

I love the spewings of disgruntled PC/Microsoft fanboys!

Wait, you mean Microsoft even HAS fanboys?!

 

[coolian2]

I've got nothing against U2 promoting themselves to a younger audience (which the iPod ads no doubt did).

Remember that they are still an active band (unlike the Rolling Stones), so they still have a 'duty' to get themselves out there.

 

[Zoomerang96]

many of you obviously never heard dylan once say the only time he'd ever do a commercial was if he could appear in a victoria secret commercial.

 

[Yahweh]

The Ipod is an overpriced mp3 player and im not a Microsoft fanboy, this is just a fact that you can get other "no name" players that do just as much an more as the Ipod. It all comes down to promotion and they did a fine job of it and good on them as it brought Apple pretty much out of the grave.

 

[BVS]

I've gone through 3 mp3 players. The iPod is the only one I like.

Different strokes for different folks...

 

[namkcuR]

Trent Reznor on Bob Dylan lending his music to Victoria Secret:

"I wonder if DYLAN could understand the sinking, hollow feeling I had when I heard his music in that context."

Trent Reznor on Led Zeppelin lending their music to a car commercial:

"How much money does LED fucking ZEPPELIN need? Do they realize (or care) that when you hear their track now, you visualize a shitty car whizzing by? Do they understand the significance of what their music once held for people — or is it really all about how many units you can sell and commerce at any cost?"

Now, here's the thing. Reznor has legitimate grievances here because he's talking about artists who let their music be used to sell a product that has nothing to do with them.

If, however, U2 or Dylan or anyone else does an IPod commercial, it's not the same thing. In an IPod commercial, they're advertising their music itself, as played on an IPod. After you see an IPod commercial, you don't reassociate whatever song was used with a product the same way you do if the song is used to advertise a car or a perfume or kitty litter or whatever, because the image in an IPod commercial is either the artist performing the song, or somebody listening to the artist's song on an IPod. So even after the commercial, the only thing you can reassociate the song with is the act of performing or listening to the song, which is the only thing you would've associated it with in the first place. That's the difference. The IPod commercials use music to sell music, nothing else.

Which makes the double standard even more ridiculous because, if anything, Dylan giving his music to Victoria secret is far worse than anyone giving their music to Apple/IPod, for the reasons I outlined above.

 

[BVS]

Well honestly how much clout should we give to Reznor? He, very unfortunately has turned into a parody of himself.

All I hear is forced angst...

It's ashame. I think he really could have let his music grow up like he did...

 

[U2girl]

for selling a MUSIC-related object.

Indeed, in fact there was the U2 version "object" that played, you guessed it, U2's music. I always felt it was "selling" themselves/their art just as much as the product (and we all know how much U2 likes to promote itself at all times in their career). They were also talking about going digital with the music back in Flanagan's book.

Meanwhile no one bats an eyelid - or at least much, much less - when you find The Who/Led Zeppelin/Stones/Beatles etc songs used in commercials that have nothing to do with music.

If you're gonna critisize someone for using their music in ads, do it for everyone equally. Using double standards really doesn't help your credibility.

 

[asr]

Amen!

Besides, it really should not come as news that U2 is an unfair target with public/press. Throughout their career, for every tacky choice they made, other artists of U2's stature have done it much tackier. Especially the artist formally known as "ecologist" called Sting, who was against depleting the ozone layer with exhaust fumes, now endorses brand-name cars. Let me use a political analogy. It's like my fellow Democrats bashing Michael Moore, yet letting Jerry Springer off the hook for pitting poor/working class people against each other everyday on national television for profits. It dose not make sense. Where are poeple's priorities?

 

[CTU2fan]

Trent Reznor wishes someone would give a shit if one of his songs was used in an ad...if Trent was so concerned about image he'd have stayed off Cobain's leftovers.

 

[vaz02]

bob dylan is so no longer relevant lol.

Big fan of his older work but he doesnt really belong any more.

 

[AtomicBono]

If, however, U2 or Dylan or anyone else does an IPod commercial, it's not the same thing. In an IPod commercial, they're advertising their music itself, as played on an IPod. After you see an IPod commercial, you don't reassociate whatever song was used with a product the same way you do if the song is used to advertise a car or a perfume or kitty litter or whatever, because the image in an IPod commercial is either the artist performing the song, or somebody listening to the artist's song on an IPod. So even after the commercial, the only thing you can reassociate the song with is the act of performing or listening to the song, which is the only thing you would've associated it with in the first place. That's the difference. The IPod commercials use music to sell music, nothing else.

you pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Personally, I don't have a problem with Bob Dylan doing the Victoria's Secret ad because I think it's funny... but I think it's retarded to be mad at U2 for doing the iPod ad and then not care if Bob Dylan does it.

I don't know how I feel about hearing Bloc Party in a car commercial though...

 

[Lemonfix]

I recently saw "The Times They are A'Changin'" in an insurance commerical. I can see people being very pissed about that, though, knowing what I know about Dylan, that's probably why he let them use it.

 

[david]

ever notice that when you do hear a beatles song in a commercial it's a cover of a beatles song? the only time, that i can recall, an actual beatles song in a commercial was revolution for the nike commercial a long time ago.