the GAP

SweetPear · Post by **SweetPear** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 12:21 am

Hey, has anyone seen the new GAP commercial......where they're singing EC's "Alison"??
I was soooo surprized! So does E get money for that, like, every time it airs, or do you think he just made a deal w/the GAP and got a big hunk all at once?

Post by **BlueChair** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 6:16 am

I'm afraid to admit this, but GAP is one of the few stores I can go into and actually not only tolerate, but enjoy the music they're playing. I don't know where they get their mixes but I want a copy.

Haven't seen the commercial you speak of though

lawngnome · Post by **lawngnome** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:21 pm

damn, I dont have a tv hooked up in my room yet! (I'm offically at college! woo!)

Otis Westinghouse · Post by **Otis Westinghouse** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 3:27 am

Disappointed. Elvis normally takes a moral stance on these things (which ad was it he turend down a lorryload of cash for, as discussed on the Johnny Vegas show?) and GAP has a very dodgy record in terms of actively exploiting underage third world labour.

SweetPear · Post by **SweetPear** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 12:30 pm

Otis Westinghouse wrote:Disappointed. Elvis normally takes a moral stance on these things........ and GAP has a very dodgy record in terms of actively exploiting underage third world labour.

Yes! That's why I'm so curious.....what's the deal?

Extreme Honey · Post by **Extreme Honey** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 4:45 pm

Otis Westinghouse wrote:Disappointed. Elvis normally takes a moral stance on these things (which ad was it he turend down a lorryload of cash for, as discussed on the Johnny Vegas show?) and GAP has a very dodgy record in terms of actively exploiting underage third world labour.

I'm not sure I'm completely against child labour. Those kids need money and If they can't get i in a factory, I don't know to what extreme their parents might go for to make sure they come back home with some green. Frankly, I prefer that they work in a GAP factory with at least a bit of supervision rather than out on the streets trying to find customers (I'm not going to get too much into that...my Thailand trip made me sick to my stomach!)

.
I'm quite offended as well that Elvis accepted that deal, I don't care how much cash was in the deal. He should only be open to songs from 1983 and over. I hate the bloody bastards who only pick songs from his first 2 albums!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Otis Westinghouse · Post by **Otis Westinghouse** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 6:22 pm

So a 12 year old being slave-driven making leisurewear for spoilt westerners is OK cos at least they're not being sold for sex? It's less brutal, but it's no less exploitative. Use some sense.

selfmademug · Post by **selfmademug** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 6:28 pm

Otis Westinghouse wrote: Use some sense.

Now, now Otis, let's focus on what's truly outrageous-- people covering Elvis songs, and bastards only reffing his first 2 records.

DrJ · Post by **DrJ** » Mon Aug 29, 2005 12:17 pm

Well I'm currently without a tv and internet (evcept for now, in the coffeeplace, duh) but if Costello has licenced a track for a commerial then it really is the end and the sky has fallen. I know one should separate the singer from the song but has been losing his cool since he left Cait => Sting & Elton => Going showbiz => Doing commercials

Ahhh, there goes my artistic manifesto: "What would Elvis do?"

DrJ

whar · Post by **whar** » Mon Aug 29, 2005 12:35 pm

Cait was noone to stay with.

Elvis's "Pump It Up" is in the new The Man preview, which I think is a bigger crime than any commercial.

SweetPear · Post by **SweetPear** » Mon Aug 29, 2005 12:54 pm

whar wrote: Elvis's "Pump It Up" is in the new The Man preview, which I think is a bigger crime than any commercial.

I saw that too!

invisible Pole · Post by **invisible Pole** » Mon Aug 29, 2005 1:42 pm

I'm afraid I'm with Otis and DrJ on this one.
Here's what Elvis said back in 1999 :

"When people buy my records I’m entering into a kind of contract with them. Allowing my music to be used in commercials is like saying, ‘Here’s a record I’ve made. Dig into your pockets, even though pretty soon everyone will be listening to it for free while they’re being persuaded to get Nike trainers.

"So, sure, I’d like the million quid, but there’s no way I would do that kind of deal—it doesn’t seem right."

http://www.elviscostello.info/articles/ ... 0409a.html

So if the GAP-commercial news is true, it does make me disappointed.

selfmademug · Post by **selfmademug** » Mon Aug 29, 2005 3:57 pm

invisible Pole wrote:
So if the GAP-commercial news is true, it does make me disappointed.

Definitely true. I saw the commercial fleetingly yesterday. It's not him singing; it's "GAP people," going through one or two songs they love, Alison being one of them, and comparing them to great comfy clothes. Pretty fatuous stuff but it will stick to its intended audience, I'm sure.

Otis Westinghouse · Post by **Otis Westinghouse** » Mon Aug 29, 2005 6:14 pm

So probably he justified it to himself by it not being his record, but this still sucks, especially reading that Nike quote from IP.

KLynB · Post by **KLynB** » Mon Aug 29, 2005 11:05 pm

BlueChair wrote:I'm afraid to admit this, but GAP is one of the few stores I can go into and actually not only tolerate, but enjoy the music they're playing. I don't know where they get their mixes but I want a copy.

Haven't seen the commercial you speak of though

The cover songs, including "Alison", will be available at Gap stores starting September 1 (this Thursday), according to an ad in Vogue.

Extreme Honey · Post by **Extreme Honey** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 2:42 am

DrJ wrote:Well I'm currently without a tv and internet (evcept for now, in the coffeeplace, duh) but if Costello has licenced a track for a commerial then it really is the end and the sky has fallen. I know one should separate the singer from the song but has been losing his cool since he left Cait => Sting & Elton => Going showbiz => Doing commercials

Ahhh, there goes my artistic manifesto: "What would Elvis do?"

DrJ

...So Diana Krall is the reason why Elvis is suddenly changing?? I wonder if Elvis and Cait are ver going to at least start talking to each other again...

I don't mind the Elton John thing though, I like some of of his stuff (but I'd like to know what Elton speaks to Elvis about...grrrr..

)

verbal gymnastics · Post by **verbal gymnastics** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 4:17 am

Extreme Honey wrote:...So Diana Krall is the reason why Elvis is suddenly changing??

Well you can't deny that since Elvis and Cait split up, Elvis has become more showbiz.

I don't think we've had the advert here in the UK.

What would be the deal about somebody singing Elvis's song "live" in an advert? Would there or could there be any objection from Elvis? Would permission be needed?

Even if Elvis can't do anything about it, allowing Alison "As featured on The Gap commercial" does fly against what Elvis has said in the past. I wonder if the song will be pulled from the CD at the last minute.

Post by **BlueChair** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 6:12 am

I've heard "Pump It Up" in movie previews for at least 5 or 6 years, certainly before Cait and Elvis split. How is that any different than commercials?

selfmademug · Post by **selfmademug** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 6:40 am

I think it's hugely different. Commercial as they are, films are also an art form, and attaching your art to someone else's at their request is a far cry from selling your song so that other people can sell jeans.

That said, I have less of a problem with new songs in commercials-- like the Black Eyed Peas in those cable ads, or Moby putting his songs in select ads before they've even appeared on a CD. Frankly I don't think that kind of promotion for the artist is much different from music videos-- which, by the way, do they even SHOW any more? MTV and VH1 never show videos, only crap reality and list programs.

Post by **BlueChair** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 6:58 am

selfmademug wrote:I think it's hugely different. Commercial as they are, films are also an art form, and attaching your art to someone else's at their request is a far cry from selling your song so that other people can sell jeans..

Sorry, I need to clarify: I don't mean putting your song on a film's soundtrack... obviously that makes total sense, or even trailers; I mean TV commercials advertising mainstream movies like 13 Going On 30, using an Elvis song that doesn't even appear in the actual movie.

Monkey Girl · Post by **Monkey Girl** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 7:05 am

Hey selfmade...I agree...and honestly can't understand why so many out there are so upset.

Elvis is a big boy and certainly entitled to promote his music, try new ways to be creative, have fun with it.... and make a bit of cash in the process.

And as far as saying he would never "do that"...well,
that was a long time go and things change. Don't we all?

I am just happy to hear his music anywhere I can.

selfmademug · Post by **selfmademug** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 7:09 am

Well maybe Bobster can clarify this, being the Hollywood, excuse me, Anaheim guy. But I would assume that you release/sell rights to your song to a film and they use it how they want; sometimes it appears (so to speak) in the film, sometimes it gets cut, sometimes it never makes it in, but if they have permission, they can use it in ads if they want. But this is just my imagined version of how it works; I'm talking out my arse, as often...

selfmademug · Post by **selfmademug** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 7:22 am

Monkey Girl wrote:Hey selfmade...I agree...and honestly can't understand why so many out there are so upset.

Well, I think you misread me a bit. I'm not too happy with him using it in a Gap ad, for reasons others have mentioned. Obviously he can and will do what he wants-- more than most artists!

Extreme Honey · Post by **Extreme Honey** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:57 pm

Otis Westinghouse wrote:So a 12 year old being slave-driven making leisurewear for spoilt westerners is OK cos at least they're not being sold for sex? It's less brutal, but it's no less exploitative. Use some sense.

Neither is correct, Otis. I'm not trying to place some reason in any of the 2. I just sincerely beleive that the first option is a bit easier on the child than the second, that's my beleif, I've seen some pretty gross things in Asia and I can tell yo right now those children would rather make nuclear bombs than live a day of their lives. They are both unexplainably wrong and I'm the first person to tell you that and I would be the first person to help as well, but in my opinion, those children, whom I can't help right now, would prefer the first option (unless they are in a very bad situation and they need to steal a few bucks from fat white tourists). Thay are both wrong and exploitative as you said but one is less brutal, as you said. So I don't know why on earth we are dicussing about this when we both know that ranking any of the 2 won't make them any more or less filthy and wrong. And no Otis, it's not OK and I never said it was. Here's some sence.
Selfmademug, you gotta stop that bullshit man this is a new post, at least talk to me like a man if you got a problem with me or my comments.

selfmademug · Post by **selfmademug** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 1:02 pm

Extreme Honey wrote:[Selfmademug, you gotta stop that bullshit man this is a new post, at least talk to me like a man if you got a problem with me or my comments.

OKAY, MAN (affecting low booming voice, and pretending to have a penis).