Monday, November 12, 2007

Is it "really outrageous" because Yoko did it?

Roger Friedman: "It seems like Yoko Ono has licensed a rare John Lennon track for a JC Penney commercial.... The Beatles as a rule do not license master recordings. For Ono to license a Lennon recording, and such an extraordinary one, is really outrageous." I've read this four times now and I still don't follow. Is it "outrageous" because Lennon is the sensitive Beatle, brainier than Paul and also dead? "Outrageous" because a widow makes money from it? Or because it's JC Penney, a place where people out there shop?

Oh! If only it had been used for a classy place. You know, like H&M!

ADDED: The spot is here. Friedman's outrage continues here.

3 comments:

Make the logo bigger said...

I think it’s because it’s her. This is going to come out wrong, and, it may hurt Julian, but she's the Larry King of muses, right down there with Courtney Love.

dhanson said...

Paul McCartney has been allowing his solo work to be used in commercials lately--not just his current stuff in iTunes commercials, but older stuff like "Let 'em in" in financial services ads. And not some other musician's cover of the songs--his own version. So I don't know why it should be so surprising that Yoko licensed one of Lennon's solo songs. The Beatles do continue to not allow any of their performances to be used in ads. They don't control the rights to the songs themselves, though, so other people's recordings of the songs show up all over.

James-H said...

Also: it's a great great commercial. If you're going to piss away a Lennon song, do it on a commercial this good.

All right - I'm done servicing this ad.