said...
Look on the bright side, now maybe pharmatech companies can use "Lithium" to sell...um, Lithium.
I suppose it was only a matter of time before the band that led the anti-corporate music crusade of the early 90's would eventually be cannibalized by those it railed against. 'Tis the way of the world.
And for the person that mentioned Moby, the reasoning behind his decisions to lend his music to commericals was that they would have wound up using a knock-off of his tunes anyway, so he made
Nov 07, 2006 - 11:40 AM
said...
I dont like it when any artist sells their soul for a product or service that has nothing to do with the music. Selling out is selling out. Led Zeppelin and Cadillac, not cool. U2 and ipod, borderline. Using music in movies or TV is a little different. I recently heard two new Pearl Jam songs being used on TV. World Wide Suicide was used in CSI: NY, and Comeback was used in Friday Night Lights. As far as Nirvana goes, I dont believe their music is more sacred then anybody elses. Yes they were
Nov 01, 2006 - 9:38 PM
said...
Hey Dunner, I heard about all this bull sh*t about a week ago and was hoping nothing would ever come of it. I've been a Nirvana fan since the first time, a good friend of mine introduced me to the music, that would end up changing my life. His music can heal woulds, and for that I thank him. How can anyone with an ounce of a soul put a price on that? Feels like were losing him all over again. R.I.P. Kurt
Nov 01, 2006 - 5:58 PM
Some don't feel like it matters and I can understand that point of view from a non fan. Why would you care where their music ends up if it never meant anything to you in the first place right? But for some, it meant a helluva a lot to us.
said...
It is horrible that the music of Nirvana is being whored out by Courtney Love.
With that being said, what do you think was going to happen when she won the rights to the music?
It's ironic that Kurt was so afraid of being a "sellout" when he was alive but now in death that is exactly what he has become.
CSI Miami blows.
Nov 01, 2006 - 2:57 PM
said...
I am probably the minority here, but I don't feel that Nirvana's (ho hum) music is sacred. What makes them different from U2? Moby? Led Zeppelin? All 3 bands and/or artists are considered trendsetters and trailblazers when it comes to music, where's the controversy there?
Maybe if Kurt Cobain wasn't a drug-addicted loser, this wouldn't be happening.
Whatever. Maybe my opinion will change if I hear "Doll Parts" selling Barbie.
Nov 01, 2006 - 2:54 PM
Sometimes it's good to be in the minority, so thank you for contributing. I believe the difference is those bands approved of their music being used in commercials. U2 members said ok, as did Moby, and Robert Plant. They are alive to allow it and have every right to do whatever they want with their material. It's a matter of choice. The issue is the rights of the artists, like Grohl and Novoselic, who have no rights over the music they helped to create.
said...
You pretty much said it. It only goes to show what a greedy b*tch Courtney Love really is. She has no talent & Hole (in my opinion) really sucks.
Nov 01, 2006 - 2:35 PM