The piano demo version you hear of "Real Love" from "Working Class Hero - The Definitive Lennon" has just started airing on telly for a JCPenney Christmas ad.
Yoko Ono did sell John Lennon’s rare home recording of "Real Love" to JCPenney for a commercial.
The spot began airing on Sunday night during ABC’s "Brothers & Sisters" before JCPenney could even make the announcement.
The Beatles have had their songs licensed for commercials in the past, but with the rare exception of perhaps "Revolution" years ago, they never have allowed master recordings out. The songs are always re-recorded.
Ad agency Saatchi and Saatchi handled the deal, I’m told, with Ono directly. The much-disliked widow of Lennon has sold a number of items under her late husband’s name over the years, including glasses, art and an action figure. But using a rare, acoustic home recording — and a beautiful, haunting one at that — as the Christmas song for a department store seems particularly greedy.
Ono, who should be worth hundreds of millions of dollars, prides herself on being a "citizen of the world" who advocates peace. For years she’s promoted her own charity, The Spirit Foundation. But a check of the Spirit Foundation’s recent federal tax filings shows that Ono does a lot less for charity than one might have supposed.
I know I always thought she did a lot more, given that — because Lennon died — Ono as his heir receives a larger portion of his and Paul McCartney’s songwriting royalties.
But here’s the breakdown. From 2000 through 2005, Ono’s Spirit Foundation gave away only $2.6 million — a fraction of her enormous income. In 2005-2006, her donations were: $239,000 to Foster Plan Japan (to build school classrooms in China and Africa); $15,000 to Bailey House in New York City for people living with AIDS; $10,000 to a school in Harlem; and $30,000 to a small Los Angeles charity called Real Medicine Foundation.
Ono also recently gave Amnesty International the rights to two dozen post-Beatle Lennon songs for an album of "covers" by other artists ranging from REM and U2 to lesser-known names. The money goes to AI’s "Save Darfur" campaign, but it’s not clear how much has been derived since Warner Music, the issuing label, has kept the project a secret.
Still, the small cash outlay is a little surprising. While no one would question Ono’s generosity to these groups, it also seems like a few are missing. All this time I would have assumed Yoko Ono was giving money directly to Amnesty International, for example, and Greenpeace, as well as to record industry charities such as T.J. Martell and MusiCares.
How about a worthy cause such as Elton John’s AIDS Foundation, Sting and Trudie Styler’s Rainforest Foundation or a New York charity, for example, the Robin Hood Foundation? But maybe that’s what she’ll do with the JCPenney money. You never know.
I don't watch TV, but this is unsettling stuff. Beatles/Lennon/etc. songs being used in commercials creeps me out even more than that deranged John-killer's proximity would.
Suffice to say that it comes from the same public acceptance of media exploitation that was behind the killer's name being made public in the first place. That was exactly what he wanted: fame for killing a famous person. And that was what he got, making him a successful man in his own clouded eyes -- thanks to the intellectually bankrupt masses who'll buy anything as long as it reeks of controversy and gives them a reason to exercise their pretentious drama and bathos.
The names of killers whose seeking of that very notoriety led to their crimes in the first place, the merchandised reaction to 9/11, We Are the World and its subsequent derivatives, newsprint photos of celebrity weddings...people in this country (I can't speak for any others) love reasons to act emotionally affected, righteous (we're not), etc. They've allowed themselves to be talked out of assuming that they're wonderful and creative, and that's it's worth pursuing what they really love to do. So they fill the void with stuff about other people they don't even know, no matter what it encourages.
Don't shop at Penney's. Get on the bus instead of paying $3 a gallon. Don't get drunk every time you have a spare evening, opting for dumbness and numbness like the people who sell you this rubbish want you to. Don't suppress your creative urges, no matter how much imagination-discouraging public schooling you've had. Remember that you vote every time you open your wallet.
Sorry for the grumpy tone. I didn't intend on being icy. I just think this stuff's important to reflect on once in a while. You're in complete control of every second of your whole life, after all. And the quality of your moments is all you have.
Hi Chris. I also have no problem with Beatles music used in advertising. It's only pop music for chrissakes, not the Koran. And the ad is quite cool. Cheers for the morality lesson, but most of us are very happy having our voids filled up thanks very much. And you assume that us TV watchers are Penney Shopping drunks, too dumb to see the real world? Thanks for the concern but us brainwashed plebs can take care of ourselves. And if we're pondering, isn't it a bit ironical to decry the use of The Beatles in mass media and marketting when it was those very things that made their greatness possible in the first place? So c'mon, get yourself a 37" Plasma, pull a beer out of the fridge and enjoy the world. It's so much easier.
I've said before, I have no problem with using The Beatles music in advertising. Why be so precious about it? As Kevin said, it's just pop music. They may have written some of the greatest, and best selling songs of all time, but it is just pop music. What's the big deal. Are you happy for other artists music to be used on the TV? If so, what's the diffrerence?
I just want you to reassure him - talk to him, make him see the error of his ways. Then I'll hit him.
Thank you for posting the commercial, Bobber! I don't watch TV, so it was fun to see this.
I appreciate your posting the article, I am the Paulrus. The author Roger Friedman questions Ono's commitment to charitable contributions, which I think is fair. If his numbers are accurate, Yoko is far more interested in hanging onto her money than spreading it around. You can all evaluate in your own value system whether this bothers you or not; I'm just observing that she doesn't appear very supportive of various causes given her income.
I found this other link the other day which interested me. It shows how much money various celebrities shelled out to support various politicians. I found the link because of a discussion about Stephen King, and then I found out Ono was also on the list. Apparently her political phase was just a phase as well. She contributed $2,000 in Federal Campaign Contributions Since 1978, which is a pathethetically small amount on my salary (King spent close to $200,000 in the same time period, if anyone cares). http://www.newsmeat.com/celebrity_political_donations/index.php?li=o
All you've got to do is choose love. That's how I live it now. I learned a long time ago, I can feed the birds in my garden. I can't feed them all. -- Ringo Starr, Rolling Stone magazine, May 2007
For all I know, Ringo might be a yogi disguised as a drummer! - George Harrison
I appreciate your posting the article, I am the Paulrus. The author Roger Friedman questions Ono's commitment to charitable contributions, which I think is fair. If his numbers are accurate, Yoko is far more interested in hanging onto her money than spreading it around. You can all evaluate in your own value system whether this bothers you or not; I'm just observing that she doesn't appear very supportive of various causes given her income.
I don't think I'm very bothered about how much she, or anyone else for that matter, gives to charities. She may have her own charitable foundation, but she's not duty bound to throw money at it.
I'm not sure where Friedman is coming from in this article. It seems like he was just waiting for an opportunity to critisise Ono, and saw this as his big moment. Apologies if I've missed the point, but what has Ono allowing the use of one of John's demo's got to do with how much money she gives to charity? Why should that matter to him, or anyone else? I wonder what proportion of his salary goes to charity?
Quoted Text
The Beatles have had their songs licensed for commercials in the past, but with the rare exception of perhaps "Revolution" years ago, they never have allowed master recordings out. The songs are always re-recorded.
Would have been a bit of a major achievement to re-record this song. And actually, when have they re-recorded songs for commercials?
I just want you to reassure him - talk to him, make him see the error of his ways. Then I'll hit him.
I think Friedman's point is basically that Ono is a greedy money pig. I'm not sure how creditable his stance or his information is--this is Fox News, after all. The only reason I mention Ono's contributions is because she and John made such a super-huge deal out of it in their final Playboy interview-- how they were going to tithe every year to do all this good for the world in their private way, as opposed to doing charity gigs which Lennon saw as such a ripoff.
All you've got to do is choose love. That's how I live it now. I learned a long time ago, I can feed the birds in my garden. I can't feed them all. -- Ringo Starr, Rolling Stone magazine, May 2007
For all I know, Ringo might be a yogi disguised as a drummer! - George Harrison
I think Friedman's point is basically that Ono is a greedy money pig. I'm not sure how creditable his stance or his information is--this is Fox News, after all. The only reason I mention Ono's contributions is because she and John made such a super-huge deal out of it in their final Playboy interview-- how they were going to tithe every year to do all this good for the world in their private way, as opposed to doing charity gigs which Lennon saw as such a ripoff.
Fair enough, but Friedman's article still reeks of someone who's just waiting to stick the knife in. He could have discussed things more relevant to the actual story, i.e. should Ono be lisencing Lennon material to advertisers? Does it belittle his name? Etc, etc. Instead he goes off on a tangent and starts complaining about her charitable donations, like it had anything to do with his song being used on this ad.
I just want you to reassure him - talk to him, make him see the error of his ways. Then I'll hit him.
I agree Friedman sounds like he has a horse to flog. But I don't care enough about the subject to do any research on it. I only added that bit about the political contributions because I literally ran across it 2 days ago while researching something else, and it amused me. I'm reading "The Playboy Interviews With John Lennon and Yoko Ono" at the moment, so their statements about bettering the world we live in are fresh in my mind. Cheers!
All you've got to do is choose love. That's how I live it now. I learned a long time ago, I can feed the birds in my garden. I can't feed them all. -- Ringo Starr, Rolling Stone magazine, May 2007
For all I know, Ringo might be a yogi disguised as a drummer! - George Harrison
I don't like pop or rock music in ads. It doesn't require a lot of creativity, if you ask me. The advertisers just use a familiar/beloved song to make the viewer pay attention. I think they should go back to jingles. It's better when a short ditty can be associated with a product rather than using a pop song which already has an identity.
The Mini Wheat commercials are freaking awesome. I smile every time they come on. I think more advertisers should follow suit.
You're so vain, you probably think this post is about you.
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
I am the Paulrus
Male
Female
Mairi
Logged
I also have no problem with Beatles music used in advertising. It's only pop music for chrissakes, not the Koran. And the ad is quite cool.