I just heard Take Me With U in a Mercedes Benz commercial

Is there a link?

luv4u said:

Is there a link?

I was watching the season finale of Animal Kingdom on TNT, it reminds me of The Sharon Jones & Dap Kings version. If anyone can watch the episode on on-demand can hear it.

luv4u said:

that has nothing to do with Prince's Take Me With You at all. Or prove me when they get the money.

Even though they are using the exact words in order???

[Edited 8/30/18 7:52am]

TheFman said:

that has nothing to do with Prince's Take Me With You at all. Or prove me when they get the money.

even thought they qoute the lyrics verbatim?

RJOrion said:

TheFman said:

that has nothing to do with Prince's Take Me With You at all. Or prove me when they get the money.

even thought they qoute the lyrics verbatim?

I posted the same opinion above also,

darlingnikkkki said:

luv4u said:

Is there a link?

https://www.ispot.tv/ad/d...ttractions

.

Hmmm, kinda odd they used an almost unrecognisable "cover". What's the point of licensing a fairly well-known song then?

TheFman said:

that has nothing to do with Prince's Take Me With You at all. Or prove me when they get the money.

I tweeted Mercedes-Benz official twitter & asked them if it was a cover of "Take Me With U". Their response, "Indeed you are absolutely right".

So yeah, it is "Take Me With U".

Not sure if this is a good or a bad thing but the song is barely recognisable.

CherryMoon57 said:

Not sure if this is a good or a bad thing but the song is barely recognisable.

Why is it always a good or bad thing? The court smartly ordered the estate to monetize itself. That includes, but isn't limited to, allowing songs to be used for commercials. It's not a sell out (it's such a cheap statement anyway when people wave the "they're selling out" flag). This, among a bunch of other efforts - some that will stand the test of time and some that won't pan out as hoped so new efforts will take their place as with any corporation, LLC or otherwise - is keeping a cash flow happening.

Whether anyone recognizes the song is not the point. It's not an ad for Purple Rain deluxe or whatever. It's a car ad about taking friends in your Benz & having a good time. This isn't the first time a song has been covered in a way totally opposite to the original version. But, damned if they do, damned if they don't, I guess.

"Dis is a bid'ness. You ain't too far gone to see dat yet!"

People need to remember prior to his passing, P put out a press release that his music was available for commercials, movies, etc.

if 3 short lines of text makes a cover, while everything else is different, than P probably stole even more music then what we are aware of

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

People need to remember prior to his passing, P put out a press release that his music was available for commercials, movies, etc.

Yeah, once he got his masters back, there was a website up for it as well. I wonder what he was charging though.

TrivialPursuit said:

CherryMoon57 said:

Not sure if this is a good or a bad thing but the song is barely recognisable.

Why is it always a good or bad thing? The court smartly ordered the estate to monetize itself. That includes, but isn't limited to, allowing songs to be used for commercials. It's not a sell out (it's such a cheap statement anyway when people wave the "they're selling out" flag). This, among a bunch of other efforts - some that will stand the test of time and some that won't pan out as hoped so new efforts will take their place as with any corporation, LLC or otherwise - is keeping a cash flow happening.

Whether anyone recognizes the song is not the point. It's not an ad for Purple Rain deluxe or whatever. It's a car ad about taking friends in your Benz & having a good time. This isn't the first time a song has been covered in a way totally opposite to the original version. But, damned if they do, damned if they don't, I guess.

"Dis is a bid'ness. You ain't too far gone to see dat yet!"

I don't know, it kinda feels like they just removed the whole atmosphere out of the song (its best aspect)... so what was the point using it? It would have worked better for the ad's purpose to keep more 'in tune' with the original. Ironically that's one thing that Apollonia couldn't do either

"Take Me With U" is my favorite song of all time. It's the first song I learned on the guitar. It's WHY I learned to play the guitar. My daughter sang it with Prince in front of 20,000 people. It is my favorite song of all time. I am the "Take Me With U" Org Authority.

When I saw that commercial the other day, it never dawndd on my that was "Take Me With U". If it was, it was the worst cover ever made.

But as far as I'm concerned, that isn't "Take Me With U".

CherryMoon57 said:

TrivialPursuit said:

Why is it always a good or bad thing? The court smartly ordered the estate to monetize itself. That includes, but isn't limited to, allowing songs to be used for commercials. It's not a sell out (it's such a cheap statement anyway when people wave the "they're selling out" flag). This, among a bunch of other efforts - some that will stand the test of time and some that won't pan out as hoped so new efforts will take their place as with any corporation, LLC or otherwise - is keeping a cash flow happening.

Whether anyone recognizes the song is not the point. It's not an ad for Purple Rain deluxe or whatever. It's a car ad about taking friends in your Benz & having a good time. This isn't the first time a song has been covered in a way totally opposite to the original version. But, damned if they do, damned if they don't, I guess.

"Dis is a bid'ness. You ain't too far gone to see dat yet!"

I don't know, it kinda feels like they just removed the whole atmosphere out of the song (its best aspect)... so what was the point using it? It would have worked better for the ad's purpose to keep more 'in tune' with the original. Ironically that's one thing that Apollonia couldn't do either

"so what was the point of using it?"????

to generate income...

CherryMoon57 said:

I don't know, it kinda feels like they just removed the whole atmosphere out of the song (its best aspect)... so what was the point using it? It would have worked better for the ad's purpose to keep more 'in tune' with the original. Ironically that's one thing that Apollonia couldn't do either

But a cover song or using a phrase of a song isn't meant to capture the atmosphere of the original. A Benz ad is not a tribute album. It's not Party O The Times, or the Classical Metropolitan Orchestra, or Bob Belden, or Symbolism. It's not Chevrolet saying "baby that was much too fast" the week after he died.

To say what works better is moot. It's what their ad team felt was right for the brand. When someone, anyone, here gets a license to use a Prince song in their project they can keep whatever 'atmosphere' they deem necessary.

A case in point to all this nonsense is Justin Timberlake's rarely heard song, "I'm Lovin' It". It has a video (below), but not an album. He was paid $6M to sing the jingle (which was part of a German ad campaign). JT & Neptunes wrote a whole song around it then gave Mcdonald's exclusive use of it in the U.S. Now, how many times have you heard the tagline or the song's hook whistled, or played on a guitar, or a flute or someone says "da da da daaah da, I'm lovin' it" in the ads? Those instances certainly do not capture the atmosphere of JT's song.

How about Beyonce totally redoing "Fever" for a perfume ad? I mean, the list is endless where this argument could be made.

The point is that it is never about the original. It's about how to use something in a project to benefit the project's goals and paying for the right to do so.

Here's JT's song:

[Edited 9/4/18 9:37am]

in Italy for 2 days the television program is broadcast on TV and the original P kiss song is played as background song

[Edited 9/5/18 11:20am]

i feel like i should be excited that the song is in a commercial, but.... it really does sound awful. i don't know if this cover could stand as a song on it's own. like go ahead and use the song, or even use a cover if you Must, but don't..... just don't ruin it????

BEAUGARDE said:

Sounds like the Sharon Jones & Dap Kings cover of it

Definitely NOT Sharon Jones and the Dap Kings:

darlingnikkkki said:

luv4u said:

Is there a link?

https://www.ispot.tv/ad/d...ttractions

I emailed the ad agency that created the spot. Let's see if I get an answer!

Here's the reply I got from the agency that created the ad:

"Please note that the music on the Mercedes-Benz GLC “Attractions” TV is an original track and was composed for Merkley+Partners by Finger Music."

RodeoSchro said:

Here's the reply I got from the agency that created the ad:

"Please note that the music on the Mercedes-Benz GLC “Attractions” TV is an original track and was composed for Merkley+Partners by Finger Music."

huh?

RodeoSchro said:

Here's the reply I got from the agency that created the ad:

"Please note that the music on the Mercedes-Benz GLC “Attractions” TV is an original track and was composed for Merkley+Partners by Finger Music."

.

Hmmm, it is on their Vimeo page: https://vimeo.com/285310800