Throughout the 60's and 70's there were a large number of radio promotions for bands and albums. Labels would purchase air time and play spots that highlighted new songs by bands that they wanted to "make it big." Instead of the pictures and visuals of a print ad, these radio spots used sounds and an announcer to convey their message - a translation that fits well with the study of Gut Musicology. As I have acquired collections of outtakes and B-sides, I discovered that several of my favorite bands ran these promotional radio spots. The two that we will look at are The Zombies and Lou Reed.

The Zombies

The Zombies' radio spot doesn't try to hide that the record company is trying to sell records. It is very simply trying to convince the listener to buy the album or single. But, what the spot avoids is why they should buy it. Presumably the clip of the song in the background is enough to convince people that they need to own the song, but in Gut Musicology we would wonder why they didn't let the song speak for itself. "Time of the Season" is one of the most beautiful songs of all time, so why didn't the record company believe that the music itself could speak to an audience more effectively than an announcer? 

Plugin error: googlegadget (Plugin not found ../common/plugins/googlegadget.inc)

Lou Reed

The radio spot for Lou Reed uses a slightly different method. The company plays upon the ethos (rhetorical analysis is a major part of Gut Musicology) of Lou Reed. They build him up as the "original" to establish his credibility among a sea of imitators. This is done to sell records to people looking for the "real deal," or attempting to jump on the bandwagon by liking the "original" cool guy. But is this necessary? The music Lou Reed made with the Velvet Underground was said to have inspired every person who saw them play to start their own band. If Lou Reed was making music so powerful that it connected deeply with everyone who heard it, why does the company feel the need to add a spiel about him not being a poseur? Again, is the music itself not powerful enough to sell records?

Plugin error: googlegadget (Plugin not found ../common/plugins/googlegadget.inc)

This distinction between someone telling us what a piece of music is and one deciding for himself is a point of debate in Philosophy (another aspect of Gut Musicology). The philosopher Bertrand Russell takes on this "distinction between 'appearance' and 'reality,' between what things seem to be and what they are," in his Pragmatism and Empiricism. Russell comes to the conclusion that "the painter [artist] wants to know what things seem to be" while "the practical man and the philosopher want to know what they are." So, as Gut Musicologists, should we look at music and its effects as an artist (what the piece means to us, personally) or as a philosopher (the definition of the piece, the announcer's monologue, the universal significance)?