Fascinating statement reflective of the life of late, great Beastie Boy Adam Yauch and the mission of the Beastie Boys. DNAinfo.com has the story:
The pioneering rapper, whose real name is Adam Yauch, instructed in his will that his image, music and any art he created could not be used for advertising, saving himself from the fate of other deceased musicians whose faces and songs have become corporate shills.
Yauch’s will, filed Tuesday in Manhattan Surrogate Court, says the Brooklyn native’s entire fortune of $6.4 million should be placed in a trust for his wife, Dechen Yauch, and their 13-year-old daughter. It also says Dechen has the right to sell and manage his artistic property.
What do you think about the no-advertising provision in Yauch’s will?
Would you do the same?
For more on the life and legacy of MCA, read Jonah Matranga’s Why The Death of MCA Matters So Much to Me
AP Photo/Mary Altaffer
About The Good Feed Blog Editors
I absolutely laud Adam for this decision (I raised my kids listening to the Beastie Boys, among others). Hearing the great rock classics, or any great song, as part of an ad campaign is one of the most culturally jarring bummers one can experience. The late, great George Carlin likened ad campaigns on billboards to “smearing feces.” Advertising is part of the market chain, but the “mad men” on Madison Ave. (or wherever they congregate now) should keep their hands off real art. Those with artistic integrity should boycott any product that features a bought and sold work of art to push a product.
Think: Tom Petty’s monumental “Free Falling” set to a Flomax commercial.
For those who might ask, “but what if the artist is financially strapped, like say, Vanilla Ice, and Miller Ice Beer offers him a cool million to use “Ice, Ice, Baby?” Fair question; I would posit that if the song is really a classic, the artist–or artist’s family, if posthumous–probably doesn’t need the money.
Great idea.