Wired recently ran a piece entitled “How Companies Pay Artists to Include Brands in Lyrics”

Yes, you read that right: things have gotten so weird in the music business that high-profile acts are inserting ads into their song lyrics. The next time you hear a brand mentioned in a song, it could be due to a paid product placement. And unlike magazines, songs are not required to point out which words are part of an advertisement.

This reminds me of a scene from The Truman Show, where Truman’s wife gave a cheery 1950’s-like product placement ad. Product placement itself is an interesting advertising medium. I consider it less obtrusive, and therefore less annoying to customers, than traditional advertising, but I don’t know what the returns on investment are like.

Should musicians be opposed to “selling out” by placing product advertisements in their lyrics? I see no harm in a product placement or two in songs. Musicians already parody commercial interests openly as expression; whether those product mentions are corporate-sponsored or musician-inspired doesn’t make much of a difference.

One could also argue back to the debate about “What is art?” — most popular songs fade out of prominence very quickly. In a decade, most songs played on the radio today won’t be popular any more, and whether they contained product placements or not, they’ll be outdated anyway.

Musicians must assume the risk of product placement: An ad in a song will may improve the musical aesthetic and/or popularity of a song. It may detract from the song. Or it might not even have an impact on listeners. (How many of you actually know all of the lyrics to the songs you listen to?)

If a musician wants to incorporate corporate interests into his or her music, the more power to ‘em, I say. Great music — whether corporate-sponsored or not — will live on. The rest won’t.