Eliciting emotional reactions everywhere, John Lewis’ latest campaign designed to prise the pennies from your pockets in the name of Christmas has been particularly effective this year. Social networks are flooded with reports of tears streaming down the collective face of the British public in response to supposedly the sweetest surprise in advertising history. The advert, soundtracked by a cover of The Smiths’ “Please, Please, Please Let Me Get What I Want”, has caused the band to have been the victim of a vicious backlash. The use of one of their songs in a campaign tacitly supporting materialism constitutes ‘selling out’ and panders towards a culture of superficiality, which appears contrary to The Smiths’ historic counter-cultural stance. However, is this level of scorn shown towards The Smiths justified as a result of their actions?
It’s strange to think that this is the first time a supposed misuse of a song by The Smiths has attracted such controversy from a rabid fanbase; as it’s certainly not the first time one of their songs has been used in advertising campaign. Since featuring ‘How Soon Is Now?’ in an advert for Pepe Jeans in the late 80s without plunging Morrissey and Marr into the mire of a heated ethical debate, The Smiths’ songs have featured in various places, albeit infrequently. In fact, ‘This Charming Man’ appeared in a John Lewis advert earlier this year. Crucially, none of these instances of songs appearing in adverts have attracted any controversy. It is clearly a weak line of argument that attacks the use of ‘Please, Please, Please…’ without considering previous usage of The Smiths’ songs that did little to sully their anti-establishment image. If they have ‘sold out’ in this manner, then they did it quite some time ago.
However, there appears to be something distinctively inappropriate about the use of this particular song that has riled the up-in-arms minority, rather than the mere act of The Smiths selling a song. The original sentiment of ‘Please, Please, Please…’ is disjoint from the message projected onto the song by backroom marketing bods. There’s no possible world in which the expression of the agony and loneliness inspired by unrequited love can be likened to the mild frustration of wanting to gift practical household items, courtesy of John Lewis, but having to wait until the specific day upon which it is the cultural norm to do so. This certainly wasn’t the message that the miserable tortured voice of Morrissey conveyed; allowing the meaning of ‘Please, Please, Please’ to be appropriated and bastardised in one foul move clearly signifies a betrayal of values from Morrissey and Marr.
It’s easy to see why some fans believe this, but the version of ‘Please, Please, Please’ used in the advert isn’t the original recording. A disgustingly twee-sounding cover from Slow Moving Millie, which eagerly disposed with many of the sonic characteristics which the original used in order to portray its excruciating sentiment, has instead been used. Such is the extent to which the initial aesthetic impression of the song has been changed, that the sentiment of advert and soundtrack don’t appear to violently clash in quite the way described above. The fault doesn’t lie with The Smiths then, it is clear to see that the emotional integrity of the song has been preserved, as the cover used is so far removed from the original in intent. If they are at fault, it’s for allowing covers that have a different take on the original song; it would be particularly harsh to incriminate The Smiths under these charges.
The last stand for the outraged fans consists in the claim that the lasting memories induced by listening to ‘Please, Please, Please…’ are tarnished by association with the materialistic message projected onto the song by John Lewis. It is a reasonable claim; when one is emotionally attached to a song that anything that may alter this experience for you becomes debilitating. However, if these original impressions and memories were strong enough to forge a sufficient emotional connection to be roused by the advert, they’re surely able to withstand six weeks of seasonal bombardment, with little to no lasting effect upon the listener’s continued experiences of the original song? To claim otherwise is practically admitting that the supposed emotional connection they hold is as superficial as the emotions experienced by those bawling tears over the offending advert. The lack of justified basis from which The Smiths’ critics attempt to launch an attack serves as a paradigm example of how certain musical circles’ obsessions with authenticity can be reduced to mere superficiality. The Smiths have allowed a cover of one of their songs to be used in an advert – what difference does it make?
Rishi Modha 