Miller Fight

We've always had a healthy disrespect for Miller adverts in music magazines - we're still haunted by the MGD campaign which stunk up the back pages of the NME just under twenty years ago; a bunch of the sort of people who New York advertising types would assume to be aspirational saying things like "Drinking Miller Genuine Draft in Tribecca? It's cool." I'd still rather have a glass of ground glass than a bottle of Miller.

Now, a new beef: Weezer are unhappy that Miller appeared to imply their endorsement by including a Weezer ticket stub in an ad in Rolling Stone.

It's not just the beer, they say; it's the other acts they were associated with in the ad - other stubs featured the likes of Bon Jovi and Less Than Jake - harmed their reputation through assocation.

Now, this would be quite funny - it does sound like a joke, doesn't it? - but Weezer are deadly serious. The ads appeared in 2004, and since then they've been working on a legal response - now they've made it, demanding damages apparently running into millions.

Not only does this make the band look more than a little puffed-up ("how could you mention our name in the same breath as Devo?") and grasping ("only millions of dollars can make this right"), but it also reveals a slightly grizzly truth at the heart of the "band":

Frontman Rivers Cuomo — who, as the suit reveals, is the "sole owner" of the Weezer name and trademark — would also be entitled to damages equal to three times Miller's revenue.

So, there's no band at all; just Rivers, his employees and his cherished brand identity. It's not Miller who are making you look bad, Cuomo.

music weezer rivers cuomo miller