Selling Out -- What does it mean to you?

Oct 8 01:36 UTC 1997

Um, on another musical list that I'm on, the question of selling out
came up, and I decided to ask another question of the erudite folks
in this cf. 

Basically, what is the difference between selling out and not selling
out? If someone is pleasing enough as an artist to sell a million
records, then obviously those people are happy with that artist's
direction. What is WRONG with wishing to make money? If it's commercial,
is it bad? 

Sometimes I get the feeling that a lot of people who are interested
in music are only interested in it for the elite feelings that it gives
the. For example, I know people who would *never ever* listen to
the radio because it would just be so declasse. And lord help you if
you admit to liking something popular like Bob Seger or Def Leppard
or even most Eighties music. 

So, this appears to be a two-part question...

One. What does "selling out" as an artist mean to you?

Two. If your favorite obscure artist (whom you love now with all your
heart because they're just so cool) suddenly became the next Big
Thing, would you feel betrayed by that? Would it feel as if they'd
sold out on their true fans for the almighty dollar?

response 2 of 58:

Oct 8 14:32 UTC 1997

I do remember a friend of mine who was a fan of "the blues" who felt that B.B.
King sold out because he appeared in commercials and did not emphasize the
stereotypical vices of blues musicials (i.e. smoking, drinking, drugs).

response 4 of 58:

Oct 9 00:29 UTC 1997

I think the bottom line is to like music you enjoy, and that you think is
well-done.  Granted, some artists have appealed to the lowest common
denominator in the masses to make money-- but you've got to remember,
musicians do not make big bucks themselves.  Even well-established ones are
spending dinero for equipment they need to do their job, and they are left
with precious little after promoters, producers, sound engineers, studio
managers, concert managers, etc., etc. collect their fees.

Also, some artists made ear-candy music in an attempt to get noticed more
quickly.  Getting established in music is a long, arduous process.  Most
musicians spend 10-15 years struggling and starving before they hit it big.
Even those that are moderately popular early work for a very long time to
continue to establish their sound and expand their audience.  Note that
sub-pop band Depeche Mode survived the entire Eighties decade, and much of
this decade as well, since their inception as Composition of Sound in December
1980.

response 6 of 58:

Oct 13 03:31 UTC 1997

        or, let's say, agreeing to 'rush' a second album to market
instead of putting as much work into this one as the first one;
the one that got them popular.

response 8 of 58:

Oct 21 21:33 UTC 1997

I enjoy what I enjoy, whether *everyone* listens to it, or *nobody* listens
to it. If becoming popular changes a group that I like in such a way that I
don't enjoy their music any more, I'll just not listen to their new music.

Woah....what happened?

Anyway, the logic that if millions of people like my band, then they suck,
is kind of like saying well, if people from New Jersey start liking these
guys, I'm not going to listen to them.

response 10 of 58:

Oct 22 05:06 UTC 1997

What kind of music does your band play, Jon?

response 12 of 58:

Oct 23 05:01 UTC 1997

It was a joke (;

response 14 of 58:

Oct 25 20:47 UTC 1997

ROTFL

response 16 of 58:

Nov 18 02:08 UTC 1997

ditto.  I wouldn't be at all sad to see Fish become a millionare, but only
if he did while making music he loves.  He might drastically change his style,
but if he does it for _himself_, then it's OK.  I just might stop buying his
stuff, is all, and I would be drastically disapointed that one of my fave
singers had written mainstream stuff, but I wouldn't see it as _selling out_.

response 18 of 58:

Nov 21 01:55 UTC 1997

rattle off some mainstream stuff that you would honestly consider better than
Fish.  Do that, get me to agree with you, and then your question will be
valid.

response 20 of 58:

Nov 22 03:34 UTC 1997

What about a band that once was obscure, gets popular, but then goes obscure
again, all the while playing great music?

Case in point: the B-52's.

They once were a little Georgian party band that played odd novelty songs--
y'know, songs like "Cake," "Rock Lobster," "Butterbeans," "Mesopotamia," and
the like.  They gradually built up a following, and their popularity peaked
upon the release of _Cosmic Thing_.  Upon the release of their next album,
_Good Stuff_, their popularity began to wane, and has since dropped off.

Without a doubt, "Love Shack" is probably their biggest party hit, and _Cosmic
Thing_ had some good material (I think "Topaz" is a fine example).  However,
I think _Good Stuff_ contains some of their finest material.  Other
songwriters contributed strong selections-- "Revolution Earth" is one. 
Finally, Fred Schenider, usually known for his chant-sing style backups to
Kate Pierson's leads, honed his singing skills for the album.  Yes indeed,
he fully learned the art of singing-- and he even sings a beautiful solo on
one of the songs (I can't remember what the name of it is; I'll have to
check).

But all I have heard of them lately is Kate and Fred singing the theme song
for the Nickelodeon cartoon show "Rocko's Modern Life."  Even then,
Nickelodeon changed the arrangement to an instrumental one after a number of
episodes.  I guess they couldn't afford to pay the musicians anymore.

response 22 of 58:

Nov 23 17:43 UTC 1997

Cricket - too often 'mainstream' gets used to mean 'mediocre'.  These are
often synonymous, but _not_ always.  I think you'd have a hard time arguing
that Hendrix was just some little-known fringe musician with a cult following;
I also think you'd have a hard time arguing that Fish is a better guitarist
than Hendrix was.

response 24 of 58:

Nov 24 17:49 UTC 1997

Fish isn't a guitarist?  I could have sworn he was....