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?58 responses total.
I generally have little patience for those who accuse their favorite obscurity of selling out when that person gets even the slightest bit of attention, nor do I think that there's anything wrong per se with making music aimed at the mainstream. That said, I really don't like most of the music that's popular. It might be most obvious to conclude that I dislike the music because of its popularity but it's more usually the case that I don't like it because I don't like it. Let's face it, I also don't like the majority of *un*popular music.. There are plenty of acts that I like a lot that are phenomenally popular (e.g. the Beatles, or Nirvana..) Generally I'm happy to see a performer I like get greater exposure but there have been a few cases where I've been convinced that the act in question has compromised what *I* liked in their music in order to achieve greater mass appeal. Since whether or not I like it is the only real value judgment I can make about what's "good" or "bad" music I'm generally unhappy in such cases (for an example of this sort of thing, I used to go to a lot of local ska shows by bands that were prominent in the ska scene but more or less nationally unknown. A couple of those bands have achieved substantial national recognition in the past two or three years but I haven't been happy with the music they've been putting out. Could just be that I'm tired of that sound but I think some of them really did compromise to hit the mainstream.. As long as they're happy with the music they're making I suppose there's nothing wrong with it but as long as they continue to make music I don't enjoy I won't be their enthusiastic supporter..)
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).
Well, I do tend to dislike people who dump a favorite band just because it's hit the big time, or insult music solely on the grounds that it's 'mainstream'. Likewise, many bands change their sound over time, and often this represents artistic development, or just experimentation, rather than 'selling out'. I think if a favorite local band became famous by playing a simplified, toned-down, mainstreamed version of their usual sound, I'd be moderately annoyed - but because this would represent a change for the worse in their sound, not because they've 'betrayed' me or sold out.
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.
Selling Out is a major issue in comics as well, where artists and writers have rebelled against bowing to management pressure and altering their story to sell comics. In music, it's just playing music that other people have a say in besides yourself. Or, occasionally, just playing to get heard. It's perceieved as a smudge on artistic integrity.
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.
That's rarely a problem in modern secular music, since execs tend to want to ride the success of an album as long as possible. The trick is to avoid a severe dropoff on the second album (see Hootie and the Blowfish, Gin Blossoms, Green Day, etc) by catching demand.
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.
Actually, if some people from New Jersey started listening to my band, I would start to wonder why they were out there.
What kind of music does your band play, Jon?
Hey. Are you casting aspersions on us New Jersoids?
It was a joke (;
You from Joisey? Which exit? *grin*
ROTFL
I believe that selling out is when a band/performer wildly changes their act to something they don't believe in for the sake of getting more money... other than that, I feel that the money groups get for their performances is pretty irrelevnat... Like Duke Ellington said, "If it sounds Good, it *is* Good." I think this means even if "it" braught in $80 million in revenue.
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_.
And if Fish was making _good_ mainstream music - perhaps even better than the music he had made before in his own style - what then?
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.
Selling out: No seats or tickets left to be had. Starting to play music that makes me ill: Could happen in any of the following situations: (Obscure band that I love)...gets popular and starts playing crap...(i don't care for their new stuff and won't see 'em live) (Obscure band that I love)...stays obscure and starts playing crap...(i don't care for their new stuff and won't see 'em live) (Obscure band that I love)...gets popular and keeps playing amazing music... (I don't pay attention to their popularity and still see them live)
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.
RE #20 Don't forget that the B-52's (as the "BC-52's") recorded the "Meet The Flintstones" theme from the live action "Flintstones" movie of 1994.
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.
well, considering that Fish doesn't know how to play guitar, I would have to agree w/you there. My point is that what is mainstream right now sin't as good as Fish, IMHO. If good prog-rock was to become mainstream, then that wo8uld be a different matter...
Fish isn't a guitarist? I could have sworn he was....
I would argue that "mainstream" is now a meaningless term in popular music; dinosaur rock acts, "alternative," rap, gentler pop & country all have roughly equal shots at brief periods of chart-topping, megaplatinum success.
well, here in A2, alternative seems to be the mainstream... interesting parodox... I'm going to have to start an item regarding that...
Among your age and peer group, no doubt it seems to be "the" mainstream but I'll agree with Ken that there's no longer one "mainstream"
No, but there are certainly things that are far enough out to be definitely out of the mainstream. There may not be a clear barrier, but there's certainly acts that come down clearly on one side or the other.
re #21: I had forgot to mention that. Not only did they do a cover of the theme song for the movie, they also appeared in it. Anyone have any idea what they were singing, if it's on the soundtrack or where it might be found? I was rather disappointed that they didn't do a more original arrangement of the theme song-- they just deadpanned it, for the most part. I had heard they were going to sing for the movie, before it came out, and I _did_ think they were going to use something like "Mesopotamia."
I think a band sells out if they sell their music for the sake of cashing in on a good thing. For example, when major musician or band allows thir music to be used in a car commercial, to me, that represents selling out. Everytime I hear The Who advertising for Toyota, or Ford, or what ever it is, I get sick to my stomach. They've sold out to Corporate America. KISS doing a Pepsi commercial?? That is absolutly ridiculous. METALLICA has been accused of selling out because they will not allow their music to be pirated. I disagree with that. Music is a business, and they need to be compensated for their efforts. If millions of people buy their albums, they deserve every penny of profit, but who can say that they are rich enough and their material should be made available for free download? I hope that I never hear ENTER SANDMAN used to promote a car, soft drink, or a fast food chain. If I ever do, I will still enjoy and listen to METALLICA, but I will have lost respect fopr them as musicians. I have faith that they will hold true to their fans, andmake us proud!!!
KISS might as well have started OUT as a pepsi commercial.
re #31: I have to agree.. re #30: Why is your "respect for them as musicians" contingent upon whether or not their music is used to market a product? and does it actually change the value of music recorded thirty years ago if it's used in a commercial today? (I'd say it'd be one thing if The Who re-recorded "My Generation" as "talkin 'bout my PEPSI-colaaa", but I really don't see how licensing some original song for a commercial pushes them over some invisible line.. I mean, how can you accuse the Who of selling out when more than thirty years ago they released an album entitled "The Who Sell Out"?
Most of the artists do not have total control over their tunes and lyrics. They gave them up to managers, producers, record companies, publishing houses, clearing houses, etc.
I guess that not actually being a musician, I can only express that as a fan, I really enjoy seeing an artist that performs solely for their own satisfaction. To me rock n roll is the essence of rebellion. Hearing The Who, or any great rock band employeed by a corporation to sell their product kind of kills that for me.
i think it's neat!
I don't know, hearing Depeche Mode on a Gap commertial was pretty satisfying to me, or the Who on the car ad, but I didn't like how quickly Lenny Kravitz sold "Fly". I'd rather they make money for doing what they love, rather than tailoring what they do to make money...does that make sense?
I liked the Gap leather commerical with the "Just Can't Get Enough" tune, too. Fair enough.. I agree that the music sounds a little better when they enjoy making it for the sake of itself, and not to become rich. Popular music IS popular for a reason, but you can begin to tell when artists are trying too hard (or are forced by producers, managers, and execs to try too hard) to please everyone for the sake of money.
"Selling out" is not the same thing as "getting popular enough so that your elitist fans get annoyed." Selling out occurs when you dilute whatever made you good in the first place in order to become popular. As this is a matter of opinion, its significance is often missed. And it's certainly possible to lose quality without selling out: I can even think of a few people whose rigid insistence on artistic independence, maintained as they created more and more hopeless crap, would have been tempered to their great benefit with a little selling out.
In my opinion, selling out is not having your music used in a commercial. Selling out is having your face used in a commercial, or having your CD's sold at McDonalds/Burger King. Selling out could be when you try to sue your fans who are downloading your music off Napster. Selling out is when you become so obsessed with money you forget that you wouldn't have the money if not for the fans, and you alienate the fans.
Selling out is changing your art solely for the sake of money. Metallica wasn't art to begin with. ;}
the kidz in my school are more *hardcore* than mental-lick-a.
I'm weeping great crocodile tears at the unfortunate put-upon fans who are actually being asked to pay money for recordings. How cruel! How inhuman!
While you're at it, be sure to weep for all of the great bands we'll never hear because the powers that be in the music industry have created a promotion and distribution system where an artist that sells 100,000 copies of a record winds up owing money, leaving bland mainstream commercial pop the only reliable moneymaker.
Wow. It's too bad there's no way for these low-selling bands to release their own albums. Somebody tell Ani DiFranco before it's too late.
It's possible, but you have to have the cash up front. I mean, I was talking to Delta 88 when they were making their album, and it was delayed for a looong time because they needed another $5000 or so, which took forever to come up with. It's also hard to pay other musicians to guest, etc, without a backer.
$5000 *extra*? They musta gone pretty high-tech and 'phisticated.
I don't think it was extra.... but I may have been mistaken.
But this music is their *soul* and their *art*... why do they need other musicians to guest? This usually strikes me as musicians whining about not being in the system, and when they get in the system, they rarely look back and offer hands up to others. (*rarely*, not *never*)
Paul.... Most of the musicians I've talked to who aren't "in the system" aren't whining about it. Many of them (though not all) have chosen to be outside (since most of the musicians I talk to are folk musicians, who aren't likely to be inside anyhow) and even the best ones don't have the cash to plop out several thousand dollars on a recording, alas.
*shrug* So get a PC with a decent sound system and a microphone, plop down a few hundred for a mixing software, and have at it. What's the complaint? We're "losing music" how? Why is music more legitimate if it's been recorded in ultra hi fi on super duper equipment? And if it's just the RIAA's fault, why don't these great musicians get more turnout when they show up at pubs and whatnot? It's an empty complaint. If the music is so culturally relevant that it simply *must* be preserved for posterity, it will be, one way or another. Most recorded music is tripe... no big surprise. Here's the big bombshell: Most recorded music that has nothing to do with the Establishment is tripe, too.
Well, there I won't disagree with you -- Sturgeon's Law works in music, too. (90 % of everything is crap, I believe it is...)
most musicians i know are too busy being musicians to learn how to be computer savvy enough to record their stuff and reproduce it themselves using home computer and audio equipment.
Okay. My complaint is that the music which I like, fanatically, is not terribly well represented in record stores, or in the public consciousness at all. I happen to enjoy folk music, from the singer-songwriter genre to the Scandinavian folk-rock scene. Now, yes, I have connections and have researched enough to find out where I can get what I need (a big wave of the hand to krj and micklpkl), but what if I were where I was in the early 80s, not knowing ANYTHING about this genre, except that I wanted to hear more of it, and not having the resources which were in place then? (Aka the wonders of Schoolkids, which usually had the records I was reading about, and/or had a huge stock of things I hadn't read about, but looked fascinating...) Given the lousy state of most mall record stores and the dearth of songs on the radio or on television, I would probably forget being interested in music at all. That's what makes me unhappy about the situation as it is today. There is no way for new consumers to find out about genres which aren't big money-makers for the RIAA. There is very little way for the small-time recording artist to get his or her product to the consumer, except through the big companies. It's very frustrating, and gets more so with every band that I discover that I'd never hear of, except that I went ot this festival, or got sent to this concert.... and who's been around for years. It's the big disconnect between fans who'd buy the music if they could, and the bands who would be happy to sell it to people, if only they could.
*shrug* The record companies are comanie, not charities. Some of my favorite albums sold five copies, too. That's the way it goes. Actually, I attribute it more to the radio stations than to the record companies.
I think the cost of producing your own run of one thousand
vinyl LPs in 1980 is not much less than the cost of producing one
thousand CDs today.
It's still a big investment, but I think a lot more individual
artists and groups are doing it.
Look, Mike (#43), any band that wants to distribute their music for free is welcome to do so; and while good quality mixing and such are more expensive, the minimum cost, from buying a computer on up, of making a simple demo and getting it out on the web (not necessarily on Napster) where people can hear it can't be more than $5K. If you want to complain about the crime of lousy distribution and the tendency towards LCD pap, by all means do so: but professional distribution costs money, and it's not the bands who insist on being paid for their work who are causing the problem. Indeed, the great advantage of the web is that you can bypass large parts of these distribution costs if you want - though in practice you then spend half your time doing your own publicity and distribution. If that's the wave of the future, then economic pressure may force bands to stop charging for recordings altogether, and that will create its own economically interesting times; but if so it'll be the problem of the bands that charge. I can't at this time have any sympathy for listeners whining about being charged at all. (Overcharging is a different problem.) FolkWriter (#53), I like a lot of the same sort of stuff you do, and I'm glad it's a minority taste, or otherwise I could only hear it live in football stadiums, not the best venue for acoustic folkies. Again, thanks to the web, and email, and Usenet, etc blooming etc, targeted distribution of news about bands geared to your personal tastes is easier than ever; and ordering copies of it is easier than ever too.
Agreed, it's easier now. But I am worried about the people who don't have our advantages! (I have been on the Internet for about ten years now, and know how to find what I want, and can order things from England, etc. if I want... but what about the people, some of whom I even work with, who aren't computer literate, and who aren't knowlegable enough to find things which aren't at the local Borders or mall store... ) I'd rather hear my music in small venues, it is true, but it'd be very nice if some younger people were exposed to it, as well.
That's all true, but it was just as bad in the old days too. Then it was virtually impossible to keep up with folk, or any other minority musical taste, unless you lived in an urban environment where it happened to flourish.
You have several choices: