it is a tough and fine line, but for me getting a big contract from a major label is except when it causes the musicians to CHANGE their Music. my big local example is a band called the Whitlams, sure music is still ok, but is now verging on elevator music, every since the big deal their albums sound completely different and over produced i mean all bands have to care about sales (besides maybe Lou Reed) not sure that REM are sell-out, the success and opposed to acclaim and review of their last few albums, ie Up and New adventures in Hi-Fi are great examples of them just making music independent of sales.
Man, I've got a lot to say about this thread but I'm on my way out. Stay tuned for a long and boring...er, uh opinionated post from me.
One thing to consider is that it may not have been their choice. Bands who sign with majors often have their art co-opted by producers and A&R people whose main focus is selling product, not making art. I met a percussionist who plays with Al DiMeola and a number of other supremely talented Latin, jazz and salsa musicians. He explained that Al's latest CD had programmed drums instead of live. This was around 90 when "pop jazz" was selling and traditional jazz was nowhere to be found. I told him that surprised me and he explained that they had to make a living followed by one of the bravest things I'd ever heard a truly gifted artist say, "Art don't pay the rent." This is coming from one of the most giften percussionists I've ever had the pleasure of hearing and a guy who chose jazz music as his way to make a living - not exactly million sellers. If not for commerce, the artists wouldn't survive. If they get to the point where it is either make a compromised version of their art or flip burgers for a living, what would you choose? At least that gets them in the door, gets them contacts, gives them a shot. It may be the only one they get.
Somthing Mrs JB and I were discussing also is why is music the only artform where you hear about sellouts? When a well-respected actor makes a blockbuster film, why is he not a sellout? Andy Warhol was a self-defined "pop artist" but he was lauded as a genius. It's important to remember, I guess, that art is in the eye of the beholder.
yeah i understand Jeff, the labels once giving up the cash have a lot of say and it is likely in my example that is the case, probably also in combination with the ego blow-up of the front man, remember reading he loves having more things in the studios (effects etc) to play with and also changing band members. and yeah my sisters is a painter so certainly understand that art doesn't pay the rent, but for me i now won't being paying this band's rent anymore, there music is verging on crap now (this is a big call as i have close to a dozen shirts, and been to probably 50 gigs, have all the albums) but still i can continue to listen to their old stuff.
"All you know about me's what I've sold you, dumb **** I sold out long before you heard my name. I sold my soul to make a record dip**** then you bought one!" TOOL
That is a good point, Jeff. Does anyone here know what type of art Jackson Pollock did before he became "famous" for just throwing the paint on the canvas? Couldn't you technically say that was "selling out" on his part since he became famous for it? I got to thinking about this on the way home, and I think that it is really hard for a band to keep coming up with fresh ideas. Although some fans hate it, I don't think that many artists want to continue to do the same thing over and over. That is why I think Radiohead is so amazing. They keep coming up with new stuff, IMO, that sounds like some of their old stuff but at the same time it is new. However, it is far from being commercial. I also think it is easy to go from being "underground sensation" to commercial artist. Many have done this including (at various times) the Cure, REM, U2, DMB, etc. Notice that I didn't say that any of them sold out; however, I am sure that there are hardcore fans out there that absolutely despised "Friday, I'm in Love" by the Cure or "Losing my Religion" by REM or the entire "Everyday" album by DMB. Yet, you don't hear too often about an artist that is successful right away coming out with an album that doesn't sell well but is highly lauded by critics.
People hate crappy pop-movies as much as pop music. I hate what Nick Cage has become. But music just means more to people than orther art for some reason. I think it is more personal, there is more of a connection. BTW, Pop Art was rebellious in its own way. It dealt with pop, but wasn't really pop itself until it got "popular" . No living artists were famous before Andy came along. He was an overnight sensation, a product of the modern era. The selling out thing depends on the artist's early fan base. If the fan base a group that has certain ideals dealing with "selling out" etc., don't get surprised when they leave that artist when they get big. I don't think selling out was an concern until the anti-pop, over-produced, fake, music was in. Once bands started rebelling against the fake stuff, then selling out became an issue. The selling out thing isn't a big issue to me. Refined music has a definite place, but there something incredible about real, raw, energetic rock and roll.
We have stumbled upon a music thread that I actually agree with...JEFF? Wowser! Now that I am in this business I guess I see it from a different angle than I used to. I always knew that musicians were in it primarily for the jack but I never really acknowledged that the vids, the performances, the interviews...EVERYTHING was an orchestrated attempt to move product...at least in the mainstream big five label, clear channel radio & concert world. Back in the day my answer to this thread would have been: "A sellout is a guy (chick, band whatever) that abandoned his roots in a non-exploratory manner and began making music and publicly behaving in a manner dictated by the suits for the sole pupose of capital generation." Now that I have kinda seen the other side of it I realize that my definition fits just about every band you hear on the radio. So this is the norm, not a sellout. My revamped definition is as follows: "A sellout is a band abandons their dignity to sell product...and gets caught." However I'm tipsy so this is subject to change. ~I added the following on the edit: I am more bothered by the artists that the labels and clear channel cram down our throat (no Tommy Lee jokes please) than by the folks that seem to be sellouts. Just my two pennies.
Interesting question. I guess I'm OK with what he did. After all, it's his music and he can do what ever he wants with it. Who are we to tell him any different. He was getting NO exposure on the radio, so really who could blame him? I agree with what Jeff says about using music to "pay the rent". Hell, I do it every month. That being said, my issue is when an artist has already made millions of dollars and then decides to "sell out". Take Sting for instance. The guy made millions of well deserved dollars with The Police, then millions of well deserved dollars as a solo artist, then he decides to sell his music to Compaq and Jaguar? I really don't think Sting would have had a check bounce if he didn't make those deals. For what it's worth, it was Stings manager Miles Copeland (Stewarts brother) that came up with the idea. Sting didn't want to do it at first, citing the whole "my music isn't for sale" reasoning, but Miles talked him into it. That's what I call selling out. Then again, it is his music so who are we to judge? It just doesn't seem right to me. LOL, guilty as charged! This paragraph reminds me of my "Musical Snob" thread some time ago. I hate to admit it, but it's exactly how I feel sometimes about "my" bands!
Right there. When the original fans start seeing the people that they don't like listening to their music, they say it is too popular and thus are sellouts.
Give me an example of a rapper that sells out, and you mean by sell out, do you mean by going from Rap to Pop? eg Nelly.
Man, the duets with Beyonce could almost be classified as gangster rap compared with his Mariah Carey stint.
There is (almost) no such thing as a 'sellout'. Almost any artist who makes movies, writes, etc., would be pleased to have their work reach a large audience...hence, 'selling'. They go hand in hand. The only real definition of 'selling out' is when it has nothing to do with your art. Kind of like a rock band selling 1-800-COLLECT or whatever. THAT is selling out.
Wasn't expecting much from Liz this time around, my interest level has gone down with each album; but this was quite the precipitous drop-off. And I'm the only person I know who still finds her third album an enjoyable listen ... Otherwise, I don't really want to get into a 'sell-out' missive. Listening to a muzak version of "Black Magic Woman" in a drug-store today reminded me of Peter Green, who is probably wandering around someone's garden right now; not wearing any pants. Or listening to Jeff Beck's "Truth" last night, going to bed, and flipping on the TV this afternoon in time to see an ad for Rod Stewart's latest Greatest Hits ... musn't ... get ... started ...
I would say that "selling-out" (in music, at least) begins even earlier than making a slick, produced-by-(insert famous producer) major label album. Go to any place where musicians are advertising to start or join a band. You'll usually see several ads where the "musician" (usually a singer) talks about wanting to become a big rock star but mentions little about what kind of music he's looking to make. In my opinion, selling out occurs when the achievement of tangible and materialistic benefits takes precedence over the communication/expression. Athough I hate Sting's solo stuff, I wouldn't necessarily begrudge him selling his songs for commercial use as long as they were originally written with genuine artistic intentions. However, in the case of Liz Phair, it seems to me that her creativity has taken a back seat to marketability. As many people have mentioned, her song on the radio sounds like Avril Lavigne (or perhaps more accurately, the Neptunes). I suppose it's possible that Liz happened to go through a creative phase that yielded such material, but that seems a little too convenient to me. I actually liked a lot of Liz Phair's older stuff and found her voice endearing (if not particularly impressive). "Polyester Bride" (off her 3rd album) is a little precious lyrically but it has everthing that a good pop song needs - a good melody, good structure, a nice arrangement and heart. But the new stuff just sounds calculated to me.
