Zip City wrote:There is no "selling out", there is just "buying in"
most bands form because they want to be giant rock stars. Their early work is usually raw (due to no funding for recording), and fans latch onto this work like it's pure and untouchable. Then, when the band actually achieves the success they've always strived for, they're suddenly assholes. I don't get it.
Typical. Trying to ruin our good clean fun.
I don't think anyone's begrudging a band's right to become successful or to grow artistically as they get older. I think this thread is more about bands that lost their way musically once they started having success and the money started coming in. Yes, it is possible to become successful and yet still maintain a consistent level of artistic integrity. Springsteen, U2 and Pearl Jam come to mind, and to a lesser extent because they haven't reached that level of success, DBT. But it's pretty clear that a lot of bands just want to cash in with little to no regard for the quality of schlock they put out.
Exactly. Selling out doesn't necessarily mean making more money; but it usually means getting sloppy artistically.
some people sell out but then they decide they're gonna do it their own way and become bigger or more prolific than they ever would have by selling out
I'm just saying that it's a matter of perspective. The more "commercial" sound may be something the band was always striving for, not necessarily just something they did for the money.
and all bands are in it for the money, no matter what they say
And I knew when I woke up Rock N Roll would be here forever
Zip City wrote:There is no "selling out", there is just "buying in"
most bands form because they want to be giant rock stars. Their early work is usually raw (due to no funding for recording), and fans latch onto this work like it's pure and untouchable. Then, when the band actually achieves the success they've always strived for, they're suddenly assholes. I don't get it.
Disingenuous at best, zip. I could go the full term paper route on this one, but i'll spare us all, especially cause i think u know it, anyway. Plus i have to thank you for giving me the chance to use "disingenuous at best".
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard
Zip City wrote:There is no "selling out", there is just "buying in"
most bands form because they want to be giant rock stars. Their early work is usually raw (due to no funding for recording), and fans latch onto this work like it's pure and untouchable. Then, when the band actually achieves the success they've always strived for, they're suddenly assholes. I don't get it.
Disingenuous at best, zip. I could go the full term paper route on this one, but i'll spare us all, especially cause i think u know it, anyway. Plus i have to thank you for giving me the chance to use "disingenuous at best".
I guess what I'm asking is this: how many bands that are perceived to have "changed" in order to sell more records were actually being true to themselves, but happened to write a song that became insanely popular? Did REM write "Stand" as a calculated attempt to gain listeners/MTV watchers, or did they happen to hit the lottery in terms of a song that clicked with people?
And I knew when I woke up Rock N Roll would be here forever
Selling out seems less a cynically calculated attempt to reach the big time, but more of a slow slide into mediocrity or artistic irrelevance. When some artists revamp their careers in an attempt to grow (The Replacements), become more popular (B52s ?), or just jump start their creativity (Talking Heads), they're actually taking huge risks. And while that can be equally distasteful, I can almost tolerate that more than the artists who just plod along without taking risks. For example, hideous as it was, I have less problem with Liz Phair's disastrous stab at pop stardom than I do with The Beach Boys whipping the same dead horse over and over again, trading only on their name (and with only one original member yet), and trashing their legacy.
Clams wrote:My first thought when I saw the title of this thread was Rod Stewart. Rod's got to top the list.
yeah, i thought of that too. that's why i put him in the first post of the thread.
Ya know, I saw rod the mod; and i'm thinkin' 'Who the fuck is dime talkin' about'. Not a minute later I'm typing out Rod Stewart, like I've had a brilliant revelation. Sorry I wasn't hip to the lingo.
beantownbubba wrote:
While Rod Stewart may be among the biggest wastes of talent ever, I don't know that he's a sellout 'cause he never pretended to be in it for anything other than the broads & booze and, a little later, the money.
bubba, when you go from Country Comfort & Gasoline Alley & even Reason to Believe & Maggie Mae to Do Ya Think I'm Sexy; then you have sold out.
Penny Lane wrote:
Sir Elton does NOT belong on that list..if you're true to what you love, then you can't be a sell out IMO
Penny, when you go from Levon & Tiny Dancer & Your Song to Capt. Fantastic, then you have sold out. IMO
A thousand clusterfucks will not kill my tiny light
How about Blood Sweat and Tears firing Al Kooper after one brilliant album and going for total schlock?
Jefferson Starship got so bad that Paul Kantner finally sued them so they would stop using "Jefferson" as a pre-fix, then formed his own Jefferson Starship which was truer to his original vision.
I have nowhere else to go. There is no demand in the priesthood for elderly drug addicts
I agree with Zip. No way I believe that anyone goes into the business with the intent of living in obscurity, paycheck to paycheck, playing urine stenched venues. Before Twisted Sister told us, "We're Not Gonna Take It" they told told us "We're Gonna Make It!"
Def Leppard's first two records were steeped in the BIOHM blueprint. So they sacked guitarist Pete Willis, replaced him with a guy from a glam band called "Girl" (Phil Collen) and released Pyromania. Collen totally changed their sound and the rest as they say...
Now to my (then) 17 year old mind, those fuckers had totally sold out. But I truly believe that the Willis/Collen switch happened because Willis couldn't handle his booze and Collen was a good fit for the band. The resulting sound change was a mere by-product.
Negative. I saw them around '99 open up for Goodie Mob. While I wasn't blown away by them (or Goodie Mob, for that matter), they did not seem corporate at all. I think it was years later when they added the girl that they sold out.
Negative. I saw them around '99 open up for Goodie Mob. While I wasn't blown away by them (or Goodie Mob, for that matter), they did not seem corporate at all. I think it was years later when they added the girl that they sold out.
bingo. they were originally a straight up rap/hip-hop trio from the south who was doing the same kind of stuff as Outkast, Goodie Mob, Ludacris, etc.
Then they added Fergie and went full on commercial
And I knew when I woke up Rock N Roll would be here forever
Negative. I saw them around '99 open up for Goodie Mob. While I wasn't blown away by them (or Goodie Mob, for that matter), they did not seem corporate at all. I think it was years later when they added the girl that they sold out.
There first album was actually pretty decent and definitely not the crap they put out today. They were more of an underground hip hop band and nothing like the hip pop group they are today. They were discovered by Eazy E i think.
Rolling Stone had a recent issue where they listed the "Top 40 Reasons to Get Excited About the Future of Music", with Black Eyed Peas at #1. The reason was basically because of the way they've elevated "selling out" almost to an art form. "Mastering the system" is the new integrity, I guess.
The reason was basically because of the way they've elevated "selling out" almost to an art form. "Mastering the system" is the new integrity, I guess.