Selling Out?

[KimyReizeger]

I see bands as a business, and what does a business do? they change what they do in order to maximise profits.

And this is ok with you, a music listener I presume? You wouldn't mind the thought that your favourite band are brain-storming this very moment about how best to get you to part cash? High fives all-round in the office!

[SeaOfEnergy]

the perfect example of a band selling out would be machinehead.

Burn My Eyes- classic metal album,

The More Things Change - simpler but still good drumming, still keeping the rawness

The Burning Red - the beginning of the sellout, more emphasis on melodics, less technical heaviness, simpler drums

SuperCharger - absolute sellout shit that alienated me completely from them, havent even got imperium or the new one cuz SuperCharger was so bad, and shows robb flynn for the arrogant twat he is. i mean that song american high or whatever the fuck it was called about being cool in class at school and having a 2 note riff?(

goin for the teenage crowd at all? i noticed a massive difference between the quality of show when i saw them playin on The Burning Red tour and then the Supercharger tour, Supercharger show sucked and they even played the aforementioned american high, with the unforgiveable tarzan shout at the start i mean, cmon.

fair enough they wanted more money, but at the expense of their original fans? i hear theyve been winning people back with their newer releases but somehow i dont think its the same fans who worshipped burn my eyes....

[Guest Savant]

the perfect example of a band selling out would be machinehead.

Burn My Eyes- classic metal album,

The More Things Change - simpler but still good drumming, still keeping the rawness

The Burning Red - the beginning of the sellout, more emphasis on melodics, less technical heaviness, simpler drums

SuperCharger - absolute sellout shit that alienated me completely from them, havent even got imperium or the new one cuz SuperCharger was so bad, and shows robb flynn for the arrogant twat he is. i mean that song american high or whatever the fuck it was called about being cool in class at school and having a 2 note riff?(

goin for the teenage crowd at all?

Wouldn't it be rather boring if all their records sounded like Burn My Eyes? Good bands get bigger, simple as. I bet you showed some of your friends Burn My Eyes when you first heard it? Then they went and bought copies and showed their friends and so on. I don't think Machine Head sold out, they just got bigger. I mean, their music is hardly britney spears-esque, is it?

[Guest Jake Wifebeater]

the perfect example of a band selling out would be machinehead.QUOTE]

How could they sell out? They've been a gumby metal band on a major label from day one.

[Stupot]

One would almost think you're being deliberately provocative...

If you wanted to be in business, why don't you get involved in the oil industry or something? A musician can never be a businessman - the two worlds are mutually exclusive. The function of the musician is to create and express themselves. The function of the businessman is to take what the musician has done, and market that to an audience. If music is art and not product (as I truly believe it is), then the businessman can never make art because he has one eye on the profits and will never express himself creatively. The musician cannot be a businessman because the role of the musician is to express themselves honestly and creatively, and if one is altering what they do in order to make their art a product, then they are no longer expressing anything other than a desire for money.

I'm not saying that a musician cannot make money, but what I am saying is that it's not really why they should be doing it if they want to make art. Which is the highest goal music can accomplish.

However, picking up on something someone said earlier on, you can't sell out if you never bought into it, and knowing the music you play and listen to (from a while back, anyway), I don't think you ever bought into it in the first place. Integrity isn't something I associate with manufactured emotions and business strategies.

I also want to point out that I am not having a personal attack on you or your music. There is a space in music for people who want to make money, and you do that very well. Your musical projects have always catered for a need that has been there, and you've always done it well. It's just that I don't respect that way of doing it, and no-doubt you'd have little time for my way of doing things, which involves refusing payment for gigs, giving away cds for free, and generally having absolutely nothing to do with product of finance. Someday you could make a lot of money from music, whilst I never will.

And also, most of my favourite artists have sold out at some point, but a few didn't, and they're the ones I respect and keep coming back to.

To round things off - In my opinion, if you write a song for any reason other than to express something within yourself, you are selling out, and "turning rebellion into money" as Joe Strummer once sang. That's a simplistic view, but I'm standing by it.

That's precisely why there are record companies and managers. The unpalatable truth, from your own point of view, is that all advances in music are driven by commercial releases and have been since the advent of recorded music and quite probably before.

This may not seem fair to those musicians who don't make saleable music but it's the way of the world.

I'm fairly sure that Joe Strummer, bless him, didn't work in Burger King either, so he used his music to keep himself alive and put a roof over his head. There is absolutely nothing wrong in doing this and it's extremely wrong headed to think so.

If your music has a message, then that message should reach as many people as possible. So let's ask ourselves, will that message reach more people if you a) play it to a dozen people at an open mike night and never sell a single CD but give away a few dozen for free so you're out of pocket. or b) Have a huge commercial release and sell millions all over the world with your message reaching half the planet, thus earning you a good load of dosh which you don't have to spend on booze and cocaine but can put it to good use easing the burden of people whose lives are pretty shit, whilst allowing you to leave any wage slave job you happen to be doing and freeing your time to write even more poignant tunes, knowing you have the resources to get your message to the people who need to hear it. Bearing in mind that you don't have to sully your artistic talent by indulging in the sordid topic of coin because you can afford people to do that for you.

X factor...now that's using music for twattish purposes.

[Guest Steven Dedalus]

That's precisely why there are record companies and managers. The unpalatable truth, from your own point of view, is that all advances in music are driven by commercial releases and have been since the advent of recorded music and quite probably before.

This may not seem fair to those musicians who don't make saleable music but it's the way of the world.

I'm fairly sure that Joe Strummer, bless him, didn't work in Burger King either, so he used his music to keep himself alive and put a roof over his head. There is absolutely nothing wrong in doing this and it's extremely wrong headed to think so.

If your music has a message, then that message should reach as many people as possible. So let's ask ourselves, will that message reach more people if you a) play it to a dozen people at an open mike night and never sell a single CD but give away a few dozen for free so you're out of pocket. or b) Have a huge commercial release and sell millions all over the world with your message reaching half the planet, thus earning you a good load of dosh which you don't have to spend on booze and cocaine but can put it to good use easing the burden of people whose lives are pretty shit, whilst allowing you to leave any wage slave job you happen to be doing and freeing your time to write even more poignant tunes, knowing you have the resources to get your message to the people who need to hear it. Bearing in mind that you don't have to sully your artistic talent by indulging in the sordid topic of coin because you can afford people to do that for you.

X factor...now that's using music for twattish purposes.

That's sort of what I'm getting at, I guess, but you've sort of articulated it more clearly.

As a (former) musician myself, I wanted nothing to do with the business side of things. my argument was: If I wrote a song, purely because I had to get it out of my system, etc, etc, and then an audience picked up on that song and there was a degree of success, is it acceptable for me to write a song specifically to perpetuate that success? Especially if what attracted the success in the first place was the honsety and integrity of the original thought.

I won't have anything to do with the business side of things, but if someone who DID know about that world was prepared to look after my interests, and be ethical about it, then I'd be happy enough.

But no such person exists, sadly.

[timson]

I think people took my statement too literally and read way too much into it, simply that a musicians job is to create/play music in order to earn an income so that they do not starve, but it's just that I don't believe that bands should be pointed at for selling out just because they are more popular than they usually would be. a good example is Limp Bizkit around the time of the "chocolate starfish and hot dog flavoured water" album. many would see the band as sell outs for this. but they created music that appealed to the masses and became very popular and probably raked in the cash with it. A bad thing? not at all.

If a band wants to change their style and it happens to appeal to the masses more, whether deliberatly or not, who cares to be honest?

[Old Gold]

If a band wants to change their style and it happens to appeal to the masses more, whether deliberatly or not, who cares to be honest?

Because in making such a jarring, deliberate change to their music there's a good chance that they've completely ignored the sound that the people who were first passionate about their music loved in the first place.

As a Rage Against the Machine fan, surely you realise that their conviction would have severely suffered if they simply viewed their band as a business in search of the almighty buck?

[Stupot]

That's sort of what I'm getting at, I guess, but you've sort of articulated it more clearly.

As a (former) musician myself, I wanted nothing to do with the business side of things. my argument was: If I wrote a song, purely because I had to get it out of my system, etc, etc, and then an audience picked up on that song and there was a degree of success, is it acceptable for me to write a song specifically to perpetuate that success? Especially if what attracted the success in the first place was the honsety and integrity of the original thought.

I won't have anything to do with the business side of things, but if someone who DID know about that world was prepared to look after my interests, and be ethical about it, then I'd be happy enough.

But no such person exists, sadly.

I see where you're coming from and yes the business side of things can be a pain. There are lots of sharks out there as I found out to my cost in the days (many moons ago) when I was a young punk rocker (the first time round that is, not today's pseudo punk).

Because of my negative experiences, I run my enterprises in an ethical manner ( as anyone who knows me will tell you). For instance, when we publish anyones' music, the artist pays us nothing unless we make them money. We routinely supply our acts with CDs for which they pay nothing until they've sold them and as I said earlier, our studio is priced incredibly cheaply.

Incidentally, studio time is expensive nornally because on start up, most studios have to borrow heavily to equip to a good standard. I was able to equip because I sold one of my songs to a US marketing company for use in a TV ad about depression. I don't therefore have a lot of debt to cover, just the studio overheads. I also don't have to rely on studio income because I'm in one of Scotland's busiest acts so I can pass on these benefits to people who have limited funds for recording rather than profiteering.

The benefits of business combined with art in a sensible manner.

[Mora-Treat-Guru]

Because in making such a jarring, deliberate change to their music there's a good chance that they've completely ignored the sound that the people who were first passionate about their music loved in the first place.

In saying that, is it not sometimes a positive move when musicians/artists disregard their fan base and decide to explore territory which they have not yet done so, regardless of whether some die hard fans may become enraged due to lack of familiarity? Music or any form of artistic expression is by default self-indulgent, and really the sole concern of creating it should be whether or not you are pleased with it, and the direction in which it is heading.

[Old Gold]

In saying that, is it not sometimes a positive move when musicians/artists disregard their fan base and decide to explore territory which they have not yet done so, regardless of whether some die hard fans may become enraged due to lack of familiarity? Music or any form of artistic expression is by default self-indulgent, and really the sole concern of creating it should be whether or not you are pleased with it, and the direction in which it is heading.

That's very true. It'd be really boring if nobody ever changed their sound, but it's not exactly exploration if they're moving into a territory labelled 'flavour of the week'.

[Guest Steven Dedalus]

In saying that, is it not sometimes a positive move when musicians/artists disregard their fan base and decide to explore territory which they have not yet done so, regardless of whether some die hard fans may become enraged due to lack of familiarity? Music or any form of artistic expression is by default self-indulgent, and really the sole concern of creating it should be whether or not you are pleased with it, and the direction in which it is heading.

Aye, that's true, but this debate seems to about when people do that purely in search of the dollar signs.

And we've all heard those bands that sound like one thing when it's in vogue, and then when the next big thing comes along, they've decided to appeal to whatever's in at the moment, just to keep the money coming in. That ain't music, it's just product.

I mean, you'd never see Bob Dylan prostituting his art by trying to appeal to a trendy New Wave audience, would you?

YouTube - Bob Dylan & The Plugz - Jokerman

[Mora-Treat-Guru]

In response to both of the above, I was contorting the argument a tiny bit just to see if anyone actually believed that fan base should be the determining factor in an artist's decision to morph and explore new sounds.

Personally all artists who create sound just to be in vogue should be burnt in a giant wicker man for all to see, but that's perhaps just me.

[SeaOfEnergy]

machinehead were hardly a commercial band when burn my eyes came out. by the burning red however they were glamming up their image and dumbing down their music = selling out. notice how they went from a band of long haired thrash style metal fuckers to nu-rap-metal wanabees with short hair and kappa tracksuits.....

they didnt sell out to fit in with the whole nu-metal thing at all ......

[Guest Steven Dedalus]

In response to both of the above, I was contorting the argument a tiny bit just to see if anyone actually believed that fan base should be the determining factor in an artist's decision to morph and explore new sounds.

Personally all artists who create sound just to be in vogue should be burnt in a giant wicker man for all to see, but that's perhaps just me.

But the other side of the coin is that sometimes a band's core audience can prompt or kickstart a change in their direction that is both massively welcome and neccessary.

For example, when Radiohead did 'Creep', they were picked up by a big American audience, who percieved them in a very different light to the way they saw themselves. Everything they recorded after 'Pablo Honey' can be seen as a reaction to what happens to you when you start catering for an audience.

Another great example is David Bowie, who consistantly changed his 'sound' during the 70s, because he appeared to be pursuing some greater artistic vision. And, uncomfortably for me, he was raking it in, and able to remain a very commercially viable artist. But it seemed that his musical direction was dictated to him by some artistic quest (and drugs), and rather than just trying to appeal to an audience that already liked him by giving them more of the same, he always stayed one step ahaed, and as such proved his longevity. I mean, I remember reading that RCA asked him to give them "Young Americans Part 2" after he'd 'gotten 'Station to Station' out of his system, and he ended up giving them "Low." Which is good in my book.

Then he realised he could become mega-rich and spent two whole decades peddling sub-standard pop-rock-funk-guff.

But you can't win them all, can you?

I've gone off the point a bit, haven't I?

[TR!ΔNGL€ T€€TH]

Then he realised he could become mega-rich and spent two whole decades peddling sub-standard pop-rock-funk-guff.

Aye, but Scary Monsters is a good album...

[Norseman]

I wish I could sell out and make loads of money!

[Guest Steven Dedalus]

Aye, but Scary Monsters is a good album...

I meant to exclude that, as it is easily one of the best albums of the 80s.

You were indeed correct to point that out, sir.

[Huw]

Interesting point. What if you're not using the money to make music you're interested in though, and the sole purpose of the band is to make money? What about covers bands, function bands etc. Are they selling out right from the start?

I've never really understood playing in a covers band. I enjoy messing about with mates and playing a 'cover', but i reckon the kick you'd get out of playing music that'd you had written and one person enjoying it would far outweigh the kick you'd get playing a cover and ten people enjoying it. thats just what i think though. i have no experience.

function bands are a bit different. see them as more of a service to be honest... kind of like a caterer. or a dj is probably a better comparison. i think i'd quite happily be in a function band and play for free. especially one of those scottish country ones that play at celidhs. looks a good larf.

[Guest Steven Dedalus]

' date=' post: 427633"']I've never really understood playing in a covers band. I enjoy messing about with mates and playing a 'cover', but i reckon the kick you'd get out of playing music that'd you had written and one person enjoying it would far outweigh the kick you'd get playing a cover and ten people enjoying it. thats just what i think though. i have no experience.

function bands are a bit different. see them as more of a service to be honest... kind of like a caterer. or a dj is probably a better comparison. i think i'd quite happily be in a function band and play for free. especially one of those scottish country ones that play at celidhs. looks a good larf.

That's the life of a working musician, in my opinion. The opposite, and what most people involved in this discussion are, is a creative musician.

For me, it's the equivalent of the difference between a painter and decorator, and an artist.

I'm not slagging cover's bands either, they just provide a service, and they've probably (definately) got more musical skills than me.

It's just that I use my limited abilities to create new things.

Terrible things.

[Colin Mac]

Young Dylan as anti-establishment folksinger to wrinkly Dylan endorsing ipods, womens lingerie and God knows what else was a bit of a sellout. Mind you if your gonna endorse anything, might aswell be womens lingerie!

[soundian]

That's the life of a working musician, in my opinion. The opposite, and what most people involved in this discussion are, is a creative musician.

Tut tut tut Steve, a working musician is the opposite of a creative musician?

I think the ideal for most people who play music is being a creative AND working musician.

I wouldn't point this out if anyone else had said it because it seems obvious what you mean, but looking at your other posts on this thread I'm not so sure.

[Stupot]

Tut tut tut Steve, a working musician is the opposite of a creative musician?

I think the ideal for most people who play music is being a creative AND working musician.

I wouldn't point this out if anyone else had said it because it seems obvious what you mean, but looking at your other posts on this thread I'm not so sure.

Absolutely. I think you'd have to consider Joe Strummer a working musican and a creative. one.

As I pointed out earlier, thousands of people a year get to hear my original music and buy it as a result of the many functions I play. In my opinion that's worth having to play "Brown Eyed Fucking Girl" 300 times a year!

[Guest Steven Dedalus]

Tut tut tut Steve, a working musician is the opposite of a creative musician?

I think the ideal for most people who play music is being a creative AND working musician.

I wouldn't point this out if anyone else had said it because it seems obvious what you mean, but looking at your other posts on this thread I'm not so sure.

No, you are correct to pull me up on that one, because I think I was in full flight by that point...

What I meant is that for someone in a covers band or a function band or whatever, playing music is their job - there is no artistry to it, there is no creativity to it, etc, it's just a way to make money and have a bit of fun. In my opinion, it's not really any different to working in any other job, especially if it's one that you quite like.

The other side of the coin is someone who makes music because they fell they have to, someone who writes songs, trying to express certain things and whatever, but does not do so purely as a means to make money.

The other side of a different coin is the musician who spends time crafting songs, practising and getting good, with the sole intention of making money. These are the worst lot, and should be taken out and shooted.

And then there's those lucky ones who are savvy enough to play the game, but do so on their own terms, and can make a living from music, and still remain doing what they want to do, not for commercial reasons. People like Ian Mackaye.

So there you go.

[HairyScaryMark]

I object to music which is made and sold purely for the motivation of money.

An obvious example of this which I assume everyone would agree on would be something like the cheeky girls. They have very little artistic merit yet have made someone very rich.

The question is, where do you draw the line?

A major record company is generally going to try and tap into the trends of the day and promote music which is easily marketable to specific groups. With modern 'pop groups' like Westlife, someone outside of the band/singing group has generally written the songs who understands the market well and knows what people 'want' to hear. A group like this are probably auditioned as much upon the way they look as their ability to sing although I believe in the case of Westlife, they probably are very good singers.

I think most people reading this would agree Westlife and the Cheeky girls could be condirered examples of 'commercial music'. Whether or not you like the music is irrelevant, it exists to make money over the artistic qualities of it.

Most bands signed to major record companies are usually going to be chosen becuase they are low-risk (popular style so can be marketed easily) in terms of money. The record company will usually recoup their investment quite easily.

The topic seemed to be more about commercialism in rock music.

It is hard to know from the outside if bands play a particular style to make money over the music qualities of it. The listeners/performers may too enjoy listening to the popular style of the day and therefore wish to create it.

Anyone who really loves music should dig a bit further into it and try to hear more obscure styles and sounds. The internet is a key tool in allowing you to hear music you wouldn't otherwise be able to. It also allows musicians to promote themselves in ways they would not otherwise be able to do.

On the flipside, a band like McFly exists to cash on the fact bands with catchy songs and slightly rough sounds are popular at the moment.

The example of St Anger is questionable as the band probably lacked the 'togetherness' in their mental state to create music of the same quality as before. Tapping into the sounds of today was probably a bad commercial move and I think most people would have preferred if they created something more similar to what they had done before.

Commercialism with 'normal people' playing music? i.e is playing in a covers band 'selling out'.

Generally the motivation behind playing in a covers band is to provide a 'stable' income from music so the musician can do what they 'really want' the rest of the time? Is this commercially orientated?

Undoubtably

Many musicians still enjoy playing in a covers band even though they may end up playing all the usual songs (mustang sally, brown eyed girl, proud mary, rockin all over the world etc.). It certainly beats working a McJob or some other slave wage job.

In my opinion, covers bands are also usually preferable over some gobby DJ playing agadoo and cheesey pop songs.

The other usual income from music is teaching. I have done some of this and found it highly enjoyable. Many musicians, myself included achieve a lot more as a result of lessons so seems to benefit everyone.

In my opinion, the listener is as much to blame as any record company, band or PR firm.

Commercial music is made becuase it sells and we must refuse to buy it if we expect it to go away at any point. Most? people see straight through it but there are still enough people who don't to make it economically viable.