Selling out
 

What exactly does "selling out" mean? I remember back in the day when Windows '95 was just hitting the market, R.E.M. wouldn't allow MS to use "its the end of the world . . ." in thier marketing because they would be "selling out". Why is that? What is the problem with an artist selling thier music? I saw an interview with Moby where he said that he would sell any of his music as long as it wasn't used to promote weapons. He didn't seem to lose any respect because of that, so why do others? Could anyone please define "selling out" in the derogatory sense?

Selling out isn't your song being in a comercial or all over the radio. Selling out is compromising song quality so that it can be well liked and thus in a comercial and all over the radio.

So then in your opinion, would R.E.M. have sold out if they allowed thier song to be used in Win95 advertising?

i dont think they would be selling out. Were they ever proclaiming themselves as hardcore anti-establishment punk rock artists?

Selling out is more off, intentionally making the song dumbed down and easier to like for the masses for a profit. But even that is no reason to get angry at an artist.

I admit, i was kind-off mad when i saw The Fall in a car add, but its entirely up to the artists, me giving the same oppurtunity would definitly "sell out". As long as the music is still good, who cares.

I had the opposite reaction , I laughed.
I thought that if anyone would think they could sell cars using music by The Fall then good luck to them.
And I don't begrudge the old bastard a bit of extra cash seeing he's basically been playing toilets for 30 odd years.
Besides , with bands like The Fall that advert is probably the most airtime they've ever had for a song on national TV.

I'm more against musicians being sponsered by large companies than I am about music being used in ads.

hah, yeah i guess thats true. I thought they had 1 break-out music video though :)

Well there was Victoria , Hit The North & Ghost In My House but that was about 20 years ago now.

hmm..
*goes to view fall documentary again*

im just gonna have to make up what mark is saying as i go a long...

Do you guys think Nirvana sold out with there song Breed coming out for a baseball game?
If a bands song is used in a commercial they are by far not selling out, hell soo many major bands have had songs play in a commercial but when a band alters there sound to make it something there not....That's a sell out.

They sold out when they wrote Nevermind. Listen to Bleach, compare and you should understand.

I don't think they sold out....I have all there albums it just shows growth of the band if you listen to Bleach, Insecticide, Nevermind, and In Utero it's all growth not selling out.

No it's processed mush and then you take into the fact they switched labels and are all over the radio.

I don't think Nirvana ever sold out simply because there was nothing to sell out.
Which is kind of ironic seeing as Cobain never shut up about 'underground music'.

They always released 3 minute pop songs for singles , They were only on Sub Pop because they were the only label interested in them and as soon as a major came calling they jumped the first chance they got.

Nirvana - Half decent band but any ideals they had were one big con.

but nevermind actually had decent songwriting compared to bleach, and had dave grohl as their drummer, instead of switching between other guys.
Im not arguing it wasn't overproduced(kurt even thought so himself) i just don't understand why people can like Bleach more..

In Utero was always my favorite..

to bring this back on subject, yes they were sell-outs, commercial,but still good. I never understood how Kurt had the idea to trash talk Eddie Vedder about being a sellout though.

Because Eddie sort of did sell out.

Holy smokes is this comment retarded, so its not quality if most people like it, its only quality if you like it, thats just what you frickin said.

For me, a good songwriter is someone who writes music with the intent of at least someone liking the damn songs. Rather than just making the most annoying, obnoxious and primitive music you possibly can, knowing that the Indie crowd will absolutely eat it up.

Writing a song so that it will be liked is dumb. Writing a song because you like writing music is legit. Art should be selfish.

The number of people who like a band is completely irrelevant to quality. I've said that over and over. Few people can like can like a great band and many can love a crap one just as easily as many can like a great band and few like crap one.

I have no reason at all to believe that guys like Modest Mouse, TV On the Radio, Belle & Sabastion, Interpol, Built to Spill and Wolf Parade enjoy what they do. It seems very clear to me that they themselves are convinced they suck the big one, and that they are simply trying to make the worst music they possibly can, they're trying to suck, there really is no other explanation for a band to suck that damn much, to be honest.

Indeed many share your philosophy of art, which is to make horrible self indulgent music at the expense of other peoples ears. And its thanks to this very philosophy that music has been completely down the ****ter for the past 10 years.

Oh come on Boo Boo don't make out that it's just the 'indie crowd' that do that.

What about when Emerson Lake & Palmer released Love Beach which was a blatent attempt at making a more commercial album.
Knowing how much you love that band obviously them being as talented musicians as they are and making their music more accessable would obviously make it their best album. no?

Maybe you should go listen to some classical or something if you're in search of top quality composers. But I rather listen music with character and color that stays kind of close to folk ethics, music of the people that is for one's own pleasure.

Built to Spill and Modest Mouse really arent THAT horrible.

Uber bad example. One crap album that every critic hates vs 50 something crap albums that every critic seems to love.

Why is it a bad example?

Because it shows you can be just as snobby as some indie kid?

I ask again

A bunch of talented musicians make an album thats more commercial and easy to listen to , so why do you hate it so much?

:laughing:

Yeah, I'm so un-hip for appreciating beautiful music.

I fail to see how you get pleasure out of that vile crap.

And its not like I'm not in the know, I've heard a lot of this stuff because it had been so frequently recomended to me.

Yeah they are.

And for the record, since Urban brought up the prog card, it strikes me odd how so many of you diss prog for being "pretentious" (a coin term for selfish/self absorbed) yet you think art should be "selfish". Well here I am to clue you in, bands like Genesis and King Crimson aren't selfish at all, because they compose music with the goal of pleasing people with an appreciation for complex and beautiful music, and they succeed. And they do get personal with their art, they do enjoy what they do and they do believe what they write. So for people to really say prog/art rock bands are pretentious wankers who give no "feeling or personality" to their music is a load of crap, propagonda if you will to promote a ignorant, closeminded view of music which is that all music MUST be primitive and with lyrics that have to involve lyrics about politics, relationships, personal philosophies and pretty much nothing else because it becomes "pretentious". For me the real bands who are pretentious are those who pretend to be worth listening to, that fits the bill perfectly for Modest Mouse.

Now I'm not an all around alternative rock hater, because Sonic Youth, My Bloody Valentine, Flaming Lips, Pixies and Pavement are among my favorite bands. But I sincerely believe most Indie today is rubbish, and not the stuff no one cares about, its the stuff everybody loves, the stuff they love because it makes them feel "hip and underground". Nothing has proven to me that these bands respect music, they're cattering strictly to people with genuine attraction to intentionally bad music, bands people force themselves to like because they have a severe identity/non conformity crisis, which in an ironic turn of events makes indie fans the biggest conformists of them all. You have taught yourselfs to hate all that is good about music, you simply can't stand good music. Your tastes is the anti-good. And you oppress all those that appreciate good.

Really, I say all this as it is my honest opinion, its not out of spite or some attempt at revenge for you smearing almost every band I respect, its due to my belief that you, Swimintheundertow, have the worst taste in music I've ever seen. EVER.

Call me smug, call me mean, call me nasty, these things are all true but to point them out yourself would make you a hypocrite, being a part of the overall Indie herd its almost somewhat of a duty for you to nitpick about everyone with an even remotely different preference than yours. This is what indie fans do, its what they always do and have always done, and it is why I dispise them so. Adoring godawful music is barely a scratch on the surface.

Listen to it, its actually very poppy. Weird dosen't automatically translate to self indulgent.

Also I haven't updated it in like 3 months, which is just about how long its been since I have actually listened to that album.

I didn't 'bring up prog' I gave an example of a band you like making a blatent commercial album that you yourself have slated as being rubbish and asked you what the difference was.
A question you have yet to answer despite being asked 3 times.

The album was actually a contract obligation, they hated the record company they were on and they simply had to make an album dispite their reluctance, so they put no effort into pleasing their devoted fans and staying true to themselves. Did they cheat their fans? F*cking hell yeah they did, and they're still nowhere near as pretentious as most Indie bands. No small feat.

Its seems to me that the more eccentric a musician is the more likely it is that theyll eventually get bored of making no money and make a blatantly commercial record in the hope of having some hits.

Just look at Beefheart.

And just for the damn record, every band you listen to is a sellout, every single one.

I don't give a sh*t if its Sony or 4AD making your records, if you make music to sell, you're a sellout, you're emotionally and spiritualy prostituting yourself, you're a Hooker with a Penis (I'm a Tool fan, bite me).

So anyone who rants about Nirvana being the biggest sellouts are not only lying to themselves but they're lying to everyone on this forum.

Swimintheundertow, Urban, Moon Pix, Unfan. You're all big fat liars.

So there is no difference , it's just an excuse for you to spit bile about 'indie fans' .... again, and then complain about how hard done by prog fans are .... again.
I've often said I don't care what kind of label a band is on.What I have a problem with is bands who claim to be paragons of individuality whilst writing 3 minute radio friendly crap while being signed to sony.
Be upfront about it, If a band were to say 'I don't care about underground credibility I just want to make music that people will like' i'll respect them a hell of a lot more.I might like the music , then again I might not , but i'll respect them for having some honesty.

Nirvana , that'll be the band that praised the underground to high heaven , spoke out about how bad mainstream music was and then signed to Geffen as soon as they waved some cash in their faces.

RATM are not hypocrites at all, which is obviously what you're refering to. They're a band that obviously wants people to hear what they have to say (even if what they say has been told before, thats not the damn point), so being signed to Sony is not only NOT a problem, its a damn good thing they're signed to Sony.

Capitalism is a system that begs to be exploited, so exploiting it to preach against it is not hypocritical, its just a good logical way of gaining a platform. No one would have given a crap about Karl Marx if his work wasnt so well publicized, and thus there would be no cause for revolution.

Also their deeper tracks are hardly radio friendly. And most songs from the s/t debut clocked in over 5 minutes and were not commercial in structure. Oh my, their frontman screams a lot and kids just happen to dig that, they're sooooooooooo commercial.

And Cobain even admitted it and continued to joke about how Nirvana were bigass sellouts up until his death, but again, they already sold out much earlier, as I explained. By not giving him even a little credit for being sincere and humble you're clearly being selective with your history.

Besides, he and Eddie were pals, so the whole calling PJ sellouts thing could have simply been a tounge in cheek affair, though he clearly didn't like their music.

You honestly think I give a crap about what any of them do as long as they keep writing good songs? You honestly think I burnt all of my White Stripes albums when Jack White wrote that song for Coca Cola?

All of this sort of sh*t doesnt have anything to do with music. If you think a musicians integrity can be destroyed by a commercial then you obviously don't have enough faith in them and the funny thing is that the people who p*ss and moan about musicians signing to be big labels or doing commercials are always the first ones to say "its all about the music man."

Well start acting like it then.

What are you retarded? Thats what I've been goddamned refuting you idiot.

Try reading the rest of my post, sheesh.

I don't have a problem with artists being signed to sony , in fact some of my favourite artists are on that label.I'll tell you exactly what my problem with RATM is.
Let's compare them to another political artist signed to Sony , Billy Bragg.

Billy Bragg spent nearly 2 decades putting out records , was openly active in the political arena , gave his time & name to causes he believed in all the time and spoke in depth about these causes.Some might argue his going to Sony was him selling out. I disagree , I think after 2 decades of hard work ,raising awareness of causes and generally giving up so much of his career to these causes he deserved a little bit in return and the benefits that come with being signed to a major.

Compare that to RATM who despite being anti establishment went straight to Sony after they made a tape & got signed ,don't you find that odd? A band so anti establishment they go straight to one of the biggest conglomerates in the world?
did absolutly nothing in the political arena and who's basic political philosophy is a small meaningless slogan that'll fit on a T-shirt that they'll sell for £15 a go.And giving their name to a few token causes to show just how political they are.

Now before you say anything i'd just like to point out I don't like either RATM or Billy Bragg musically , but Billy has my respect & RATM don't.

That was just my own little comment. It wasnt in reference to anything you said. I just used your quote to give it a context.

That may make them politically insignificant, it dosen't make them hypocrites.

To me it does , and i'm the one with the cash choosing to buy someone elses albums.

Anyway Boo Boo what p*ssed me off was you took a simple comment about Captain Beefheart as an oppurtunity to call me a liar because in another thread unrelated to this one I took a few potshots at RATM.

Just admit that you want to turn this into the RATM forum and have done with it. You seem to like dragging them up.