Rockstar question
 

Indulge me if you will, in this little rockstar scenario.

Let us say you're the singer of a rock band, a locally successful and respected rock band that shows alot of potential

you're staying true to your vision without compromising it and you're enjoying what you do but your getting no money out of it just respect

Then a big music label catches wind of your band and wants to make you the "Next big thing"

they promise you wealth and fame HOWEVER they wanna remake your sound into something with more mass appeal and you would loose creative control over your band..

what would you do, stay true to yourself? or sell out?

I think it depends on where I was at in my life& where
my bandmates were at. To a certain extent.
If I were in my early 20's I would probably
say piss off it's all about the music..
but the older I got and the more I might sucomb to the
pressures of "adult life" ie house family etc...I would probably
crack for a year or so and go through a mid life crisis
break up with the band, buy a yellow mazeratti, shave my head
do yoga all day long after I checked myself into rehab
then get back together with the band whom I had'nt seen
since my intervention and then record a back to basics
album....that would go triple platinum without our meaning it ..


wow I thought to hard about that....I feel a behind the music in the making

this begs the question is it better to burn out or fade away?

i would stay myself. always

I'd sell out

I like money

EASY!!

I would sign up to the label and possibly lose some core fans but gain much more fans in the process. I would take the money and use it to create my own label where I would launch my side projects and scout for talent. I would sign my own checks then and my core fans that I may have lost before may come back for the side project while the newer fans will also try it out of curiosity.

Could you do a thread about how likely it is that you would enjoy certain bands that you did as a child or in your younger days (before your taste had been more defined) if you heard them for the first time today? (these artists would have to be ones you still like today for the discussion to have any meaning)

Also, SELL OUT! You can always make good music that also appeals to many people, and if not, you could always return/make side projects to fulfill your creative needs.

I would sell out. Good question, but money and fame hold a lot of power.

Do what a lot of aspiring artists do, make that one album that loses fans and respect and get the money saved up that is needed to go back to doing what the hell I want. You see it all the time in music, most recent that I can think of is Orianthi. Jumped the pop bandwagon a bit, than went back into her bluesy rock and roll roots

I know someone in a similar situation to this, in that area where you can either stay making what you want to make or just grab the money.

Personally think the correct answer is to "sell out" and grab the money.

You could be talented as fuck and not get anywhere. Integrity does not pay the bills or put a roof over your head. Also like Goofle said you can still make what you want on the side if you're that arsed about it.

If I don't have creative control of my project, be it writing, performance, artwork, direction, what have you, then there's no point in me doing it.

I'd sell out unless it was utterly horrid, then put together a side project that was what I wanted to do and hope my new found fame created more interest.

Then I'd wake up, shower, shave, dress and go to work.

Oh that is easy sell out and then when you become so huge the record companies are forced to pander to you changing your sound completely back to what you sounded like prior to hitting it huge and the kids won't care they will buy anything with the band name on it!

Honestly, I'm probably going to sell out (like it will happen - ha!). But Kiwi artists like Kimbra who has stuck to her soulful/bluesy roots impresses me big time. But surprise, surprise it was a pop song that launched her into stardom.

Kimbra is so pretty.

I KNOOOW! She looks really unique too, not the usual generic pop star. I personally am in love with her wardrobe! :D Have you heard much of her music?

Yeah, a few songs :) I looked her up after listening to Gotye.

this.

There are elements to the equation that don't make sense to me. If you're enjoying some level of success, but not making any money, exclusively in the microcosm of your hometown, then what is drawing A&R's attention your way? If they don't have faith that your sound will sell records, then there must be something about your image that's drawing them to you, but then why would your music be suffering a secluded existence if your image is drawing industry scouts to your shows?

Second, it's really not very coercive to suggest before signing the deal memo that the band's sound might have to be changed, or streamlined. Usually that comes long after lawyers have met and a contract has been negotiated. It's part of the grooming process that the A&R rep takes on after you've been signed and are working on your first album/single. The record company would most likely hire a producer that will work with the band and A&R rep (who's basically the record company's liaison in the whole mix) to mold the sound to something more accessible to a wider audience.

The point being that it's almost never the stereotypical scenario of the devil wanting you to knowingly sell your soul for fame and wealth, just sign on the dotted line. If that were the case, nobody would get signed, but the industry is a lot more clever than that.

But if I have to answer the question, I say I'd tell them to **** off, because where there's one talent scout there's usually at least one or two more on the way, and if I've already managed to get their attention, then I must be doing something very right.