"Selling Out" - Learn what it means and use the term properly, please

[Faerie Nuff]

To every pretentious know-it-all (this isn't aimed at anyone here) who keeps talking about which musicians have "sold out", at least learn what that means before you talk.

Just because a formerly obscure band suddenly finds fame without compromising their style or values, this does not mean they have sold out. It means they have become successful. I know you're very happy to be able to easily rattle off the names of ten bands no one's EVER heard of before when someone asks you what music you listen to. But this doesn't make you special or superior to everyone else. It just makes you pretentious and annoying.

Just because a band or artist appears in or lets a company use one of their songs in a commercial, this does not necessarily mean they've sold out. Now, if they have come right out and said that they hate commercialism and would never stoop so low as to hock crap on T.V., then they've probably sold out to make that Ford commercial. And if you hate commercialism so much, what do you say when your record label wants to promote your album? "Sorry, we'd prefer to remain penniless and keep our day jobs at Cinnabon so we can stay true to our ideals and not sell out."? Yeah, that's nice. I'd try to get some exposure so maybe being a musician could be my only job some day.

Keep in mind here that professional musicians do this for a living. They get paid to make music. How is that so different from saying, "Sure, you can use our song we've already recoded in that Mitsubishi commercial. More exposure for us!"?

If a band that used to make their own kind of music, ska for example, decides they want to be super-rich and starts making crappy pop because that's what sells, they've probably sold out.

If a sweet young girl lets her record label dress her up like a crack whore to sell more records, she's their puppet and while she may have a soul, she certainly doesn't have a spine.

It doesn't count as selling out if they started that way. The Spice Girls, Backstreet Boys, N*Sync, and any other fabricated-by-a-record-label band is incapable of selling out. You have to have ideals to abandon in the first place.

If you use "sell out" as a shorthand term for any band or artist you don't happen to like, stop that right now. You're only embarassing yourself.

Thank you for reading and have a lovely day.

[Rysler]

Kudos on the ranting. This thread might provide some entertainment: Please help me to be pretentious!!

Maybe you can out-snark the know-it-alls.

[Neurotik]

Originally posted by Faerie Nuff
I know you're very happy to be able to easily rattle off the names of ten bands no one's EVER heard of before when someone asks you what music you listen to. But this doesn't make you special or superior to everyone else. It just makes you pretentious and annoying.

A-men.

Can we make this a sticky in Cafe Society?

[eunoia]

On behalf of sellouts everywhere, I must mention that we prefer the term "buying in".

[capacitor]

A poet, Reeves, once said "Am I sell-out because I sold out?"

[Ooner]

Originally posted by Faerie Nuff
I know you're very happy to be able to easily rattle off the names of ten bands no one's EVER heard of before when someone asks you what music you listen to. But this doesn't make you special or superior to everyone else. It just makes you pretentious and annoying.

I happen to like several relatively unknown artists. When people ask me my favorite bands or singers, I list what I like, fairly regardless of popularity.

Granted, it can be pretentious and annoying if people make efforts to show off that they like non-mainstream music, but that isn't always the case. Take it on a case-by-case basis.

[Kyomara]

Originally posted by Faerie Nuff
What do you say when your record label wants to promote your album? "Sorry, we'd prefer to remain penniless and keep our day jobs at Cinnabon so we can stay true to our ideals and not sell out."? Yeah, that's nice. I'd try to get some exposure so maybe being a musician could be my only job some day.

That's why you'd be a sell-out.

[Bad News Baboon]

Another aspect of a song being used in a commercial:

Sometimes the band has abosolutely no say in the matter. The label owns the song. So long as they pay royalties to the proper people, they are within their legal rights to do what they want.

[Pixelle]

Originally posted by Faerie Nuff
......Just because a formerly obscure band suddenly finds fame without compromising their style or values, this does not mean they have sold out.....

....It doesn't count as selling out if they started that way. The Spice Girls, Backstreet Boys, N*Sync, and any other fabricated-by-a-record-label band is incapable of selling out.

I don't understand why people think that it's only the artists like Backstreet boys or SpiceGirls that are fabricated. All artists and bands are fabricated, or have an image which is fabricated to some degree. Some images are fabricated by the people who work at the label and some are fabricated by the artists themselves.

Anyone who is getting paid to make music by a record company has sold out to some degree. That's the nature of the business. Just being signed to a label will mean some degree of compromise of the artists' style or values. At the end of the day the band hopes that you will buy their product and that's why it's called the 'music business'.

Obscure bands are no exception. They are affected by and involved in a lot of the same commercialism that the Backstreet Boys are, it just happens on a much smaller level. This makes it appear as if they somehow have more integrity or better ideals than the BS Boys but really they don't. It's all the same business.

[Jonathan Chance]

"One likes to believe in the freedom of music
But glittering prizes and endless compromises
Shatter the illusion of integrity"
-Rush, The Spirit of Radio

I think there's a fallacy at work in the OP. It's not so much the 'selling out' that makes the music poor but the attitude behind it.

Honest music is where you find it. Even commerically driven studio music can be worthwhile. The Monkees proved that with a string of amazingly catchy and fun pop songs while never pretending to be anything else.

But a band that's solely motivated by commerical forces while proclaiming themselves above such things or 'for the revolution' or 'just about the music, man' or some such shows real contempt for both their art and those buying it.

And art with contempt in it shows to the thoughtful listener. Sadly, most of the teenage record-buying public aren't yet discriminating.

[Neurotik]

That's exactly the attitude the OP is talking about Jonathan. Who cares what the artist's attitude or image is, as long as I like the music? Would the Monkees' songs be any less catchy and fun if they had pretended to be above commercialism? No, they wouldn't.

The "thoughtful listener" is often a pretentious twit.

[hazel-rah]

Who cares what the artist's attitude or image is, as long as I like the music?

I do. And having heard your thoughts on the subject, I can conclude that you are ignorant and I am better than you. I realize this might frustrate you. I understand. Sometimes I see beautiful people or rich people and wish I were beautiful and rich too. Alas, I am not. I do, however, have taste in music which you clearly lack. Like a beautiful person gets used to ugly people calling them vain or a rich person gets used to poor people calling them greedy, I am used to hearing people without taste call me a pretentious know-it-all. That's fine... your obvious lack of discernment means I can safely ignore your conclusions about my good taste.

You and I have the same ears, but I hear more. Your attempts at appreciation are to me like watching a slug try and enjoy television. Yes, you are to me a slug of music. Me, a gifted aesthete, trying to explain my gift of musical appreciation to you, cretinous slug, would be like pouring salt on you, pointless and cruel annihilation that while truthfully somewhat entertaining for me is ultimately childish. So I won't do it. No, don't thank me. Not having to cleanse myself of the rank ichor from your blown mind is thanks enough.

Now I am going to listen to a series of albums by artists you have not heard of and couldn't find releases by even if you wanted to. Maybe you can go and listen to FM radio or something... remember to tune it to a station though. You look silly pumping your fists in the air when it's just static. If you can't tell the difference, come and get me and I will take a break from understanding complex beauty and hold the hose for a minute while you wallow in your musical filth.

-fh

[Neurotik]

Funniest thing I've read today.

'Course, it's not even noon.

[Faerie Nuff]

Uhh...hazel, that was a joke, right? Funny if it was. Otherwise you really come off like a prick.

I agree that if the music is good I don't care what the attitude behind it is. I have been studying music since I was about 9. I am 25 now. So, yeah, I do know what I'm talking about. I judge music on its artistic merit, nothing else. Often, of course, the attitude behind the music will affect its artistic merit, but not always.

I don't think that everyone who listens to obscure music is pretentious. I like some bands that very few people have heard of (Avoid One Thing, the Highland Rovers, the Reilly Clan). I don't think that everyone who listens to popular music is an ignorant slug with no taste. Cause there's some popular music that's good too (U2, Sting, Mighty Mighty Bosstones). But if you're the kind of person who only likes 12-tone music because nobody else does, you're just being silly. Though, if you like the sound of every note on the keyboard being played in seemingly random order with no regard for rhythm or key, more power to you.

And there's some music I like where I don't so much like the artist. I love Sinatra's music, but in person he was apparently just self-centered, rude, and awful to be around.

I think maybe fabricated was the wrong word. How about manufactured? Those bands I listed were put together by record labels with the express purpose of making music that will sell well to the masses. I don't usually like the music made by groups of -as Giles put it - "singers chosen for their ability to dance." Again, if you like this stuff, enjoy. It's a free country.

I stand by my OP. Sure, some people sell out when they're signed to a label. A lot of them don't. There are more and more independant labels put together by artists who had problems with the label to which they were signed. Those indy labels will then try to do it right, sign people who are good, and then not mess with that.

And I know this is the Pit...sorry, the Fucking Pit, but being rude like that shows that you're not here to discuss things. If you're just here to insult people, I really don't think you belong on message boards.

[Flowerchild]

WHAT THE HELL DO YOU PEOPLE HAVE AGAINST N*SYNC????
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!!!!!!!

[Flowerchild]

Posted by jonathan Chance:

But a band that's solely motivated by commerical forces while proclaiming themselves above such things or 'for the revolution' or 'just about the music, man' or some such shows real contempt for both their art and those buying it.

::Cough:; Avril Lavigne::Cough::

[Mr. Blue Sky]

So where does that leave REM? Early on, they made a big deal about how much they hated MTV and how they would never make music videos. Next thing you, they're winning the fucking Video the Year award.

[hazel-rah]

That was a bit silly, wasn't it.

[neutron star]

I agree with everything the OP said...almost.

Letting your songs be used in commercials is selling out and I fucking hate it, hate it, hate it! Situations in which the use of the song isn't the artist's choice are unfortunate, but I think that letting someone else actually own your song and do whatever they want with it against your will is the very definition of selling out.

Good music evokes strong mental images. Everyone responds differently to music and they all have their own emotions and memories associated with songs. A sappy love song might make you sigh wistfully and think of an old girlfriend, for example.

When music is used in commercials and you see these commercials enough times, your old mental images and impressions of the songs can get hijacked and replaced with visions of crappy consumer goods. "Baba 'O Reilly" by the Who used to evoke strong emotions in me. Now it just makes me think of SUVs spinning around in a field.

I won't stop listening to an artist just because he lets his song be used in a commercial, but I do lose a certain amount of respect for him, and the particular song is often ruined for me forever. I guess not everyone is like this, but I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling this way.

Perhaps a Bill Hicks quote is in order. I'm not quite as vehement as he was about this, but I love the quote:

Let me tell you something right now and you can print this in stone and don't you ever forget it : any, ANY performer that ever sells a product on television is for now and all eternity removed from the artistic world. I don't care if you shit Mona Lisas out of your ass on cue. You've made your fucking choice.

[Tanaqui]

No one is ever going to admit, even to themselves, that they like a band simply because they want to feel superior or just 'cause no one else does, so what's the point of railing about it? We can scream about these mythical scenesters until the sun goes down, but it's not gonna change anything. We're never gonna know just why someone else likes a band--even if we find it impossible to believe they could like the music, someone obviously does or it wouldn't be out there. Just a pet peeve of mine.

As for the whole selling out thing: the whole argument is tired, tired, tired. I agree with the OP, sort of--I'm so damn sick of the term being thrown about. However, a certain amount of artistic integrity is important to me as well. If you don't care about that, good for you. It's certainly all up to you. I also would have to agree with the music-used-in-commercials thing--I hate it, for all the reasons mentioned above. I'm not sure if I'd use the word sell-out, just because it's so exasperatingly cliche, but I definitely don't think it's cool. I think if we just got rid of the world "sell-out" altogether the world'd be a better place.

I will conclude with some rather defensive lyrics from Lagwagon, poor guys:

But now you're a D.J. and preaching that hype
"Corporate rock sucks,
You know, college radio enlightens you."
It's supposed to serve as a means to expose new bands,
without prejudice, but it makes no sense
Safe harbor for the underground
'til the alternative becomes the popular sound
The bands are good 'til they make enough cash,
to eat food and get a pad
Then they're sold out and their music is cliche
Because talent's exclusive to bands without pay

[Denis]

This thread makes me laugh.

I don't mean in a snarky, superior way, but in a more I guess, tolerant way.

Disclaimer: My favorite band is Rush.

These guys are insanely (compared to contemporaries such as Aeorsmith and Kiss) popular without nearly the exposure on radio.

Their "breakthrough" album was 2112, which was a pissed off reaction of the band members to Mercury Records' dragging in "consultants" to shape their "image and sound" in order to, apparently, protect Mercury's investment. Basically, these guys flipped off their label (musically) and "made it."

Ok. Then, they got a rather large following grooving on their rather quirky interpretation of "hard rock."

Then come the 80's. Synthesisers. Rush starts using them as a large part of their sound, and starts to pare down the length of their songs, because they are (paraphrasing) "tired of writing 20 minute songs."

A lot of former Rush fans scream, "Sellout!"

Uh huh .

Same three musicians (with an occaisional guest appearance), different producer(s), though. In interviews, and on records, and most importantly, in concert, an apparent dedication to giving their audiences (not necessarilly fans, an important distiction) the best, most honest performance they are capable of. I've seen them many times. I own all their recordings. I fumble through their bass and six string guitar parts with abandon, for the purpose of entertaining my daughter, myself, and the spiders in my basement.

The idea of "sellout" is a joke to me. Some musicians do what they do merely to make a buck. So what? Some musicians are fortunate enough to get wealthy doing what they love without compromising their principles. I know which ones get added to my collection, because they talk (or sing) to me.

Music or artistic snobbery is such a silly and petty vice. Those that indulge in it can do way better with little effort.

[Bad News Baboon]

Originally posted by neutron star
...but I think that letting someone else actually own your song and do whatever they want with it against your will is the very definition of selling out.

So then by your definition, is every artist who has recorded on a major label is a sellout?

[E-Sabbath]

I kinda like N*Sync. Not their music, but what they do is what I would do if I had the money. Go into space! Be an extra in Episode Two!

Damn, man, and they got harshed for it. Way I see it, they're living every SF fan's dream.

[neutron star]

Originally posted by Bad News Baboon
So then by your definition, is every artist who has recorded on a major label is a sellout?

When an artist enters into a contract that allows a record company to use or manipulate the content of their songs in ways that they don't approve of, then yes, they've sold out.

[Kyomara]

Lately I have a hard time understanding the idealization of being able to live entirely for your art.

Making music should not be a job. Making enough money off of your record sales, etc., to live without any other income is a cosmic privelege. Believing that it is somehow an entitlement is what causes young bands to sign their entire futures over to massive record labels that couldn't give a fuck about them.

If your deal with your big record label involves giving up any amount of your decision-making power concerning the future direction of your band, you have sold out. I like plenty of bands who have sold out. There are degrees to selling out. But changing anything about your approach in exchange for the monetary support of a group of strangers is selling out.

The music industry would be a lot better off, and making music would be a lot more fun, if more bands did keep their day jobs while they made music. You don't have to work at Cinabon. You don't have to do anything degrading. There are a slew of office jobs that will afford you the freedom and monetary independence to direct most of your energies into your art. I'd rather have a job than a label. At least Manpower doesn't tell you how to spend your paycheck.

[Faerie Nuff]

Yeah, I'm hikacking my own thread. Try to guess which thread this is, sort of:

Notes from an Album-free Band

So the guys and I have formed a band. We're calling ourselves The Doppler Effect. It's great so far, playing gigs, doing covers. But no sooner had we announced that we were starting a band than people started asking, "So when should we expect the first album." Whoa, album? We only just started. And why does everyone assume that just because we formed a band we have to instantly start squirting out albums?

We don't know if we ever want to record an album. I mean, the music industry is in such a state of flux, we're worried about losing our artistic integrity. What if they take one of our songs and use it in a commercial? We don't even know if we have what it takes to promote an album. I mean, all those long nights. We like being able to go on a vacation at a moment's notice. If we always have tour dates, how will we have any time just for us?

And no one lets it go at that. You can't just tell people you're not going to record an album. Like you've personally offended them that you're not doing your share. They just say, "You're such a good band. I bet you'd record a great album." or, "Oh, you'll change your mind once that clock starts ticking. Tick tock." And they smile and nod as if we're dumb kids who don't know what we're doing. Really, we have discussed this and we don't feel that recording an album is right for us.

Why is it any of their fucking business what we do with our band? Why do they have to ask, "Are you unable to record, or is it the guys?" And even if you do record one album, that's not enough for them. They instantly start asking, "When are you going to do a follow-up?" God! Like one album isn't enough!

And now my mom's in on it. She keeps calling me and asking when I'm gonna provide her with a recording of ten to thirteen of our songs. This woman won't leave me alone!

[Neurotik]

Originally posted by neutron star
Good music evokes strong mental images. Everyone responds differently to music and they all have their own emotions and memories associated with songs. A sappy love song might make you sigh wistfully and think of an old girlfriend, for example.

When music is used in commercials and you see these commercials enough times, your old mental images and impressions of the songs can get hijacked and replaced with visions of crappy consumer goods. "Baba 'O Reilly" by the Who used to evoke strong emotions in me. Now it just makes me think of SUVs spinning around in a field.

So a band is a sell out because you are too weak-minded to keep your own impressions of a song? Riiiiiiiiiiight.

Honestly, I can't even remember most of the songs that are used in commercials. And certainly no commercial has replaced my memories of old musical assocations.

If a band decides to allow their song to be used in a commercial, good for them. It doesn't affect me. If a band signs on to a major label and loses the rights to their song, again, if that's what they want to do, it won't affect my appreciation for their music one iota. And if a band wants to stay indie, again, good for them if that's what they want. It won't affect my appreciation for them one bit and it certainly won't make me think more of them if they suck.

And Bill Hicks is obviously a smug, pretentious prick. And if you feel the same way, then you probably are too.

[look!ninjas]

In a perfect world, bands would keep the rights to their songs, but this isn't a perfect world. Look at it this way. You're in a band. Some record executive likes your band and wants to sign you. Are you going to think: "Fame! Fortune! No more washing dishes at IHOP!" or are you going to think: "Hmm. Better make sure I negotiate this contract right so no one's using my songs in a flying scooter ad twenty years down the road!" And then there's your bandmates. What if they're all happy about the fame and the fortune and the record contract, and you're the asshole sitting in the corner bitching about artistic integrity? I think it's expecting a lot of a band to think that, at the moment where all their craziest dreams look like they're about to come true, they're going to sit down and nitpick about rights.

Besides, if anyone who signs away the rights to their music is a sellout, then the Beatles are sellouts. And anyone who genuinely believes the Beatles sold out is probably too pretentious to be put up with.

[neutron star]

Originally posted by Neurotik
So a band is a sell out because you are too weak-minded to keep your own impressions of a song? Riiiiiiiiiiight.

Honestly, I can't even remember most of the songs that are used in commercials. And certainly no commercial has replaced my memories of old musical assocations.

Well fucking good for you. I'm glad you're such a strong-willed person that the multibillion-dollar advertising industry doesn't affect you in any way. Unfortunately most people are not that way. Otherwise, they wouldn't even use songs in commercials. What would be the point?

And I still stand by my assertion that letting people mutilate your art because they think it will be more profitable, or using your art against your wishes to sell things is selling out. How can it not be?

I concede that it is very difficult for an artist to become successful without relenquishing some creative control, and I think that's a crying fucking shame. It's one of the plethora of reasons that I hate the major label recording companies so damn much.

[ElwoodCuse]

Originally posted by Mr. Blue Sky
So where does that leave REM? Early on, they made a big deal about how much they hated MTV and how they would never make music videos. Next thing you, they're winning the fucking Video the Year award.

I'll defend them. They have LONG complained about the lack of airplay they've gotten. Hell, their one album that did get serious airplay (Out of Time) even opens with a song about how much the radio sucks.

Yes, they do have a huge contract with a major record label, but I think their willingness to massively change their style from album to album is a great example of them doing what they want.

When I think of "selling out", I primarily think of Blink 182 and Smash Mouth. I mean, didn't the lead singer of Smash Mouth brag that he deliberately wrote "All Star" as a song to be played in commercials and at sports events?

[presidebt]

This is an interesting conversation, and is along the lines of some stuff I've been thinking about with regards to selling out as a writer. My current writing professor is a 27 year old punk rocker who is immensely talented. He is also vehemently anti-sell-out and "principled" in the area of independent art. This is fine with me. If that's what he wants and how he wants to get his work out there, more power to him.

I, however, am 32 years old (no punk rock image here, though) and I have some different views on selling out and principles. I'm starting to wonder if the idea of principles and selling out is actually working against the anti-sell-out. In the end, doesn't it, in some manner, abandon the artistic world (including the market) to the very machine anti-sell-outs rue so much? I mean, doesn't anyone want to fight the powers that be instead of giving up and settling for what they can get outside of the system?

I haven't really fleshed these ideas out very much. I just started thinking about them, actually. Me, I'm kind of ready to sell out in the common (albeit incorrect, as noted in the OP) use of the word, which is to say, I'm ready to make some money on this writing gig! And I have some very cool ideas for selling out (if I have to). For instance, conquering the Christain reading market and donating tons of money to planned parenthood, the ACLU and various other organizations that piss off all the right people, as well as opening a publishing house for independents--to give them more market exposure. If I were a musician, I'd consider selling out and funneling the money I took back from the corrupt industry to musicians so they wouldn't have to sign those awful contracts and lose creative control just to put bread on the table.

Anyway, as I said, just some random, incomplete thoughts.

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Originally posted by ElwoodCuse
I'll defend them. They have LONG complained about the lack of airplay they've gotten. Hell, their one album that did get serious airplay (Out of Time) even opens with a song about how much the radio sucks.

Yes, they do have a huge contract with a major record label, but I think their willingness to massively change their style from album to album is a great example of them doing what they want.

When I think of "selling out", I primarily think of Blink 182 and Smash Mouth. I mean, didn't the lead singer of Smash Mouth brag that he deliberately wrote "All Star" as a song to be played in commercials and at sports events?

Did Stipe ever say anything about changing his mind on the video thing? I could accept your defense if he had rescinded his original comments.

As for the Smash Mouth song: I wouldn't consider this a sell-out if he said he wrote the song for financial gain right up front.

Of course, there are those who think all music should be free.

I am not one of those people. If you have a talent that I enjoy, I don't mind paying YOU. It's the slimy corporations that i don't like giving money to. I understand that manufacturing isn't cheap, but the fact that CD prices, for example, haven't changed (essentially) in 20 years is a bit much to swallow.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I disagree with the OP only in the case of selling a song for use in a commercial. There is no reason other than money to do this, it degrades the song and the band, and it's pretty much the fucking definition of selling out.

[neuroman]

Originally posted by hazel-rah
Yes, you are to me a slug of music.

Absolutely hysterical post, hazel-rah.

So, if we can't call crassly commercial, socially engineered bands (NSYNC et. al.) "sell outs", what catchy and denigrating phrase(s) can we use instead?

[Faerie Nuff]

Hmmm... A catchy and dednigrating phrase...

Insta-bands? No need to spend years struggling, no need to try to find your sound. Just throw cheesy synth backings with 4 to 5 singers chosen for their ability to dance, and instant band!

[Kyomara]

Originally posted by look!ninjas
Some record executive likes your band and wants to sign you. Are you going to think: "Fame! Fortune! No more washing dishes at IHOP!" or are you going to think: "Hmm. Better make sure I negotiate this contract right so no one's using my songs in a flying scooter ad twenty years down the road!"

If you have any sense of yourself as an artist, the idea that someone else would own the rights to your materialshould be repugnant enough to you now that "twenty years down the road" doesn't even have to cross your mind for you to know that the contract is a crock of shit.

Look, I don't personally use the term "selling out." And I like plenty of bands who have to some extent sold their souls to a record company. However I do hold that it is impossible to hold on completely to your integrity if an outside entity that is interested solely in making money off of you has any say whatsoever in the direction your music takes.

Also if you half the brain God gave a chipmunk I'm sure you can find a better job than washing dishes at IHOP.

[Hully Gully]

Originally posted by hazel-rah
You and I have the same ears, but I hear more.
I will take a break from understanding complex beauty

No, you don't.

Oh yeah, there is just so much complex beauty in Suck My Ass It Smells.

[ElwoodCuse]

Originally posted by Mr. Blue Sky
Did Stipe ever say anything about changing his mind on the video thing? I could accept your defense if he had rescinded his original comments.

I think it has mostly to do with him getting over his extreme shyness. When they were promoting South Central Rain and played it on Letterman's old show, Stipe hid behind Peter and Mike when Dave came over to talk after the song. And even when they did start doing videos, they at first refused to actually appear in them personally. But now they have no problems with any of that

[11811]

Originally posted by neutron star
I agree with everything the OP said...almost.

Letting your songs be used in commercials is selling out and I fucking hate it, hate it, hate it! Situations in which the use of the song isn't the artist's choice are unfortunate, but I think that letting someone else actually own your song and do whatever they want with it against your will is the very definition of selling out.

Hard to tell what you mean by " letting someone else actually own your song." Licensing a song for a commercial is "letting someone else actually rent your song." No loss of ownership is necessary.

Or it's still possible that the artist, through naivete, didn't realize that they never owned the song to begin with. Musicians are better now than they used to be at reading contracts, but they're still not perfect.

Third and final possibility, the artist is dead broke and in debt. How does this happen? Record companies are really good at making this happen. When the poor soul has nothing left but his publishing rights, he is forced to sell them.

Not that I think the Who are going broke, but it's certainly possible that Dirty Vegas needs cash (They're hip, but are they selling quintuple platinum? Is their record company screwing them?)

I think the problem is that pop music's fans think they share ownership of the music with its creators. That's its strength, but it has a nasty downside when your favorite rock star needs cash.

[Kyomara]

Originally posted by 11811
Hard to tell what you mean by " letting someone else actually own your song." Licensing a song for a commercial is "letting someone else actually rent your song." No loss of ownership is necessary.

I think he means giving the rights to the record company to do with as they please. He's talking about the record company owning the songs, not the people who make the commercials.

[HideoHo]

If you have any sense of yourself as an artist, the idea that someone else would own the rights to your materialshould be repugnant enough to you now that "twenty years down the road" doesn't even have to cross your mind for you to know that the contract is a crock of shit.

Part of the reason for being an artist, at least to me, is to be able to share your work with others. I think for a lot of the bands you're talking about, the same holds true. They aren't thinking "lets be corporate rock, YEAH!" but rather, "if we do this, millions of people will hear our creations."

A related story - recently, Wizards of the Coast had a contest to make up a new fantasy setting for their D&D series. To start, all one had to do was fill out a single page about their setting and send it in. No rights were signed over, no ideas were going to be stolen, just a single page outline of your setting. Many people sent in the single page, but others said that it would be selling out to send in their outline. Exactly how is this selling out? Is it because the company might suggest a name change, or maybe small changes to the setting and it won't fit your exact artistic vision? Possibly, though in something like this, everyone will see the setting slightly differently and no one will have the exact same image that you do in your mind.

How is getting more exposure for your art selling out? I think it's great that Dirty Vegas got their song into the Mistubishi commercial, because now I know their name and know they make music I enjoy. Not only that, they made money from this so they can continue to make music I enjoy. If you truely look at it, Dirty Vegas was using Mitsubishi a lot more than Mitsubishi was using them. Is it selling out if you figure out a way to have millions of people listen to a song that you'd already written?

I just don't get it. I can see that if you change your style to what's 'hip' for the purpose of only making money (Metallica anyone?) then yes, that's selling out. If you change your image because you want to make different music, it's not selling out, it's changing your style. Or maybe Picasso was just selling out during that whole 'Blue Period' thing cause he only did it for more money.

[hazel-rah]

Hully Gully: No, you don't.

That's enough from you, slug. Don't make me get the salt.

-fh

[JRDelirious]

Originally posted by Kyomara
Making music should not be a job.

You risk mixing ideas in this post, K -- "music should not be a job" sounds like boho idealism. If your skill is making music, you have a right to market your skill and the time you put into it, and it optimizes the entire society's tangible and intangible benefit for people to be doing what they're best at.

Making enough money off of your record sales, etc., to live without any other income is a cosmic privelege.

No sensible person should disagree with that. But then again, that applies to playing baseball, drawing cartoons or writing newspaper trivia Q-and-A columns. Thing is, you don't have to become fabulously wealthy to do what you love AND make a living. And making a living at something directly related to what you love is a very good thing to happen. A majority of professional musicians live off music by working weddings and the neighborhood taverns, doing session work, and teaching. The greatest number of people who live off of athletic skill are PE teachers. In between, they do "art" or train for competition.

Believing that it is somehow an entitlement

...is indeed a gross mistake. But the rub is there is such a thing as an entitlement and such a thing as a right. You have a right to get the best deal you can for your work, but to exercise it meaningfully requires that you yourself have it together enough to walk away from the table if you detect horns and a barbed tail on the salesman.

And of course, if you ARE making a conscious, free, informed decision, that which is YOURS -- your time, your work, your creation, your skill, your knowledge -- you have a right to do with what will make YOU happy and not hurt others.

You don't have to work at Cinabon. You don't have to do anything degrading. There are a slew of office jobs that will afford you the freedom and monetary independence to direct most of your energies into your art. I'd rather have a job than a label.

You see, this:
(a) seems to reiterate some sort of oppositional non-overlap between "job" and "art". I think that the performer who does not look upon it as a job that if worth doing is worth doing right, is the one who will be most tempted to truly sell out.
(b) presumes the musically skilled archetypal "you" in the example actually has the non-musical skills to hold any of "a slew of office jobs that will afford...monetary independence", this being a huge presumption.
(c) is weak in that most employment available in this society affords "monetary independence" only to the extent the mortgages get paid, specially if there are dependents.


OTOH, you DO beautifully encapsulate the OP's idea of the true meaning of "selling out": Capitulating your integrity for short-term gain, specially when it comes to the future direction of your act. But the mere event of reaching profit or commercial success is NOT "selling out".

[JRDelirious]

"... A majority of professional musicians who do live off music do so by working weddings and..."

[jackelope]

hazel-rah, I hope you're whooshing here.

Anyway, my two cents: accusations of selling out are hostile expressions of feelings of inadequacy when an entertainer whom one had previously thought of as one's peer (i.e., unknown, underappreciated, and underpaid, just like the rest of us random chumps) suddenly jumps one's tax bracket.

[RickJay]

Christ help us.

Every musician now is supposed to have artistic "values," be "Serious" artists, and not "sell out."

What happened to professional musicians making music to entertain people?

Count me here as someone who thinks something rather revolutionary: the type of music a professional musician makes has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with "integrity" or "principles." A person's integrity generally hangs on more important things than their particular assignment at work, which is really all we're talking about. Fuck, people, it's friggin' pop music. The small variation between "edgy pop music" and "radio pop music" is not a degree of integrity.

[hazel-rah]

RickJay, your common sense is pathological. But I have worked office jobs and concluded that co-workers lacked integrity and principles by observing them at work. Even by merely observing their output at work. You don't need to wait until the building's on fire before you can judge people's characters.

Pop stars, as you so emphatically analogize, may be judged in the same manner. Doubly so, since they actually work in front of an audience for a living. If they didn't want to be judged writ large, they could get an anonymous office job and only have to endure the scorn of a select circle of co-workers.

Aside from that, the fact that some artists are considered sellouts is proof that making music is in fact more than just a way to make money in our culture. You say there's no integrity or principles in pop music, but if that's true then on what basis do some pop artists receive praise and adulation? It's not just applause for technical merit or units sold. It's art, so style matters. And no matter how cynical you are about the industry, this product still means something to a lot of people. You can't have the merit without the scorn, or the merit is meaningless. The upside certainly exists, so why expect there to be no downside? Or are you going to try and argue that people don't really love music?

Certainly you would agree that an atheist becoming a priest because it was very profitable would be crossing a line? People who love music (even pop music), are allowed to have the expectation that artists, at the very minimum, are real and mean it. Musicians are quite aware of these expectations, and just saying "but I wanna get rich!" doesn't excuse their behavior.

jackelope, the hostility can't be predicated on the success of the sellouts, because selling out doesn't always work. Nobody, for example, is jealous of Liz Phair because her new album is going to make her rich. Aside from the high probability that it won't do that, she's rich already.

hazel-rah, I hope you're whooshing here.

I'm going back and forth : )

[jackelope]

Originally posted by hazel-rah
People who love music (even pop music), are allowed to have the expectation that artists, at the very minimum, are real and mean it.

This is something I've never quite understood (coming from a former frontman/lead singer/songwriter in a band): When someone writes a song, yes, they may be in a real emotional state that prompts them to write what they write, and that influences the lyrics/whatever, and that is discernible. But by the time a musician gets either onstage in front of a live audience, or into a studio to record the song, they've already sung that song a couple hundred times, and frankly, no one can recreate that same emotional moment on demand that many times.

What I'm getting at is that by the time we hear a song, whether live or recorded, that musician is acting. They are pretending to sincerely feel what they're singing, and we judge their sincerity on how well they make us believe that, but they are almost certainly not experienceing the same emotion that prompted the song.

So where's the line? How do we decide which ones have "artistic integrity" and which ones don't? Granted, I can lay down some examples of my own (Frank Black: yes; Beyonce: no), but surely there are some who would put Beyonce on the other side of that line.

Or are we saying that no one who is a fan of Beyonce (I just picked her as an example out of the blue) cares about sincerity in music? To be honest, that would be my knee-jerk answer, but when I think about it rationally it seems totally ridiculous.

[jackelope]

Oops. To clarify: The "former frontman/lead singer/songwriter in a band" to whom I refer is me.

[hazel-rah]

No, I think fans know that the emotional level isn't going to be the same all the time. When you're crossing the line is when the emotion wasn't ever there to begin with, to put it into your words. Manufactured pop acts deserve the scorn of serious musicians, but they shouldn't care because they're in it for the money, not the critical praise. That doesn't make the criticisms invalid either. And even they can cross lines on their own terms... the Backstreet Boys may not have a chance at critical success, but they can at least try and recognize their biggest fans are teenage girls and not be drunk and surly in public. Hey, it's their lives, but being explicit about your desire for money doesn't mean you're exempt from people thinking you're an asshole.

More "serious" artists can cross different lines. If they've built up an expectation that their work is something a person can benefit from investing their own emotion in, they can expect people to get pissed off when they make a crassly commercial bid for stardom. Being obviously insincere in the present is a valid reason for fans to suspect that maybe you weren't being all that sincere in the past, and whatever they've invested in you up to that point... time, emotion, money, whatever... was in fact pointless.

Of course no single act adheres strictly to any of these archetypes, but fans can and do make the call about what kind of act you are and when you've crossed a line.

How do we decide which ones have "artistic integrity" and which ones don't? Granted, I can lay down some examples of my own (Frank Black: yes; Beyonce: no), but surely there are some who would put Beyonce on the other side of that line.

It's a tough question, because nobody is going to agree on the criteria. But that's quite different from saying the line doesn't exist at all and Frank Black must be in it for the money so "selling out" isn't possible.

-fh