Crack addicts don’t last long.
Zombies have totally sold out, man.
Also, ‘selling out’. I mean, that term used to mean something, but now that it’s cool, it’s like every random Joe uses it whatever way they want. It’s like it’s a term in a language whose meaning is defined by usage, man. Anyway, I knew it before it became mainstream.
I can say based on reliable first hand sources that Ms. Lavigne is a pretty simple young woman. And by “simple” I mean “stupid.” She liked singing, discovered she could sing a little, and got picked up by a record label looking to fill a specific niche.
So it’s entirely possible Avril Lavigne actually believe her own comments about her last album, for instance, in which she provided such meaningful insights as “I really, like, ya know, went to a deeper place, like, I showed more, you know, vulnerability.” She’s a dumbass.
She was hired to do a job and she does it very well. I don’t know she understands enough about music as art to be aware of selling it out.
I think I see the problem – you’re talking about being in a “band” (most working musicians without day jobs are in several, and they tend to change groups not infrequently, but maybe the average alterna-shmo weekend warrior just has his or her little street, authentic project and that’s it), but I think the defenders of musicians are just talking about regular folks who happen to be musicians as their job.
Plenty of them find ways to make it work if the economy is down or they get bitten by a snake or whatever – tune pianos, freelance design work, get married to a spouse who works, mow lawns. No one’s complaining much, from what I hear, except general grumbling about getting screwed by a club owner or drunken audience members spilling drinks on your gear or too many kid bands playing for “exposure” and driving down prices. Plenty of top musicians do have day jobs, as well, partly as a choice to afford more amenities, pay tuition for the kids, partly because that’s what they like to do – I don’t hear them complaining either. But they’re damned sure not going to play music for free, anybody who’s worth a damn – other musicians hate you for it, by and large, and most people I know value their skills and abilities too much to be lowballed by some jerk club owner barring the random oddball job that comes up that you’d play just for fun.
Can you come back and re-punctuate this sentence so it makes sense? It seems to have run all over the place. Are you saying that, while a musician may play for free for fun, but that, when they are performing a function, they won’t even pay for low amounts of money? Then I agree.
If, however, you are saying that the best musicians never play for free and always hold out for the most money, then I think you are crazy. The highest paid musicians are horribly formulaic and show little to no knowledge of the craft. They just know publiicity.
From the point of view of any artist who is not making the big money, someone who does has sold out. What it means in the context of the OP is that the accuser is jealous of someone else’s success. That usage is proper, you just don’t understand what it means. The proper reply to someone using the phrase in that context is either to agree, or say, ‘Yeah, I wish I could sell out too’.
It seemed clear to me: (a) anybody who’s worth a damned won’t play for free because i) they’ll anger their peers and potential colleagues ii) they have enough sense to value their time and service according to the market’s price, unless (b) something arises which may effectively be a bartering chit, for example, the sheer fun or experience of playing on a haybale or a nudist sorority beach party or backing Jim Nabors in his prime.
I’d make pop music that made Rebecca Black and Justin Bieber go “damn, what were you thinking?” for way, way, way less money than they earned. $200 is more than enough. If Paul McCartney can get a million dollars for using his song in a Chrysler ad, more power to him.