The concept of "selling out" in music - Let's discuss it

[Dystopia]

So what constitutes selling out? As far as I know, people used the derogatory term everytime they don't like some artist's new work to make themselves comfortable. Making a living out of what you love is actually pretty good. That being said and despite the excessive whining about changes in style and musical experimentation, I'm going to distinguish two situations:

- What I agree with - I agree that bands and artists should be able to experiment new sounds. It's just part of the job, otherwise it becomes boring for both fans and musicians. Fans don't think about it often, but musicians have to enjoy their job, and doing the same thing over and over and over again must be boring. Experimentation can bring new artistic maturation and good results - Or not, but it's worth a try. You can even experiment within the same genre to avoid displeasing fans. The Beatles were always rock, but since Rubber Soul the experimentation and sound changed considerably and they produced very successful albums. Metallica experimented trash metal and heavier stuff until "And Justice For All" where they did trash mixed with some progressive metal (pretty amazing) and the black album where they did some friendlier metal songs - What's wrong with that? It doesn't mean you have to lose your identity as an artist, you're just trying to be creative. There is a difference between "selling out" and simply disliking someone's work. I don't like Metallica's later work after the black album because they went all blues and hard rock (But I don't hate it as much as other fans) but that doesn't mean they sold out - The albums never sold as much as previous ones, specially the black album. Bands like Muse and Radiohead wouldn't be the same without the experimentation and despite not even listening to both a lot I think some works/songs are pretty good.

- What I disagree with - As much as I support experimentation I can't stand it when bands/artists change so dramatically that they risk alienating the entire fanbase (literally) - It's good to change, to be radio friendly and try new stuff, but please don't go extreme either way. To some degree, the musical genre is part of the musician's identity and it's what makes them recognizable so losing it completely is just plain bad.


So what do you think? And what are the cases of selling out that you agree and disagree with?

[Napoléon]

It's their band/act. They are entitled to do what they like. If they piss off their fanbase then that's their own prerogative.

[Dystopia]

It's their band/act. They are entitled to do what they like. If they piss off their fanbase then that's their own prerogative.

Sure I agree, it's freedom - I'm just asking what people think/prefer. They are entitled to write, play and sing anything and I'm entitled to say it's bullshit if they launch a song similar to JB's "baby".

[Alex K]

I'm pissed at Mikael Åkerfeldt for not liking death metal any more and going all hipster prog rock on us instead. Yet that doesn't qualify as sell out because he surely alienated more people than he won anew - and I don't think he cares. Still, I'm pissed, because they were a world class prog death band, and now are a second rate 70s rock band.

I don't hate the Metallica blues rock either, I like it actually. I just can't get very excited about it.

Sellouts... well I think TYR, whom I completely adore for their earlier stuff, are dangerously close to it. Ever since they went on 70000 tons of metal etc. they keep pushing for simpler and simpler songs and less and less interesting structures and harmony to the point that they now sound like derivative power metal to me.

[TheRealJoeFish]

"And every gimmick-hungry yob, digging gold from rock 'n' roll
Grabs the mic to tell us he'll die before he's sold,
But I believe in this, and it's been tested by research:
He who fucks nuns will later join the church!"

- The Clash, Death or Glory

[Pyrrho]

Although "selling out" has a proper meaning, I think it is typically applied to bands that people don't like.  In one sense, it is impossible for a commercial band to sell out, since the point of putting out a CD or download or whatever with a price tag on it is to make money.  Many people seem to forget that, and imagine that somehow their favored band is "pure" and is doing what they are doing irrespective of money.  But anything with a price tag on it is about money.  It may also be about other things, too, but it is about money regardless of whether it is about anything else.

[Alex K]

But Pyrrho, you make it sound as if anyone who sells art has no standards - and that is clearly not true. There is such a thing as abandoning artistic integrity in order to cater to "the masses", no?

[Dystopia]

Although "selling out" has a proper meaning, I think it is typically applied to bands that people don't like.  In one sense, it is impossible for a commercial band to sell out, since the point of putting out a CD or download or whatever with a price tag on it is to make money.  Many people seem to forget that, and imagine that somehow their favored band is "pure" and is doing what they are doing irrespective of money.  But anything with a price tag on it is about money.  It may also be about other things, too, but it is about money regardless of whether it is about anything else.

True, even tough there are countless ways to make money so at least a portion of artists obvious have personal interest in what they do and artistic expression usually has a message and contributes to culture. Some albums and songs even become iconic and a symbolism of some deep philosophical concept or event. For the most part I agree that it is applied to bands people don't like - Green Day supposedly sold out with American Idiot, but to be honest I think they were always a terrible band.

Alex, some of Metallica's blues is good, but for someone who started with And Justice For All it's complicated to like it as much

[Jackalope]

Since you're sporting a Metallica avatar, let's talk about them.

Was Metallica a sellout for their eponymous fifth album? A lot of fans seem to think so, and it seems apparent that there's a couple of tracks on that album ("Enter Sandman" and "Nothing Else Matters") that are intended for broad appeal and FM airplay, the album certainly did enjoy broader appeal, and a one or more other tracks got airplay as a result. Is the rest of the album that big of a departure from "...and Justice For All"? I don't think so.

It's pretty apparent that from covers that they've recorded that they're interested in playing a broad range of music. I mean it's no surprise when they cover Diamond Head, Misfits, Mercyful Fate, and Motorhead - but covering Bob Seger, Lynryd Skynyrd, Queen, and Blue Oyster Cult is indicative of a broader musical range.

That to me is reinforced by Load / Reload, two albums that were not particularly popular with long-time fans, and were not nearly as commericially successful. If they were sellouts, they did not sell well. I don't think anyone could call "St. Anger" a sellout and keep a straight face. You could say it sucked, and I would disagree, but that's a subjective judgment.

In short, a band's musical interest may change (and may even be wholly motivated by money - I'm looking at you, Kiss), but the fanboy's doesn't seem to.

[Alex K]

I don't perceive the eponymous album as selling out, because it is so well written that I can respect it for what it is. Whether trve thr4xorz like it or not, NEM is a damn fine ballad.