I may have missed it earlier, but do you consider playing music you don't like for pay to also be selling out? Or just writing music for pay?
Not trying to take a shot at you or anything, just curious about your opinion on that.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Be Honest: Would You Ever Sell-Out?
- Thread starter bogey_j
- Start date
I may have missed it earlier, but do you consider playing music you don't like for pay to also be selling out? Or just writing music for pay?
Not trying to take a shot at you or anything, just curious about your opinion on that.
Artistic Integrity is an oxymoron - or at least an oxyknucklehead.
I've frequently found those claiming the 'artistic integrity clause' to be folks who usually don't have the chops to play anything other than music they write themselves.
The 'out clause' is more to shield them from having to stretch themselves into challenging areas or exposing themselves for the mediocre musicians that tend to be. One-trick ponies who've been able to compose a few quirky, semi-interesting ditties that they've subsequently labeled 'their art' and attached all of their artistic identity to.
The there are the players out there who don't tend to concern themselves too much about whose or what music they play. They tend to be in-demand, usually well paid and end up being the ones hired to support some artist who is in need of players to make their art viable.
Sell out? In a heartbeat. The closer to the bread and butter I can get, the more likely it is I'll eat. Put your artistic integrity between a couple slices of bread (provided you have the bread for bread) and whaddya got? A wish sandwich.
I've frequently found those claiming the 'artistic integrity clause' to be folks who usually don't have the chops to play anything other than music they write themselves.
The 'out clause' is more to shield them from having to stretch themselves into challenging areas or exposing themselves for the mediocre musicians that tend to be. One-trick ponies who've been able to compose a few quirky, semi-interesting ditties that they've subsequently labeled 'their art' and attached all of their artistic identity to.
The there are the players out there who don't tend to concern themselves too much about whose or what music they play. They tend to be in-demand, usually well paid and end up being the ones hired to support some artist who is in need of players to make their art viable.
Sell out? In a heartbeat. The closer to the bread and butter I can get, the more likely it is I'll eat. Put your artistic integrity between a couple slices of bread (provided you have the bread for bread) and whaddya got? A wish sandwich.
It's cool & yeah... Playing too. Selling out isn't just about music though. If you were a hardcore Democrat would you work for the RNC if the DNC didn't hire you? Same sort of thing, IMO.
I dunno... I'm kind of a dork about this. I got so bored to the point of anger with playing covers in college that I just don't want to do it ever again. Even to the point where I couldn't stand to listen to bands I once loved (Sublime, Social Distortion & Bad Religion, for example) because I was so sick of playing the songs.
Personally, I'm kinda glad you are. Someone has to right? If no one holds out and challenges things, independence would become much harder I would think. That said... I'd prolly sell out.
If you want somebody to hold out and challenge things when it comes to artistic integrity, see [Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
ide sell out quickey then you can say metallica, make my money then make music i wanted too. but yes im a whore ide sell out in a heart beat. being hated beats being broke anyday besides im hated and broke now. : P
The whole notion of selling out is created by those who'd never be offered the opportunity to sell out in the first place. It's a non-starter.
sell out? hell yes i'd sell out for the right price!
morals and integrity is one thing but you can't eat it and turning round to a hot girl in a bar and and sayin "hey i have morals wanna come back to my place n see my integrity and artistic high ground?"
doesnt work as well as
"hey i have a ferrari wanna come back to my mansion and sit on my junk?"
morals and integrity is one thing but you can't eat it and turning round to a hot girl in a bar and and sayin "hey i have morals wanna come back to my place n see my integrity and artistic high ground?"
doesnt work as well as
"hey i have a ferrari wanna come back to my mansion and sit on my junk?"
- Oct 7, 2000
- 18,619
- 38,939
- Disclosures
- Endorsing artist: Musicman basses
Ya know, I actually know someone who wouldn't sell out. And it affected me, but years down the line it was all for the better.
My very first original group (tribute page here Link Removed . Late 70s, I played guitar) , had some pretty cool things going on with columbia records. The A&R guy who took interest in us at the time later went on to become one of the most succesful record company dudes, and anyhow... he started dropping some big bucks on us, and getting us some cool gigs. Bass player/songwriter had a true punk/who/rock&roll attitude and did everything in his power to stick to his guns and not bend in any direction this guy wanted us to. The guy dropped a crapload of money to have us do an all day demo at Columbia, and bass player man arrived at the studio high on tuinols (I think only old schoolers remember these). Was insistent on us having lots of beer at the session too. I don't have to tell you how that went. A&R guy still stuck with us for a little while, but it got ugly. Lots of stories, lots of bad vibes... end result 0.
Not selling out gained us nothing. One guy from that band wound up killing himself (and 2 other people), the other who wouldn't "sell out" is a full time H.S. teacher, and I discovered the bass guitar. I win.
Had (and continue to have) some great times "selling out" with it, also.
My very first original group (tribute page here Link Removed . Late 70s, I played guitar) , had some pretty cool things going on with columbia records. The A&R guy who took interest in us at the time later went on to become one of the most succesful record company dudes, and anyhow... he started dropping some big bucks on us, and getting us some cool gigs. Bass player/songwriter had a true punk/who/rock&roll attitude and did everything in his power to stick to his guns and not bend in any direction this guy wanted us to. The guy dropped a crapload of money to have us do an all day demo at Columbia, and bass player man arrived at the studio high on tuinols (I think only old schoolers remember these). Was insistent on us having lots of beer at the session too. I don't have to tell you how that went. A&R guy still stuck with us for a little while, but it got ugly. Lots of stories, lots of bad vibes... end result 0.
Not selling out gained us nothing. One guy from that band wound up killing himself (and 2 other people), the other who wouldn't "sell out" is a full time H.S. teacher, and I discovered the bass guitar. I win.
Had (and continue to have) some great times "selling out" with it, also.
i can see a guy not wanting an a+r guy messing with his songs,and avoiding the goofy outfits/hairdos that some bands got talked into......but getting fried on t's + r's and beer at a studio would be screwing up more than selling out......i havbe known lots of guys that spent their lives snatching defeat from the jaws of victory,and this guy sounds just like those guys....the notion of stepping up to the plate scares them more than sitting on the bench because they messed up....Ya know, I actually know someone who wouldn't sell out. And it affected me, but years down the line it was all for the better.
My very first original group (tribute page here Link Removed . Late 70s, I played guitar) , had some pretty cool things going on with columbia records. The A&R guy who took interest in us at the time later went on to become one of the most succesful record company dudes, and anyhow... he started dropping some big bucks on us, and getting us some cool gigs. Bass player/songwriter had a true punk/who/rock&roll attitude and did everything in his power to stick to his guns and not bend in any direction this guy wanted us to. The guy dropped a crapload of money to have us do an all day demo at Columbia, and bass player man arrived at the studio high on tuinols (I think only old schoolers remember these). Was insistent on us having lots of beer at the session too. I don't have to tell you how that went. A&R guy still stuck with us for a little while, but it got ugly. Lots of stories, lots of bad vibes... end result 0.
Not selling out gained us nothing. One guy from that band wound up killing himself (and 2 other people), the other who wouldn't "sell out" is a full time H.S. teacher, and I discovered the bass guitar. I win.
I'd sell out in a flash. Hell I'd join Nickleback if it meant a comfortable living playing "music".
I'm getting into this late but really what does "sell-out" even mean?
That you're playing music that people actually WANT to hear and purchase? That you only have "Street Cred" by playing **** that nobody but you and a handful of fans want to hear? Would you call the Beatles "sell outs"? The Stones? Tom Petty? AC/DC? etc etc etc. Heck, even Rush changed their sound and look in the 80's to conform to what was selling at the time. And they've gone on big tours recently, appeared in a movie, made a first-time documentary about themselves, and promoted the HELL out of themselves...all in order to make a buck. Are they "sell-outs"?
I think the term "sell-out" was invented by unsuccessful musicians jealous of those that have made it.
At least if you are "selling-out", you are SELLING something. And isn't that the point? To make music that a wide audience like? Anything else is just your own masturbatory fantasies, and presuming that your band is so superior because they are failures.
That you're playing music that people actually WANT to hear and purchase? That you only have "Street Cred" by playing **** that nobody but you and a handful of fans want to hear? Would you call the Beatles "sell outs"? The Stones? Tom Petty? AC/DC? etc etc etc. Heck, even Rush changed their sound and look in the 80's to conform to what was selling at the time. And they've gone on big tours recently, appeared in a movie, made a first-time documentary about themselves, and promoted the HELL out of themselves...all in order to make a buck. Are they "sell-outs"?
I think the term "sell-out" was invented by unsuccessful musicians jealous of those that have made it.
At least if you are "selling-out", you are SELLING something. And isn't that the point? To make music that a wide audience like? Anything else is just your own masturbatory fantasies, and presuming that your band is so superior because they are failures.
Ok, but do you think you would like to have:
1. Your own home
2. A car that works and the ability to buy another car when it doesn't.
3. A 401K or other retirement plan and significant savings so that you're not a Walmart Greeter when you're 78
4. Ability to afford health insurance
5. Money enough to do things you really want to do -- such as maybe travel, take flying lessons, or go to go restaurants, theater.
because unless you are a VERY successful musician, you're going to end up at 50 years old, with bad teeth, living in some cheap apartment, trying to string together enough crappy bar gigs to make your $100 a few nights a week, and pretend that you can still "make it." Even "moderately successful" isn't going to get you to even middle class status with some stability in your later years.
There's something in between fabulous riches and poverty. But in general, a career in rock music is more likely to lead to poverty than even a good middle class life-style and retirement. I see it all the time. I can't tell you the number of over 40 and over 50 musicians I see that still think that they are "it" and don't have a pot to piss in.
Sell-out means "SELLING" and most places I know still charge for rent and food.
+1000. One of my great friends from high school dropped out of college after landing a recording contract. I just met up with him about a month ago (we're now 40) and he's living in his car playing gigs for food and enough gas money to get to the next gig.
I asked him why he stuck with it after the $ dried up and he still holds out hope that he's going to write a hit song one of these days that will "set him up for the rest of his days". Even his A&R guy has told him that "we can't live in the past."
I bought him breakfast and wished him the best. I'm concerned that I may never see him again.
I disagree slightly - I think it was invented by misanthropes who dislike "the stupid masses", and by extension anyone or anything popular.
I agree with the overall idea you're expressing but I'd like to talk about the quoted statement.
Taking the concept of selling out to mean "doing what a record label wants in spite of the fact that it's not what the band wants to do in order to sell records" - I think it is safe to say that Rush remained true to their vision (writing and playing music they wanted to write and play) and indeed did not sell out even though they morphed into a pseudo "Police/Depeche Mode-ish" version of themselves for a while in the 80's. They explored those sounds because they were interested in those sounds not because they were pressured from outside to change their sound.
They discussed their synth-heavy sound in "Beyond the Lighted Stage". They said that they (well, Geddy and Neil) were very interested in the new sounds coming out as exemplified by bands like The Police - and specifically the synthesizer aspect of these bands. Geddy himself said he, as a musician, finds keys and synths necessary for him to fully realize his own musical and artistic potential. So while their sound did coincidentally morph into a more "80's" sound in the 80's - it's because the band wanted to morph in that direction - not at the behest of a record label. Quite the contrary, I imagine.
They morphed back into their 'native' state, backing off of synths, because Alex (and their new producer) felt their original sound was 'truer' to the genuine 'Rush sound' and because Alex didn't like sharing the tonal space with synths.
So Rush remains an example of a band who follows their bliss in spite, not because of what their label or even their fans who, if they are at all like, me found the new 'synthy' sound to be less than appealing.
Otherwise - I agree.
