"Real" bands and "selling out" your thoughts...

[br1qbat]

Wow, this thread took off in a hurry.

I do want to caution the conclusion that a band changes sound 'for no other reason than to make money' is slippery. Unless the musician admits it, theres no way to be 100% sure. Musicians are allowed to explore new sounds. Hell, David Bowie made almost his whole career doing just that.

Another example? Rolling Stones - Miss You. Cash grab for disco $? Or Micks interest in exploring new music? Both?

One could probably fashion an argument either way. Mick pushed the band into funk, keith and mick had already tackled reggae, etc. But on the other hand, thd stones in the 70s did gravitate towards trends - like reggae, funk, and disco. Did they follow their muse or their bank account? Does it matter?

It's easy to call 'sell out' when the change results in $ or more exposure, etc.

Now let's take the reverse. Captain Beefheart. Stole critics hearts with very 'arty' music with albums like Trout Mask Replica, Lick My Decals Off Baby, etc. Sold poorly, and the band lived off the goodwill of others and foodstamps.

Later on, he puts out more commercial music that sounded kinda like Dr. John, who was fairly big at the time. He's on record saying he did it because he and the band were tired of being broke.

Of course for him it didn't work. He later regretted those 2 records. As a beefheart fan, I don't give me grief about it (even though his commercial albums were bland bland bland) and sell out is not a term one usually hear in reference to him.

My point is, and the thread has illustrated nicely, that these are vague terms that mean different things to different people.

To me, if i like it, i like it. I dont care if artist x is a big name megastar that used to sound different, or not. I got over this idea years ago when I had friends arguing who was or wasn't punkrock. Who cares?!

 

[mrcbass]

I'm not sure if any band willingly stops being creative. Our music is a creative process. It may be differently creative or even systematically creative but it's not a lack of creativity. I do understand the gist of what you're on about. It's the perception of "easy mode" or going with what works instead of pushing the envelope, so to speak. The ironic thing with that is if a band constantly pushes the envelope they will evolve into something "else" which may not be in the genre they started in thus bringing the ire of "purist" fans who think they left their "core values" behind.

So, to expose my hypocritical view, I much prefer drugged out of their skulls early Aerosmith. I perceive the elevator - power ballad music they churned out after their "comeback" as weaksauce and of the sell-out variety. But, it allowed Tyler to by a McLaren P1 so I would think he doesn't give a rip what I think

You're right that I may have used the "creative" poorly. I did intend to mean closer to "pushing the envelop" as you suggest.

The rest of your comment veers towards the "Real XXX" part of the original post. Let's take the Eagles as an example. Did they sell out when they put out "Hotel California"? I don't think so.

Does that album tend to conform to their prior Country-Rock image? No, it was a bit of an evolution based on lineup changes and other current influences, but nothing mailed in about it.

So: Were they still a "Real" Country-Rock band? Not really, but they didn't sell out.

 

[Salicete]

Everything evolves over time. "Selling Out" usually just means some guy likes your old stuff, and dislikes the new material.

 

[bass12]

Art doesn't exist, nothing is pure because it is all about selling your "art" to people ...

So you are influanced by the fact that you have to sell your creation ...

I like a lot of music but I don't think it is "Art", far from it. It is just entertainment and cool if it makes me feel something.

So every "artist" are sellout. Just various degree of selling out.

Not true at all. There are plenty of artists who don't alter their craft to suit the market. I've known many.

 

[Clef_de_fa]

Not true at all. There are plenty of artists who don't alter their craft to suit the market. I've known many.

They cater to some people. It is all about selling your "art". It is never about expressing yourself, trying to better the world, it is always about selling your music to an audiance.

do you have to alter your stuff ? no, not at all. You could choose the most obscure band ever and they still try to cater to an audiance to sell them what they made.

 

[bass12]

They cater to some people. It is all about selling your "art". It is never about expressing yourself, trying to better the world, it is always about selling your music to an audiance.

do you have to alter your stuff ? no, not at all. You could choose the most obscure band ever and they still try to cater to an audiance to sell them what they made.

It's rather presumptuous to claim to know the motivation behind every piece of music made. I can tell you for a fact that you're way off base with your assumptions. And trying to sell what you have made after the fact does not diminish the artistic value of the work being sold.

 

[mmon77]

Another example? Rolling Stones - Miss You. Cash grab for disco $? Or Micks interest in exploring new music? Both?

One could probably fashion an argument either way. Mick pushed the band into funk, keith and mick had already tackled reggae, etc. But on the other hand, thd stones in the 70s did gravitate towards trends - like reggae, funk, and disco. Did they follow their muse or their bank account? Does it matter?

Whichever you want to call that song, I don't care. I love that bass line. It's a blast to play. The Stones were all over the place musically. I think it helped keep them relevant for longer. Not every band can pull that off though.

 

[JimmyM]

This has been a great thread...

 

[tlc1976]

Whichever you want to call that song, I don't care. I love that bass line. It's a blast to play. The Stones were all over the place musically. I think it helped keep them relevant for longer. Not every band can pull that off though.

Ever listen to "Sweet Thing" by Mick (solo) in the early 90s? Very reminiscent of "Miss You" IMO. Liked them both.

 

[Clef_de_fa]

It's rather presumptuous to claim to know the motivation behind every piece of music made. I can tell you for a fact that you're way off base with your assumptions. And trying to sell what you have made after the fact does not diminish the artistic value of the work being sold.

Then why would you publish, release a CD or put your stuff on itune if it isn't for getting money out of it ???

Seeing how many bands that just turn out to be their own tribute band, cover band that will play everything as long as they get money ... Even classical composer, they wrote their stuff to get money.

I just can't see music as more than mere entertainment not something that could make me closer to God or hear/see the true beauty of the world. It is just music, like painting, dancing and all. it isn't so special.

 

[joebar]

Sellout or not-

Most people know when a musician/ band "phones" it in. I think this is the more important issue.
And it happens with the most respected musicians too and sometimes on the same record.

 

[bass12]

Then why would you publish, release a CD or put your stuff on itune if it isn't for getting money out of it ???

Seeing how many bands that just turn out to be their own tribute band, cover band that will play everything as long as they get money ... Even classical composer, they wrote their stuff to get money.

I just can't see music as more than mere entertainment not something that could make me closer to God or hear/see the true beauty of the world. It is just music, like painting, dancing and all. it isn't so special.

So that people have a chance to hear what you've done and maybe to help recoup some of your costs? That doesn't mean your goal in creating your art has been to make money. It might just mean that you are proud of something you have created and want to "put it out there". It really doesn't need to be any more than that. It's unfortunate that you have such a cynical view of music.

 

[br1qbat]

Whichever you want to call that song, I don't care. I love that bass line. It's a blast to play. The Stones were all over the place musically. I think it helped keep them relevant for longer. Not every band can pull that off though.

Totally agree. I was just saying some people thought it was a 'sellout' song. My point was it would be impossible to 'know' for sure, which is why i think its a colossal waste of time when people want to start throwing 'sell out' around.

For some 'true music fans' if a band they like does something they dont like, they have to provide a reason, you know, other than they just didnt like the song/album/whatever. Oh no, their beloved artist must have betrayed their ideals and 'sold out to the man'. Stupid, but too common.

I dont care, i love that song and wyman slays on the bassline.

 

[12BitSlab]

Assume one is a violin player.
Assume one believes that Beethoven wrote the only "honest music".

Then one finds out that your only daughter has Epilepsy.

So...

One decides to play any and all types of music just to get bucks to pay for all of the medical bills.

Is one a "sellout" or does one simply love their child?

 

[Nev375]

Somewhere along the way folks started confusing their opinions as facts.
Many of these people are also under the delusion that they can read minds.

 

[Clef_de_fa]

So that people have a chance to hear what you've done and maybe to help recoup some of your costs? That doesn't mean your goal in creating your art has been to make money. It might just mean that you are proud of something you have created and want to "put it out there". It really doesn't need to be any more than that. It's unfortunate that you have such a cynical view of music.

Yes I am. I once thought Art in general was something very special, kind of touched by God and all. turn out it isn't like that at all.

When Michelangelo painted the Chapel Sistine, it was just gig money. The Church wanted something, Mick could do it, they paid him, he did it.

When Chopin wrote his music he was hired by a rich noble man and so Chopin composed and performed music for him so he could brag to his rich noble men how good his composer was. same thing for everyone else.

So yes, everything we call Art is just mere entertainment for me. I'm just not delusionnal on how it is made, why it is made and what it represent for the people who made it.

 

[bass12]

Yes I am. I once thought Art in general was something very special, kind of touched by God and all. turn out it isn't like that at all.

When Michelangelo painted the Chapel Sistine, it was just gig money. The Church wanted something, Mick could do it, they paid him, he did it.

When Chopin wrote his music he was hired by a rich noble man and so Chopin composed and performed music for him so he could brag to his rich noble men how good his composer was. same thing for everyone else.

So yes, everything we call Art is just mere entertainment for me. I'm just not delusionnal on how it is made, why it is made and what it represent for the people who made it.

Well, of course you're right that a lot of great works were commissioned but don't let that sour you into believing that it's all about money - even with commissioned work. And there is plenty of work that is not commissioned and is not created for the purpose of selling. "For sale" doesn't necessarily equate to "sellout".

 

[Clef_de_fa]

Well, of course you're right that a lot of great works were commissioned but don't let that sour you into believing that it's all about money - even with commissioned work. And there is plenty of work that is not commissioned and is not created for the purpose of selling. "For sale" doesn't necessarily equate to "sellout".

yeah, you are right

 

[NullPorch]

As always I look to my idols in the grunge scene:

You can play whatever music you want so long as it is genuine. It can be a genuine heartfelt piece, or a genuine joke, but it just can't be something written with the intent of just being marketable. That's not art. That's like the dime-a-dozen pop-art printable pieces you see identically decorating chain restaurants.

Many great bands have really eclectic sounds because they have really eclectic interests and influences. Other bands have a very specific, iconic, and characteristic sound because they're like-minded musicians. Neither is better or worse.

What is worse is when you have a band that produces some great stuff really raw, real, and genuinely before garnering a lot of attention and playtime and then getting picked up by some big-shot manager/producer who turns them into another radio-hit pop factory.


As far as selling out goes, give "Hooker with a Penis" by Tool a listen. Tool is a legend and idol when it comes to fighting the soulless corporate industry that is destroying real, artistic music and yet they have a song all about how ridiculous some people are for claiming artists have "sold-out" if they make a change or see some financial success.

 

[Badwater]

Here's how I see it: Selling out is a ideology based on fans who disagree with the actions of their music icons. But for the common musician who is not selling millions of download and selling out concert stadiums, it's impossible to sell out. Literally, they wouldn't make much money in the world of Net Neutrality.

As for Metal, back in the 80s, there was a movie called Heavy Metal, which coined many groups with the term metal band. Some even considered Van Halen, Ozzie, AC/DC, Judas Priest, and all the other long hair groups to be of metal. And like all forms of music, Metal evolves into a different sound. And after 3 decades, you can see how that played out, and what it became.

Nevertheless, there will always be a style of music called Metal.