• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

'selling out'

thejuice

Well-Known Member
No Right Or Wrong Answers here as there's lots of interpretations

Do you get mad when a band you supported and grew up with changes their sound to cater to a wider audience and therefore make more money?

Its usually bands I liked as a kid that I have an emotional connection with. Modern bands I wouldn't care as I have no investment in them.

I don't condone any abuse of an artist but I'm the type to get upset.
 
Last edited:
Yes.

Back in the 80s there was this thing where the "best" musicians where pulled out of really good bands, and put together into "supergroups" that were cringe-worthily tedious, poppish, and horrendous.
 
There are people who enjoy music for the simple pleasure in it. Sometimes these same people get a recording contract, perhaps are a "one hit wonder", or a very few have a loyal following and are perfectly happy playing for smaller groups of people. However, there are others that, perhaps under pressure from their recording studios to make money, mainly because the recording studio and managers took the risk of investing in them up front, now want their return on investment. It's a business, and money needs to be made. It's a rare thing that band/artist under these contracts can actually create, record, and perform the music they want when there are financial interests at stake. Now-a-days, artists are a bit more free to produce their own music under their own label and have a following on YouTube some other platform.
 
Sometimes bands fall into a sound that becomes mainstream. Then you have the case of Raven, a band that tried selling out with the album "The Pack Is Back" and ended up falling on their faces in the process.
 
It can get incredibly complicated depending on the artists, recording studios and perhaps most of all the complexity and control of their contracts that bind them all together.

To ponder why they chose to do so, provided it was legally and contractually their choice in the first place. And to also consider that real creativity can't be expected to be bottled up within a single genre. Then again for some musicians, it isn't so much a matter of changing direction as it may be that their own creativity becomes exhausted. All of which doesn't necessarily imply they "sold out".

Though I can also think of a classic example as well. Which was why lead vocalist of Jefferson Starship Grace Slick permanently left the band, that was clearly headed in a more commercial direction that contrasted their original hard-edge rock as "Jefferson Airplane". If you read about them, the phrase "sellout" often pops up.

Historically speaking, in the days before drummer Dave Clark of the Dave Clark Five, recording artists tended to be property owned by record companies. Almost a form of contractual slavery. That much was true. Dave Clark was a true "pioneer" in the industry, being the first musician to aggressively control his intellectual property rights above and beyond the record studios. Which left him incredibly wealthy, and ushered in a new era of independence and prosperity for recording artists.

Even The Beatles Paul McCartney lamented over not owning his own music,or having total control of music being developed in the studio. Yet the evolution of their music was in the minds of most people considered to be brilliant, regardless of a number of persons and entities steering it in different directions. And when they finally gained control of their own music to form Apple Records, it was too late. All four of them wanted to go their own direction as artists, regardless of what the fans- or myself wanted or expected.

Musicians being mostly artists first and perhaps capitalists second. Being under no obligation to pander to what the public wants. Contrasted by recording studios are capitalists first, second and last. Whose primary obligation remains to their directors, officers and shareholders. Not their customers.
 
Last edited:
I was very idealistic when it comes to bands I loved as a kid. Only thinking bands acted out of the love of music the same way I had. When they change in a way I feel is not in good faith it's almost like my inner child is betrayed!

Sad to say the bands that aged the best were the ones that called it a day or ended with no choice.

I remember Frank Zappa said something about music was better in the 60s when clueless old cigar chomping execs used to just throw money at bands and see what happened. He lamented how hip people came into the industry. They thought they knew what was cool and trendy but they actually were more conservative than the high powered execs who had more of a "who knows let's see" attitude. They snuffed out more experimental stuff because they thought they could speak for the people and knew what would sell, rather than letting markets decide.
 
Last edited:
I don't like change generally so I might think that I want bands to keep putting out albums that are similar to what I liked before. On the other hand, my favorite band Radiohead has drastically changed their sound many times and I am glad that each album is unique and special. Change can be good.

Also, Modest Mouse fans may think that they peaked with Lonesome Crowded West and sold out with The Moon and Antarctica, but guess what, it is one of the greatest albums ever made and that is why they became so popular then. I think people want to be part of a cool club that knows about a less popular band, but I have decided to be glad if they find major success and lots of new people get to hear their older stuff. I did really, really hate hearing Modest Mouse in advertisements though, I can't deny that.
 
I was very idealistic when it comes to bands I loved as a kid. Only thinking bands acted out of the love of music the same way I had. When they change in a way I feel is not in good faith it's almost like my inner child is betrayed!

I remember Frank Zappa said something about music was better in the 60s when clueless old cigar chomping execs used to just throw money at bands and see what happened. He lamented how hip people came into the industry. They thought they knew what was cool and trendy but they actually were more conservative than the high powered execs who had more of a "who knows let's see" attitude. They snuffed out more experimental stuff because they thought they could speak for the people and knew what would sell, rather than letting markets decide.

It does make me that much more respectful of two bands who never really changed their sound:

1) The Rolling Stones

2) The Grateful Dead

The Stones always managing to retain their gritty blues style. And the Dead, well...they were always an eclectic combination of rock, blues, jazz, bluegrass and country. Probably the key to their success. Weird, but they were unique given that they made it work!

One thing I do look forward to in leaving this plane of existence is hopefully that both Mick Jagger and Keith Richards will outlast me. :cool:
 
Last edited:
I always use Radiohead as an example of changing in good faith as opposed to crass commercialism. Although my friend still thinks the old stuff is better.

I do relate to being a bit hip and liking being someone who knows a band no one else does although I won't begrudge a band if they get popular in a way I 'deem' okay which is very subjective I know.

I wouldn't not like a band solely because they're popular.
 
The polar opposite of staying the same as opposed to drastic changes is not what I like either. I love a band that evolves in a natural manner with no apparent ulterior motives. I hate a band that is self serving while playing it like they have artistic integrity. Hate is a strong word but it's love flipped isn't it.
 
I am not artistic at all and I know that there is no way in hell I could create a good song or album. I think the artists must be under tremendous pressure and it has to be hard to put something out there for everyone to judge. I am sure they are influenced by the need to make money, but that is the system we live in. For these reasons, I don't feel like I could even guess if a band is selling out or trying to and I don't think I would be mad if they did.
 
I have a friend who is a fairly accomplished guitarist who tends to be more modern jazz oriented.
In his past, he did studio session work for Diana Ross, but never made it big.

One of the things I noticed about him along the way was how critical he was of other successful guitarists who he claimed only played three chords to make their music.

He is 100% right on that.
Many of them are not the best ever, but they did make it well beyond where he ever went with his musical career.

It is all about being in the right place at the right time.

Having seen numerous live performances, I have heard more than once that the sound they heard live was nothing like their recording.

More than likely it was true, as producers will steer a group in the direction they think is the right one based on sales performance above all else.
Too many times I have been witness to albums cranked out just to fulfill contractual obligations.

One way for artists to gain back control over their music is to offer remasters of the original content which skirts the label's cut of the money and puts it back in the hands of the artists.

I honestly believe The Beatles brought the most innovation to music where they we always thinking outside of the box on taking their music in many directions instead of stagnating.

Don't slap me down for this, but some of what they tried was less than favorable to some but perfect for others.
 
One of the things I noticed about him along the way was how critical he was of other successful guitarists who he claimed only played three chords to make their music.
Artist and original Beatles bassist Stuart Sutcliffe would have probably agreed. ;)
 
It has happened with a lot of Australian bands, but most notably with AC/DC. They were huge here in the 70s and their first 4 albums are still incredibly popular here today, 50 years later. But Bon Scott died and then they shifted to the US to make more money. I can't say I blame them, but the sound changed and they became irrelevant to Australian culture after that.
 
It has happened with a lot of Australian bands, but most notably with AC/DC. They were huge here in the 70s and their first 4 albums are still incredibly popular here today, 50 years later. But Bon Scott died and then they shifted to the US to make more money. I can't say I blame them, but the sound changed and they became irrelevant to Australian culture after that.

It always made me cringe thinking of the process that propelled vocalist J.D. Fortune as lead singer of INXS for six years. He certainly couldn't fill Michael Hutchence's shoes.
 
With AC/DC even the first 4 albums can't be trusted when using online streaming services. The originals didn't pass censorship laws in the US and so they completely re-recorded them. So there's a US version and an "international" version of those 4 albums. The international version is the Australian originals that we still play here today, to us the US versions sound like some cheap cover band.

INXS were huge here too, until Hutchence died. He copped a lot of flak in Australia too because he was going out with Kylie Minogue for a while. There was nothing wrong with that except that the general public still saw Kylie as a little kid on the popular tv soap Neighbours. She became a truly massive star in her own right but she never entered the music world in Australia, she made her way in the UK. So we all still think of her as an Aussie but we never really think of her as a musician.
 
There was one band incredibly popular here that didn't change it's sound, it just disintegrated. Cold Chisel. The lead singer Jimmy Barnes moved to France for a few years and he was quite shocked when he came back to Australia and found out that we were all angry with him for deserting us. He never realised what a cultural icon his band had become.

He did bring the old band back together again for special events, and he started releasing music just under his own name as well. He's a true Aussie icon.

 
I'd love to sell out.

money.jpg


;)
 
The band that I like that mutated over time but got better is Talking Heads. I liked the bass line in their music and that only got better. Here is one from 1988.
 

New Threads

Top Bottom