Can we stone the next person who criticizes a band for "selling out"?

Nothing.

1. v.,n. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See also YHBT. 2. n. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll." Compare kook. 3. n. [Berkeley] Computer lab monitor. A popular campus job for CS students. Duties include helping newbies and ensuring that lab policies are followed. Probably so-called because it involves lurking in dark cavelike corners.

Some people claim that the troll (sense 1) is properly a narrower category than flame bait, that a troll is categorized by containing some assertion that is wrong but not overtly controversial. See also Troll-O-Meter.

The use of `troll' in either sense is a live metaphor that readily produces elaborations and combining forms. For example, one not infrequently sees the warning "Do not feed the troll" as part of a followup to troll postings.

-- The Jargon File

troll

1. v.,n. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See also YHBT. 2. n. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll." Compare kook. 3. n. [Berkeley] Computer lab monitor. A popular campus job for CS students. Duties include helping newbies and ensuring that lab policies are followed. Probably so-called because it involves lurking in dark cavelike corners.

Some people claim that the troll (sense 1) is properly a narrower category than flame bait, that a troll is categorized by containing some assertion that is wrong but not overtly controversial. See also Troll-O-Meter.

The use of `troll' in either sense is a live metaphor that readily produces elaborations and combining forms. For example, one not infrequently sees the warning "Do not feed the troll" as part of a followup to troll postings.

-- The Jargon File
troll

1. v.,n. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See also YHBT. 2. n. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll." Compare kook. 3. n. [Berkeley] Computer lab monitor. A popular campus job for CS students. Duties include helping newbies and ensuring that lab policies are followed. Probably so-called because it involves lurking in dark cavelike corners.

Some people claim that the troll (sense 1) is properly a narrower category than flame bait, that a troll is categorized by containing some assertion that is wrong but not overtly controversial. See also Troll-O-Meter.

The use of `troll' in either sense is a live metaphor that readily produces elaborations and combining forms. For example, one not infrequently sees the warning "Do not feed the troll" as part of a followup to troll postings.

-- The Jargon File

troll

1. v.,n. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See also YHBT. 2. n. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll." Compare kook. 3. n. [Berkeley] Computer lab monitor. A popular campus job for CS students. Duties include helping newbies and ensuring that lab policies are followed. Probably so-called because it involves lurking in dark cavelike corners.

Some people claim that the troll (sense 1) is properly a narrower category than flame bait, that a troll is categorized by containing some assertion that is wrong but not overtly controversial. See also Troll-O-Meter.

The use of `troll' in either sense is a live metaphor that readily produces elaborations and combining forms. For example, one not infrequently sees the warning "Do not feed the troll" as part of a followup to troll postings.

-- The Jargon File

I wanna keep the idea of selling out around. Any concept endorsed by Flavor Flav is okay by me...except, of course, crack, which is wack.

Then and only then. But such a scenario would NEVER happen. ;-)

Theoretically I have no problem with anyone trying to make a living. Plenty of problems with saying that's enough to make me like the music. ;-)

I also get irked by people dumping on bands just because their previously underground material finds (due to its high quality) a more mainstream audience. That's not selling out. That's just lucky. And pimping yourself around a bit to boost sales of a record you're proud of isn't selling out either. It's just good business sense and futhers your enterprise, allowing you to make hopefully another recording of music that matters. So selling out is really just turning yr creative hand to music that you think will shift units without caring about its intrinsic worth.

Not saying you did! I am just maintaining the hate against my new musical bete noire. ;-)

A sellout isn't merely someone or some group who used to be struggling and now is rich and/or famous.
If someone consciously changes their sound and puts out music that they themselves don't like as much just to sell more records, they are a sellout. I'd have no problem w/someone who did this, as long as they continued to make the music they love, perhaps releasing it under a alias.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go shopping for a suit of armor.

There's also a very shady line here between creating stuff to entertain an audience and the idea of 'selling out'. The concept that a creator has to be creating for themselves first and foremost seems to me incredibly restrictive. It's theorised, for instance, that in The Winter's Tale the sudden appearance of a bear is down to the company of actors being written for having access to a bear and Shakespeare knowing it would play well with the audience. Is Shakespeare selling out by including the bear?

I don't know how you get to the conclusion that someone likes something they've done just because it's popular. How many times have you seen an interview w/someone--in music, art, film, books, etc.--where they say "Oh sure, X is the one I'm most famous for, but my favorite thing I did is Y"? I see your point, but I'm not sure how common such a thing is and there really is no way to find out.

Obviously if we decide that there is such a thing as selling out but that it doesn't matter then the audience-pleasing question is irrelevant. But people who use it seem to think it matters.

just remember Hank Sr had plenty of songs with stupid back-up singers; Chet Atkins was the original "Nashville Sellout" and he rocks Kashmir; and waaaay back in the day when country music was being invented by the Victrola Co. and others going around holding talent contests for recording contracts all up and down the South, Jimmie Rodgers sold out by not playing the show tunes that were popular at his gigs, but the more "old-sounding" mountain music that the record company people said was what vinyl buyers wanted

eh - isn't making a record "Selling out." Once you begin to present your ideas to someone else, you're trying to gain followers/acceptance. You're no longer making music just for the love of making it, you feel that you have to share it...

i.e. releasing it so others can hear it (and especially if you edit out the "bad" parts & chatter between tracks..) = releasing to be enjoyed by someone else = giving people something they want = selling out.

So once you leave your bedroom, you're a sellout.

making money <> selling out

starting a band and saying "we're never going to compromise ourselves to be exploited in a commercial fashion (or a fashion commercial for that matter) and sacrifice our integrity in the name of making a buck" and then signing to a major label and making a lot of money and watering down any edge in the music = selling out

or michael jackson.

:D

what edge? you must be referring to U2's guitarist...

Who defines "watering down the edge"? What if you sign to a major label but need to make your music nastier/harsher in order for it to sell?

3 words: bono golden showers

What if you sign to a major label but need to make your music nastier/harsher in order for it to sell?

cite examples.

Where would this happen? Bizzaro World?

Can a sell-out become un-sold out again? Like regaining virginity?

felicity, what, people can like get their v-cards back once they've been pulled?

that's just riding the waves of musical trends (same goes for pantera).

(as you know I am very confus-ed today)

didn't his last two albums LOSE money? Losing money <> commercial success (at least where i come from = dumbland).

mark s: "haha ok i entirely concede your point, that doesn't count because BY DEFINITION everyone knows that more popular = blander, it's not actually related to the sound someone's making or whatever"

i would never write all that out.

seriously, if adding a distortion pedal (AOR rock circa 1993) is all it takes to "ride the crest", what makes that any edgier than defying the zeitgeist and remaining all Richard Marx-ish.

luckily now we know better

well, if one day YOU declare yourself Queen or King or royal-whatever of POP and then can't make a dime off your records any longer then perhaps this is a situation that may need to be assessed more on a performance (effort=album) based system.

I disagree with the whole concept of selling out anyway. I attribute little positive moral value to being independently wealthy.

So are Radiohead sell-outs, then? Should they have been "true to themselves" and stuck with their, umm, sort of boring alterna-rock roots?

They only pretend to like making it?

I think Alex's setting them on fire test might be useful for determining the sellouts among professional musicians.

(Where was that, Stencil?)

i only just thought of this

(and sorry abt saying public enemy is part of "rock" culture, but i can't think of a non-silly word to conjure the umbrella i need)

also, one has to have something stongly believed in first to "sell out" -- and "selling out" exists as much in the so called Underground as the Mainstream -- its just more visable many times when a band switches from a Independent to a Major.

I think that is only true if you use the term selling out to connote negative values, which imply in turn, a positivist, pre-existing state of virtue, as if the need to earn a living is dirty. We should all be so lucky!

Nah, they tried going for the brass ring during the whole alternative boom, it was pretty sad because any songwriting talent that they had earlier in their career had faded. (BUT HOW DO YOU KNOW IT HAD GYGAX!!! uh... because i have ears) Their lead guitarist at the time ended up OD-ing on heroin. I mean, that's how mid-/late-90s it was.

Later commerical failures cannot, I think, convert Jackson to a non-sell-out. A failure definitely, but not the ideal that seems to be opposed to the sell-out concept.

i was just pointing out that with michael jackson, whatever possessed 20 million people to pay attention to his music is long gone. (BUT HOW DO YOU KNOW GYGAX! uh... billboard? don't even start with the whole file-sharing angle puh-leeze)

I disagree with the whole concept of selling out anyway. I attribute little positive moral value to being independently wealthy.

haha, omg as opposed to the positive moral value that comes with pop stardom? heehee! (what in the world would i put on an MD for felicity?)

Well we are well ontrack for 300 answers by morning.

No, as opposed to the transparency of motive. These lies and pretentions demean us all!

I bet MJ still gets a lot of triangles to the *nth on the Billboard catalog and international charts.

gygax! any minidisc is a good minidisc, especially if it has lots of indie cred :)

Actually, I don't s'pose that's the way it is. I hardly ever hear the "[band name here] sold out" complaint anymore.

large amounts of the blether which fills my magazine is deluded moralistic gutlessness, sadly, even when the work is pretty (and sometimes better than pretty): this means i am super-allergic to it when i come upon ever much less toxic versions of it elsewhere

"Compared to What"/stampeding bison Levi's ad to thread!

You can always criticize any argument, any person, or any work for not living up to values that you create yourself and project onto them.

akin to a jury listening to the evidence at a murder trial, then coming back with a guilty verdict for tax evasion.

Hey, whatever worked for Al Capone.

Dan - my objections to this a didn't have anything to do with Common changing his music or "selling out" - it had to do with the flagrant abuse of a tune which *wasn't even his to begin with*. The violation of the original material is the issue - the abuse of an artist who was unable to protect his work.

to bring this back to square one: dan perry, which professional musician is being accused of selling out?

"professional musicians" (it would seem) have little to sell out.

Who is the Steve Forbert of selling out?

But that's my point! At least that's what I think I'm trying to say. Maybe I'm not expressing it well (more than likely).

Shakey: You're right. Pretend I didn't mention "Compare To What" (I only did it to bait you, anyway, hee hee).

Gygax: There was a post on the thread about Dylan and his bras the mentioned Dylan selling out which was what caused me to post this, but it's an attitude I've been developing for the past... fifteen, sixteen years? As someone who has wanted in the past to be able to support myself off of music (and is earning money for singing for the first time in eight years), it really, really, REALLY irks me to see people take their personal issues with an artist's new, possibly-more-commercial album and cast it in terms of "Artist X is betraying himself and his craft!" Fuck that, Artist X HAS TO EAT.

(again, I am confused in general today)

Dan we don't know all the facts about the Dylan one, tho, as was pointed out. If the song was sold without his approval (i.e. someone else owns it), well then of course the "sell out" accusation is moot, but the offense may still be there.

H, you can also go to http://www.nerdmagazine.org/forbert.html for an explanation of Steve Forbert, unless you are making a very clever Wittgenstein-by-way-of-Socratic method point to me which is way over my head.

(I can't think any further than that right now I'm coming off a wicked caffiene buzz and I have a shitload on my desk)

whatever possessed 20 million people to pay attention to his music is long gone. (BUT HOW DO YOU KNOW GYGAX! uh... billboard?)

Gygax, you deserve some sort of slap on the wrist for the giant intellectual dishonesty of equating my question -- how you know any artists' intention within his or her own head and emotions and worldview which you have no access to -- with these two things: I know you're not dumb enough to miss the difference between them, and I'm pretty sure I'm not dumb enough to have missed the revolutionary moment when Billboard charts started reflecting the innermost thoughts, hopes, and dreams of the people making the records.

The point is that your assessment of the music can't speak to the intentions of the artists, apart from in a hugely speculative way -- and even that speculation is based on what you're hearing in their output, in which case just maybe it's worth actually talking about what's so horrible about that output itself. If there's something in there that makes it sound as if they "don't mean it," why not just say what that thing is and leave the hearsay out of it?

I think this conversation is moving off-track a little. I don't think anyone is disputing that some bands change their sounds in ways designed to get people to like them, and sometimes cynically so. But what kind of an impulse is this to criticize? On the most basic level it's just called "trying to be good" -- I mean, people learn to play their instruments well, or try to write better songs, based on exactly the same impulse to make music that people will enjoy. And I don't think there's anything calculated or cynical about it 90% of the time: no one lacks perspective on a band's music more than the people in the band themselves, and it's perfectly plausible that what looks to fans like a "sell-out" is genuinely the band doing what they think is best. (Witness the number of bands who are embraced by indie fans during their "raw," rough, unformed periods -- and then as soon as they develop the funding and skill to do the slick rock records they've actually always wanted to do, they're accused of selling out.)

The point, then, is that constant inquisitions on who has or has not "sold out" are a bit time-wasting -- at best unreliably speculative and at worst massively distorting and misleading -- and as such just sort of annoying.

Johnny Rotten to thread!

you'll have to get in line.

But wasn't that one of the main tenets of punk? That you don't need to know how to play, have a expensive studio, etc. That it's the feeling/passion you play w/that makes good music.

The point, then, is that constant inquisitions on who has or has not "sold out" are a bit time-wasting -- at best unreliably speculative and at worst massively distorting and misleading -- and as such just sort of annoying.

i think you're making me the target of some of your frustrations with credibility and selling out... yet, i will be your target but only if it makes you feel better. i will not be some vain whipping boy.

to stay off target:
i think you're confusing abrasiveness and rawness with amateurism (ie, "playing well" = sounding "slick"). i like many artists that are very abrasive and raw but far from amateuristic in their approach/technique.

Don't be fooled by the rocks that I got. I am about to throw them at the next person who accuses a musician of selling out.

And I'm not at all equating what you're saying I am: that last example is, shockingly, an example.

nabisco: an artist's intentions are sometimes as transparent as their music. at least to me they are.

So screw it, musicians, artists, computer programmers, social activists, envirointernetmentalists, doctors, MPs, lobbyist and business analysts they can all sell out. They can probably all buy in or whatever the hell they want.

Boss at relatively cool and credible music job: Why are you leaving?
Me: For the money.
Boss: I've never done anything for the money in my life.
Me: That's the difference between you and me.

Of course, the Pareto optimal solution of non-materialistic, indie cred Boss giving me more money did not present itself.

nabisco's extensive, dry interrogative research theses = "issues".

hahaha, SO TRUE!

:D

I think people are too quick to say somebody "sold out," but the I GOT TO EAT logic is a bit faulty. If somebody robs another person because THEY GOT TO EAT we say that's ethically wrong. While "selling out" is nowhere as criminal as robbing somebody I think we have the right to voice our disapproval.

For instance, I think Bruce Springsteen is far too timid in voicing his liberal politics because he doesn't want to offend the larger market (he'll speak his piece in RS but platitudes and self-adoration fill his music, videos and performances). I think it's valid for me to be disappointed about that.

And then there's P Diddy, who combined the two.

Hopefully you spent 4 or 5 years before hand telling your boss, your customers about how you do this job cause you love it and you didn't care about the money and never would compromise yourself right up to the moment the other job offer came your way from another music store you told everyone you hated for all those years.

Selling out as far as Im concerned is not to be confused with compromising, moving on, adapating, adjusting or just plain old growing up.

sterling: thank "transmitting live from mars".

What I'm trying to get at is that the notion of "selling out" isn't likely the rhetorical manifestation of some ages-old opposition between Commerce and Art but a very particular historical phenomenon.

Which is another way of saying that the phrase isn't very useful, and it'd be better to look at the ways that commercial pressues (whether that means making the charts, or satisfying your patron) interact with artistic imperatives (I shouldn't even presume that they can be totally disentangled) in different places and periods of time.

I'm not sure whether I just said something or nothing.

Isn't there ANOTHER Dag Nasty reunion LP just out?

I don't understand Nabisco - why the "without knowing anything about it"? Seems to me accurately judging someone's intentions would only be aided by being familiar with the album and the band's history.

Oh is that what you call it, a 'sample'. I wish P Diddy ran a grocery store...I think I'd be able to get all my food free.

Reason I asked about this, Gygax: I read recently that Love were actively against the idea of putting string and horn arrangements on this record. Bruce Botnick, the producer, brought in an arranger, and only after much coaxing and bit of producer fiat where they able to convince Love that it was worth putting the arrangements on.

Where does this leave your estimation of "Love's" intentions? Isn't a top ten item in the sell-out hall of fame "letting producers convince you to put strings all over your record?" But don't the strings make Forever Changes a better record? Does who thought of them, who intended what with them, and what proportion of that you can figure out without doing research really matter in comparison to the fact that here is a record with strings on it, and you can decide from simple listening and without recourse to hearsay and intention-divination whether the strings work or not, at face value, in your own ears?

(That said the negative reaction to Sam's decision has always been overstated. It makes the story more harmonious with Rock History Trope No. 1 [offend yr elders] and easier to cast gospel as being something Other than pop music.)

No - and the first time I heard this record I thought "why is everyone so excited about this Herb Alpert shit?" I've grown to appreciate it for different reasons over time, but you can tell someone was trying to shepherd the band into LA-easylistening territory *with your own ears*.

1888 BRYCE Amer. Commw. III. IV. lxxxiii. 110 When this transfer of the solid vote of a body of agitators is the result of a bargain with the old party which gets the vote, it is called ‘selling out’. 1903 G. B. SHAW Man & Superman III. 78 He has sold out to the parliamentary humbugs and the bourgeoisie. 1946 KOESTLER Thieves in Night 112 The English are going to sell out on us. 1976 Survey Winter 86 Barbé called for tactics of disobedience to the colonial administrators and to the traditional chiefs who had ‘sold out’ to the French government.

1857 Lawrence (Kansas) Republican 2 July 1 If the Times has not been ‘sold out’ to the Border Ruffian party, it looks very much as if it had been ‘chartered’. 1867 Oregon State Jrnl. 19 Jan. 3/1 The writer thinks the officers were ‘badly sold out’. 1936 M. MITCHELL Gone with Wind ix. 189 Why quibble about the Yankees earning an honest penny selling out the Union? 1940 J. B. PRIESTLEY Postscripts 45 It let the old hands, the experts,..speak for it, and they sold it out. 1967 Times 17 Nov. 8/6 With shouts of ‘They sold us out, the bastards’, the meeting moved to ‘the moment of truth’. 1976 ‘J. CHARLTON’ Remington Set xxviii. 141 What happened is, Rog sold us out.

the idea that struggle and mistakes and unclarity and changing yr mind and doubt and fear and a need for approval and all manner of twisty and fucked-up stuff exist — except as topics insightfully explored WITHIN the work — must never to be mentioned, esp.in respect of the band's relationship with the ppl they actually meet and work with every day

I am very interested yet confused by this. Please explain the difference between these concepts and why it is different for professional musicians than non-musicians.

I could argue that Forever Changes functions as an attempt by the band/label/management to gain mainstream acceptance while maintaining a modicum of artiness and credibility. That's what the record *sounds* like to me. Herb Alpert strings/brass = easy listening = music for waiting in dentists' offices = an appeal to middlebrow/middleclass sensibilities. Since I think appealling to middlebrow sensibilities is a pretty dumb and unappealing thing to do, I could reasonably cry "sell out!" if I were so inclined.

These issues of modifying the sound of the group to maximize commercial appeal (to whatever sector, but most often the widest, most broadly defined sector possible) seems like a different issue from others that elicit the sellout response - like jumping from an indie to a major, or doing a commercial.

tell that the band was going for more strings on the record? you've proved nothing (except your love for dry, abstract, hypothetical arguments - cf, eminem/rabbit run thread.. ugh).

quick google:

Forever Changes has very interesting horn and string arrangements, especially since they're combined with folk-rock and psychedelic rock.

BB: That's my fault, 'cause I...you gotta look at music in that period. I brought the stuff in, the strings and horns. At the time, radio wasn't narrow casting like it is today. Where today you have a rap station, you have an R&B station, you have a rock station, you have an oldies station, you have a news station. In those days, you'd have KFWB or KSJ, and they would play everything. You would hear Love followed by Frank Sinatra, going into "How Much Is That Doggie in the Window." It was totally a mixture of music. So everybody that was making records at the time was competing on the same field. And then it would go into Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass. So there was an amalgamation, a synergy actually, between all the different music styles.

What I did is, I brought in this arranger [David Angel]. I don't know exactly how I found him. I don't remember how it happened. I think I might have found him through my mother, who was a music copyist working for Sinatra and Nelson Riddle at the time. I brought him in, and he sat down with Arthur, and Arthur really warmed to it. And he sang all the lines to David Angel -- all the string lines and all the brass lines, everything. It's a really weird mix of Tijuana Brass and the rock'n'roll he was coming from. And at that time, it was the thing to do, to legitimize yourself in some respects, to have strings on your record -- that you'd grown up, and to make rock'n'roll legal in some respects. But I always liked the way they worked. Some of it is a little dated, but I really enjoy it.

Did Arthur like the idea of those horns and strings as well?

BB: That was very much Arthur, 'cause he liked it.

so nabisco, arthur lee had finally say on the process, he warmed to the arrangements, he wanted that sound. i guess it all depends on how "actively against" the strings arthur lee was according to the author you read. do you think the author you read knew the situation (or remembered it) better than bruce botnick?

This is why I mentioned Forever Changes in the first place: because it's a great example of how assigning strict black/white intentions to everyone involved (pandering to masses / cynical bid to sell records / etc.) is rarely helpful and, I think, rarely true.

I wonder if the music production process were more transparent, from songwriting to distribution, if people would level the same accusations of sell-out-ism.

I think a Marxist (not mark s-ist) view would be that the myths of the lone idealist musical artist and art for art's sake are some of the biggest commodities of all. As if artistic intention were straight from God's lips to your ear and the decision to sell out were a switch the musician could flip at will. There are a lot of other people involved in the production and distribution process -- with varying degrees pf authority and control of the final product. Perhaps they are the proletariat and don't figure into the equation.

AN Anthony M implied, there are "economies" of many things of value -- not just monetary, but of coolness and credibility, power, favors etc. Motorbooty magazine hilariously once published the "ledger account statements" of Sonic Youth, Royal Truxx and a few other bands in the Bank of Coolness and Crediblity, showing their debits and credits for the statement period. Royal Truxx had the highest balance at the time.

I think a fan's disappointment about musical selling out is a form of alienation about which Walter Benjamin wrote re: the "fine arts" in the 1930s.

Haha, felicity your Motorbooty example is pretty apt given one of the chief people involved was in Big Chief!

Okay I need to go home now.

b-b-but I'm not arguing either point! Strings = attempt at mass appeal. Who cares who "meant it" (or not)?

"my whole point is that it doesn't matter: it matters whether you think the strings are good or not."

b-b-but I just mapped out how you can say the strings aren't good because they sound like an attempt to sell-out (ie, gain larger mass appeal)! Your argument is circular and nonsensical.

fact #1:
you said you read that arthur lee was actively against the strings.
fact #2:
i quoted an article with the producer in question that said he wasn't.

please quit trying to play like you are working some angle of profundity here, I think you're attempting much and succeeding little. "see i set a trap and you all fell in it hahahaha" = baloney.

btw: big chafe is the wurst.

Haha, he went home now so I can let that one linger until the 200 new answers by tomorrow.

As for who cares if Lee "meant it" -- Jesus, didn't I bring up Forever Changes specifically because Gygax was claiming to be able to divine genuine personal intent just from listening?

I don't think its different. I think its more a question of honesty and motives. I would say 'morality' but people would have a field day argueing about how you can't judge other peoples morales even when they share or profess to share your norms.
Is it a reason to stop listening to a band? No, course not.
(Sorry for the delay, that whole subway ride home thing and food and other day to day activities.)

Personally, I would love it if I could be the sole arbiter of the one true meaning all of the material artifacts created by my efforts long after they have left myhands.

Sometimes my bosses and judges say stuff to me about papers I write or circulate to people and it would be so cool if I could say to them "No, no, that's so totally not what what those words and numbers and stuff mean, I mean I wrote it, I should know."

THIS IS NOT WHAT I SAID. Please read carefully, and here we go round and round ONE MORE TIME:

automatic/immediate listening reaction (the first time I heard this record): the strings make me think of easy listening/muzak. THIS IS, JUST USING MY EARS, WHAT THE STRINGS SOUND LIKE: music for dentists offices. This is an unpleasant association, an association I don't like to get from music. The fact that the band/label/management etc. made the record this way signals their desire to make the record this way - which was the way you made a record that appealed to the broadest possible swath of the listening public at the time. Ergo, my listening experience = unpleasant = detection of "sellout".

I'm done.

"Strings = attempt at mass appeal" (your words)
"String = people would like the record" (mine)

Whereas in this last post you're actually talking about how the strings function on record -- what they sound like, what they remind you of -- all of which is what I'm referring to as "actually engaging with the record" as opposed to the motives of the people working on it.

Heh, I'm "sticking it to the man" by using all his bandwidth to argue this crap AND get paid for it! Shit, I should shut up...

they were going for a sgt. peppers/"eleanor rigby" sound.

was not Love's intention(s).

or is your point that you can't?

Sorry, you lost me there. What two concepts?
mmmm, drink.

"Strings = attempt at mass appeal"

"the strings weren't good simply because they were put on there so people would like the record more"

These statements are not identical.

Concept 1 is "selling out"
Concept 2 is "compromising, moving on, adapating, adjusting or just plain old growing up"

So up there you said it is "Not to be confused with" and later you said "I don't think its different. I think its more a question of honesty and motives." I thought you meant Concept 1 and 2, but maybe you meant musicians and non-musicans. I'm not trying to badger you, I am just interested in what the sellout concept mean to different people.

Riddle me this:

The growing proletarianization of modern man and the increasing formation of masses are two aspects of the same process. Fascism attempts to organize the newly created proletarian masses without affecting the property structure which the masses strive to eliminate. Fascism sees its salvation in giving these masses not their right, but instead a chance to express themselves. The masses have a right to change property relations; Fascism seeks to give them an expression while preserving property. The logical result of Fascism is the introduction of aesthetics into political life. The violation of the masses, whom Fascism, with its Fiihrer cult, forces to their knees, has its counterpart in the violation of an apparatus which is pressed into the production of ritual values.

Do you think that passage has any bearing on the concept of "cred"?

H, shall we have a drink before I come back and do my sellout work?

Not wanting to discuss something is fine; actively trying to deny others the right to discuss something is dud.

But I'm just trying to put this gag in your mouth!

(Seriously, I hope I wasn't coming across that way? Eep.)

Because (a) you've quoted the producer himself saying that the ideas was initially his, not Love's, and (b) some other source that I wish I could remember argues that Love were not as eager to take his suggestion as he implies, and just for kicks (c) Shakey, for one, claims it’s audibly clear that Love’s “true” motivations lay elsewhere.

The point isn’t that it didn’t end up sounding that way: it’s that there’s usually a complex enough interplay of goals and ideas and motivations to make moral judgments about who “means” what both difficult and point-missing. My contention here, which I’ll clarify one last time and then hopefully let drop, is that it’s better to engage with the results than to go around divining secret motivations—that it was better for Shakey to explain what it was about the strings he didn’t like than to say they were bad for the supposed reasons they were put there.

And pardon me Shakey, because you've just come around to exactly what I said upthread: that it's not a matter of whether people like the record but who likes the record?

That is correct. Though perhaps I'd use the term backstab or burning bridges more then selling out. If you had constant interviews with the people in my office and handed them to the punkrawk programmers in college, then they would be screaming 'sellout' or 'corporate whore' or what not at all of us.

But I'm just trying to put this gag in your mouth!
I don't even wanna know why.

So you agree that I can call Love a sell-out without ever attempting to go beyond the record and "divine" their intentions, that I can make this judgment just based on the *music alone*? Because THAT has been my point all along.

What if a band is compared to AC/DC, but the band hates AC/DC? Is their anger unjustified? Isn't it possible that the critic is WRONG? Jesus you guys are bending over backwards to basically defend bad and lazy writing, it's weird...

-- Shakey Mo Collier (audiobo...), February 20th, 2003. (link)

Is it counter-intuitive to hold this position along with the position re: "Forever Changes"? (I initially thought it was, but now I'm not sure.)

Not that it matters, but I have to confess that apart from my out-of-place "more" I still don't really see how an "attempt at mass appeal" is different from trying to get people to like the record -- unless housewives and dental receptionists aren't people? The fact that something is supposedly meant -- by whomever -- to appeal to housewives and dental receptionists does not, in and of itself, make it either bad or false.

what does:

the producer himself saying that the ideas was initially his, not Love's

have to do with:

they were going for a sgt. peppers/"eleanor rigby" sound.

You're missing the key difference between our two statements.

"the strings weren't good simply because they were put on there so people would like the record more"

The implication in this second statement is that the *sound of the strings themselves didn't matter* - that I was dismissing the record without listening to it, simply because there were strings on it. My argument is that you can conclude the strings were put on there to appeal to more people just by hearing them and by being familiar with similar-sounding music (ie, easy listening). It's about being able to hear (a) and equate it with (b) on the basis of the music alone.

Yeah man, I was *way* into muzak as a teenager, but then Love went and made it all popular with Forever Changes. Fucking bastards.

StarPolish: How do you--especially in a world where there's so much clutter now--get the word out creatively while still maintaining the artistic vision?

MACKAYE: It's hard for me to answer this because generally speaking, the way I approach things is pretty innate--it's just what seems natural to me. So to me it seems really clear what's stomach-able and what's not stomach-able. I think that, obviously, everyone has different lines…

WATT: I 'da ho. You 'da pimp. (laughs)

Is that a self-centred, immature world view? Probably. Passionate as all get out though - and music is so much more meaningful to an 'appropriator' than a plain old 'viewer'. I mean, I *know* what Dan is getting at, but I just can't feel the hate for that POV at all.

By the way, Treble Charger - sell outs? Don't you have to be good first?

Put simply it has to do with who "they" are.

I find accusations of selling out refreshing, especially coming from college radio programmers in a society where higher education must be bought. I don't hate it. I just think it's bit of a myth or a tall tale, like Santa Claus. But it's important and necessary to retain your hopes and dreams, too. They enable us to endure and accomplish much, including getting through life.

Although the dusted site that gygax! linked to seems like a good idea. HEPL! Who to trust?

Tracer enjoyed the role of the "cheap trick" in the ILX bridge game. Sometimes you have to lose a couple of tricks to make the hand.

Passing judgement on such things is the rough equivalent of deciding that someone is a bastard for breaking your best friend's heart vs. reserving judgement because you should never take sides.

Me, I'd stick up for my friends any day - in case yr wondering.

It seems ultimately to come down to the personal and those claims are unnecessary to quantify in terms of sales or advances. Personal feelings are not right or wrong.

But is it possible for another person to say they were never led on in this way and still be considered a fan? I think the other kind of fandom, the one prone to feelings of betrayal, is purer and therefore "truer" in a sense.

*puts down stones*

I agree with Kim. I am still interested in how people who believe in selling out would distinguish selling out from compromise, moving on, adapting, adjusting or just plain growing up.

Well Im not the only one here who feels (often mistakenly) like they undestand there favorite artists more then they really do. Specially for teenagers. Not all compromises are a good thing, sometimes you need to stand your ground,we argue with bosses, team leaders or synergy experts, they have sort it out with the all powerful A/R or studioman or soundman with his hand on the suck dial. When does it start sliding down the slippery slope to selling your self out or at the very least short? Hell if I know, probably the same point three lines on a canvas become a 3 million dollar work of art.
The word is probably over used,I know its over used. I also know who in my office does good work even if its behind schedule and who just punches in 9-5 and passes on crap to my team on a regular schedule.
You can see them break, one summer they are doing great and happy, the next they're zombies. 2.5 half years Im told. Scary thought, almost as bad as making to three albums makes someone one an established act.

the artist and listener don't exist in two seperate worlds of mutual incomprehension save missives in the form of albums from the artist. they play and interact together via a shared social framework (one which evolves through time, reflection, social change etc. -- but one which exists nonetheless). a framework of which criticism is an integral part -- you don't think artists notice and FEAR (or sometimes embrace, but certainly take into account) accusations of "sellout" from critics, nabisco? artists define their music in the face of their intended audience as much as audiences seek to define the music by the percieved audience. saying WHO yr. giving WHAT and WHY yr. trying to give it is the heart of how the artist relates to the world and define their audience through their music as much as their music through their audience. Making an album is saying "THIS is what I'm about" and "THOSE are the people I'm trying to reach".

When the audience sez "sellout" they're passing judgment on the artist's intentions as they understand them just as an audience passes judgement in innumerable more subtle ways. The play is at the heart of musical evolution and not something to be dismissed -- even if the work is the product of disjoint forces, it appears as a unity and a listener will project a backstory onto that unity in order to approach the work as a whole. That backstory and its contestation are as much a part of how we approach an album as are the other bits of baggage we bring to the table (like whether it sounds like a dentist's office or not, and whether we like visiting the dentist or not -- maybe my father was a dentist and it reminds me of him etc.)

Or more flip:
one might equally ask if NOT selling out is a form of "selling out" -- if maintanance of a "pure" sound with an established fanbase isn't also a form of stagnation in the face of commerce.

(more later maybe)

The definition of "sell out" = "to betray one's cause or colleagues." My etymology dictionary (www.etymonline.com) dates the slang from 1888 as "to prostitute one’s ideals or talents" ("prostitute" in sense of "to sell [oneself or one's talent, for example] for an unworthy purpose").

To do away with "sell out" in music talk, you would have to stop talking about:

1.) an artist’s cause, ideals, colleagues, or talents. 2.) whether that artist betrayed his cause, ideals, colleagues, or talents. 3.) whether that artist sold his cause, ideals, colleagues, or talents for an unworthy purpose.

But you can’t talk about (1.) without eventually talking about (2.) and (3.) for the simple reason that everything listed in (1.) is something you can betray or sell for an unworthy purpose (almost by definition).

Audiences aren't perfect, but they grasp that much. Which is why "sell out" is here to stay.

So instead of banning the expression, demand specificity from the lazy: Exactly what is being sold out, and to whom?

Maybe it would be more useful to phrase it like this: An artist sells something/someone to something/someone else "out from under" something/someone else (which might very well be the origin of the phrase, for all I know). For example, Shakespeare sold his knowledge of what would “play” with audiences to his financial backers "out from under" his sense of art. Sonic Youth sold their talent to the Bank of Coolness and Crediblity "out from under" what would please their own ears. (I doubt it in both cases, BTW.)

When you break down "sell out" thinking into these specifics, it usually ends up being exactly as you guys say: "That band sold their talent to masses of people OUT FROM UNDER my idea of what they’re supposed to be!"

Which is valid, but not the same as: "That band sold their talent to masses of people OUT FROM UNDER their ideals."

Pete also makes tons of sense. I had more I wanted to write but I can't make it coherent, so I'll just leave it at that.

Can we all just agree that "sellout" is a term used for people who abandon their artistic vision to follow one that is more commercially viable now? I didn't realize we had to have 300 posts on the matter.

-
Alan

hey jess, that's the kinda post I make on ILE!

That leaves no possibility for an act to become commercially successful on their own laurels (from the start). Its rather ill constructed. Fugazi (I know, I know), for example has attained a moderate level of success, yet I don't see how they "sold out" at the start nor lacked a artistic vision when building their fanbase.

Also, you leave out the possibility of a band/artist retiring or disbanding.

-
Alan

-
Alan

Trouble is that naming what artists are like that, and what artists did just change their musical tastes and preferences over time as a result of getting older, is impossible.

Sting may sound like a sellout to some people, but I feel he has too much integrity to do that. He has just grown older, and doesn't feel like making "rebellious" music anymore.

Geir is OTM.

Ok. Understood. But still, what if they all died in a plane crash? =)

Wait....that didn't stop Lynryd Skynryrd. Never mind.

>>The best innovation is always a result of mixing genres, taking the best-working elements from both (or all) of them.<<

Like mixing R&B with rock! ZING

-
Alan

Is that pronounced jagh-YUU-wah?

Also fugazi sold out once when they became fugazi and disavowed straightedge and again after thirteen songs when they abandoned a punXoR vision for artsy crap that plays well with the critics & all the stuff about the venues they play and low prices and not signing with a major is a way to disguise it.

Related question: did ani difranco sell out? how many times? & was it a sellout when she married a mang whether or not her music changed? Or did her marriage to a mang necessarily change her music because it changed how her audience saw her and thus how she related to her audience?