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...

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?