Ha, I know exactly who you're referring to. Don't get me wrong, the 2011 "bonuses" were largely a let down, although there were some actual rarities hidden deep. But I didn't feel betrayed, just disappointed. Still a fan though - have been for half my life.
Oasis pulling out of the Sunday V2009 festival on the basis of "laryngitis", having played the previous night...only to announce their split a few days later before playing in Paris. The withdrawal was announced in the afternoon after many paying fans were already in the festival venue, with no opportunity for a refund, even though tickets had been refunded when Travis had cancelled as headliners previously. Stories of that week's various fallings-out subsequently emerged. Snow Patrol were promoted to headliners. Come to think of it, I don't know which bit of this was the worst.
Well, there’s only one thing worse than being talked about and that’s not being talking about. - Monty Python. Robert Plant is a Wolves fan. That was disappointing. Not even his home town team. Still, obviously not a glory hunter.
Simply Red, I know I complained for years I bought his last live cd live in sidney opera house most of us did that were fans in his interview he said I'm retiring from simply red I will no longer use the name simply red in future projects.. So he decided to have a half ass solo career doing cover tunes of music thats been covered before..... And a tribute to Bobby Long I don't know he was. Then years later about 5 yrs he decided to come back Which I was excited with his cd big love. It was him with no energy no drive singing in the corner with lackluster songs.. worst album he ever did. So I thought.. then he decided to release another cd I hoped it would be better? Blue eyed soul was even worse a rip off of Gnarls Barkley.... Everything song sounded the same the song writing was up to level of 3rd grader.. He no longer has the drive or energy or spark To be simply red,. it's just mere shadow of what the band was sad.
You're right, I have no idea what I would do given that sort of choice. The money, fame, drugs & women probably override any worries you might have that your old fans don't like your new music. And leaving your old fans behind hurts a lot less when you have millions of new ones who love anything you put out. I certainly can't hold it against Ron Wood for playing third banana in the Stones. Keith Richards has stated that it was Woody's personality, as well as his musical ability, that made him the obvious choice for the band. When I saw the Rolling Stones live, I was surprised at how many familiar licks and solos were played by Ron and not Keith. Too bad his voice is so wrecked (see any recent clip of Ron trying to sing Ooh La La). Man, I sure miss Ronnie Lane.
Never, I'm just a fan....everyone goes in different directions...if I don't like what a band/does.... I don't buy the record pretty simple....I never get super emotional invested in a Band or Artist...
Disappointed but not betrayed by Fleetwood Mac when Buckingham/Nick's joined and the band became superstars. I personally loved the Danny Kirwan/Peter Green era. Also John Lennon's use of Phil Spector as producer on some of his solo work. His sound changed and not in a good way imho.
That's really stretching the issue to make it work in your very narrow experience. The premise I'm questioning isn't if some unknown struggling artist took a lousy gig to pay some bills. We're talking about well-known, commercially successful artists/bands. My challenge stands.
Easy enough to come up with well-known artists who violated their principles for the sake of money or personal advancement: Richard Strauss and Herbert von Karajan. I suppose neither of them had a pre-existing manifesto where they said "I will not collaborate with Nazis", though. How about Graham Nash? He says explicitly in Wild Tales that CSNY did their 1970s stadium shows "for the money", knowing that they wouldn't be able to have the connection they valued with the audience in such large venues, but wanting the cash to support their lifestyles. In his words, "We knew there was a lot of money to be made...In that respect, I have to say we sold out." Now, I ask you to clarify something. Which of the following do you believe? (a) There is such a thing as "selling out", but I'm not interested in hearing anyone describe an artist that way, because they can't know the operations of someone else's mind. Only the artist can speak to that. (b) There's no such thing as "selling out". All musicians/artists are mainly in it for the money, and those who say they aren't are lying, deluded fools, or irrelevant losers. (c) Something else (specify). I may not agree with (a) but it's reasonable, human, understandable. (b) is none of those things.
Haven't read the thread so don't know if it has been mentioned, but saw the thread as Counting Crows' ultimate cheesefest version of Big Yellow Taxi came on in this cafe. I feel betrayed to this day if they play it live - as they always seem to do when they come through Houston.
I think there's just a slight difference between performing for Nazis because you might be killed if you don't, and making an album of love songs that your die-hard fans think is 'selling out'. The fact that CSNY did stadium shows is also not what the original premise of this thread was. They still played their songs that they wrote and wanted to perform. (D) 'Selling out' is what some fans say artists do when they change or evolve from a style the fan liked, to one they don't. In my view, there is no such thing unless there's some sort of situation where an artist says "I will never play at this location because 'reasons'", and then is offered an amount of money that makes them renege on that vow.
Let me put it like this: for me 'The Smashing Pumpkins' ended on December 2nd, 2000, and I never welcomed their reunion... "I'll betray myself, to anyone lost, anyone but you"
Good one. I did enjoy Zwan during their brief moment—even saw them live—and I’ve heard one or two post-2000 Corgan/SP songs that made me pause, but otherwise, yep. In fact, I have a hard time even going back to ANY Pumpkins stuff these days.
That’s kinda the first one that came to mind. I had stuck with them through ATYCLB, and actually thought HTDAAB was a bit of an improvement, but NLOTH just lost me, barring a couple of songs. It seemed offensive to me in a way I can’t quite articulate. There just wasn’t any charm to it—at least the other 00’s albums had a lyrical focus, whereas this had computer prompt lyrics and a song almost explicitly for middle-aged parents having a night out. The Spider-Man musical around that time just made it seem like they really had no idea what else to do.
I only ever listened to the earlier album Icon which I liked and wasn't aware of the change of direction. As a Depeche fan I was intrigued and had to listen. It's OK to change but that must have alienated a lot fans! Very average too-a bit like much of latter day Depeche Mode music which might be a betrayal itself!
I felt betrayed when in 2004 Queen decided to continue with another singer and without John Deacon. Now I simply don't care.
David Bowie disappointed me when he dropped the Ziggy persona and suddenly shape shifted into the Thin White Duke persona. I was a gay kid in high school, scared to death of getting older and with basically no role models to identify with. The Ziggy character was in no way anything I was attracted to or aspired to, but his bravery in depicting what I thought was part of his authentic nature was a beacon of hope and aspiration for me at the time. Then he dropped it, abruptly moved on to his Philly Soul period and later acknowledged that the whole bisexual thing was just a sham. He went on to redeem himself musically later on and, in the long run, I admire him greatly, but that really stung me at the time.
For the record, Strauss and Karajan were in zero danger of being executed. They could have engaged a lot less than they did and still been 100% safe, but they enjoyed the VIP treatment too much (or at least Strauss did). Original premise aside, the key idea is that of a band making artistic compromises for the sake of money (which is where a lot of the "betrayal" stuff comes from -- not a personal betrayal, but a betrayal of shared ideals). "Selling out" is a continuum, not an either/or proposition. I agree that some fans do exactly that, but I disagree that the concept of "selling out" can be reduced to only that. Sure, there are bands like Genesis, who streamlined and simplified their sound -- to accusations that they "sold out" -- but did it out of sincerity, i.e. a desire to play a different kind of music. But plenty of musicians have recorded and performed music they didn't believe in, even loathed outright, solely for the money. Take Scott Walker, who has described himself as "acting in bad faith" and making "bloody awful records" for a number of years -- partly because he hoped to turn things around, but partly because he simply wanted the payouts from his contract so that he could spend his days in a drunken haze. Did he sell out? I wouldn't say so, but maybe he would. Funny thing is, he didn't "evolve" during those years, but regressed (in the literal sense). Like I said it's a continuum: the less you believe in what you're doing, and the more you're only doing it for the money -- with contempt for your audience, and for yourself -- the closer you get to some Platonic ideal of "selling out". To claim otherwise, i.e. to say this sort of "musicmaking in bad faith" never happens, is to claim that there's no such thing as integrity in the arts: if there's no integrity, then there's nothing that can be betrayed, because no one ever believed in anything in the first place.
For the record Strauss' daughter - in - law and by extension his grandchildren were considered Jewish by the Nazi standard and it is reported they were able to leave thd country in return for his acquiesence. And unlike most of the big players (Toscanini, Walter, Karajan) he was too old to expect to return home from exile.
