In the R.E.M. song-by-song thread, the topic of "selling out" has reared his head. Most, if not all, of the participants seem to agree there that R.E.M. did not really ever sell out -- however, they did change and evolve, sometimes not always to fans liking, losing fans but also gaining new ones along the way. The led me to wondering: what is selling out? How do you define it? To some people it's simply a question of becoming more popular and doing all of the things that popular bands do; to others it's about the venues their play, the supplies they cooperate with (TicketMaster, for example); still others might see corporate sponsorship as "selling out." What do you think constitutes selling out? And which groups or artists in your opinion have sold out, leaving aside obvious bands/artists who were always unabashedly commercial from the get go. I tend to just dismiss the whole concept, mainly because I don't entirely get it.
It's always a sad thing when you see anyone over the age of 14 ranting about an artist "selling out."
"Selling out" means making music that is designed to be more popular than the music the performer(s) started out making (ie. the performer was influenced by more than just commercial concerns). Fred Goodman's book Mansion On The Hill is an examination of the clash of artistry and commerce in the music world. A case study in the book is Bruce Springsteen. Nebraska is the opposite of selling out whereas Born In The U.S.A. was a deliberately commercial record (manager Jon Landau demanded a hit single and "Dancing In The Dark" was born). The record company also marketed the heck out of the record - seven singles.
People often use that term to designate that someone has compromised their artistic integrity in order to become more popular/mainstream--in music, maybe jumping on the whatever's popular in music bandwagon at the expense of what was previously a more compelling or original sound. Jazz musician Vince Guaraldi was once accused of "selling out" and he responded, "I didn't sell out. I bought in!" He made a good point: people often assume that someone has sold out, but sometimes the artist has genuinely bought in to whatever those fans considered as selling out and buying in is the opposite of selling out.
To me, "selling out" means recording something you would not otherwise, for commercial benefit. But it's impossible to know someone's motivation: maybe they just want a fun challenge of making pop music. Or maybe, like Scritti Politti, they genuinely love commercial music and want to twist it to their own ends. The only example I can think of that might be selling out was Simple Minds recording "Don't You Forget About Me", a song they didn't write, for a film. But maybe they had their reasons. I don't see licensing your music or actually appearing in commercials as "selling out".
To me it’s watering down your sound, smoothing off the edges. I couldn’t care less if someone doesn’t, I’ll find someone else to listen to. Sometimes it works to the artist’s advantage financially- Metallica’s the Back Album and sometimes it blows up in your face - MC5 Back in the USA, Replacements All Shook Down
Most of the time in my experience “selling out” is when the artist does something different that they want to do themselves, instead of doing what the fan expected of them.
ah...the old "selling out" mythology vs "integrity!! How dareth artiste be popular or make money. There are three types of "selling out" Those who are blatant about their brand (KISS, Stones etc) and success Those who hide their business accruement behind rock n roll coolness and "integrity". Those who don't sell out simply because they can't
Selling out was such a big concern in the 90s when I was a teenager. I always took it to mean changing to fit the times and be more commercially successful. A change that seemed inorganic, moves crassly made to make easy money. Of course, this label ended up getting slapped on any band that signed to a major label or changed their sound at all. It got pretty silly. Bands could also make a decent living back then, though, as long as their records sold well enough and tours were decently attended. That’s all gone now, which is probably why the sellout discourse ended around the time streaming took off. Or that’s just when I stopped hanging around with people that cared about these things. As far as I can tell, the last band to really “sell out” was Against Me. They caught crap from people for every single move they made. I thought they just got better and better.
Have read the book and thought it was interesting but: I wouldn't say there was anything more authentic about Nebraska and Born in the USA, it's just that one sounds rawer and less-embellished. Yes, the latter was obviously a calculated attempt to reach a mass audience, whereas Nebraska was not, but I'd argue there is nothing wrong with doing that, as long as there is some degree of authenticity in it. By implication 'selling out' has always suggested to me that someone in the field of ephemeral entertainment (pop music) has 'sold their soul' or some ******** like that, which doesn't bare up to the complexities of real life situations. I guess that's why I heard a lot more of my peers say it when I was a teenager, than I hear it said now!
Maybe not. Perhaps the Perry-era band that sold a gazillion copies of its albums was just the band they evolved into.
Not familiar with that album but probably not. What I meant was that any fans accusing him of “selling out” (if any did) was probably more a case of them just not personally liking the results rather than him actually selling out, whatever that means. It was a sarcastic observation of how some fans react to anything that’s not what they wanted.
This also all ties into the idea of “authenticity” in music which is really pretty silly. No one except the artist knows how real the feeling going into a song was. And all art is a performance to some extent. None of this ever occurred to me as a kid though. Plus, people need to eat.
I still don't understand it either. They have to make a living too you know. I think some get really salty because the band doesn't make the music they want to hear. I don't begrudge any artists following their muse.
I'm pretty sure REM were accused of selling out when they moved from IRS (indie label) to Warner Brothers (globe straddling capitalist behemoth). I was a University student at the time, and their "cool" factor fell through the floor. But Green was the first REM album I owned.
I’m guessing it means, an artist deliberately changes their sound or style because recent work hasn’t been selling sufficiently, or because they’re searching for new inspiration, or because they’ve become bored or depressed with the previous sound, or some combination thereof. So the new approach sometimes pays off. And in the process alienates some older fans. It’s understandable that artists will change, just as it’s understandable that many fans will not appreciate all the changes
Watering down your music to appeal to a wider demographic and producing a more commercial polished sound. It's not about popularity or sales in itself but how you get those. It's the balance of art and popularity. When you compromise the art to get more sales that's selling out.
