"Sell out" vs Natural artistic direction

sell-out. no self-respecting musician would undergo such a change to triviality. there is nothing wrong with change in artistic direction, but one has to keep true to oneself.
one has to be fair though: I know that at least with Genesis it was the case that there was a big hole in their pocket when they took this turn, so I have some understanding for it. "am Hungertuch zu nagen ist des Künstlers höchstes Los" may be fine when you start a band, but after 10 years you want some cash in your pocket, especially when you have to sustain a family.

musician: "darling, we just recorded a great album".
wife: "how many times will it sell"?
musician: "oh, that's not important for me; you know, the artistic vision....".
wife: "I'll give you your artistic vision! (reaching for her rolling pin). this should give you some vision!" "chases husband across the living room, clobbering him all the time)
musician: "ouch, ow. ok, next time I will record an album with simple pop songs".

Yes: artistic change

Genesis: not so sure

I can't really say Genesis 'sold-out' because ...

1. Nobody forced the band to stay together
2. From the 1983 albums on, they all shared in song writing together (this pains me to say especially with Invisible Touch being my least favorite Genesis song).

I don't think they got together and said: 'OK, what style is going to sell this year so we can create an album to match'.  None of the Genesis albums sound exactly like a member's solo efforts and 'Calling All Stations' didn't sell well, knocking out the 'sell-out' theory.

Avantgardehead wrote: khammer99 wrote: Avantgardehead wrote: Selling-out isn't just a style change. It's the watering down or otherwise drastic alteration of a band's music for the express purpose to increase popularity and/or sell more albums. Money money money!  If a band doesn't sell enough albums, they go bankrupt, just like any other business. If enough bands don't sell enough albums, then record companies do not invest in "fringe" prog bands, that everybody seems to like around here. How much money is a band allowed to make? You need define what you mean by "sell out".  I don't like popular music (Brittney Spears, Rap, Hip Hop, etc). But there are "popular" bands that I like (Led Zeppelin, BOC, etc). If a band sells there music to sell cars, soap, vacations, so what? Musicians don't get to eat? You completely missed my point. Making money is not the bad thing here, it's the compromise of musical and artistic integrity.

   No, I understand your point completely. At what point is someones musical or artistic integrity compromised? Whenever someone says a band has sold out, they always bring up the making money argument as justification. You have those words in your argument yourself; "sell more albums" and "Money money money", so making more money must have some determining factor for you to label a band a sell out.
  At what point does a band lose it's "musical and artistic integrity" And who decides that? It seems to be a very arbitrary point. So, if a band sells their song help sell fast food, is that a compromise? If it's used in a movie soundtrack, is that OK? What about those compilation CD's you see advertised on TV "The Greatest Hits of the 70's or 80's" or whatever. At what point is a band allowed to make money and keep their integrity?
 Or if a metal band decides to put out a rap album, is that selling out? Listen to Led Zeppelin I and  then II. Did they sell out on III because it was a different direction from their Blues/Rock fusion on I and II? Or listen to the entire catalog of Porcupine Tree, and the multitude of directions Steve Wilson has taken.
   It seems whenever a band start selling a lot of albums, there by making a lot of money, or become more popular, then the "sell out" tag gets applied to them.
  So, again, what determines a "sell out"?
 
  

natural artistic direction. they did not sell out. they just wanted to try a new music style.

I think Genesis sold out in a big way. I dont think Yes did to the same extent. Phil Collins craved sucess in the singles chart, whereas, Yes, apart from "Owner Of A Lonely Heart" carried on with making great albums.

khammer99 wrote:  Interesting... How often is a band thought to have sold out, because they went in a different musical direction? Are they branded Sell Outs because their hard core fans don't like the musical  direction they took?

...as if they were going to release Selling England Part II in 1983.  You just couldn't make the same type of music anymore and stay alive - they had to adapt to survive, whether or not the results hold up.

Can somebody give me a solid definiton of selling out?
This may be harder then a definition for progressive rock.

Sell out.
They wanted to sell records, so when Peter and Steve left, they had to go to a more radio-friendly way of music.

I really don't have any opinion about Yes.


Edited by Hat of Truth - January 07 2008 at 13:19