"Sell out" vs Natural artistic direction
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics related to progressive music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=45116
Printed Date: November 26 2024 at 09:40
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: "Sell out" vs Natural artistic direction
Posted By: Guests
Subject: "Sell out" vs Natural artistic direction
Date Posted: January 07 2008 at 07:16
| Do you consider 80's works of Genesis, Yes, etc. as a "sell out", or just as a natural artistic change? |
Replies:
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: January 07 2008 at 07:43
|
I'd say it was a natural artistic change, as neither Yes or Genesis went straight from prog to pop, but made a couple of transitional albums with both prog and pop influences, so the direction to pop was pretty clear. But really it depends on whether they decided to make more commercial music to sell more records or was it the kind of music they wanted to make at that time. |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: January 07 2008 at 08:12
|
As much as I love Genesis, I think they sold out in the 80's. I've listened to Tony Banks trying to explain that all the Genesis trademarks are still there, on tracks like 'No reply at all' and his arguments dont really stand up. He just sounds like a politician trying to wriggle out of tight spot. The fact is, they wanted bigger audiences, and in order to achieve this they had to write more commercial music; music that was radio friendly, could be sung along to, and danced to. I actually enjoy a lot of their 80's music, but I dont think it's accurate to describe it as a natural artistic progression. They made some great pop, but with the exception of a few tracks, thats all it really was.
It's different with Yes. 90125 was a defining 80's album, and I feel they sold out a lot less than Genesis did in making that record. It helped them a great deal, working with Trevor Horn. 90125 is quite a groundbreaking album IMO. Much of the music is quite heavy (Hold On, City of Love etc) but given an 'Art of Noise' treatment. Even as a metal fan at the time, I loved this album and thought it was very fresh and even 'arty' sounding. I'd not really heard anything else in the 80's quite like it. It's the album that put me on to Yes. Rick Wakemen also thought it a great album, and has said he would have loved to have been part of it. |
Posted By: NotAProghead
Date Posted: January 07 2008 at 11:09
|
I think both factors. ------------- Who are you and who am I to say we know the reason why... (D. Gilmour) |
Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: January 07 2008 at 11:12
|
Genesis seemed more sell-out-ish than Yes, in my opinion. However, selling out in itself is a sort of natural artistic direction. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: January 07 2008 at 11:13
It's not natural anymore... |
Phil�as wrote:Posted By: Philéas
Date Posted: January 07 2008 at 11:24
| It depends. It may very well be. |
Posted By: Dim
Date Posted: January 07 2008 at 12:13
|
With Yes it was kind of both. With Genesis it was sell out. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Hat of Truth
Date Posted: January 07 2008 at 13:19
|
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. |
Posted By: crimhead
Date Posted: January 07 2008 at 13:48
| Sold out. It was no longer Genesis when Peter left it was Philesis. I read recently where Steve was going to leave the band earlier as well but his g/f asked him to stay. |
Posted By: ProgBagel
Date Posted: January 07 2008 at 19:37
|
Can somebody give me a solid definiton of selling out?
This may be harder then a definition for progressive rock. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 07 2008 at 21:07
|
"Selling Out" originally meant casting off artistic ideals for Mainstream sucess. However, since the first "Sell Out" was Bob Dylan, that definition lost any real meaning in 1965. ------------- What? |
Posted By: jimmy_row
Date Posted: January 08 2008 at 11:13
|
...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. ------------- Signature Writers Guild on strike |
Posted By: khammer99
Date Posted: January 08 2008 at 13:06
|
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? ------------- Genius is always allowed some leeway, once the hammer has been pried from its hands and the blood has been cleaned up. - Terry Pratchett |
Posted By: Petrovsk Mizinski
Date Posted: January 08 2008 at 23:47
Well, i think you have to look at what sort of change in musical direction a band went for. Using an example, not particularly prog related, but a good example nonetheless, metallica. From their First album to Master of Puppets, quite clearly their sound had changed from their earlier 1982-83 days. But this album had showcased a great progression in the bands compositional abilities and technical skill, so in this case, it was a natural artistic direction. But in the case of the Black Album (1991), again, a different musical direction, but this time around, the compositions became (IMO and many others) became rather dull and the level of technical ability to execute the songs had clearly dropped off a fair bit. In the case of the Black Album, it was a case of Bob Rock pushing the band into a sound that could appeal to more mainstream metallers and in general more metallers, as opposed to Kill Em All, Ride The Lightning and MOP which at their respective times had fan bases mainly rooted in Thrash metal fans.
As for Genesis and Yes, im willing to say Genesis clearly sold out in the end, while Yes certainly moved to a more poppy sound, it never seemed quite as geared to the pop market as Genesis' poppier releases.
|
Posted By: Avantgardehead
Date Posted: January 09 2008 at 03:09
|
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!
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Avantgardian |
Posted By: Aristilus
Date Posted: January 09 2008 at 05:19
| 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. |
Posted By: khammer99
Date Posted: January 09 2008 at 15:08
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? ------------- Genius is always allowed some leeway, once the hammer has been pried from its hands and the blood has been cleaned up. - Terry Pratchett |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: January 09 2008 at 15:50
|
natural artistic direction. they did not sell out. they just wanted to try a new music style. |
Posted By: Avantgardehead
Date Posted: January 09 2008 at 15:52
You completely missed my point. Making money is not the bad thing here, it's the compromise of musical and artistic integrity. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Avantgardian |
Posted By: khammer99
Date Posted: January 09 2008 at 17:02
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"? ------------- Genius is always allowed some leeway, once the hammer has been pried from its hands and the blood has been cleaned up. - Terry Pratchett |
Posted By: The Quiet One
Date Posted: February 10 2008 at 16:39
| I think Genesis is a sell out but Yes is natural for me.... |
Posted By: murray_cfl
Date Posted: March 04 2008 at 23:37
I can't really say Genesis 'sold-out' because ...
|
Posted By: zicIy
Date Posted: March 05 2008 at 03:04
|
it was "Sell out", of course. but, many of them did do pop music in 80´s. for example Bowie - his last great album was "Heroes" (1978), imho. otherwise, Gabriel also did do pop, but GREAT pop. Yes' "Owner..." is the great pop song too. Collins´ "In The Air Tonight" is not a bad song anyway ...etc.
i dont blame them because they took a money with fine pop rock music. anyway, 80´s were not late 60´s or ´70s - before Punk and then New Wave. also, i´m sure these big record companies forced them, in that time, to change their stuff in this direction of commercialization of Rock music, about Joni Mitchell has been talking in one her interview very openly, few years ago.
imho, today is different because new Prog bands are more or less able to reach their audience and to find buyers of their progressive and new stuff via Internet.
 |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: March 05 2008 at 03:16
|
Yes: artistic change Genesis: not so sure ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: kenmartree
Date Posted: March 05 2008 at 04:13
|
Posted By: BaldJean
Date Posted: March 05 2008 at 08:02
|
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". -------------  A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta |