SellOuts...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying Mullet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GooeyToast

Almost all mainstream rap/rock/punk nowadays.

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rye

Originally Posted by radyk05:
britney isn't a sellout because she started in the po[o]p scene. metallica is a good example of a sellout. green day also. the thing with selling out is that it is extremely dificult to the artist to return to the scene where he/she/them started. oh, evanesence is also a sellout (i'm not a fan of theirs but i heard that they were on the underground goth scene, released an album and then released the album that most of us know).


They're not a sell out, Evanescence, as they weren't an underground goth scene. They aren't goth and they were too unknown to even be underground.

---

i heard it somewhere. im not a fan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowdust

I don't really give a crap if a band sells out if they keep releasing good music. I really don't care what their lifestyle is like or why they make music. Good music is good music whether I agree with their motivations or the amount of exposure they have.

---

Yes.

I think Blink-182 may be the biggest sellouts of all time.

I agree with Shadowdust. I don't care if a band or musician is a sellout. By selling out, they've become successful. And by becoming successful, they have to sell out in order to stay successful. Not everyone goes bad when they "sell out"

But music shouldn't be about remaining successful. It should be about creating art.

And in order to create art, you can't be successful? More often than not, a band is considered a sell out just because they make money. Just because they have exposure.

I just don't get how some of you folks seem to equate expressing yourself with staying "underground" or whatever term you use these days. Not everyone in the music industry is looking to make a quick buck with mediocre songs. There are a lot of successful artists that do a fantastic job of creating art. And perhaps they don't necessarily appeal to your musical taste, but does that make them any less talented? Does that make them any less artistic?

Maybe instead of judging these bands, maybe we should be a bit more critical of the outlets for this music. For example, how about complaining about the radio stations and music channels for the constant playing of the same exact songs for months and months while ignoring the rest of the songs on these bands' albums?

In the end though, no matter what I say those who believe so firmly in this sellout issue will not be convinced. If something gets popular, I'm sure you will continue in your ways and hate it with the excuse of the band being a sellout.

But it is a fact that success has destroyed many good bands.

Examples: OOMPH!, In Extremo, Rammstein, Metallica, etc.

I define selling out as a band changing their style completely in order to make more money.

If they just become successful, but keep their usual style which I enjoy, then I don't consider that as selling out.

Of course, if a band changes their style regardless of whether it's to make more money or not and I dislike the change, I'll stop listening to what I dislike.

The thing to keep in mind is that, even if a band "sells out", it doesn't mean the older material is just removed from existance, you can still go back and listen to it and that is what I would do.

what the hell is the grime scene?

Theres music I like and music I dont. Im not that concerned to be honest. (SPOILER) *superior*

If the band makes good music, who cares?
There is no such thing as "Good Music", its all opinions.

I seriously doubt that any band/artist could possibly be in the industry exclusively for the money. Could Dizee Rascal, Linkin Park or any of the other bands mentioned in this thread really have intentionally released albums they didn't like just for the sake of making money?

Music is about creating art, as jrgen rightly said, but art is subjective, and people's preferences are prone to change. A band won't want to make the same music throughout their career, and in some cases this may alienate some of their fans. But people don't make music they dislike just because it will make them rich, they make it because that's an artistic direction they choose to take. Maybe it's a more mainstream direction, maybe one that satisfies the hardcore fanbase, or maybe a change to a whole different genre, but that change will be an artistic decision. Maybe there are one or two exceptions to this rule, although I find even that to be quite unlikely.

Pht. I don't care if a band sells out or not. I just care if the music was good or not.

And art or not, it's not like anyone is sitting around thinking "I'm gonna be a moderately liked musician who is known in his home county by a couple of hundred people and gets $45 for doing a show!", are they? You see a chance, you take it. The worst thing that annoys me is when a band changes as a natural process of making music but get called sellouts. It's not happened to them, but the best examples I can think of of naturally changing music is Incubus.

Also, 'slewed'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

Also, 'slewed'?

---

Just my weird language lol

Slewed means, lets say beaten