The Term Selling Out.

[ComfortablyNumb]

I can't argue about St Anger. I think it's one of the worst metal albums ever recorded and to be done by a band as big as Metallica made it that much more obvious. I've long said how horrible that album is.

But I wouldn't say they sold out for that album (or any other one), but rather I think there was an incredible lack of creativity there more than anything.

I do think the lack of creativity had to do with them just doing the easy thing and playing to the trend at the time.

I'm all for bands evolving and finding their sound, but there is a point when it kind of becomes obvious a bands change in sound is just for a quick buck.

 

[Riff Raff]

Fans can be very fickle, they bitch about experimenting and they bitch about monotony. I am glad to have got some discussion going about this as it has bugged me for awhile. No right or wrong opinion it is good to get different view points on selling out.

 

[Phil B.]

I rarely use the term "sell out".

It seems to me to be one of those catch all phrases that means too many things to too many people, so it can be easily misinterpreted. I think the word "respect" is very similiar.
You hear it a lot today "He dissed me" or "he was disrespectful" or "he needs to show more respect". If you go to the "rich" side of town and ask people what "respect" means, you will get a totally different definition than when you ask people in an impoverished area.

I feel an artist should have total domain over their work, but sadly that is not always the case.

I agree with some earlier posters who say they believe it is great if a song in a commercial helps to spread music to people who were unfamiliar with it, but I am still saddened when music by desceased muscians is used.

The artist obviously had no say in the matter, and you can't help but think that it is a money driven impulse on the part of the rights holders.

Hope this makes sense, I was kinda ramblin' on.

 

[Riff Raff]

@ Lynch while I agree assuming things like a band only doing it for money may seem ridiculous, sometimes I feel when an album sounds really bland, or sounds like the band is going through the motions that I can't help but feel that is what is driving the album. Not saying it is always so but that is where I think some fans draw that conclusion, not always from an ignorant mindset but from how the music sounds. Some albums to me sound like the band only did it to get off contract from the record label, made an entire album of filler.

 

[Lynch]

@ Lynch while I agree assuming things like a band only doing it for money may seem ridiculous, sometimes I feel when an album sounds really bland, or sounds like the band is going through the motions that I can't help but feel that is what is driving the album. Not saying it is always so but that is where I think some fans draw that conclusion, not always from an ignorant mindset but from how the music sounds. Some albums to me sound like the band only did it to get off contract from the record label, made an entire album of filler.

I understand that and I agree, there are times that an artist you like seems to put out a pretty mediocre effort. This can possibly be explained as one of any number of things and for me (or anyone else) to speculate really doesn't get anywhere.

But I'll liken it to this... ever have a bad day at work? A bad week? A really mundane and mediocre month? You still go to work, you still do your job, but perhaps for a few weeks, maybe a few months, you just aren't as inspired as you once were. That doesn't mean you stop going to work, it just means perhaps your output isn't as fantastic as it once was and perhaps not as great as it will be again one day.

Not everything Michaelangelo did was considered a masterpiece. I don't think he "sold out" on the lesser output. Not everything Beethoven did was as revered as his 5th symphony. Perhaps they "mailed it in" on some efforts and perhaps they just weren't inspired, but they were commissioned like everyone back in the day to put out more work. It's no different that artists today, at least musicians with record contracts. Sometimes they put out incredible work, and other times, you think "is this the same band?"

I have good days and bad days at work and I"m sure they do as well.

*shrug*

Just another possible way of looking at it. By the way, just because I'm using this analogy doesn't mean I'm not critical of those less than impressive efforts. I'm quite vocal about some and am the first to admit it. I'm just looking at it from a "sell out" standpoint. They are employed by record companies to put out albums, even when/if they don't feel like it, so there are days (or releases) that I'm quite sure they just say fuggit... let's lay down some tracks to get these goons off of our backs.

 

[Riff Raff]

I understand that and I agree, there are times that an artist you like seems to put out a pretty mediocre effort. This can possibly be explained as one of any number of things and for me (or anyone else) to speculate really doesn't get anywhere.

But I'll liken it to this... ever have a bad day at work? A bad week? A really mundane and mediocre month? You still go to work, you still do your job, but perhaps for a few weeks, maybe a few months, you just aren't as inspired as you once were. That doesn't mean you stop going to work, it just means perhaps your output isn't as fantastic as it once was and perhaps not as great as it will be again one day.

Not everything Michaelangelo did was considered a masterpiece. I don't think he "sold out" on the lesser output. Not everything Beethoven did was as revered as his 5th symphony. Perhaps they "mailed it in" on some efforts and perhaps they just weren't inspired, but they were commissioned like everyone back in the day to put out more work. It's no different that artists today, at least musicians with record contracts. Sometimes they put out incredible work, and other times, you think "is this the same band?"

I have good days and bad days at work and I"m sure they do as well.

*shrug*

Just another possible way of looking at it. By the way, just because I'm using this analogy doesn't mean I'm not critical of those less than impressive efforts. I'm quite vocal about some and am the first to admit it. I'm just looking at it from a "sell out" standpoint. They are employed by record companies to put out albums, even when/if they don't feel like it, so there are days (or releases) that I'm quite sure they just say fuggit... let's lay down some tracks to get these goons off of our backs.

That is an interesting way to look at it, one I never actually thought of.

 

[Lynch]

 

[annie]

I understand that and I agree, there are times that an artist you like seems to put out a pretty mediocre effort. This can possibly be explained as one of any number of things and for me (or anyone else) to speculate really doesn't get anywhere.

But I'll liken it to this... ever have a bad day at work? A bad week? A really mundane and mediocre month? You still go to work, you still do your job, but perhaps for a few weeks, maybe a few months, you just aren't as inspired as you once were. That doesn't mean you stop going to work, it just means perhaps your output isn't as fantastic as it once was and perhaps not as great as it will be again one day.

Not everything Michaelangelo did was considered a masterpiece. I don't think he "sold out" on the lesser output. Not everything Beethoven did was as revered as his 5th symphony. Perhaps they "mailed it in" on some efforts and perhaps they just weren't inspired, but they were commissioned like everyone back in the day to put out more work. It's no different that artists today, at least musicians with record contracts. Sometimes they put out incredible work, and other times, you think "is this the same band?"

I have good days and bad days at work and I"m sure they do as well.

*shrug*

Just another possible way of looking at it. By the way, just because I'm using this analogy doesn't mean I'm not critical of those less than impressive efforts. I'm quite vocal about some and am the first to admit it. I'm just looking at it from a "sell out" standpoint. They are employed by record companies to put out albums, even when/if they don't feel like it, so there are days (or releases) that I'm quite sure they just say fuggit... let's lay down some tracks to get these goons off of our backs.

And that is exactly right. It happens to every band. ELO's last album to fulfill their contract was Balance of Power and it was so different that everyone called it Balance of Payment.

 

[ILoveJimmyPage]

Just my $0.02... There's a very fine line between "selling out" and evolving with the times. If bands such as Aerosmith (who I've seen lambasted for their changes) kept creating music with the same formula they did in the 70's even their superfans would eventually get bored, and they wouldn't draw in as many new fans. I know I've gotten to know some bands by purchasing their newer stuff, then that tempted me to go back and learn about their earlier releases and appreciate how their music has evolved over time, and their creativity.

All in all, it's really hard to tell if a band is even "selling out" in the first place.

 

[Riff Raff]

Just my $0.02... There's a very fine line between "selling out" and evolving with the times. If bands such as Aerosmith (who I've seen lambasted for their changes) kept creating music with the same formula they did in the 70's even their superfans would eventually get bored, and they wouldn't draw in as many new fans. I know I've gotten to know some bands by purchasing their newer stuff, then that tempted me to go back and learn about their earlier releases and appreciate how their music has evolved over time, and their creativity.

All in all, it's really hard to tell if a band is even "selling out" in the first place.

I'd say its a big gap between selling out and evolving, I consider musical evolution to do exactly that, expand and try new sounds. Watering it down though is not musical evolution to me which some bands tend to do when it comes to getting with the times.