The Term Selling Out.

[AboutAGirl]

IMHO bands shouldn't be expected to have the same views they had when they started. Especially considering bands are usually in their early twenties when they come out, if they didn't grow up at all past that point I'd be a little worried.

As I see it, artistic integrity is an illusion. None of us have any genuine idea what motives any musician has for doing anything. And if you honesty think anybody who is a successful musician wasn't trying to sell records and make money, you're probably wrong. There are millions of people vying for that next music spot, it doesn't happen by accident. Any musician you've ever heard, other than maybe a few local acts, were being cash conscious and trying to make money.

Godspeed You! Black Emperor, Burzum, Bob Dylan, Neil Young, The Beatles, anybody famous had to try to sell records. Yeah Neil Young gets to do whatever he wants now, and he has one of the strongest integrity records in music history, but even he had to work his way up and watch those turnstiles in order to get into a position where he could then do as he pleases.

In the 60s, making rock operas and psychedelic freak out albums was the commercial thing to do. In early 90s Norway it was more commercially viable to make atonal black metal than Norwegian pop, since you can sell metal to an international market. Commerciality isn't in the sound of a record, it's in the mind of the person making it, which is something we can never know for sure.

For all we know, Barry Manilow lives and breaths his music while The Who are just trying to rake in as much cash as possible. We can't read minds. I used to go on the whole artistic integrity bandwagon thing but then I saw the error of my ways through Tom Petty. Tom's a guy who has always stuck close and fast by the commercial route -- his songs are terse and succinct, universal love song lyrics and snappy choruses, heck his motto is "don't bore us, get to the chorus." But he's also got an integrity record stronger than anyone, consistently fighting against the record labels and standing by his principles. Turns out he's guy who just genuinely loves commercial music and believes in big choruses and universal lyrics. Or at least that's how it seems to me, I can't specifically say I know what's in his head. But just because something sounds "commercial" doesn't mean there's an ounce of commercial intent and just because something sounds "legit" or whatever doesn't mean that the person behind it wasn't trying to bank in on a trend and make some cash.

 

[Riff Raff]

If the music sounds decent as I was quoted on last page then I don't really give a shit if they did it for money, whatever.
If the music is shit then its a different story for me but as I said theres loads of other bands out there I can listen to instead of being one of those sheep who bitches about a band selling out as a pure bandwagon statement.
Before anyone misunderstands me I am not saying anyone here does that. lol
People who do the bandwagon thing are those who call anyone a sell out who changes musical direction. A band is perfectly entitled to do whatever they want to do. Sure it may be to backlash of fans, fans are entitled to dislike an album if it sucks for sure and thats something bands need to be open minded to is constructive criticism but to go further with it using sell out for every single band who experiments is just being an idiot.
I reckon this guy is spot on about what he talks about regarding this topic. Same goes for the morons who called Morbid Angel traitors because of their new album.

 

[cyggy]

If the music sounds decent as I was quoted on last page then I don't really give a shit if they did it for money, whatever.
If the music is shit then its a different story for me but as I said theres loads of other bands out there I can listen to instead of being one of those sheep who bitches about a band selling out as a pure bandwagon statement.
Before anyone misunderstands me I am not saying anyone here does that. lol
People who do the bandwagon thing are those who call anyone a sell out who changes musical direction. A band is perfectly entitled to do whatever they want to do. Sure it may be to backlash of fans, fans are entitled to dislike an album if it sucks for sure and thats something bands need to be open minded to is constructive criticism but to go further with it using sell out for every single band who experiments is just being an idiot.
I reckon this guy is spot on about what he talks about regarding this topic. Same goes for the morons who called Morbid Angel traitors because of their new album.

Reminds me of those Muppets who shouted "Judas" at Bob Dylan just because they thought he was there to serve their idea of musical integrity , absurd !

 

[Riff Raff]

Reminds me of those Muppets who shouted "Judas" at Bob Dylan just because they thought he was there to serve their idea of musical integrity , absurd !

Its sickening. Fans at the Morbid Angel show last year, some walked out when they played 2 songs off the new album which were better live by the way. Of a setlist of classics they leave after 2 new songs. Shows how pathetic a bunch of metal heads can be. Absolute disgusting for fans to do that and to boo them as well. Absolutely shameful.

 

[cyggy]

IMHO bands shouldn't be expected to have the same views they had when they started. Especially considering bands are usually in their early twenties when they come out, if they didn't grow up at all past that point I'd be a little worried.

As I see it, artistic integrity is an illusion. None of us have any genuine idea what motives any musician has for doing anything. And if you honesty think anybody who is a successful musician wasn't trying to sell records and make money, you're probably wrong. There are millions of people vying for that next music spot, it doesn't happen by accident. Any musician you've ever heard, other than maybe a few local acts, were being cash conscious and trying to make money.

Godspeed You! Black Emperor, Burzum, Bob Dylan, Neil Young, The Beatles, anybody famous had to try to sell records. Yeah Neil Young gets to do whatever he wants now, and he has one of the strongest integrity records in music history, but even he had to work his way up and watch those turnstiles in order to get into a position where he could then do as he pleases.

In the 60s, making rock operas and psychedelic freak out albums was the commercial thing to do. In early 90s Norway it was more commercially viable to make atonal black metal than Norwegian pop, since you can sell metal to an international market. Commerciality isn't in the sound of a record, it's in the mind of the person making it, which is something we can never know for sure.

For all we know, Barry Manilow lives and breaths his music while The Who are just trying to rake in as much cash as possible. We can't read minds. I used to go on the whole artistic integrity bandwagon thing but then I saw the error of my ways through Tom Petty. Tom's a guy who has always stuck close and fast by the commercial route -- his songs are terse and succinct, universal love song lyrics and snappy choruses, heck his motto is "don't bore us, get to the chorus." But he's also got an integrity record stronger than anyone, consistently fighting against the record labels and standing by his principles. Turns out he's guy who just genuinely loves commercial music and believes in big choruses and universal lyrics. Or at least that's how it seems to me, I can't specifically say I know what's in his head. But just because something sounds "commercial" doesn't mean there's an ounce of commercial intent and just because something sounds "legit" or whatever doesn't mean that the person behind it wasn't trying to bank in on a trend and make some cash.

great post , AAG , it's the artist who takes the risk , the punter is either going to pay or withold support on the merit of a subjective view of the music , 'musical integrity' is an illusion you are right. Speaking of integrity , how many fans who demand it of artists have illegally downloaded music on the net etc ........... now there is a can of worms fans integrity ?

 

[Khor1255]

now we are getting to the heart of it

musical integrity ? what the hell is that ? have musicians taken a hypocratic oath ? I would like to see it ! ..... do you think bands who "sell out" have renaged on some deal they have with fans ? If so maybe you could ellaberate ?

I'd like to take a crack at this. Musical integrity is when a musician makes the music he HONESTLY wants to make with no comprimises to record companies, profit marigins or even fans and fellow band members. This sometimes results in a musician actually going in a direction no one likes much or that causes serious friction with band mates. But if they are following their 'own voice' so to speak and are talented this is when truly great stuff tends to be written. It is a struggle for some but others are lucky enough to have a musical inspiration that is completely in step with the times they are trying to make it as a professional. Others may have a truly revolutionary style that comes too early or too late for mainstream appreciation.

I hope that answers the question without sounding snobby.

Hey man, I shamelessly love old Kiss, Sweet and even Riot. I am anything but a musical snob (I think?).

I think bands are under no obligation except maybe to be good examples to inspire .

This is where we are not at all on the same page. If the music made by Charles Manson had any redeeming value I might like it. I don't have to like him to like his music and in fact some of my favorite musicians I would not like to sit in the same room with for anything but a jam (if they'd be so generous as to do that with a hack like me).

 

[cyggy]

I'd like to take a crack at this. Musical integrity is when a musician makes the music he HONESTLY wants to make with no comprimises to record companies, profit marigins or even fans and fellow band members. This sometimes results in a musician actually going in a direction no one likes much or that causes serious friction with band mates. But if they are following their 'own voice' so to speak and are talented this is when truly great stuff tends to be written. It is a struggle for some but others are lucky enough to have a musical inspiration that is completely in step with the times they are trying to make it as a professional. Others may have a truly revolutionary style that comes too early or too late for mainstream appreciation.

I think there are always going to be compromises in art , true Rush did what they wanted to do inspite of the record company , but that wasn't in order to please fans but themselves

"Anthem"

Know your place in life is where you want to be
Don't let them tell you that you owe it all to me
Keep on looking forward...no use in looking 'round
Hold your head above the ground and they won't bring you down

[Chorus:]
Anthem of the heart and anthem of the mind
A funeral dirge for eyes gone blind
We marvel after those who sought
The wonders of the world, wonders of the world
Wonders of the world they wrought

Live for yourself...there's no one else
More worth living for
Begging hands and bleeding hearts will only cry out for more

[Chorus]

Well, I know they've always told you
Selfishness was wrong
Yet it was for me, not you, I came to write this song " N P​

, and as has been pointed out by another poster , none of us can know or judge the integrity and motives of any artist , I know a guy who dissed Dream Theater for covering other bands work , he clean ignored the fact he was doing just that every weekend in his own band ! I don't think it's dishonest to compromise , it's usually a wise move , make money , then you have more choice.

I hope that answers the question without sounding snobby.

Hey man, I shamelessly love old Kiss, Sweet and even Riot. I am anything but a musical snob (I think?).

well , I don't like a lot of music , but I don't want to diss it , I'd rather not comment on bands I don't like (I could be wrong about a band or album) , I mean Rush being inspired by King Crimson and later by The Police is good in my book , I certainly wouldn't call the Police crap , one could argue that if a band is living to please fans then they truly are lacking in integrity because they fear a change of fortunes , so maybe those musicians who have made the greatest changes are the most honest and those that remained "safe" were being dishonest , even though the "fans " in their own conceit didn't even notice .... maybe , who can say ? .

This is where we are not at all on the same page. If the music made by Charles Manson had any redeeming value I might like it. I don't have to like him to like his music and in fact some of my favorite musicians I would not like to sit in the same room with for anything but a jam (if they'd be so generous as to do that with a hack like me).

I think the only responsibility I can think a musician should consider is to inspire the young , they are often role models , good or bad.

 

[Khor1255]

I think there are always going to be compromises in art , true Rush did what they wanted to do inspite of the record company , but that wasn't in order to please fans but themselves

"Anthem"

Know your place in life is where you want to be
Don't let them tell you that you owe it all to me
Keep on looking forward...no use in looking 'round
Hold your head above the ground and they won't bring you down

[Chorus:]
Anthem of the heart and anthem of the mind
A funeral dirge for eyes gone blind
We marvel after those who sought
The wonders of the world, wonders of the world
Wonders of the world they wrought

Live for yourself...there's no one else
More worth living for
Begging hands and bleeding hearts will only cry out for more

[Chorus]

Well, I know they've always told you
Selfishness was wrong
Yet it was for me, not you, I came to write this song " N P​

This is exactly my point. Rush have now and have always had musical integrity. Just because I am not a fan of their newer stuff doen't automatically mean it lacks integrity. There are plenty of true artists with integrity that don't play the kind of music I like. The fact that Rush went from making music I absolutely love to music I have no patience for makes it hard to get my head around it sometimes but it's not about me or any fan. It is entirely up to the artist which choices he makes.

, and as has been pointed out by another poster , none of us can know or judge the integrity and motives of any artist , I know a guy who dissed Dream Theater for covering other bands work , he clean ignored the fact he was doing just that every weekend in his own band ! I don't think it's dishonest to compromise , it's usually a wise move , make money , then you have more choice.

Yeah, if you are using compromise as a means to an end than more power to you. If you have compromised your entire output to satisfy a demographic you might attract many more fans but ultimately dumb down your music in the process. This usually isn't a good thing but concievably could be for some very fickle artists who hear only their 'inner voice'.
As for Rush, I always expected they did what they did entirely of their own accord and the recent documentary confirmed this. Gene Simmons has said they did what they did because they were always in it for the money. I can believe at least Simmons is being entirely honest here as well.

well , I don't like a lot of music , but I don't want to diss it , I'd rather not comment on bands I don't like (I could be wrong about a band or album) , I mean Rush being inspired by King Crimson and later by The Police is good in my book , I certainly wouldn't call the Police crap ,

yeah, crap is a little strong a word for Police music. Stweart Copeland is an exciting drummer in a somewhat understated way. I was using them to illustrate a point as to the intentional (and honest) move toward pop that Rush made. I'm not going to say Rush lacks integrity for developing a taste for pop just that I find it unfortunate.

one could argue that if a band is living to please fans then they truly are lacking in integrity because they fear a change of fortunes , so maybe those musicians who have made the greatest changes are the most honest and those that remained "safe" were being dishonest , even though the "fans " in their own conceit didn't even notice .... maybe , who can say ?

I agree 100% with this. When in doubt we can only guess why an artist does what he does. In my defense I'd like to brag that I have guessed correctly every time that I have been provided with confirmation one way or another. I know it sounds self agrandizing but there it is.

I think the only responsibility I can think a musician should consider is to inspire the young , they are often role models , good or bad.

again, I could care less what they do when they are not making music. I mean, if they are really cool people I'd love to hang out with that is great but unless they happen to be personal friends it isn't likely to make me spend one more cent or second supprting their music. Ditto for msicians who I loathe personally (by proxy of course).

 

[Riff Raff]

There is no way I would want to hang out with someone like Charles Manson even if he did make good music.

 

[Khor1255]

Wow, I hope you didn't get that I would from anything I wrote. What I mean is that if I find someone's personality repulsive I might not want to hang out with them but jamming is another story. I guess I'm a merc like that.