Amber Wrote
This one I like a lot. I can only partically agree with that statement though. Those bands sort of bands, never really were mainstream. I think it's the bands and record companies that try to recreate their sound which then creates the mainstream. If that makes sense.
There are bands that sell out completely obviously, but for the ones who keep thre artist integrity, they tend to not be in the spot light as much.. sorta... I dunno what I'm saying. xD

Just wondering who you think, and who other people think, are bands that sold out? And maybe everyones personal opinion of how selling out is defined?

Hmmm I suppose its a hard one to call really, but (I think simplest reason) for me it would be choosing money over fans. If you want to drastically change musical style and such, then that's fine, its good to keep your options open. I know a few people that are obsessed with just making money, that the don't realise that they are slowly pushing everyone away from them you know? And I think its a shame for bands that have a lot of potential, to reduce themselves to making a "radio song", purely for the money. I think it just seems wrong surrendering your artistic rights. I suppose in some circumstances though it could be necessary.

I won't name bands I think have sold out (although, no offence, Green Day is one that comes to mind)

Sorry, did I answer the question?

Yeah that was a good answer. I was just wondering cause I always have trouble with the term sellout.
To me, most people who make music do so because they love music, not because of money. But if music is your full time job, surely you want to be making some money so you can afford the basic things needed to survive (food, shelter, cable). And I yes I know there's a difference between money needed to live comfortably, and the kind of money Kiss rake in.
I also don't think there's anything wrong with writing a radio fiendly hit. Sure, most radio sucks, but some radio hits are surprisingly amazingly written, it's just a shame they're sometimes given to artists and producers who try to hide the beauty behind a beat. And not every radio hit was written with the intention of becoming huge. Also, who doesn't have at least one song they absolutely love that was a massive radio hit at some point.
Kind of getting distracted now, sorry. Basically, I guess I'm saying I find it hard to ever label someone a sell out, especially if all they did was write a good song that's not exactly the same as their earlier work, or they get $30,000 for their song to be used in an advert. I know I certainly wouldn't say no to having a song of mine in an add, it's money, and free exposure of the song. There was some band that had one of their songs used in a car add, and so many people rang up asking about the song that they had to reissue the add with the name of the song and band (I think it was some Celtic thing, I'm not sure), then the song became more popular than Jesus (probably). Anyway, that's kind of my opinion.

Oh, and honestly, if The Dev wrote an album of poppy based songs, I'm pretty sure it would be just as amazing as the rest of his creations.

Yeah that was a good answer. I was just wondering cause I always have trouble with the term sellout.
To me, most people who make music do so because they love music, not because of money. But if music is your full time job, surely you want to be making some money so you can afford the basic things needed to survive (food, shelter, cable). And I yes I know there's a difference between money needed to live comfortably, and the kind of money Kiss rake in.
I also don't think there's anything wrong with writing a radio fiendly hit. Sure, most radio sucks, but some radio hits are surprisingly amazingly written, it's just a shame they're sometimes given to artists and producers who try to hide the beauty behind a beat. And not every radio hit was written with the intention of becoming huge. Also, who doesn't have at least one song they absolutely love that was a massive radio hit at some point.
Kind of getting distracted now, sorry. Basically, I guess I'm saying I find it hard to ever label someone a sell out, especially if all they did was write a good song that's not exactly the same as their earlier work, or they get $30,000 for their song to be used in an advert. I know I certainly wouldn't say no to having a song of mine in an add, it's money, and free exposure of the song. There was some band that had one of their songs used in a car add, and so many people rang up asking about the song that they had to reissue the add with the name of the song and band (I think it was some Celtic thing, I'm not sure), then the song became more popular than Jesus (probably). Anyway, that's kind of my opinion.

Oh, and honestly, if The Dev wrote an album of poppy based songs, I'm pretty sure it would be just as amazing as the rest of his creations.

I like the way you think. And I would agree with you. Seems like there's an over eagerness in some people to point their fingers and call all sorts of bands "sell outs."

Now, of course there are real true sell outs, but having hit song or getting some fame for a job well done is certainly not selling out. If you really value the band or musician, you'd want them to succeed and do well; not be bitter because other people are discovering them too. At least that's how I think.

Like Amber said, when money/fame starts coming before the fans .... that's uncool. That's selling out.

I live in a little town in Wyoming called Gillette. There are about 25,000 people here. A total redneck, hick town. For a while the local radio station here played hard rock/metal! It was actually one of the best stations I have ever heard. One of the DJs was SO cool, he would help out with local bands and take all kinds of requests! Eventually I got him to play YOU SUCK by SYL on there!! Haha it was amazing! He was like "you guys better enjoy this, it took me over an hour to edit it...!"

I live in a little town in Wyoming called Gillette. There are about 25,000 people here. A total redneck, hick town. For a while the local radio station here played hard rock/metal! It was actually one of the best stations I have ever heard. One of the DJs was SO cool, he would help out with local bands and take all kinds of requests! Eventually I got him to play YOU SUCK by SYL on there!! Haha it was amazing! He was like "you guys better enjoy this, it took me over an hour to edit it...!"

That poor guy! Hahaha. It must of just been like, minutes of silence with an occasional blip of noise in the end

Oh, and don't get me wrong, if being a musician is your job then yeah, by all means you should make at least enough money to live comfortably. It's all you can at least give to the people who keep you entertained and inspired But when you abandon your fans for money, it's going to eventually crash around you. Or so I think anyway.

I live in a little town in Wyoming called Gillette. There are about 25,000 people here. A total redneck, hick town. For a while the local radio station here played hard rock/metal! It was actually one of the best stations I have ever heard. One of the DJs was SO cool, he would help out with local bands and take all kinds of requests! Eventually I got him to play YOU SUCK by SYL on there!! Haha it was amazing! He was like "you guys better enjoy this, it took me over an hour to edit it...!"

How dare he censor SYL!

I live in a little town in Wyoming called Gillette. There are about 25,000 people here. A total redneck, hick town. For a while the local radio station here played hard rock/metal! It was actually one of the best stations I have ever heard. One of the DJs was SO cool, he would help out with local bands and take all kinds of requests! Eventually I got him to play YOU SUCK by SYL on there!! Haha it was amazing! He was like "you guys better enjoy this, it took me over an hour to edit it...!"

Sounds rocking, but if it was censored, wouldn't it be more of an instrumental?

I can sort of see "sunshine and happiness" hitting the charts. which would be ridiculous. and totally awesome.

and in terms of selling out, people are fairly quick to judge bands over that sort of thing. I prefer to just judge the music.

A fine example of a band who conformed to a more popular demographic was Machine Head.
They were among the pioneers of Thrash/Groove Metal with their first two albums, then along came 'The Burning Red' and everything sounded more straightforward, watered down and radio-friendly - they tried adapting to the nu-metal image that they didn't suit. Robb Flynn started rapping, and they even did a cover of 'Message in a Bottle' which was barely any more in their own style than the original song was. It's a good thing they picked up things by 'Through the Ashes of Empires' because they would have been lost and forgotten within the other bands that have tried the same thing.

Dream Theater nearly fell into the same category with 'Falling Into Infinity' aswell. And Mudvayne with their new album (although they claimed that they went more melodic and straightforward because they felt like they didn't need to prove themselves any more ).

Now I can understand bands who want to change their themes and sounds every now and again - there are certain 'periods' in a songwriter's life where they naturally write differently to the previous 'period' (mine tend to be a year at a time) because of events, experiences or realisations etc and thus have different sounds. This wasn't the case with MH's 'The Burning Red' though - it was obvious that they tried a more conforming sound. Eventually, after their 'Supercharger' album came out and they were touring, one gig in their hometown actually bored the majority of the audience, and they ended up having to play to only 250 die-hard fans instead.

It's much better to be accepted by the world as a figure of uniquity than as a figure of conformity...I'm in a progressive metal band myself, and we hope to someday make a decent living out of doing the music we love. If it happens, then fantastic. If it reaches the point of writing the 3rd or 4th album though, and the record companies start asking us to 'do it their way' for the sake of promotion or more album sales or something, that's when I would want to stop and leave the band. If I'm going to get paid for doing something I hate, I might as well just work in an office or a box factory.

A fine example of a band who conformed to a more popular demographic was Machine Head.
They were among the pioneers of Thrash/Groove Metal with their first two albums, then along came 'The Burning Red' and everything sounded more straightforward, watered down and radio-friendly - they tried adapting to the nu-metal image that they didn't suit. Robb Flynn started rapping, and they even did a cover of 'Message in a Bottle' which was barely any more in their own style than the original song was. It's a good thing they picked up things by 'Through the Ashes of Empires' because they would have been lost and forgotten within the other bands that have tried the same thing.

Dream Theater nearly fell into the same category with 'Falling Into Infinity' aswell. And Mudvayne with their new album (although they claimed that they went more melodic and straightforward because they felt like they didn't need to prove themselves any more ).

Now I can understand bands who want to change their themes and sounds every now and again - there are certain 'periods' in a songwriter's life where they naturally write differently to the previous 'period' (mine tend to be a year at a time) because of events, experiences or realisations etc and thus have different sounds. This wasn't the case with MH's 'The Burning Red' though - it was obvious that they tried a more conforming sound. Eventually, after their 'Supercharger' album came out and they were touring, one gig in their hometown actually bored the majority of the audience, and they ended up having to play to only 250 die-hard fans instead.

It's much better to be accepted by the world as a figure of uniquity than as a figure of conformity...I'm in a progressive metal band myself, and we hope to someday make a decent living out of doing the music we love. If it happens, then fantastic. If it reaches the point of writing the 3rd or 4th album though, and the record companies start asking us to 'do it their way' for the sake of promotion or more album sales or something, that's when I would want to stop and leave the band. If I'm going to get paid for doing something I hate, I might as well just work in an office or a box factory.

Excellent posting, agreeing with what you say.

Another excellent example would be Dev's countrymen Rush. Their 1st 2 albums did just ok, the 3rd album tanked seriously and they came very close to just giving it all away. Their record company wanted them to write nice friendly 3 minute hits, but fortunately they had a contract that gave them creative freedom. So they did the complete opposite. They did a side-long 20 minute conceptual epic called 2112. The record company were apparently furious, and didn't even want to put the album out. But it became their breakthrough album. And the rest is history, 40 year career, 40 million album sales, numerous awards etc etc. And they did it by sticking to their guns and their original vision, and NOT compromising. If they'd watered things down like what was wanted, they probably would have made another couple of albums, had some moderate success and split up.....

Yeah, Machine Head and Metallica are pretty much textbook examples of selling out as far as I'm concerned. I'd define selling out, as changing your sound and/or image purely for commercial gain. Obviously it's impossible to know 100% for sure what the motivations of a band are for changing sound, but in my personal opinion, it seems to be blatently obvious that Machine Head and Metallica changed their sound for that reason.

It irritates me when people claim that people are only calling a band a sell out because a band changed their sound. Changing your sound, even in a direction that happens to be more commercially viable, because that's the direction that inspiration has taken you as an artist, isn't selling out. Changing your sound purely for money is.

As someone that's generally pretty shit at making conversation with people I don't know, one thing I've always found amusing is that if you talk to any metal fan over the age of 25, you're almost guaranteed that you can have a decent conversation with them based on "at what point do you think Metallica sold out?".

It irritates me when people claim that people are only calling a band a sell out because a band changed their sound. Changing your sound, even in a direction that happens to be more commercially viable, because that's the direction that inspiration has taken you as an artist, isn't selling out. Changing your sound purely for money is.

Great point - if changing your sound counts as selling out - that would imply that Devin is a sell out, which he clearly isn't. Same goes for Porcupine Tree, they did a complete 180 and they haven't 'sold out.'

[/quote]

Great point - if changing your sound counts as selling out - that would imply that Devin is a sell out, which he clearly isn't. Same goes for Porcupine Tree, they did a complete 180 and they haven't 'sold out.'[/quote]

agreed Porcupine tree just get better and better and more popular

I've played Devy's music to tonnes of people, and a lot of the time they don't "get" it, or they love it to pieces. The problem with mainstream is that it has to be easy listening, and Devy's anything but easy to listen to, cause you have to concentrate on all the things happening instead of a generic song sequence. If he did surface the mainstream I wouldn't mind, I'd be happy of his success. But like I said, this would be a longshot.

I personally think that selling out only applies if you betray yourself. No matter what kind of artist you are- musical, theatrical, visual, you have to stay true to your artistic and creative vision. As long as you do that, I don't think it's really selling out. If someone grew up believing pop music was the most beautiful form of expression they'd ever experienced (not something I relate to, but everyone's entitled), it would make perfect sense for them to want to replicate that style of expression. It's when you compromise yourself for the sake of money, approval, or popularity that you "sell out." Using the example of Green Day, if their music is the 'ideal' form of music to them, then that's great for them and I hope they carry on (though I believe their intent was to be more mainstream). At the same time, trying to please fans is a form of selling out as well. In order to create great works of art that are not sell-outs, you really just have to be yourself- which I believe Devin does, and which I believe is the reason is work is amazing. You can tell when someone is expressing things just the way they want to. My sermon is now over .

I wouldn't mind it. Might cease lurking here, though.