Best Ever Albums

Re: PoD (#2): 'Sellouts'

benpaco — Sat, 17 May 2014 18:45:41 GMT

Author: benpaco

Posted: 05/17/2014 22:45

an_outlaw wrote:

Can you create high art all for yourself? Does it have to be shown to anyone else regardless of whether or not it is done for money?

I'd say you can do it just for yourself. I've got a drawer of drawings no one knows about that I like but are so obscure I figure no one else would care. I spent almost 20 hours on a Hyper Light Drifter/Adventure Time crossover that I've never even mentioned to anyone as outside of a few people I don't know anyone who knows Hyper Light Drifter. And that's just actual art - as far as songs go, every song I've ever written (3? 4 maybe?) I've never shown anyone, it's mostly just a therapeutic process for me.

Re: PoD (#2): 'Sellouts'

Anonymous — Sat, 17 May 2014 18:25:20 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 05/17/2014 22:25

Can you create high art all for yourself? Does it have to be shown to anyone else regardless of whether or not it is done for money?

Re: PoD (#2): 'Sellouts'

NickVolos — Tue, 13 May 2014 14:26:53 GMT

Author: NickVolos

Posted: 05/13/2014 18:26

Quote:

Suspicions regarding artistic authenticity are animated by a belief that 'real' art cannot exist in the capitalist market-place.

A "capitalist market-place" is an economic system. 'Real' art has nothing to do with economics whether that is capitalism or some other form of 'ism'... At the same time I am wondering what 'real' art is and whether it really exists... Artists are human beings and as such they are motivated by money among others...

Re: PoD (#2): 'Sellouts'

Norman Bates — Tue, 13 May 2014 11:40:43 GMT

Author: Norman Bates

Posted: 05/13/2014 15:40

Quote:

Suspicions regarding artistic authenticity are animated by a belief that 'real' art cannot exist in the capitalist market-place. As a result, artists who move from the margins to the center of the commercial sphere are often viewed as 'sellouts' whose work no longer honors the spirit of the craft. While this claim is true in certain cases... it cannot be held as a universal truth claim about commercially successful artists. Conversely, it is equally problematic to view commercial marginality (ie. lack of sales) as an index of artistic integrity or quality. Such an approach is deeply problematic, as it overestimates the extent to which artists choose not to operate within mainstream circles, and it romanticizes the underground as a space untouched by the same corporate capitalist forces as mainstream spheres.

I totally agree.

Re: PoD (#2): 'Sellouts'

Anonymous — Tue, 13 May 2014 11:38:46 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 05/13/2014 15:38

From the listener's point of view, I think "selling out" is mostly a red herring. Yes, it probably happens and yes, it can hurt the quality of the music, but there's really no way for us to know in most cases. The best we can do is judge the music for what it is.

From the artist's point of view, I think it's a far more interesting and complicated question. I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with an artist wanting to relate to a broader audience, but there has to be a line. Going back to the quote from David Bowie about his Let's Dance years,

David Bowie wrote:

I remember looking out over these waves of people [who were coming to hear this record played live] and thinking, 'I wonder how many Velvet Underground albums these people have in their record collections?' I suddenly felt very apart from my audience. And it was depressing, because I didn't know what they wanted.

In this case, I think he would readily admit that "selling out" really hurt the quality of his music. He became someone or something that he didn't recognize. Contrast that with the Beatles who, from what I've read, were much more fun-loving. They wanted to make music that the masses loved and they wanted to be pop stars. Even during the Let It Be sessions, I read a quote from one of them (don't remember the source) saying that the only times they felt unified were when they felt they had a hit on their hands. It energized them.

That's fine, in my mind. I don't think it had anything to do with money, I think they just loved making the world swing. When I was a young musician, that was what I craved more than anything else.

Re: PoD (#2): 'Sellouts'

Anonymous — Tue, 13 May 2014 11:23:06 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 05/13/2014 15:23

RockyRaccoon wrote:

If "selling out" equals a "lack of authenticity", then we need to determine what "authenticity" is in music.

In the strictest sense, "authenticity" is "historically accurate" in most musical discussion (typically in regard to classical music), meaning an authentic performer is one who would use the same strings, type of instrument, tempos, style of cadenzas/improvisations, etc. that would be used in the time of the composer being performed. All this has nothing to do with modern popular music or "selling out."

Re: PoD (#2): 'Sellouts'

meccalecca — Tue, 13 May 2014 10:20:40 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 05/13/2014 14:20

I think the fairest criticism comes from the idea that art is meant to be an expression of one's creative voice. If artist X notices that artist Y's work is successful, and then changes their own art to imitate artist Y, then it's fair to criticize them to an extent. Because basically, what they are doing is sacrificing their own creative voice for whatever success entails (for some money, others fame). But this is hard to really evaluate. Many associate Cubism with Braque, but Picasso was more famously tied to the movement. If Picasso was riding a trend, does that make his paintings any less pleasurable to look at? No, not really.

Re: PoD (#2): 'Sellouts'

junodog4 — Mon, 12 May 2014 21:26:16 GMT

Author: junodog4

Posted: 05/13/2014 01:26

I think that most previous posters have it bang on.

I can't begrudge an artist for making money for their music. As much as some 'commercial' music might be vapid, artists who refuse to 'sell out to the man' can be just as frustrating. Good music is good music.

I will agree that artists should be discerning before they sell their art to an advertising campaign. I like how Tom Waits stuck to his guns, and lost respect for Moby after he whored out every song on Play. It's their music to do with what they like, but invariably it will get associated with the product it's schilling for.

Re: PoD (#2): 'Sellouts'

Anonymous — Mon, 12 May 2014 20:51:24 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 05/13/2014 00:51

On the one hand, a band compromising their values for a commercial cash-in is definitely something worth being shamed, but on the other hand, how often is that true in cases where people bash said artist? I think there are definite cases of bands selling out, but more often than not it's just a band moving forward or advancing their sound in a way that happens to appeal to a broader demographic, and I don't think analyzing that kind of thing too heavily does anyone much good. And sure, a hardcore anti-capitalist punk band with a song in a commercial would probably be a bit disturbing, but for everyone else it's just a nice way to help fund the actual music part of things while getting more exposure.

Ultimately I think the cry of "selling out" is more of a way for fans to cope with not liking new material rather than a thing that often happens. It has happened before, but I think people are also too quick to forget that musicians are people who need to live and eat too, and there are much worse offenses for an artist to commit than selling out. Of course, there are some cases where it can compromise the core beliefs of the artist, like Mecca said I wouldn't want to hear a Dead Kennedys song in a tampon commercial, but I'd say that's the minority.

Re: PoD (#2): 'Sellouts'

RockyRaccoon — Mon, 12 May 2014 20:41:24 GMT

Author: RockyRaccoon

Posted: 05/13/2014 00:41

If "selling out" equals a "lack of authenticity", then we need to determine what "authenticity" is in music.

Example: Jay-Z authentically loves making money. Does that make his music authentic?

What about if an artists ambitions change over time? Initially they were once an artist who was all about the artistry of music, but as they gained success, their ambition became to make generic music that sells in order to make more money? Did that artist "sell out"? Or are they being authentic?

Re: PoD (#2): 'Sellouts'

Anonymous — Mon, 12 May 2014 20:08:02 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 05/13/2014 00:08

benpaco wrote:

I've spoken about it here before, but I think it's hard to say that a band changed their sound just to sell albums. Maybe they just like their new style better. It's always hard to say.

I think "selling out" is a dumb term. But "authenticity" arguments in general can be characterized in a way that doesn't involve exact claims about musician's specific intentions.

If a band allows themselves to be marketed as x, then it just seems fair to me to criticize them if their musician/compositional content does not live up to x.

People have ideals of art as being about personal unique creative expression blablabla. If the music someone creates sounds like its chasing x trend, or pandering to x demographic, it will also seem that the musician's music is failing to live up to that ideal of art as personal creative expression (regardless of the musicians specific intentions). The two sides here instinctually seem like opposites. Sure this might be based on a romanticized ideal of art/the artist thats not entirely rational...however the subjectivity arguments we all love claim that our opinions are inescapably linked to our emotional biases. If thats the case, how can an instinctual valuing of authenticity be any worse than any other biases people have?

Re: PoD (#2): 'Sellouts'

benpaco — Mon, 12 May 2014 19:52:05 GMT

Author: benpaco

Posted: 05/12/2014 23:52

I've spoken about it here before, but I think it's hard to say that a band changed their sound just to sell albums. Maybe they just like their new style better. It's always hard to say. I usually use AFI as the example of "they sold out" just because they went from

Link

to

Link

but for all I know, they just like the new style. It really is hard to say.

Re: PoD (#2): 'Sellouts'

Anonymous — Mon, 12 May 2014 19:43:33 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 05/12/2014 23:43

I can't write a lot at the moment, but here are some interesting quotes that might be worth discussing on this topic:

On Bob Dylan, Wikipedia wrote:

Dylan biographer Clinton Heylin recounts how Tony Glover stopped by Dylan's apartment in September 1963, picked up a page of the song Dylan was working on and read a line from it: "'Come senators, congressmen, please heed the call.' Turning to Dylan, Glover said, 'What is this shit, man?' Dylan shrugged his shoulders and replied, 'Well, you know, it seems to be what the people want to hear.'"

On David Bowie, Wikipedia wrote:

Bowie would later state that the success of [Let's Dance] caused him to hit a creative low point in his career which lasted the next few years. "I remember looking out over these waves of people [who were coming to hear this record played live] and thinking, 'I wonder how many Velvet Underground albums these people have in their record collections?' I suddenly felt very apart from my audience. And it was depressing, because I didn't know what they wanted."

Quote:

John Lennon: "Where are we going, fellahs?"
Other Beatles: "To the top, Johnny!"
John Lennon: "Where's that, lads?"
Other Beatles: "To the toppermost of the poppermost!"

Several cases where the artist could be accused of selling out. Did they? If so, did it hurt their music?

Re: PoD (#2): 'Sellouts'

Necharsian — Mon, 12 May 2014 19:16:40 GMT

Author: Necharsian

Posted: 05/12/2014 23:16

meccalecca wrote:

Making music that large amount of people will like is not a problem at all, but if a band is changing their sound in order to make their music more profitable via sync licensing, I could see that being quite obnoxious. Also, having a song in a commercial can be quite damaging to the song. If a Dead Kennedys song was used in a tampon commercial, it'd be impossible to erase the association to that song. Some artists are willing to associate their song with anything, from a shitty political campaign to viagra to kitty litter. Those are sellouts.

And yet arcade fire having their song in an NFL commercial or David bowie for Luis Vuitton are never used as examples of sellouts. It's easy for me not to associate Gigantic with the new apple commercial because who cares

Re: PoD (#2): 'Sellouts'

Anonymous — Mon, 12 May 2014 18:03:06 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 05/12/2014 22:03

an_outlaw wrote:

Money motivates people to make art. Some of the best music before 1900 came from dudes paying dudes the equivalent of millions at the time to write and pander towards the rich dudes and ladies with the same music they heard last time.

This.

I don't see much of a problem making mass-money off of music.

This whole "Anti-Capitalist" thing angers me, if people want to hear music, they'll do as so, music isn't made only to be "deep" or "innovative", it can be "generic" and still be good.

To answer the question, no, it does not. Money is great, music is great, I love when I hear about an artist is profiting off of their art as long as he/she isn't rude/corrupt with it.

meccalecca wrote:

This, too.

Re: PoD (#2): 'Sellouts'

meccalecca — Mon, 12 May 2014 17:46:24 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 05/12/2014 21:46

Making music that large amount of people will like is not a problem at all, but if a band is changing their sound in order to make their music more profitable via sync licensing, I could see that being quite obnoxious. Also, having a song in a commercial can be quite damaging to the song. If a Dead Kennedys song was used in a tampon commercial, it'd be impossible to erase the association to that song. Some artists are willing to associate their song with anything, from a shitty political campaign to viagra to kitty litter. Those are sellouts.

Re: PoD (#2): 'Sellouts'

Necharsian — Mon, 12 May 2014 17:33:47 GMT

Author: Necharsian

Posted: 05/12/2014 21:33

Its weird to me that people jump on bands for changing their sound in a way that makes themselves more popular by saying they sold out. If their new sound is liked by tons of people why is it so hard to believe that artists themselves like the sound. Coldplay is a good topical example off the top of my head. I'm sure people are jumping at the opportunity to bash them again for selling out. How many times is that now? They must have the record for most times selling out somehow.

It's also great when people complain about how an artist's sound remains stagnant and then those same people complain when they finally change their sound. Skrillex being blasted for not sounding enough like Burial and then not long after being blasted for sounding too much like Burial was a good time.

So yeah I pretty much never take people seriously when they complain about artists selling out because it usually sounds like people trying to justify their whining over stuff they don't like. Boo hoo you don't like a band's new sound.

Re: PoD (#2): 'Sellouts'

DanielNunes93 — Mon, 12 May 2014 14:11:49 GMT

Author: DanielNunes93

Posted: 05/12/2014 18:11

If a band change their style only think on money, so yes this affect my appreciation of their music. But a band who only do they work and have a great commercial reception, don't change my way to see they work.

Re: PoD (#2): 'Sellouts'

mickilennial — Mon, 12 May 2014 13:18:17 GMT

Author: mickilennial

Posted: 05/12/2014 17:18

There are only few cases of trend-hopping commercialism (coupled with mediocre musicianship) that causes me to dislike a band, one of which being the case of Papa Roach who played with the rap-rock trend before jumping on the pop-rock trend and for a time the post-grunge trend.

Re: PoD (#2): 'Sellouts'

Anonymous — Mon, 12 May 2014 12:23:40 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 05/12/2014 16:23

Money motivates people to make art. Some of the best music before 1900 came from dudes paying dudes the equivalent of millions at the time to write and pander towards the rich dudes and ladies with the same music they heard last time.