Best Ever Albums

Re: SELL OUT!

RoundTheBend — Tue, 31 May 2016 21:38:39 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 06/01/2016 01:38

So I was thinking about this a little more (even if totally a stupid waste of my time)...

And I was thinking huh... I guess the Beatles sold out like 5 times. At least for doing Sgt Peppers (stop touring and have an almost completely different sound) and then also when they left Hamburg... what... you don't want to play in a shitty club your whole life... you must not be a real artist. 🤣 🤣 🤣

It actually came to my attention while listening to De Stijl by White Stripes. It's a pretty decent album, but no where near the quality of when they "sold out" and wrote music people would actually care about... and guess what... as an artist I think they just got better.

IDK... I am not too familiar with any artist who truly sold out that I respected as an artist to begin with.

But then there's this slam on Beck for selling cars from Jeffery Lewis:

Link

Re: SELL OUT!

RoundTheBend — Mon, 30 May 2016 20:55:44 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 05/31/2016 00:55

RichardSauce wrote:

The term "sell out" is inherently a term of betrayal. Traditionally that meant one of several things:

1. Betrayal of your local scene by, well, leaving and making it big on a broader stage
2. Betrayal of your core audience by changing your sound to one that appeals to a different or broader audience.
3. Betrayal of ethics and "art" by signing to a major label/actively pursuing commercial success.

With this working definition, I'm not sure if it's even possible to sell out anymore. With the internet, even local groups are automatically playing to the world as well as the patrons of the local dive. If your music is at all on Youtube, Bandcamp, or Spotify, you're already on a broader stage. Local presence is still critical, but you can be a band in Bumfuck, Wyoming and have fans in Portugal. It's weird.

Additionally, no one seems to care about the other two anymore. Core audiences used to be locked by specific genres. For example, if you liked punk in the 90s/early 2000s, you probably didn't listen to much hip-hop, or soul, or pop, etc...and you had very strong opinions on what constituted good punk. If an artist went from Punk to pop-punk, or emo, or, god forbid, pop, it was a strong betrayal. Genre hopping/reinvention was a serious risk for a band. Now, everyone listens to everything. Make a punk record and follow it up with bubblegum, audiences may change but no one is going to get pissed off about it.

The last one used to be the strongest in the 80s-early 2000s, when the underground actively rejected commercial success and believed that music, and specifically rock, was art. The only way to maintain your purity was to reject the advances of the music industry. In practice, this broke down in a big way in the early 90s, but if you ever watch interviews with those grunge/alt/punk bands that signed they are constantly trying to save their indie-cred with rationalization and denials of any ambition/success. This stigma just doesn't exist anymore.

Most of this is for the best. I remember how ridiculous it was when I was a kid that people would actively shit on you for listening to something that "wasn't cool" within the group, but I kind of miss there being an emphasis on authenticity and credibility, even if it probably stopped existing after 1991. I also miss artists forming themselves within the cocoons of their local scenes, which doesn't happen as much anymore. I don't know how different Athens, GA is from Minneapolis anymore, for instance. Everyone listens to everything now, and that necessarily means everyone draws from the same reference points. I think there was at least some value in separation and opposition to the mainstream. Mainstream used to be the Thesis, and indie/underground the Antithesis, but that dynamic doesn't really exist anymore.

Great points and I knew/agree with them.

I guess growing up I was friends with the kids that liked punk/"original" alternative rock, but then was friends with kids that liked Metal and Rap. And so I always was somewhere in between.

And there totally was this hatred for anything outside of those confines... like drum machines don't have soul and punk puppies (maturity of punk rockers is prejudiced to be low)...

I also kind of miss those times when things were easily defined, etc. but then again it was a bit limiting and like where things have gone... mostly.

Pros and cons to both worlds.

Still think it's ridiculous to discredit someone for selling out, when isn't it every musicians dream to share their humanity with everyone? I don't think many of them care about the money... more like they care that what they created, everybody likes (well I mean most artists anyway... even Bob Dylan said something like the hardest thing for an artist to do is to write something that both is important to the artist and "his" audience.

Even the "humble" Kurt Cobain from Nirvana told Geffen Records they wanted to be the biggest rock band when they negotiated their record deal. Do I feel like Nirvana sold out... no.

Re: SELL OUT!

RichardSauce — Mon, 30 May 2016 20:20:57 GMT

Author: RichardSauce

Posted: 05/31/2016 00:20

The term "sell out" is inherently a term of betrayal. Traditionally that meant one of several things:

1. Betrayal of your local scene by, well, leaving and making it big on a broader stage
2. Betrayal of your core audience by changing your sound to one that appeals to a different or broader audience.
3. Betrayal of ethics and "art" by signing to a major label/actively pursuing commercial success.

With this working definition, I'm not sure if it's even possible to sell out anymore. With the internet, even local groups are automatically playing to the world as well as the patrons of the local dive. If your music is at all on Youtube, Bandcamp, or Spotify, you're already on a broader stage. Local presence is still critical, but you can be a band in Bumfuck, Wyoming and have fans in Portugal. It's weird.

Additionally, no one seems to care about the other two anymore. Core audiences used to be locked by specific genres. For example, if you liked punk in the 90s/early 2000s, you probably didn't listen to much hip-hop, or soul, or pop, etc...and you had very strong opinions on what constituted good punk. If an artist went from Punk to pop-punk, or emo, or, god forbid, pop, it was a strong betrayal. Genre hopping/reinvention was a serious risk for a band. Now, everyone listens to everything. Make a punk record and follow it up with bubblegum, audiences may change but no one is going to get pissed off about it.

The last one used to be the strongest in the 80s-early 2000s, when the underground actively rejected commercial success and believed that music, and specifically rock, was art. The only way to maintain your purity was to reject the advances of the music industry. In practice, this broke down in a big way in the early 90s, but if you ever watch interviews with those grunge/alt/punk bands that signed they are constantly trying to save their indie-cred with rationalization and denials of any ambition/success. This stigma just doesn't exist anymore.

Most of this is for the best. I remember how ridiculous it was when I was a kid that people would actively shit on you for listening to something that "wasn't cool" within the group, but I kind of miss there being an emphasis on authenticity and credibility, even if it probably stopped existing after 1991. I also miss artists forming themselves within the cocoons of their local scenes, which doesn't happen as much anymore. I don't know how different Athens, GA is from Minneapolis anymore, for instance. Everyone listens to everything now, and that necessarily means everyone draws from the same reference points. I think there was at least some value in separation and opposition to the mainstream. Mainstream used to be the Thesis, and indie/underground the Antithesis, but that dynamic doesn't really exist anymore.

Re: SELL OUT!

RoundTheBend — Sun, 29 May 2016 23:20:05 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 05/30/2016 03:20

I was reviewing a Black Eyed Peas album and was seeing all the hate for them for starting to sell out.

I left this comment:
They started to sell out... hahaha... it's pop music. They sold out the moment they wrote songs less than 10 minutes long.

i think this is true of most "artists" that make a living off of it.

I get the idea that an artist should stay true to one's artistry... and that's possibly when this term came into use for a purpose.

Fans getting mad that they no longer play bars is a dumb reason to hate a band.

Hating a band because they make choices to abandon any artistry they had in the first place to make money... yeah that's less agreeable... but would you prefer that they play in a dive bar their whole life? There's a bit of reality to consider.

Then there's rich mega rock stars (many of which didn't have any artistry to begin with), who totally do it to make a hit, even if the music is terrible.

Re: SELL OUT!

Gigantic — Mon, 6 Apr 2015 18:52:09 GMT

Author: Gigantic

Posted: 04/06/2015 22:52

Applerill wrote:

Moreover, I think that Lana Del Rey really is a "post-feminist" artist

i kinda see her as being ironic post-feminist? like her music is usually about her being marginalized and made into a sex object despite her resignation to it

Re: SELL OUT!

Anonymous — Mon, 6 Apr 2015 18:52:07 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 04/06/2015 22:52

Id still lick Grimes' armpits. Grimes>>>>>>Lana

Re: SELL OUT!

Gigantic — Mon, 6 Apr 2015 18:50:12 GMT

Author: Gigantic

Posted: 04/06/2015 22:50

bongritsu wrote:

best to avoid intangible, and by extension, unverifiable buzz terms like sell out at all costs.

enjoy it when it fells right, drop it when it doesn't. simple as that

i kinda feel this. but the pervasiveness of the term still brings questions with it.

Re: SELL OUT!

benpaco — Sun, 5 Apr 2015 14:35:35 GMT

Author: benpaco

Posted: 04/05/2015 18:35

Well, I can't work in fast food all my life.

Re: SELL OUT!

bongritsu — Sun, 5 Apr 2015 14:32:57 GMT

Author: bongritsu

Posted: 04/05/2015 18:32

best to avoid intangible, and by extension, unverifiable buzz terms like sell out at all costs.

enjoy it when it fells right, drop it when it doesn't. simple as that

Re: SELL OUT!

craola — Sun, 5 Apr 2015 14:25:42 GMT

Author: craola

Posted: 04/05/2015 18:25

the definition of "sell-out" is too vague for me to contribute.

if you're making music to make money, is that not selling out? should art be shared? or is it only when you abandon your values? and does that ever really happen, or are we mistaking growth and maturity with our preconceived notions about an artist? are "sell-outs" merely changing their music so they can reach a wider audience, or are they always looking at the dollars and cents? is it wrong to want capital returns?

Re: SELL OUT!

Skinny — Sun, 5 Apr 2015 13:17:08 GMT

Author: Skinny

Posted: 04/05/2015 17:17

When I do cocaine I enjoy dancing to Todd Rundgren, so I've already sold out.

Re: SELL OUT!

Anonymous — Sun, 5 Apr 2015 09:10:10 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 04/05/2015 13:10

I'd sell out if given enough money. Sorry guys, Allah loves money.

Re: SELL OUT!

Anonymous — Sun, 5 Apr 2015 08:43:16 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 04/05/2015 12:43

I expressed myself with my vote. My power as an individual member of a larger group is manifest. Also I'm listening to metal.

Re: SELL OUT!

Applerill — Sun, 5 Apr 2015 08:08:47 GMT

Author: Applerill

Posted: 04/05/2015 12:08

Very good question Ja-ur, I mean, Mark.

With Grimes, I really want to think she's being ironic, but she may also be showing the other side of the same coin: That us criticizing a "pretty girl" for pretty is no less sexist that demanding those standards to begin with. Moreover, I think that Lana Del Rey really is a "post-feminist" artist (one I actually like a little more than Grimes TBH, don't hurt me Jher Bear) that has an amazing knack for playing with the male gaze and nostalgia. But what makes this tour really special is that both of these traits will become all the more obvious with them together.

Returning to the main question, I think it all comes back to Intentional Fallacy. We can criticize an artist for leaving their roots, but isn't that just entering their new work with close-minded expectations of what it should be? I mean, I'm personally not a fan of 1989 compared to Swift's earlier work, but people seem to really dig the post-irony, so how can I criticize them? (Even though it's still rather rockist to ignore her other masterpieces at the same time).

And then there are times when people's "sell-out" arguments are even more hypocritical. People say that St. Anger was a low-point for Metallica because of "NO GUITAR SOLOS, POST GUNGE OMG!!!!"; but at the same time, they hold REAL sell-out crap-fest The Black Album just because it gives them their dad-rock comfort food. Maybe I should give the latter a chance, too, but this seems to further prove my theory of close-minded expectations.

SELL OUT!

Gigantic — Sun, 5 Apr 2015 01:40:01 GMT

Author: Gigantic

Posted: 04/05/2015 05:40

Who are the "sell outs"? Do they exist? Can one ever even actually "sell in" when true authenticity is/has become impossible?

Sample topic:

Grimes has cleaned up, straightened her hair, presumably shaved her armpits, and is going on tour with LDR. Is she betraying her original stand against traditional beauty norms by looking in-sync with LDR's vision of the California pretty girl? Or is this acceptance "ironic", much like the appropriation of exaggerated gender norms by people like drag queens? Or does none of this matter because the intent is hers and she doesn't "owe" us anything by means of keeping her armpit hair long and cutting her bangs like a 7yo.

In the end is it JUST THE MUSIC THAT MATTERS or does music NOT EXIST IN A VACUUM, BRO.