Who do you think has sold out? Right now I'm thinking Linkin Park.

Jesse Wrote:Who do you think has sold out? Right now I'm thinking Linkin Park.

check out the song by tool - 'hooker with a penis' from the eulogy album...(especially the lyrics)

creative people including musicans have to sell out.. how else will they make money? i think we ALL sell out.. working in any job you are working for 'the man' .. arent you?

if you get paid for your creation you are a sell out in one sense but i dont think this is important.. if your art is expansive, perceptive and intelligent it will stand the test of time and it will be irrelevant if you got sweaty wads of cash for it..

Yoko Ono sold out John Lennon's ideals and music for money!!!!

Well, the one I hear most is, of course, Metallica. No, I'm NOT saying they are/did, just that's what I've heard a lot of people say.
However, I don't consider an artist a sell-out, if he changes his music to keep up with what people actually WANT TO HEAR. Also, people change, even in the music industry. Nothing wrong with that at all. And yeah, so what if they want to make money?? Who doesn't?

EveWasFramed Wrote:Well, the one I hear most is, of course, Metallica. No, I'm NOT saying they are/did, just that's what I've heard a lot of people say.
However, I don't consider an artist a sell-out, if he changes his music to keep up with what people actually WANT TO HEAR. Also, people change, even in the music industry. Nothing wrong with that at all. And yeah, so what if they want to make money?? Who doesn't?

Sure, "artists" can do whatever they want...it is "their" (actually, more times than not it's written AND produced by someone else; they're just paid to look good) music, but...most "artists" (and I use this term loosely) don't garner any respect from me because they ARE in it just for the money. They'll do, sing, and make ANYTHING the record companies tell them to like a pathetic love-sick dog, a slave to their commands, as long as they get paid. Yeah, that's all "fine and dandy" if you wanna be a whore, but not if you want actual respect as an artist. It's one thing if they are making music that they WANT to, but if it's JUST to sell records, then....no. That's one of the reasons why Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails is the artist I most look up to/respect; he never cared what anyone else thought, he made music he WANTED to make, and he's damn good at it (IMHO). It's deep, meaningful, and it's actual MUSIC, not just a bunch of garbled noises designed for people to shake their asses to. Even if I don't like an artist's music, as long as it's stuff they WANT to play/sing then I'll at least have respect for them and still call them an artist.

As for Linkin Park...I dunno. When their second album took off, I still liked it, and that's the direction they wanted to go in. Their first album was actually what the record label wanted, then they made an album more to the style they desired. As for the following albums...they've been interesting, and I still like it, I think they are just going in the direction they want to go in, not selling out, however, it's not like I have proof, this is just my opinion.

Who do I think is a sell out? Lil' Wayne. Actually, he never was an artist in the first place, so I'm not sure if he counts as he's been a music whore since day 1.

Ledchick, that is completely untrue. Yoko Ono is unfairly picked on: in fact she was responsible for a lot of the more avant-garde elements in the Beatles, so John Lennon's ideals were often absorbed from her. As for the money thing, that is again unfounded and the fact she has remained faithful to him and never remarried is a sign of their deep love.

HERE IS THE THING. If the artist that you listen to "sells out" then you aren't listening to the right type of music. The only people worth listening to are true artists, and a true artist can't sell out so if they do it proves they were crap in the first place. "What's wrong with wanting to make money?" Well, the whole idea of artistic integrity and expression.

Not one of the bands I listen to has ever sold out. Firstly because they aren't mainstream enough to do so, and secondly because the thing that makes them interesting is a burning talent that is so much more than thinking what will get people to buy their records. If you listen to metal or nu-metal, which is a bunch of cockrockers jostling to play the biggest venues anyway, then you reap what you sow.

I gotta say that I think the entire genre of nu-metal has been a sell out. To me it's just repackaged metal aggression that's been watered down for mass consumption. Linkin Park, Disturbed, Limp Bizkit, etc. It was all made so that frat boy types could feel angsty. "Cause I'm one step closer to the edge, and I'm about to break!" Why, cause your dad refused to buy you a new car for your sixteenth birthday?

How's about Sepultura / Soulfly or Slayer or even Pantera. These were metal bands that had huge followings because they NEVER made tunes that were radio friendly. (Occasionally on MTV but that's not even relevant anymore.) I'm not even saying that I am generally into this music; just saying that it's got integrity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW40_FMOG8c

Yeah, I mean of course I was generalising, but still I think Pantera and Slayer both really did sell out. Both got a lot of radio-play, and whether or not they became accepted by the mainstream (Metallica never did either, lacking both boobs and "shalala" choruses) the point is that what they wrote was garnered towards a specific and wide-ranging audience, and however arse-kicking their music can be, their actual artistic aims are negligible. Consequently, as their careers got on, their music became more predictable.

little_buddha Wrote:Yeah, I mean of course I was generalising, but still I think Pantera and Slayer both really did sell out. Both got a lot of radio-play, and whether or not they became accepted by the mainstream (Metallica never did either, lacking both boobs and "shalala" choruses) the point is that what they wrote was garnered towards a specific and wide-ranging audience, and however arse-kicking their music can be, their actual artistic aims are negligible. Consequently, as their careers got on, their music became more predictable.

Metallica doesn't get radio airplay? "Never free, never me / so I dub thee unforgiven." They're all over the radio here in Ohio and probably anywhere in the U.S. I don't own the album and I know the lyrics. In James Hetfield's own words, Metallica tried to play what sounded current. Thus they lost what made their music vital. Which is why their new album is surprisingly alright. Because it doesn't try to create an up-to-date sound or quote the style of other current bands. Instead it relies on what made their sound good in the first place.
Pantera I can't really speak for. The impression I got is that they were a metal party band: Booze, chicks, and agression. Hardly a combination that aspires toward high art or intellectual progression, but I don't think that you can call it a sell out either.
Slayer did progress. Their albums went from having a "Slaytanic" faux Satanist style and more of a speed-metal bent to being a more thrash style that was Atheistic and inspired by war and serial killers and other lovely stuff. Of course they're still metal.
Metal's always been about that attitude though. The people playing it aren't interested in expressing the depth and breadth of human experience. They're about playing the heaviest shit out there. Until they're too old to hack it anymore. I think it's a genuine form of personal expression, however single minded of an attitude it may be. It comes "from the heart" so to speak.
You could accuse H.R. Giger of being a sell out - he's basically been producing the same brand of psychosexual biomorphic horror art for the last 30 years. But then he's the one who invented that style and he does it better than anyone. Or on the reverse side, try Norman Rockwell (who's syrupy American nostalgia makes me want to hurl). There's no discernible progression in the style of his illustration, but the craftsmanship is consistently brilliant. So I can't deny his place in the history of illustration.
Perhaps we need to redefine the language here. I don't care whether or not Linkin Park sold out. What bothers me is that they make comparatively simplistic music with a lame gutless attitude that somehow still sells records. There's nothing it their music that I can qualify as genuine expression. Which is a testimony to the general lack of aesthetic taste in American culture. (I realize that what constitutes "genuine expression" may be entirely subjective - I want to be able to hear both sincerity and talent in the music that I listen to)

Jesse Wrote:Who do you think has sold out? Right now I'm thinking Linkin Park.

From what I've heard, Linkin Park's next album is going to be a concept album. Definitely NOT a sell-out move, since concept albums are generally the province of progressive rock, one of the most ignored genres of music out there, at least by pop culture standards. People don't seem to have the attention spans for an entire concept album these days.