(NOT TO DO WITH GAMES)Why do most bands suck when they sell out?

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Most bands make their best music when they're down, desperate for money and just want to be loved.

As soon as they are, they just don't have the resources to feel anger, alienation, sorrow and all the misery that make the really great songs.

You can't really fault them for having a nice life though. That's why the Ozzie's (off his tree), Mercury, Morrison, Zeppelin, Floyd poop on the rest of them from a great height. Live fast, Die young and leave beautiful legacies.

Or...live old and produce mediocre stuff; but get to enjoy those royalties.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

I think a band could only TRULY sell-out if they completely gave away their creativity in favor of writing easily consumable bunk. Hence I define selling out more as modifying your sound so it can be sold rather than attempting to sell your sound the way you like it. But it is a VERY thin line, because accessible doesn't always mean sell-out (ex. Arcade Fire, but they mix the accessible and weird pretty heavily).

 

[Alphavillain]

"Most bands make their best music when they're down, desperate for money and just want to be loved": The_Root_Of_All_Evil.

I think the worst bands are those that want to be loved TOO much. You know, those tossers who with false modesty say "we make music for fun, if anyone else likes it that's a bonus". Bollocks! These guys tend to be mediocre bands like a lot of bands from my native England, who produce pop drivel (The Kooks, Coldplay, Kaiser Chefs, etc.) to sell albums. They're desperate for love because they know they're crap. It's those who don't give a damn who are the best...

 

[jim_doki]

ok, lets go over this again. in today's music industry it's very hard to make any money if you are a performer (thank you very much Napster). an artist making an album to get signed to a label in order to get some kind of money for the songs they spent hours writing, honing and recording does not make them "sell outs", it makes them successful. A lot of reasons bands DON'T change and explore new things is because their "boss", and they do have one, is either terrified of the band losing popularity or too afraid to risk a good deal so they can "Say Something".

My favorite example is The Beatles. they were the most popular and successful band for YEARS before Revolver and Sgt Pepper came out. Today's music industry is volitile.

 

[Alphavillain]

ok, lets go over this again. in today's music industry it's very hard to make any money if you are a performer (thank you very much Napster). an artist making an album to get signed to a label in order to get some kind of money for the songs they spent hours writing, honing and recording does not make them "sell outs", it makes them successful. A lot of reasons bands DON'T change and explore new things is because their "boss", and they do have one, is either terrified of the band losing popularity or too afraid to risk a good deal so they can "Say Something".

My favorite example is The Beatles. they were the most popular and successful band for YEARS before Revolver and Sgt Pepper came out. Today's music industry is volitile.

jim_doki, go to http://www.scaruffi.com/vol1/beatles.html and see what probably the greatest music critic in the world thinks of the Beatles. You'll be surprised.

 

[jim_doki]

jim_doki, go to http://www.scaruffi.com/vol1/beatles.html and see what probably the greatest music critic in the world thinks of the Beatles. You'll be surprised.

What i was getting at was before the beatles were able to make a change to their three minute pop songs and start doing things like elanor rigby and norwiegen wood ect, they had to release several of the same record to establish themselves. the matter of how good they are or not is irrelavent to the argument, but thanks for posting, it looks interesting

 

[Alphavillain]

jim_doki, go to http://www.scaruffi.com/vol1/beatles.html and see what probably the greatest music critic in the world thinks of the Beatles. You'll be surprised.

What i was getting at was before the beatles were able to make a change to their three minute pop songs and start doing things like elanor rigby and norwiegen wood ect, they had to release several of the same record to establish themselves. the matter of how good they are or not is irrelavent to the argument, but thanks for posting, it looks interesting

Thanks for the polite reply I think what Scaruffi is getting at is that the Beatles tagged onto trends that already existed (e.g.,Eastern mysticism was present in popular music before them Sandy Bull and Robbie Basho, exotic instruments via the Velvet Underground, etc) and sort of watered down what they were about. He talks about an 18 month lag in what others were doing and then along came the Beatles and took the plaudits for something that was a shadow of the original. But of course the response to that is that the Beatles helped popularise such music for the wider public...

 

[Conqueror Kenny]

i don't know i have found some of my favrte bands because they sold out. Slipknot i now love thair music i first hird them on a game (dont recall what one). On the contrary to this entire thred there are some bands i wish would sell out, all eyes on you led zeplin.

 

[bangtheDANCE]

According to myself, I think, that bands are good in the beginning because they want to be noticed, they give all they got when it comes to talent knowledge and so on... Or at least try to do something different, once they hit fame, the need for that is no longer needed therefore they slack off...

 

[bangtheDANCE]

According to myself, I think, that bands are good in the beginning because they want to be noticed, they give all they got when it comes to talent knowledge and so on... Or at least try to do something different, once they hit fame, the need for that is no longer needed therefore they slack off...

 

[electric discordian]

There is a thought that music attained perfection in the seventies, I am slightly inclined to agree as every style of music that has come after has been influenced directly or indirectly. The worst perpetrator of selling out is surely hip hop which in the eighties was a vital urban art form, i still didnt get it mind. But now its all about bling and bitches and how many times you have been shot, interestingly for a man who has been shot some fifteen times Fiddy cent had not scars, please dont ask how I know this.

Not content with spreading its corporate manure over just rap it spread to rock to and we are left with a watered down mess of a rock scene where the DJ's are as likely to play Black Sabbath and Rush as they are to explode messily coating their respective night club with mint milkshake.

Music when corporates get their disgusting mitts on it degenerates into mind numbing rubbish with nought to say about the human condition, Korns first two albums were about their lead singer being abused, Linkin Park are god awful in every sense, Green day whilst being delightfully anti bush are not in the same league as seventies punk. Nirvana only ever became famous because Kurt Cobain splashed himself all over the headlines.

There is no music of substance in the charts anymore, I do agree Mike Paton is the New Zappa as is Serj Tankian from System he has amazing talent and a weird eye on life.

One thing we can agree on Emo should have been strangled at birth