Selling Out
I was listening to the Violent Femmes on my way to work today and Blister in the Sun came on. From what I understand it was their most popular, well-known song. It’s a snappy, interesting song without profanities (surrounded by tracks which are either lewd or profane or both). I enjoy Blister in the Sun and don’t mind that they have many other less-than-kid-friendly tunes on the album… they are who they are.
But this made me think about bands who have given in to popular demand and changed who they are for money/fame. Not that Violent Femmes did this, it just made me think about those who did. And I remember a conversation I witnessed either in life or on tv or elsewhere about Green Day and how they sold-out their punk sensibilities for popularity, fame and fortune. Then there was commentary about their song “Good Riddance (Time of Your Life)” being the most punk thing they did because it was so unexpected and anti-punk. Whatever. I don’t know much about them nor do I care, but it has made me wonder what exactly is “selling out” and who has done it?
Should I tell you what the song “Blister in the Sun” is really about, Rusty? Don’t want to ruin it for you.
Comment by Susan M — January 10, 2006 @ 10:45 am
I think I’d define selling out as: Going against one’s own principles for money. In music, I guess it’d be doing something you normally wouldn’t, purely for monetary gain. I’m not sure I’m quite dead on with those definitions though.
Examples of selling out (some people might say, not sure I would):
* Pete Townsend licensing his songs for use all over tv
* The Stones’, Queen’s, etc songs being used in Coke commercials
* The Decemberists signing to a major label, after Colin Meloy went off about how lame they are/how he wouldn’t do it
* U2 promoting iPods
Comment by Susan M — January 10, 2006 @ 10:58 am
I was heartbroken when I heard The Cure’s “Pictures of You” in a Kodak commercial. Is nothing sacred?
Comment by Elisabeth — January 10, 2006 @ 11:24 am
So not using profanity is tantamount to selling out? Or allowing one’s music to be heard in a commercial?
I don’t think “compromising” or “selling out” really exists. I sure would like it if somebody would license my music for a commercial, because then I’d be rich and I could make more music.
Comment by D. Fletcher — January 10, 2006 @ 12:00 pm
Any band who started making punk music in the 90′s can’t sell out by going un-punk because they were never really punk to begin with. Green Day has never been anything but posers, and never more so than now. I’m still laughing at Billy Joe’s grammy acceptance speech last year where he said that they’ve proven that Rock can be fun and dangerous. What’s dangerous about telling your teen and twenty-something anti-Republican audience that Republicans suck? That’s what I call safe.
Any ostensible punk who stumps for any major party presidential candidate is a sell out. Both parties are The Man. Dave Grohl and Bruce Springsteen (but not Bon Jovi–they never had any cred) campaigning for John Kerry come to mind as offendors in this category. Michael Moore too. Anyone who goes from an avid Naderite to an avid Democrat sells out. I haven’t decided if Pearl Jam sold out. They were avid Naderites in 2000, and they weren’t in 2004, but I don’t think they actively campaigned for Kerry.
Comment by Tom — January 10, 2006 @ 12:03 pm
People make art, and then try to get other people to buy it, as many people as possible. Isn’t this what we all want, all the time? Why is a punk artist selling out by writing a song without profanity? Why is somebody selling out by backing a candidate, any candidate?
Comment by D. Fletcher — January 10, 2006 @ 12:17 pm
Well there’s so many angles to look at things from. I don’t think indie bands selling their music for tv commercials is selling out–it’s getting their music heard. But when a band like the Who does it, I get offended. But I’ve posted about that before (it’s mainly that I object to a company purposely manipulating my love of a song to sell a product).
As for Pearl Jam, I’d say they’re the least likely sell out ever. They could’ve been HUGE, much bigger than they are, but instead they chose not to make music videos, AND they tried to take on Ticketmaster. What band does anything as non-commercial as releasing bootlegs of every show they do on a tour?
As for the punk asthetic, I kind of think it’s alive and well in artists like Ariel Pink.
Comment by Susan M — January 10, 2006 @ 12:18 pm
But Susan, you’ve repeatedly used the personal pronoun. When a band like the Who uses a song to sell a product, “you” get offended. This has nothing to do with the Who at all, it’s “you.”
Honestly, I have no problem at all with anybody trying to sell their music, wherever they can. If the Who aren’t selling records anymore, because their music is old-fashioned, go ahead and license it to commercial television, to keep it alive.
Pearl Jam/Eddie Vedder may want people to think they have integrity, but what they really wanted was control — they wanted to control the distribution of their music. Plenty of bands lose controls to the publishers and promoters. Give it 10 years — we’ll be hearing Pearl Jam music on TV, because they’ll need the money.
Comment by D. Fletcher — January 10, 2006 @ 12:31 pm
“What kind of band does anything as non-commercial as releasing bootlegs of every show they do on a tour?”
The Grateful Dead. Well, ok, they never officially released all those bootlegs…but they made it very clear from the beginning they had no interest recording with anyone who would officially crack down on the bootlegs, and so they proliferated.
Comment by Russell Arben Fox — January 10, 2006 @ 12:40 pm
I’m not sure the phrase “sell out” has any validity anymore.
I pledge allegiance to the united states of corporations, anyone?
I think maybe the last time it really meant anything was when Michael Jackson did the pepsi commercial.
Comment by Jennifer — January 10, 2006 @ 12:53 pm
Yeah that’s different, Russell. (It’s also how Dave Matthews Band built a big following in the early years.)
I think if Pearl Jam were interested in making money they could’ve done so in a big way already. I’ll be very surprised if they sell their music for commercial use years from now. But who knows.
And of course it’s all about me, D! I’m the one being manipulated by songs I love in tv commercials! Haha.
I don’t actually blame Pete for licensing his music to be used in all kinds of ways. I personally think the whole idea of bands “selling out,” in general, is silly. It’s his music, he can do what he wants with it. I mentioned in my post I didn’t necessarily think the things I listed *were* selling out. I just can see how some would say that they were.
But I do have the right to be offended when someone is trying to manipulate me into buying a soda because of my love for a song! (Pet peeve)
Comment by Susan M — January 10, 2006 @ 12:55 pm
I see what you’re saying, D. All of the art we talk about is commercial. If it wasn’t commercial we wouldn’t be talking about it. But there is a difference between making art that is an honest expression of one’s own idea of beauty and making art simply for the sake of selling it. It’s often difficult, if not impossible, to know where a given artist is coming from; and if the product is appealing to me, it doesn’t have to affect my enjoyment of the art. But I hold in higher esteem individualistic artists who seem to be expressing their own vision, commercial viability be damned, than artists who let other people’s sensibilities dictate what they produce.
Selling out denotes change. If all an artist ever aspires to is commercial success, then they can’t sell out. But if you change from an honest, independent-minded artist into a product mover or people pleaser you’ve sold out.
In the case of political candidates, it’s not selling out to simply choose a candidate and back them. It is selling out if you build yourself up as anti-authoritarian, anti-The Man, anti-status quo and then turn around and shill for The Man. Bush and Kerry are both The Man.
Nader is punk as can be. He doesn’t care that nobody really finds him or his ideas appealing or that half the country hates him for giving the presidency to Bush. If Nader were to have quit in 2004 and backed Kerry, that would have been a betrayal of the principles that he fervently extolled and defended–he would have been a sell-out.
Comment by Tom — January 10, 2006 @ 12:57 pm
And Susan, I agree that Pearl Jam are not sell-outs as recording artists. They’ve always done their own thing. I just don’t know if their abandonment of Nader makes them sell-outs as political activists.
Comment by Tom — January 10, 2006 @ 1:03 pm
It’s all semantics and quasi-logic. I don’t think there’s a single artist in the world who didn’t try to sell their work to an audience, starting with the Greek playwrights.
In other words, the only artist with real integrity are those that hide their work? Even Van Gogh was desperate for his work to be seen and appreciated.
And these days, it takes money just to make art. I’m quite certain that if Pearl Jam were not so famous and rich already, they’d be hawking their product everywhere they could. But by taking a “stand,” they’re selling their reputations as artists with “integrity,” as much as sellout as anybody else (instead of selling their art, and letting it speak for themselves, they are selling their personalities and souls).
If Bush and Kerry are The Man, then Nader is too. Nader is running for a candidacy and needs people to vote for him, which means he needs people to hear of him, remember his name, etc. All candidates need everything they can get. It seems to me, an famous artist like Pete Townshend could do a lot worse than back a politician — because the music will serve as a “meme” that will help the politician’s reputation.
Comment by D. Fletcher — January 10, 2006 @ 1:08 pm
I don’t really get selling out as it relates to supporting political candidates. People can change their minds without it being selling out. Of course, I’d be willing to bet that politicians themselves are huge sell outs, in fact it’s almost a requirement.
Do Pearl Jam make a big deal about taking a stand or their “intregrity”? I’ve never heard about it if so (not that I’d pay attention to anything like that though). I only know they stopped making videos for their songs because they finally made one a few years back and their fans were all excited about it (I have a good friend who’s a big fan, I’m not very into them).
And I don’t think you’re being fair, D. I think Tom’s definition is a good one. If an artist starts out saying they’ll never do a particular thing, and their audience loves them for it, but then they start doing it because it’ll make them more money and a bigger audience, does that not mean they’re selling out?
Comment by Susan M — January 10, 2006 @ 1:18 pm
Yes, I suppose changing your mind could be considered selling out.
But people do change their minds, and circumstances change over the years. And the art itself changes, because people hear it differently.
The premiere of “The Rite of Spring” was a huge scandal in Paris, 1913. The music itself caused the scandal — many people in the audience starting screaming at the composer for writing music that caused hysteria.
That music may be heard in “Fantasia,” a Disney movie from 1940. Did the composer “sell out”?
“Won’t Get Fooled Again” served its original purpose, as a defiant 70s rock anthem. But we are 30 years down the pike — perhaps the music can serve another purpose.
Honestly, I have no problem with any of this; I wish somebody would buy my music, or want it at all.
Comment by D. Fletcher — January 10, 2006 @ 1:25 pm
I’m of the opinion that Moby made the concept of “selling out” obsolete.
Comment by BTD Greg — January 10, 2006 @ 1:38 pm
I’m with Tom and Susan on their definition.
Also, just to clarify D, I didn’t say that the Violent Femmes were sell-outs because they made a non-profane song, I just said that that was what got me thinking.
And Susan, please tell me what Blister in the Sun is about, I’d love to know (I guess I could just Google it).
Comment by Rusty — January 10, 2006 @ 1:43 pm
It’s about masturbation. (“big hands I know you’re the one”)
Greg has a point about Moby.
Comment by Susan M — January 10, 2006 @ 1:45 pm
Right on, BTD Greg. Moby’s latest (“Hotel”) blurred the line of commercialism beyond compare.
In the renaissance, patronage was viewed as a necessary evil in order for the artist to survive while doing his art. Today, art is the necessary evil, the burden an artist must carry in order to get money.
Comment by Supergenius — January 10, 2006 @ 1:59 pm
D.: It’s all semantics and quasi-logic.
I would also add that it’s a question of very little consequence. It’s just a fun part of hipster posturing. For people to whom individualism is a high virtue, conformity is a vice.
D.: I don’t think there’s a single artist in the world who didn’t try to sell their work to an audience, starting with the Greek playwrights.
The point isn’t what they do with their work once it’s done. It’s why they make it the way they do. Calling an artist a sellout is accusing them of changing from making their art according to their own unique aesthetic sensibilities to making their art to conform to a marketable aesthetic that is not their own.
You certainly can change your mind or change your aesthetic sensibilities without being a sellout. Those of us who like to call people sellouts are presuming that we know what’s going on inside the heads of those that we are accusing.
Comment by Tom — January 10, 2006 @ 2:01 pm
Once the art is made, though (like an old Who song), how do you know the artist altered it for the audience? And also, the field I work in (musical theater) constantly previews the work for audiences, so that it can be tailored to them, because the work will be a failure if it can’t find an audience — the audience makes it an active, not passive experience.
Again, I say The Who’s songs served their original “artistic” purpose long ago, and nobody’s changing them or altering them for a new purpose — they’re just using them, in a way that will cement their reputations as great songs. A “standard” is a song that just goes on and on.
Comment by D. Fletcher — January 10, 2006 @ 2:06 pm
Tom, don’t be a sell out.
Comment by Susan M — January 10, 2006 @ 2:08 pm
Susan M. (#19):
For what it’s worth, Gordon Gano (the guy who wrote the lyrics) has denied that theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blister_in_the_Sun
True or not, the song still rocks, as does the rest of the album.
Comment by Randy B. — January 10, 2006 @ 6:51 pm
Guess I’d better take if off my playlist of songs about masturbation, then!
Comment by Susan M — January 10, 2006 @ 6:56 pm
I had an acting teacher who told me I was “commercial.” The whole class stared at the teacher in horror, and then he said, “calling someone commercial is my highest compliment. It means people will pay money to see you.” So having people pay money to hear your songs isn’t a bad thing, weather it’s in a little club or on tv.
I guess The Beatles sold out when they put on the Brian Epstein suits.
Or when Marie Osmond got pierced ears. Oh wait, you’re all too young to remember that!!
Comment by meems — January 10, 2006 @ 7:37 pm
Don’t buy Gordon Gano’s schtick. Lennon denied Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds was about drugs forever, but Paul has now admitted it was (along with almost every other Beatles song after Dylan gave them their first joint). Gano is probably just embarrassed at his youthful enthusiasms.
Comment by Greg — January 11, 2006 @ 7:22 pm
Re: Susan’s comment 25: Supergenius, I think we have a fun Thunderdome in there somewhere…
Comment by Greg — January 11, 2006 @ 7:23 pm
I don’t really blame any artists for “selling out.” If I had any real creative talent, I’d make as much money with it as I could. So I don’t have any animosity for The Who or the Rolling Stones or Led Zeppelin, even though I think it’s sort of sad that their hits are now basically heard as jingles, rather than great rock songs. (By the way, didn’t “The Who Sell Out” predate Moby by a couple of decades?) I love the Ramones, even though Joey would have sold his soul to have a top 40 hit, and would have licensed his stuff to anyone.
But,
I do have a special respect for artists who just can’t bring themselves to allow their creations to be associated with images and products that they find to be inconsistent with their art, or who turn down a lot of money to retain artistic control of their output. People like Neil Young, Pearl Jam, Sleater-Kinney, Sonic Youth, and Fugazi have done this for years.
Comment by Greg — January 11, 2006 @ 7:46 pm
Would appearing on “The Simpsons” constitute selling-out?
Comment by Tim J. — January 11, 2006 @ 11:22 pm