"Selling Out"
 

People go on-and-on about how artists have "sold out." People also go on-and-on about how artists have gone mainstream and ditched the underground. But, let's examine for a second these two common phrases that have entered pop culture. Now, according to popular belief, the term "selling-out" means to abandon your former roots completely for greater personal/financial gain. This could also be interpreted as conforming to the mainstream/industry's standards, thus linking "selling-out" with going mainstream. But, if you think about it for a second, why does "selling-out" have to be viewed as so negative? Is it because you feel betrayed by an artist for simply getting ahead? Do you honestly believe that by getting ahead, the artist had, as a result, automatically abandoned their roots?? Sure, their new sound may not necessarily be "up to your standards," but does molding their sound to reach a wider audience really make them so bad?? I want you to ponder this for a second: What if you had to make a choice? Choice 'A' allows you to do whatever it is that you love, but you're limited in what you can actually do with that because you're stuck in a less-than-satisfying financial situation (i.e. lower-middle-class, if you boil it down to financial/societal/social classes), and your only personal goal is to make yourself heard. Choice 'B' allows you to do whatever it is that you love, but money isn't necessarily an object, and your only personal goal is to make yourself heard. Note that both choices have the same goals, but the only difference is finances. Also, rock music just seems to come to mind right now for this, but keep in mind that it applies to every genre of music.

Now put yourself into the shoes of Choice 'A' for a second. You're an aspiring rock singer that lives in a one-bedroom apartment in New Jersey. You sing simply because you love entertaining people, and you want your voice to be heard as far as possible. Your music is your soul, and your passion for it shows in your music. However, you have to worry about bills and rent and holding your job while still getting time in for practice and your personal life. It's a daily juggling act that's very difficult to keep up. There's the constant stress of everyday life wearing down on you, and sometimes it prevents you from letting your creativity come-to-life. After a while, all of these problems combined begin to make you question why you even do it, but you keep on going anyway, and you reject any high-paying record contract from any of the major record labels. You sign with an independent label, but they have no distribution deal, so you're forced to sell your own CDs at small clubs. You make very little money, and whatever cash you have goes towards only your necessities. And throughout this all, despite attention from major record labels, you refuse to sign with them because you firmly believe your record label will make it, although there's a 50/50 chance that it could go under by the end of the year. Some have been able to do it, but many haven't lasted very long. Some have even risen up from that particular situation, but most stay right where they are or are forced to give up for personal or financial reasons.

Now put yourself into the shoes of Choice 'B' for a second. Again, you're an aspiring rock singer that lives in a one-bedroom apartment in New Jersey. You still sing simply because you love entertaining people, and you want your voice to be heard as far as possible. Yes, you perform at small clubs and restaurants, and you've been at it for a while. Yes, you still have to worry about bills and rent, etc., but you've just been offered a multi-million-dollar contract deal with a major record label that noticed you at one of your performances. You sign the contract, and within a year, you're out of your apartment and into hotel suites all across the country, with access to recording studios in every city and the finest equipment money can buy. Your fanbase increases from your measly start of maybe 100-or-so clubgoers within your state, to millions of diehard concertgoers nationwide. You never have to worry about making ends meet, and you can take a break whenever you want from the stress of work to let the creative juices flow. You inspire millions of people to follow in your footsteps, and you show them your passion for music every time you step through that curtain. Your only real problems are the pressures of celebrity, but you're still viewed as a rock god.

Now which choice of the two would you take?? Most likely, you would pick Choice 'B'. Why? Because you still get to do everything you love, but on a much bigger stage with fewer worries and your sound reaches many more people than you could ever muster with your own self-promotion. Yes, you're pressured to mold your sound, but you still have the option of not doing so, despite any possible repercussions from the record label. Why? Because if the sound is a hit with at least the vocal minority in the nation, then the gamble was worth it, because that buzz will grow, and it will continue to grow, until your sound becomes acceptable in mainstream.

However, once the sound becomes acceptable in mainstream, suddenly it's branded as "selling-out." One minute, hardcore rock purists are praising your style and they accept the fact that you used your spotlight to continue to make the music that purists know are true to your roots. Then the next minute, the purists are throwing stones at you for suddenly being loved by the mainstream, despite the fact that you're making the same kick-ass music you made when the purists loved you, and your sound hasn't been tweaked a single bit for any purpose whatsoever, not even to attract the mainstream crowd.

What's my beef with all of this?? Simple: it's nothing more than a double-standard, and yet everyone continues to preach that double-standards are what's wrong with this society. Where the hell is the priority in that? You claim to practice what you preach, and yet you can't even do just that! (Not specifically you anymore, just using a broad term here in reference to "the people") You say you want people to drop these double-standards, and yet you can't even do that yourself. Take a much closer look at the artists you claim have sold out. The first one that comes to mind right now is Green Day. You claim that Green Day was awesome back in their strictly-Cali-punk days, but then once they blew up in the late '90s, everything went downhill. You booed the hell outta them for making the song, "Time Of Your Life," and yet only 3-5 years before that, you were praising their work on their album, "Dookie." Yet, if you examine their album closely, the sound still remains similar enough to call it practically the same ol' stuff they've been doing for years. The only real difference may be the lyrical significance or the addictiveness of the songs, but otherwise, it's practically the same sound, just with a few singles made strictly to persuade mainstream fans to buy the album so that they'll hear what else they have to offer beyond the singles. Next artist that comes to mind is Eminem. When he first debuted, fans and critics alike praised him for his refreshingly bold sound and attitude that he brought to the rap game. As time has gone on, he has only evolved more-and-more as an artist, by upping his lyrical skills while appealing to both the mainstream crowd and the hardcore rap crowd at the same time. At first glance, you'd assume that from his single, "Without Me," his album, "The Eminem Show" would be nothing but pop-rap. Guess what? Dig a little deeper, and you'd find some of his more meaningful songs of his entire body of work thus far.

So many artists have been deemed as "sell-outs" for attempting to grab that national spotlight to help them improve under pressure. Rancid, Metallica (yes, unfortunately, they have been called sell-outs), the Red-Hot Chili Peppers, Mobb Deep, Jay-Z, Nas, and many others have been under fire for "selling-out" throughout their entire careers. But, all young, aspiring artists out there of any genre reading this, contemplate for a second: Would you still be able to have mostly the same exact list of artists that have influenced/inspired you in your decision to start making your own music if they weren't in the national spotlight, regardless of their positions on any album/singles charts? The answer: No, you wouldn't. Remember: just being in the national spotlight can make you mainstream, because that'd mean people who didn't hear of you in the underground scene where you first started now know who you are, albeit in-the-middle-of/late-into your career.

*Double post because I couldn't fit the rest into the first one*

But this brings me to my next topic: the underground scene. Now, people have commonly believed that once you go mainstream, you're conforming, thus making you no longer underground. But here's the thing: what if the mainstream audience suddenly became assimilated into the underground and abandoned mainstream music entirely? Then things would be flipped, because what was once deemed underground has become mainstream, and vice versa. If you were strictly a fan of underground music, then think about the bind you would be in. Now that what was formerly underground has become mainstream, the artists you loved before have, according to your beliefs, conformed. Remember: the definition of conformity means to join together with the majority. So, with that said, if you're listen to strictly-underground music, then in order to not look like a hypocrite, you'd have to listen to the music that was formerly mainstream. The music you once considered as trash. Ahhh...smell the irony. Smell the double-standard. Smell the superficiality of it all. Y'know, to me, labeling your music and sticking by what you label as one scene or another has always been stupid, and it's liable to create double-standards such as this. Underground fans cry out against 50 Cent (just an example) for making it to the mainstream where he's able to provide for his son and life a safer lifestyle, and yet they want to see their favorite underground artists succeed. But since succeeding goes hand-in-hand (in a sense) with entering the mainstream, then they're screwed, now aren't they?? Now before you say anything about that, I want you to think long and hard. Although success can be personally defined however you want, success in the music industry, regardless of whether you're underground or mainstream, means becoming financially-comfortable while having spread your music even further than your wildest dreams. But, spreading music that far would mean having to appeal to the masses, a.k.a. the majority, a.k.a. the mainstream. Definition of mainstream: a prevailing direction of activity or influence, meaning where the majority is swayed.

Y'know, now that I think about it, this could apply to professional wrestling as well. Look at The Rock. People have called him a "sell-out" for leaving the WWF/WWE for Hollywood. Why did he leave? Simple: to pursue acting, which is something he has stated he's wanted to do for his entire life at some point or another. But, see, acting and wrestling fall under the same umbrella of entertainment. The man lives to entertain you people, and yet you turn your backs on him because you claim he's leaving his roots. Yes, his roots are in wrestling, but if you generalize it, then in reality, his roots are in entertainment. After all, although I am obviously a Rock fan, and I do enjoy his ring work, if you look back at his career, it has been his ability to entertain, in general, that has gotten him this far. People who've never seen professional wrestling nor The Rock go to see one of his movies, they like his movie so they do some background research on him, they find out he used to wrestle for the WWF/WWE, so as a result, they go and watch one of his old matches, they get hooked, they begin watching WWE, as well as continue to watch his movies. Why is that so wrong? He's able to provide an even better lifestyle for his wife and daughter than before (not that it was bad to begin with, considering his huge WWF pay-off in 2000 and 2001), and he's able to help spread the word about WWE. Why do you think ratings have been back up lately? The Rock's segment on RAW recently proved that The Rock draws, and people tune in just to see him, regardless of whether or not they've ever seen WWE before. But once those people have tuned in, they might stick around just to see what WWE has to offer, and then quite possibly, they might get hooked. It's all a cycle.

You talk about hypocrisy all the time, but guess what? If you've ever called anyone a "sell-out" (no, I don't mean the financial selling-out of a product or something, for those who haven't understood the context that I have used it in), or you've cried out against someone suddenly becoming mainstream, you might wanna take a closer look at yourself, especially if you're one of those that claim to practice what you preach. Y'know, if you have a job, whether you realize it or not, you're actually "selling-out." Why? Because you're trying to make a living under a government that you don't entirely agree with (believe me, there's no possible way you could agree with everything the government does ever, regardless of who's the president), that, in effect, is "selling-out" because you're straying from your own beliefs by conforming to government mandates. In fact, just paying bills and taxes alone marks you as a "sell-out" because you're agreeing to pay the government that you do not necessarily agree with (don't take into account your fear of the law and other pressures of that nature). Next time, think before you pass judgment, because we are all walking contradictions, whether you'd like to believe it or not.

Selling out is just a term people use when they want to sound superior and cool. What they really want is the world to cater to their particular whims, when it doesn't it's easier to criticize.

I can't help but disagree with that. Altough the expression "selling-out" has been abused, I think it applies well to people that do something purely to make as much money as possible, so they cater to the crowds as easily as they can, resorting to prefab formulas. It's possible to be vastly popular while being innovative, but it's much easier to "conform".

That's also a definition of mainstream. Severe irony there. On the other hand, I really don't get that comment. It's easier to criticize than what? Isn't judgment an important part of personal taste, and how is it bad for one to express these tastes? Isn't it what you're both doing now?

Edit: In conclusion:

Innovation: Bringing people to like something different in some way.
Comforming (the extreme): Bringing something that already exists to people, on the sole basis that it's been observe they liked it before, and that more money can be made off of that.

I was just expressing my distaste for the type of people who, upon seeing a band come even remotely near mainstream, instantly dismiss them as sell-outs regardless of whether or not their style/attitude has been altered.

I guess this isn't the best forum for extremely opinionated statements though. :B

Is that sarcasm? In any case, I don't get it.

Oh I agree, people who base personal tastes on either popularity or obscurity alone are worthy of disdain.

Edit: And yes, I do think artists also tend to conform when they found themselves a "niche". It's not very creative but at least it's not destructive.

well i have thought bands have "sold-out" who are no where near mainstream, and alot of main stream bands who i think have gone nowhere near selling-out, one band i think that has sold out is a group called "Dc talk" they went from a rap group to a pop group, and they are not a mainstream group at all. though i think they have gotten better, and some groups/singers who have gone mainstream i dont think sold out. One would be Weird Al, he has become populer and won grammys, that is about as mainstream as you can get, yet his music is the same, making fun of every one. I think you are a little nieve thinking that no group has ever sold out, lots have and some have for just one album or something, and for thinking the only ones that are called sell outs are huge groups, there are underground musicians that are sell outs also.

I agree with Waterproof Blonde the most here, folks. What is WRONG with making money?

See, part of the problem is most of us are rather quite envious of making money in such substantial amounts we could whipe our asses with hundreds, or start fires with fifties.

What am I saying? If you don't know by now, here: what IS selling out? Doing something you don't normally do to make money.

Who here has worked a dead end, shit job for cash? If you have, you can't say anyone's sold out, because that alone is selling out. Big deal if someone does it on a larger scale -- there's nothing wrong with making tons of cash for a BETTER lifestyle. Empahasis on better, if you couldn't notice. After all, you gotta break a few eggs to bake a cake.

So what if a guy sports a particular kind of soda or shoe? I'd do it if I was getting paid 6 million bucks over a couple years. I'd never have to work a day in my life. (Average college graduate generates around 2 and a half million dollars in his entire lifetime)

So, tell me: is there anyone here, given the amounts of money people can generate from said "selling out," who would not do something as such?

If anyone here were to say that he wouldn't endorse something or do something that not everyone of his "hard core" fanbase believed was right, I can tell you one thing: he's either a liar or incredibly naive/stupid. People seem to forget how much money DOES bring you in this country.

Truth be told, people and bands will keep "selling out" as long as money is such a driving force in America.

As result, gotta keep those pants on kiddies and try to understand that you'd be doing the same thing if given the opportunity.

Or some of you (no one in particular -- just saying) could keep voicing your opinions as if the guy who just cleared more money than you'll ever see in your life actually cares.

That leads to other issues, such as how important are the fans, but that's another topic. ^_^

I wish there could be a way you could voice your opinion without saying mine doesn't matter (I know that, and it's not the freaking point). In any case, every point you presented is actually presented was pretty much ad hominem, even if general: hypocrisy ([Edited: There's a difference between manual/mechanical work for food and housing or obeying governments not to be harmed and "selling out", pop star style), envy and finally, "you are insignifigant"!

Nothing. But if they make crap only to make more money, I reserve myself the right to call what they make what it is. Even if they weren't making more money it would still be crap.

Also, there's a difference between endorsing products and not improving on art, at all. Also, how is saying someone "sold out" such a crime if they should be so proud, or rather unfazed, by it? Personally I only use the expression on an artistic scale of things. I prefer something new to something old. Meh.

I suppose it depends on whether or not you think music should be art or entertainment.

The bottom line is: if you don't like it, don't buy it.