Why you can't win

[Adamixoye]

Anyone reading any of various Metallica threads knows that I've gone off why Metallica is not "selling out" even though I don't consider myself a big Metallica fan and have no vested interested in defending them. But it brings up the point...what's a band to do?

 

(A) Evolve, grow, try new things, do something different (all of the above being for better or worse), all at the risk of alienating your fans and being called sell-outs?

(B) Stay the same, and be accused of being a one-trick pony?

 

Ironically, when dealing with hardcore fans of any band, "outsider" fans have a different problem (I've run into this problem being an "outsider" before).

 

(A) If you're more a fan of the new stuff, then you're not an old-school fan, you're just jumping on the bandwagon and don't know your roots.

(B) If you're more a fan of the old stuff, then you're not allowing the band to grow and be who they are, etc.

 

Ultimately, both these issues are about one thing: people taking personal preference to be more than what it is. It's fun and worthwhile to debate opinions, if people are aware that's what they're doing--instead of reducing it to personal attacks of "you're selling out" or "you don't know your roots".

 

I thought I'd throw this out there and ask, quite serious, what IS a band to do?

[Addix Metzatricity]

What's a band to do? Well...

 

As you progress and change, so will your fans progress and change. I'd imagine that for every fan that Metallica loses, there's at least one new one. Play what you want. If people like it, they like it. Not everyone will like everything...

 

As far as "selling out", that's just crap. I'd sell out first chance I got.

[The Fonz]

nah, this is just a case of the squeaky wheel begging for more grease.

 

i got turned onto metallica with master of puppets. i never understod why other fans hated jay newstead. i thought he was great. and then that black album came out. it had a lot of really amazing moments on it, yet people started to say that metallica "sold out."

 

whatever. most of these people refuse to grow up. they're upset that life moves on without them. and when you consider the state of heavy music today they feel abandoned by the band that fed their teenaged angst. or maybe it's because they liked being into something that the popular kids were missing out on, like their own little exclusive club that they can spurn the spurners from. who knows?

 

let people cry that metallica sold out. i'll still buy the albums because i still like what they do. and aparently so do a lot of other people.

[martianrebel]

"sold out" blah blah blah...

 

Frankly I'm sick of hearing that about any band.

 

Any band that performs for money is conducting a commercial enterprise, so I salute those that take new directions with their music because fans can be very "loyal" to a certain period of music. I'm not a big Metallica fan, but I'm speaking in general when I say that it's easier to rehash the same old same old than to go in new directions and express oneself in a fresh manner.

 

As for "selling out", if you're working at something and putting your soul and sweat into it, I believe that you should be paid.

[fig]

I never understood this selling out stuff either. As said earlier, you change or you don't, you'll drop fans whether you do or don't, you'll gain new fans whether you do or don't. Not an issue.

 

Bottom line, if there's a big money difference involved, color me 'sold out'. I could either keep my 'artistic integrity' and remain broke, or 'sell out' and make tons o' cash. Might sound cold, but think about it. You, me, and the people disliking you because you sold out are gonna get old one day and not be able to work. So, be broke and old, or be comfortable financially and old.

 

Not much of a choice in my book.

[dcr]

Fortunately, (A) & (B) aren't our only options. The way (A) is stated assumes that change & evolution is change & evolution in a market-conscious direction, but that need not be the case.

 

Take Pink Floyd as an example. You'd be hard pressed to identify any two of their albums that sound like "same ideas, different disc." Every album was a change & an evolution. Now they did gradually become more commercially successful, but that wasn't the aim, really; in fact, in a lot of ways they saw it as a downside. The point of their evolution, rather, was to continue to make music that they felt they had to get out of their heads, & as soon as it seemed there wasn't more to get out, that'd be it.

 

Let's not make this a haggle about Pink Floyd. The point is that bands can change & evolve for all kinds of reasons. Likewise, people become fans for all kinds of reasons. Some people become fands of a particular band precisely because they like the spirit of adventure & experimentation embodied by the band.

 

I guess where you get stuck is when you adopt goals & develop a fanbase that *require* you to get stuck. You can unstick yourself later, I guess, but it'll be starting over. But it's not as if people ALWAYS have to choose between changing & keeping a fanbase, or between staying the same & selling out. When you think about it, staying the same can be a KIND of selling out! (To whatever extent we want to say the whole notion of selling out makes sense.)

[Adamixoye]

Well, I think (A) and (B) are exhaustive and exclusive options...I tried to phrase them that way. I said for (A) that the change was potentially for better or for worse, and that it was only "at the risk" of alienating fans and the like. I guess for (B) I should have added "at the risk" of being accused of being a one-trick pony. If I had, I believe they would have embodied exhaustive and exclusive options.

 

I guess you're right, hopefully there are ways to change that your fan base and/or others will appreciate, but you risk being called sell-outs if you move in a market-conscious direction, and you risk alienating your fans if you move in a direction that is dramatically different from your previous work.

 

What I think we can agree on is that making a change is a crapshoot. But it's probably better than the alternative...at least there's a chance it will work out, either artistically or commercially. But if it doesn't, are we just supposed to scream and start threads about how much the band now sucks?

 

Don't get me wrong, there are probably some fairly objective criteria which we could criticize Metallica on--the mix, for instance? I think it's universally agreed that kinda sucks, unless they were going for a real raw, garage sound, in which case it switches over to the realm of opinion. Or things that sounds suspiciously out of time--once again, the question is, what was art and what was execution?

 

But, assuming it's all art, or ignoring the execution and focusing on the style...all these people who say they "sold out" or the new album, or aren't nearly as cool as what they used to be...well, what are you asking for? "Master of Puppets II"? If they did that, there would be a whole new set of criticisms. Just because the change did not particularly satisfy you doesn't justify overstating that they suck or giving irrelevant reasons as to why that is the case.

[ibescotty]

Sell out? Show me the money and I'll sell out all over myself!!!

[Addix Metzatricity]

Sell out? You ain't sellin' NOTHIN' yet, pal! Not while you're on my team!

[Jode]

"The Black Album" probably sold more copies of "Master Of Puppets" than "Master Of Puppets" sold by itself. Any artist always runs the risk of outgrowing his fans, and that is especially true in metal, where so much of the fan base - sorry, guys - is trapped in perpetual adolescence.

[rumpelstiltskin.]

two thoughts.

 

i've seen many bands that were so good, i wanted everyone to listen to them, like them, and understand them. of course, people take music differently, and eventually everyone includes the unwashed masses. so my satisfaction in a band, and the unfortunate satisfaction i sometimes take in being one of the few who actually recognizes some good music, goes away when everyone knows who they are. it's disappointing when the people who didn't really get it in the first place abandon the music, because it looks like they're making a judgement against the music. in reality, they drifted out as passively as they drifted in.

 

as for change and evolution, i think often the quality of the change is the barometer for dissatisfaction. for example, REM's "monster" is a pretty terrible album, so people called it experimental. the smashing pumpkins changed and evolved quite a bit between "siamese dream" and "mellon collie...", but people were too busy enjoying the really great music to realize how much of an experiment "mellon collie..." was.

 

if it's really good music, i think the degree of change from one album to the next becomes sort of negligible. however, i can see how, in music of stunted maturity like metal, people are rigidly expecting something specific, and if new music doesn't fit their frame of expectations, it's immediately dismissed.

 

i guess that's two and a half to three thoughts.

 

robb.

[_Sweet Willie_]

At least the Beatles never changed and always stayed the same! Compare the similarity between, say, 1964's Meet the Beatles! with hits like "I Want to Hold Your Hand" and "All My Loving" and 1968's The White Album with tunes like "Back in the U.S.S.R.," "Blackbird," and "Helter Skelter."

[Tom Capasso]

Originally posted by Sweet Willie:

At least the Beatles never changed and always stayed the same! Compare the similarity between, say, 1964's Meet the Beatles! with hits like "I Want to Hold Your Hand" and "All My Loving" and 1968's The White Album with tunes like "Back in the U.S.S.R.," "Blackbird," and "Helter Skelter."

My first thought when I read Adam's point was "Elvis Costello", and my second was "The Beatles". There were people then (and some still) that define their love of the Beatles by a particular period. You hear "I hated all that psychedelic stuff" or "they were just a poor cover band in the early days".

 

I think it's up to the band. Costello puts out an "original style" album every so often, and experiments in between. If you want to evolve, do it. If you want to do the same thing forever (Van Halen isn't quite that, but you get the idea), then do it. You can't depend on your fan base either way !!

 

As to "selling out", I think that when a band eschews even the pretense of making good music, that's a sell-out. I'm not saying you shouldn't do it - some may take the money and run to live in the woods or whatever. I just think that's it. The example that comes to mind is that during the 70's there were bands that lost their following and went "disco" in the hopes of recapturing some market share. Sometimes it worked (The Four Seasons - Grease is the word), and sometimes it didn't (Elton John has a disco version of "Johnny B Goode").

 

Tom

[Adamixoye]

Originally posted by Tom Capasso:

I think it's up to the band. Costello puts out an "original style" album every so often, and experiments in between. If you want to evolve, do it. If you want to do the same thing forever (Van Halen isn't quite that, but you get the idea), then do it. You can't depend on your fan base either way !!

Tom, you beautifully summarized/augmented my point with this paragraph. You gotta do what you gotta do, so the band should just do what they want (assuming they are prepared to accept the fan reaction, whatever that may be). And, as fans...we are by no means obligated to like/purchase/whatever the new (or old) music, but if we dislike it, maybe we shouldn't take it so personally.

[hags2k]

Originally posted by robb.:

two thoughts.

 

i've seen many bands that were so good, i wanted everyone to listen to them, like them, and understand them. of course, people take music differently, and eventually everyone includes the unwashed masses. so my satisfaction in a band, and the unfortunate satisfaction i sometimes take in being one of the few who actually recognizes some good music, goes away when everyone knows who they are. it's disappointing when the people who didn't really get it in the first place abandon the music, because it looks like they're making a judgement against the music. in reality, they drifted out as passively as they drifted in.

 

as for change and evolution, i think often the quality of the change is the barometer for dissatisfaction. for example, REM's "monster" is a pretty terrible album, so people called it experimental. the smashing pumpkins changed and evolved quite a bit between "siamese dream" and "mellon collie...", but people were too busy enjoying the really great music to realize how much of an experiment "mellon collie..." was.

 

if it's really good music, i think the degree of change from one album to the next becomes sort of negligible. however, i can see how, in music of stunted maturity like metal, people are rigidly expecting something specific, and if new music doesn't fit their frame of expectations, it's immediately dismissed.

 

i guess that's two and a half to three thoughts.

 

robb.

Just want to say that REM is one of the first bands I always think of when this kind of debate is stirred (and I agree that the 'sell-out' label is crap). I like most every REM album, some more than others, but quite honestly, I thought "Monster" was absolutely great. I put it up there with Green, Automatic, and Reveal as my favorites. Just thought I'd respond to that, cause among my friends discussions about REM or music like that are EXTREMELY rare.

[_Sweet Willie_]

TC, that was really a nicely written comment! Elvis Costello is a very good example.

 

hags2k, REM is another good example. For example, I tend to like the earlier REM because that's what my high school band covered -- tunes like "Driver 8" and "Superman." However, I don't fault them for doing some different things musically in later albums.

 

U2 would be yet another example of a band whose music has definitely changed over time. What about Madonna? U2 and Madonna have certainly met with plenty of commercial success. Even the Police -- look at Regatta de Blanc compared to Synchronicity (and then compared to where Sting, Andy Summers, and Stewart Copeland have all gone musically since then -- good for them!)

 

Selling out? I dunno -- for me it might be best exemplified by the disappointment I feel when a song I like is suddenly the background music for a car commercial! On the one hand, though, right on for the artist to get some extra $$$ from that deal. On the other, its just plain cheap and cheesey.

 

Selling out? When you're making the music less for you and more to fit a market niche. However, I don't think you have to make music to please your fans -- churning out the same ol' same ol' album after album. First of all, it'll eventually stop selling, making it harder and harder for you to continue making music, and secondly, it would probably get boring.

 

If a band is around for more than two albums, I expect the music to change. Hopefully I can continue to embrace it. For me, that was tough to do when A Tribe Called Quest got past the first three albums. I still bought the fourth and fifth, but probably more out of an interest to have my $$$ support hip-hop artists that were rapping more positive messages (like ATCQ) than out of love for the tracks.

 

Peace.

[Cup]

First off, Monster was a fine album, much better than a lot of what was about there and then.

 

Second, most of us here work regular jobs...where's the selling out now?...yeah, we may say that hogging bricks around isn't an act of artistic expression. But it's a simple trade, you want my labour, I want your money. Simple, and it stays simple no matter what you're selling. Music. Art. A trip to the theatre.

 

We all live in a world of money. We all need money to live. If what i can do can make money, I'll do it. If I enjoy what I do to make money, I wouldn't compare it to selling myself short, which is more than I can say about my regular job.

 

Springers final thought over! P.s great topic and responses.

 

CupMcMali...this monkey's gone to heaven

[Adamixoye]

Some people have suggested that you "deserve" to get paid for pouring your heart and your soul into your music, but unfortunately, I feel as though I must challenge this assumption. I have always viewed it as though you have three choices:

 

(1) You can try to make money by means of music, even if you have no interest in the music you're producing. As I mentioned in another thread, if this means that you're just doing it, and you have no real love for music and you'd rather be doing something else, I think this is selling out the third degree (i.e., not as bad as "selling out" as in compromising your morals or humiliating yourself for money).

(2) You can do exactly what you want to artistically and hope that you can make money off of it. Contrary to what punk bands think, this is not selling out. However, there's risk involved. You may alienate your fans, or on the positive side you might gain some whole new ones. Some people are quite successful at this--though I'm not thoroughly familiar with R.E.M., it sounds like the comments about them would apply here, and they happened to be successful. I'd throw in Radiohead, the Beatles, etc. as bands who were successful in doing what they wanted artistically and still being successful with it. However, this is a free market...you don't "deserve" anything if you're experimental and nobody likes it.

(3) You can always compromise between the above two...you try and let as much of your art come through as possible, but you may make minor to moderate changes or tailorings because you have an eye towards the commercial aspect and selling your product. This is what I call "selling out in the fourth degree", which I think is hardly a crime. Everybody does this a little bit in regular life...putting up a bit of a front to obtain a certain goal, monetary or otherwise.