Selling Out

on the Slayer board, I find the conversation regarding selling out interesting, what constitutes as a sell out in your eyes? Is it when a band follows a popular trend or incorporates elements of that in their style? Is it not neccessary a change of sound but a change in image?

Anyway just throwing some ideas out there and see what your ideas of what selling out means, I am interested in your opinions, etc

Why do people become rockstars?

To be rich and famous. "Selling Out," fame, and fortune usually go hand in hand. People make too big-a-deal about it.

I think the term selling out gets thrown out there too much, classic bands such as KISS, Queen and the Rolling Stones where accused of selling out because a disco influence crept in on some of their singles.

I never agreed with those sentiments, KISS never claimed to be purist, The Stones just used it on a few singles that where (IMO) great songs and Queen incorporated so many influences this is just one of many they picked up.

Back in the day, (the 80's), it was thought that a band "sold out" when they sold lots out albums - see Theater Of Pain by Motley Crue, etc. Even 'Dancing Undercover" by Ratt was called "selling out" and "going pop". Stay Hungry by Twisted Sister was accused of this too.

Basically, anytime a band becomes popular and out of the underground, they have "sold out" - the only way to stay "real" is to not become popular..... Of course that was high school metal heads, so take it with a grain of salt...

I guess maybe going against your principals/style only to make a buck.

manny wrote:

I think the term selling out gets thrown out there too much, classic bands such as KISS, Queen and the Rolling Stones where accused of selling out because a disco influence crept in on some of their singles.

I never agreed with those sentiments, KISS never claimed to be purist, The Stones just used it on a few singles that where (IMO) great songs and Queen incorporated so many influences this is just one of many they picked up.

Agreed. I also believe that some fans are ignorant enough to think that these bands can survive if they just play for the few core fans that originally came out to support them and that is just dumb. People need to make money to live, just like everyone else in the world and if they change styles or cut their hair to sell albums than so be it. It's all a business anyway.

A lot of people accuse bands of selling out for changing style or becoming popular. I think it's a mixture of those; changing styles to whatever is currently popular for the sole purpose of making money.

Metal, in it's pure, non-Hollywood/Sunset Strip/Maybelline form, is not a commercial viability. I think Quiet Riot got lucky w/ Metal Health, I believe. That's not to say the album doesn't rock, cuz it does. I say lucky because it somehow got the entire country's attention almost all at once. After, what, 7 years as a band they broke big in their home country. Did they sell out? I don't think so. They had no idea that what they were doing would catch on.

I think "selling out" means to stop doing what you love so you can do something else just to make more money and doing so you lose/greatly alter your original identity. Bands like Slayer & AC/DC, IMO, have never sold out. They may have played around with bits of songs over time, but they never lost their identity.

If I had to point to certain bands and label them "sell out's", I'd say:

Metallica - some say Black Album was their sell out point. I disagree. I don't think they thought about how many records they were gonna sell when they were recording. They simplified the song arrangements, but they absolutely retained their identity. IMO, they sold out w/ Load. Now, I think Load has some good songs. But I believe the severely altered image, the alternative rock influence, they were absolutely trying to prolong, and even top, what Black Album started.

Ozzy Osbourne - when Ozzy went from his first 3 albums of raw, energetic Hard Rock/Metal and donned make-up, sequined spandex and teased his hair to within an inch of its life, it was a clear attempt to blend in with what was popular at the time...LA Glam Metal. Even the songs on The Ultimate Sin were much smoother and more gloddy than anything he had done prior.

Nitro - what? Nitro were always gimmicky sell outs. Yes, but they stick out to me as one of the more obvious. When the debut came out, they were slick, glossy, shiny, teased, bleached, painted up Glamour Boys. I remember the ad in Metal Edge. Then, 2 issues later in Metal Edge, there's a new pic of them...torn jeans, t-shirts, tattoos, flat hair, ball caps, and the caption "After a decade of poseurs, here comes Nitro!!"...'nuff said.

Bands like Kiss, Def Leppard, Poison, Warrant etc never sold out, IMO, because they were unapologetic from the beginning about wanting to be huge Rock Stars/Pop Icons...it was all about the money and the flash for them and they made no bones about it...no "we're such serious musicians" or some other nonsense...no, they wanted to be the megastars their heroes were. They all have songs I like, even love, but they are what they are.

So, again, I think "selling out" means to stop doing what you love so you can do something else just to make more money and doing so you lose/greatly alter your original identity. Simply trying something within your style that maybe some of your fans can't dig doesn't constitute selling out.

I think selling out occurs when a band completely betrays their ideals for the sake of making money. Movie stars do it as well, of course, when they become involved in a project solely for the purpose of getting a paycheck.

That being said, the definition is so broad, that many people toss it around too lightly. A band doe snot "sell out" simply because they become famous. As someone else already stated, being a musician is a job and thus requires payment. Artists that say they are not interested in the money are full of crap. They would be giving away their CDs and letting me go to their concerts for free if that was the case. Thus, becoming popular is not necessarily "selling out". It just means more people have tuned into what you are doing. Also, incorporating musical trends into one's music does not constitute "selling out" either. That is part of the musical process... Classic composers used to incorporate the popular trends at the time. I don't hear folks calling Bethoveen a "sell out". Queen, The Rolling Stones and Kiss did not become disco artists when they added elements of disco to some songs, Rush managed to maintain their identity even when adding keyboards to much of their 80's output, and Aerosmith did not sell out by collaborating with Run DMC.

I think now people get horrified when there's modern trends creeping in because of how gross the modern trends are now.. i.e. groove chugchugchugchug American redneck stuff... hardcore, where the whole song is a breakdown..all the hairbrained 'heavy music' stuff that clashes intensely with the generally more interesting, intelligent feel of stuff rooted in classic, melodic metal. I just hate hearing my metal bands resort to the deer-in-the-headlights breakdown. When I heard 'Slaying The Dreamer' off of Nightwish's fourth one I kind of knew it was the beginning of the end. You can still be heavy and not be atonal and dumb.


Of course, I can also see why people flipped over KISS 'Dynasty' for example, but even I can find SOMETHING sort of redeemable to pick and choose from within disco... stuff people drool over now, I can't..... beyond all that, it's slightly harder to 'sell out' now, I would argue, because of the exposure of music on the Internet having made the playing field a little more level.. - it isn't *quite* as cut and dry as it used to be, spotting a poser..... because of how ever-mutating the trends and styles are becoming, and how many people are aware of a lot of different music..the illusion of the whole world resting on what the RIAA says and does has got a lot of cracks in it now...............that being said, most of us can still spot a sell out pretty easily..

Also, I feel perhaps it's a sort of challenge for a metal band with integrity to play 'hard to get'. Meaning, completely letting the audience come to them. For example, there are three songs on our newest demo. One is softer than the other two, guess which song is the only one the girls bother to talk about. Now, on one hand I think it's great because I stumbled into something that found that audience. On the other hand, I don't want to put a spotlight on it - rather, I want to keep challenging my listeners and throwing them the tough stuff - I don't want to make it easy, I don't want to throw in some groovy in order to subliminally attract some kids, I want them to discover new worlds and colors in music that they may not have been aware of before. So if something picks up a wave that is: 1. kind of overshadowing the other work, and 2. resembles something already accepted and popular within the mainstream, thus making our art less distinct - I'll pull hard on the other end to restore balance and to keep things progressing and challenging for the audience. I think a lot of bands or composers must feel that way, and I think it's something that sets apart metal from a lot of other styles..or it should be. Nothing wrong with your stuff getting popular, but...it's gotta be your stuff your way and not your stuff the popular way, and it's gotta come with a nice big side of who-you-also-are-as-an-artist.

selling out to me has little to do with changing your sound really. or your image for that matter. it has more to do with ridiculous changes brought on by the almighty dollar. like when Anthrax abandoned John Bush & all they had accomplished together, simply to jump back on the "reunion tour" cash cow that was popular at the time. the fact they crawl back to Bush now, proves they know it too.

it's also when a band denies their roots, like Def Leppard constantly does.

I have to agree with mc666, Def Leppard to me is a perfect example of 'selling out' and it has nothing to do that they went into a more commerical route.

This is a band that in the early days did not mind riding on the coattails of the New Wave of British Metal, and unlike alot of the bands from that scene they not only managed to survive but became an international success.

Years down the road they deny their roots or acknowledge the importance of not only that short lived movement but the metal fans that supported and rallied for them in those early days.

I still think the whole Def Leppard thing is grossly misunderstood.

They never called themselves Metal, fans/journalists did.

They wanted to be famous...why would they correct people right out of the gate? Wanting to be famous pop stars, they'll take any attention they can get. They would have rode Liberace's coattails if it meant being famous.

Listen to "Hello America"...pop chorus from the outset...just more raw production.

I don't think a band who wants to be rich and famous from the beginning can actually sell out...they come out of the gate doing whatever will get them there the quickest...that's not selling out. Selling out implies you have one idea about yourself, then quickly drop that idea for money...they never wanted to be anything but famous pop stars like all their heroes...

I never really saw "selling out" in whatever definition it takes as all that big of deal. I always boiled it down to them doing what they felt they had to do to survive and stay in the business. Sure I stopped buying their records and all, but good for them if it paid off.

The example I would use is the Goo Goo Dolls. Their early records were so great especially Hold Me Up. Even SuperStar CarWash was a bit of a "sell out" to get alternative radio play. Then the hit "Name" comes along and the band basically became something else entirely to serve that master. I haven't bought a record of their's since and wouldn't even know if they deny their beginnings but I say good for them anyway. They probably traded me for a million fans. What's the joke about selling out - "Yeah we sold out, sold out New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore....."

What sucks is when doing so doesn't pan out like it did with the Goo Goo Dolls.

Also, bands change over the course of their careers (not AC/DC, the Ramones or Motorhead...but most bands!). That does not necessarily constitute selling out. I think what is actually worst than "selling out" is getting to a point where you are no longer producing material as good as your earlier material. For lack of a better term, I'm going to call it "crapping out". There are some bands who I feel have put out excellent material throughout their careers. One example for me would be Rush. I still look forward to new releases. I feel the same way about Depeche Mode, New Order, the Cure, U2, REM and Morrissey. There are other bands, however, who released excellent material earlier in their careers, but have not put out a good album in ages. I love the Stones, but they fall into this category (their last album was "Tattoo You" as far as I'm concerned). Def Leppard is one of these groups too. I don't think they sold out as much as they "crapped" out. I enjoyed their albums up to Hysteria, then the integrity and quality of their output greatly diminished. The same happened with Kiss during the 80's. And, I'm sorry to say, in my opinion Aerosmith is guilty of this as well. I love their material from the 70's, and consider them the best American hard rock band of that era. "Toys in the Attic" and "Rocks" are brilliant stuff. But, I can't listen to anything after "Pump". Again, I don't think they sold out. I just think they stopped putting out worthwile material.

Shawn, while I do not disagree that Def Leppard wanted to be a huge band and become rock stars, that is not the problem I have with them at all, I actually like 'Pyromania' and 'Hysteria'. I do feel the material on 'X' and 'Europhia' was a let down, but that is neither here or there.

In early interviews and even in the book they co wrote with David Fricke they labeled themselves as a metal band, they never claimed to be Black Sabbath but that is what they labeled themselves as. That they longer view themselves as such or have very little in common with their roots or the scene that spawned them is natural. But I do feel they deny their roots and the scene that helped create them.

Neuropete, I disagree with your assement of the Stones post-Tattoo You albums. I still think the Stones put out solid material, while they may never match the glory days of 1967-1973 era, I still feel each of their albums have a lot of gems.

Quote :

In early interviews and even in the book they co wrote with David Fricke they labeled themselves as a metal band, they never claimed to be Black Sabbath but that is what they labeled themselves as. That they longer view themselves as such or have very little in common with their roots or the scene that spawned them is natural. But I do feel they deny their roots and the scene that helped create them.

I'm with you, Manny. For Joe Elliot to say now they were always a "pop rock" band is ridiculous. Even if they didn't label themselves as metal, look at the "pop rock" music of the time of their debut (late 70's/early 80's). Are you gonna tell me that the music on On Through The Night was trying to emulate the sound of Billy Joel, Fleetwood Mac, Stevie Wonder or any other acts that were dominating the AOR stations and Billboard charts at the time?

I've never, in 26+ years of following Def Leppard, heard any member refer to the band as "Metal"...ever.

And, no, they were not trying to emulate "Billy Joel, Fleetwood Mac, Stevie Wonder"...they were trying to emulate T-Rex, Queen, Mott The Hoople, Led Zeppelin..giant English Pop/Rock sensations...

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

I've never, in 26+ years of following Def Leppard, heard any member refer to the band as "Metal"...ever.

And, no, they were not trying to emulate "Billy Joel, Fleetwood Mac, Stevie Wonder"...they were trying to emulate T-Rex, Queen, Mott The Hoople, Led Zeppelin..giant English Pop/Rock sensations...

Good point, but I still think they are trying to re-write history and are denying (sp?) their roots. Nothing is gonna change my opinion on that.

Selling out to me is changing the look, sound, style and image for the almighty dollar and commercial viability.

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

I've never, in 26+ years of following Def Leppard, heard any member refer to the band as "Metal"...ever.

And, no, they were not trying to emulate "Billy Joel, Fleetwood Mac, Stevie Wonder"...they were trying to emulate T-Rex, Queen, Mott The Hoople, Led Zeppelin..giant English Pop/Rock sensations...

Good point, but I still think they are trying to re-write history and are denying (sp?) their roots. Nothing is gonna change my opinion on that.

Their roots (what inspired/influenced them to make music at all) ARE T-Rex, Queen, Mott The Hoople, Led Zeppelin, etc...they've never denied their roots.

Seriously...it was journalists and subsequently fans who labeled them NWOBHM at all. They sounded nothing like Iron Maiden, Diamond Head, Saxon or any other NWOBHM band you can name. It was a case of timing, long hair and guitars.

It's like calling Alice In Chains "Grunge" or Poison "Metal"...it was all one big, broad stroke to cover a lot of bands of a certain time-frame/area...media-driven convenience. Alice In Chains never denounced being called "Grunge" (that I can recall) nor did Poison denounce being called "Metal" (that I can recall)...any attention is good attention and as long as people are buying their records it doesn't matter.

I think Joe's thing, why he's so vocal about it now, is that A - being the only band in history to have 2 back-to-back Diamond Albums (10 million + sales) gives him a certain amount of freedom to speak his mind and B - he doesn't appreciate being lumped in w/ Poison, Warrant or Trixter...or Iron Maiden or Saxon for that matter (he has denied being a fan of the former, but has admitted he was a fan of the latter)...but I bet you money if you mentioned DL in the same breath as T-Rex, Queen, Mott The Hoople, Led Zeppelin, etc he wouldn't bat an eye.

All your points are well taken, Mr. of Fire. I have no good argument to back-up my claim or dispute your posts. Just a feeling I have and nothing's gonna change that.

MetalGuy71 wrote:

All your points are well taken, Mr. of Fire. I have no good argument to back-up my claim or dispute your posts. Just a feeling I have and nothing's gonna change that.

I gotcha...and I admit that on the surface it looks like a giant case of sell-out/deny their roots.

But on the surface Black Sabbath looked like Satan worshippers and they never denied it til years later when they were older and didn't care. But a cursory look beneath the surface reveals the truth.

I remember Def Leppard calling themselves or maybe it was the writers labeling them as a metal band ( I used to read Circus and Hit Parader back in the day). As far as having anything in common with Madien, Saxon, etc, I agree they sound nothing like, nor is their image anything like any of thoses bands from that era.

I do know that Joe Elliot is a huuuuuuuuge Mott the Hopple fan and fan of glam rock in general, one listen to their 'Yeah!' album tells you that, look at the artist they covered.