Selling Out, Part 1
When I first got pretty serious about music, I remember the idea of "selling out" being a big deal. I said it a lot about bands that I didn't like and bands that changed their sound or signed a major label deal. But I never really considered what I meant when I said it. It was just a nice catch-all for bands I was mad at.
I don't want to use this post to point the finger at who I thought did and didn't sell out, so I'll try to leave the verdict as open-ended as I can. What I really want to do here is to establish (or at least start to establish) some kind of criteria for what it really means to sell out. Since I'm not 100% sure what it really means, I'm going to throw my thoughts out there a little at a time and try to revisit the topic every once in awhile, so that I can rethink things and take any comments into account. At some point down the road, maybe the whole idea will be fleshed out, but for now I'm just going to throw random thoughts out there.
The first point I want to make is that in order to sell out, the band or artist has to sell in. So we should first determine what a band really sold in to. For instance, the Clash sold in to rock as activism and Kiss sold in to rock as a good commercial product. We can't hold the Clash responsible for the commercial inviability of Sandanista and we can't hold Kiss responsible for their lack of substance. However, we can say former Clash members sold out when "London Calling" showed up in a Jaguar commercial (if they still owned the rights at that time) and we can say Kiss sold out based on the sad facsimile of their 70s heyday that they've become. Interestingly, a band like Limp Bizkit could only sell out if they actually did something of any substance, socially or musically, since they've only sold in to the cash cow of make-believe rock n roll rebellion and are obviously interested in neither music nor ideas.
Okay, so maybe the first thing to consider is, "What did the band sell in to in the first place?" I don't think that even comes close to answering all the questions about what it means to sell out, but it's a start. More on this later...
I don't want to use this post to point the finger at who I thought did and didn't sell out, so I'll try to leave the verdict as open-ended as I can. What I really want to do here is to establish (or at least start to establish) some kind of criteria for what it really means to sell out. Since I'm not 100% sure what it really means, I'm going to throw my thoughts out there a little at a time and try to revisit the topic every once in awhile, so that I can rethink things and take any comments into account. At some point down the road, maybe the whole idea will be fleshed out, but for now I'm just going to throw random thoughts out there.
The first point I want to make is that in order to sell out, the band or artist has to sell in. So we should first determine what a band really sold in to. For instance, the Clash sold in to rock as activism and Kiss sold in to rock as a good commercial product. We can't hold the Clash responsible for the commercial inviability of Sandanista and we can't hold Kiss responsible for their lack of substance. However, we can say former Clash members sold out when "London Calling" showed up in a Jaguar commercial (if they still owned the rights at that time) and we can say Kiss sold out based on the sad facsimile of their 70s heyday that they've become. Interestingly, a band like Limp Bizkit could only sell out if they actually did something of any substance, socially or musically, since they've only sold in to the cash cow of make-believe rock n roll rebellion and are obviously interested in neither music nor ideas.
Okay, so maybe the first thing to consider is, "What did the band sell in to in the first place?" I don't think that even comes close to answering all the questions about what it means to sell out, but it's a start. More on this later...
posted by bob_vinyl at 1:13 AM
3 Comments:
I was into your blog way before it was cool, but now... dude, you've sold out.
Okay, that was a moronic comment, but I couldn't resist. Now for my real comment.
I'm glad that you made the distinction of whether or not a band owns the rights to their music. All too many people (including me) harshly judged The Clash when that Jaguar commercial came out, but we often forget that many -- if not most -- artists don't have much say over how their music is used. Maintaining your publishing rights is key not only to securing an income as a musician, but also to securing your music's commercial integrity. Perhaps the only reason we haven't seen Warrant's "Cherry Pie" used in a Hostess commercial is because Jani and the boys had the foresight to hang on to their publishing rights.
Or maybe it's because the song sucks. Hard to say.
Anyhow, it's a catch 22 because young bands are almost forced to give up their publishing when they sign a record contract. Since publishing is so lucrative, the person who owns those rights will generally push much harder for a band's success. So what's a band to do? Sign away their rights knowing that if they "make it" they can fight down the road? Or hang on to them early knowing that there may be nothing worth having down the road (from a financial perspective)? Add cryptic contracts and less-then-caring lawyers to the mix, and its a wonder that any musicians maintain rights to their own music.
In a very roundabout fashion, this brings me to my point: Is a band who signs away their publishing a sell out?
Business is not rock and roll. Three chords and the truth... that's rock and roll. Partying all night (and sleeping all day)... that's rock and roll too. Becoming an expert in the nuances of Performing Rights and Mechanical Rights? Not very rock and roll. There's a breed of rock fan who will immediately discredit someone who possesses this knowledge as being a sell out, even though the artist possesses it in order to protect his integrity.
I think Moby is a superb example when evaluating this question. After three commercially disappointing albums with Elektra (two of which were critically disappointing experiments), he found himself without a label. The rumor is that he began to sell his songs to advertisers en masse, with some sources reporting that he sold music to over 100 different commercial entities. This was the only way he could pay his bills. Eventually, V2 Records picked him up and much of the music he had been selling to advertisers was released in album form on Play, which is arguably one of the most inventive and adventurous albums ever released by a techno artist.
So did he sell out or did he do whatever was necessary to keep his musical integrity? I don't know. If he sold in to being a starving and homeless artist who allowed his career to be raped by the majors, then yeah, he sold out. However, if he sold in to making music the way he wanted to make it, no matter the costs or repercussions, then damn that man has some integrity.
I look forward to seeing this topic develop.
Really interesting post and question. Otter and I have a running joke about how it is impossible for rap artists to sell out, because, they never "bought in" (the equivalent to your "sell in").
Clothing lines, shoes, ringtones, cross-over duets - their whole careers are one ginormous attempt to make as much money as fast as possible. It's almost as if "selling out" is the theme in all their songs.
Anyway, I think a lot of sell-outs in the rock world are not really classic sell outs. I always think that it usually takes artists six or seven years to write and perfect their first albums, and then they are given less than a year to come out with their second album and then third albums come out in the same time frame. This often leads to some pretty unoriginal follow-ups and it also leaves some artists desperate to take any help they can get from their labels. That in turn leads to a lot of stuff designed for commercial success, but lacking in any real development from the artist.
I'm actually hoping that the new media paradigm (downloading music) brings down some major labels and gets more artists to put stuff out by themselves. Of course, there will always be a niche for crappy pop stars - so we will never lose our ability to be annoyed by Britney et al.
Also, I agree with Chuck - your blog has totally sold out :)
Kid H
Post a Comment
<< Home