That's a powerful headline. It's also a pile of baloney. There is no such thing as "selling out" despite the best efforts of self-important artists and fans to claim that such a mythical beast exists.
The reality is that every single artist that you have ever heard of has "sold out" to one degree or another. If they hadn't, you'd never have heard of them. The only question is the degree to which one's personal taste accepts the capitalism of their favorite artists. And that's exactly what it is: personal taste. There is no set standard for "selling out": it's just a label that someone sticks on an artist for making money in a way of which they don't approve or, in some cases, for making money at all.
The reality is that every musician who ever recorded a song is in the business to make money - as much of it as possible, for as long as possible. They may create airs that they pretend to be uninterested in the almighty dollar, but when was the last time one gave away an entire album of their work to the world? When was the last time one went on a nationwide tour of free concerts? The answer is simple and obvious: never. Actions speak louder than words, so citing quotes to the contrary is useless. Show me their free concert tour and freely released body of work or believe the truth about your favorite artist: there really isn't any middle ground.
(Before the naysayers start: releasing a single song for free is just giving away free samples to induce you to buy the full product. They do they same thing in supermarkets.)
They sell t-shirts, and CDs, and keychains, and all manner of other memorabilia and none of that is questioned. They get a cut of concession sales, appearance fees, and various other types of financial compensation without a peep from the peanut gallery. What kind of sell-out is every artist who ever went on a corporate-sponsored tour? Who is more the product of corporate promotion: the Rolling Stones or Britney Spears? The honest answer is that both are. The only real difference is only in the degree that Britney's fans tend to be more honest about how much corporate money their favorite artist accepts.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Jon Sobel
I totally agree with your main point, that selling out is a stupid concept. But I don't understand what you mean about the "objective listener" - fans are by definition not "objective listeners," whatever that means, and not expected to strive to be. My view is that the concept of "selling out" comes from fans feeling a sense of ownership of the music they love, and this is a natural, if somewhat misguided, part of fanhood.
2 - Celebrity Pro
That's precisely the point. There is no such animal. There is no final arbiter of music or of a musician: especially those who put themselves forth as "music critics." To paraphrase the rest of that paragraph, that person cannot exist because music affects us all on an emotional level - thereby destroying our ability to be truly objective about it.
Anyone can state their personal opinion of a body of work or an artist. But it's no more than that: a personal opinion, and shouldn't be assigned any more weight than the opinion of another - no matter the pretensions of its author.
Too many put forth their personal opinion as if it were the final word on the subject and are even willing to go further and flatly state that the fans of this artist or that music are "idiots" or the like for enjoying or buying it. They put down one form of music or another because their personal tastes happen to differ. Does that make them right? Of course not. It makes them arrogant and foolish - unable to discern the difference between opinion and fact.
If there is a criticism to be found in my article, it is of those who claim an ability to declare an ultimate truth about an artist or a piece of music. Any claim to "objectivity" is false on its face. Music is indeed a subjective experience, and those who fail to recognize that basic truth are missing the point of music completely.
3 - Jon Sobel
Well said.
What really bothers me (on a gut level, not on principle) is not when a favorite song of mine is used in a commercial, but when that song is chopped up and destroyed so as to sync (more often than not badly) with the commercial's content.
4 - Mark Saleski
Does that make them right? Of course not. It makes them arrogant and foolish - unable to discern the difference between opinion and fact.
does that mean i don't have to be embarrassed by my Shania Twain cds??
yippee!!!!
5 - Temple Stark
I accidentally started the same conversation here yesterday (or was that early this morning?)
"Selling out" is too strong ...
6 - Barry Stoller
Although this site is a receptive place to air pro-capitalist cant to the choir, your point is straw. "Selling out" isn't selling to most fans, it's CHANGING in such a way that compromises or cheapens the artist's previous work. As artists acrue success and money, their ability to do bolder, more artistically challenging work should increase. In McCartney's case, he squandered everything he built up in the 60s; Sting, to mention only one dollar-savvy megastar, buried Sir Paul effortlessly years ago for the pop crown.
7 - Celebrity Pro
Why does it cheapen or compromise the previous work? Have the melody or lyrics changed? Of course not. So, in fact, the work isn't cheapened or compromised: nothing about has changed a whit.
Is a great poem or novel cheapened by the other less successful or more commercial works of its author? Does that fact that the author also wrote an article for a magazine change the quality of the novel? Of course not. A work should be judged on its own merit. Failure to do so is a failure on the part of the reader, not on the part of the author.
What has changed is that your personal opinion of the artist has changed, and you have allowed that to change your opinion of his previous music. It's not the fault of the music or the artist: it's entirely a creation of your own perceptions.
You can call it "selling out," but that would be a misnomer. He didn't give away his previous work. He didn't give concerts away for free either. He was selling then, and he's selling today. What has changed is that you like what he used to sell, and you don't care for what he's selling today.
You've created an expectation for, in this case, Paul McCartney that is your own projection and you criticize him for failing to live up to it. Like parents disappointed in how our children turned out, we have to ask ourselves: is the failure that of the children or of our own expectations?
There's a huge difference...
8 - Barry Stoller
Nah, you're clinging to your straw argument. Staying with McCartney, the melodies and lyric DID change. "My Love" was 2nd rate junk compared with "Hey Jude" and 100,000,000,000 willing consumers knew and know it.
9 - Celebrity Pro
But again, you're making my argument for me...
"Hey Jude" wasn't cheapened or compromised by "My Love." It stands on its own and should be judged accordingly.
To say that his succeeding work wasn't as commercially successful or as well received as his previous work is a far different argument to make than simplisticly dismissing him as a "sellout." Lots of artists have gone on to create what many would call "greater" works which weren't as commercially successful. Music isn't to be judged by its commercial success but by its personal appeal to each individual.
I'm sure there are plenty of people who enjoy "My Love" better than "Hey Jude" and who think the former speaks more to their personal experience than the latter. Who is right? Neither of you, and trying to claim victory in such a debate is futile and meaningless. You each have your own perceptions and emotional response to those songs and to dismiss those of another person who feels differently is to display the exact sort of arrogance and foolishness I pointed out in a previous comment.
The bottom line remains that you like "Hey Jude" and don't like "My Love," and are trying to rationalize liking one and not liking the other by saying that he "sold out" in the meantime.
The reality is that you're not going to like every song an artist records throughout his or her entire career unless you're some kind of obsessive fanatic. It doesn't mean anything more than that it doesn't appeal to you personally and trying to broaden that into a sweeping generalization is to be far off the mark...
10 - janine
Well I'm usually against the "selling out" charge, but to base it on the argument that since musicians do their work to make money they're always selling out is a bit of a stretch. I don't know why this is, I agree with the thesis but don't buy the argument.
Oh, I think it because that's not what people are talking about. They're talking about a marked change in content like Liz Phair or Jewel had. (I'm not arguing either of these women are sell-outs. Heck, I liked the Liz Phair album. Oberlin in 'da house y'all!)
The argument doesn't address the sea change aspect, which is a major source of disillusionment for the sell-out arbiters. You gotta say soething about it, man. I'd say is part of artistic development.
11 - janine
...and based on comment #9, would you like to see an end to music criticism? Is that not the logical conclusion to you have your opinion and I have mine so since we can't be objective it's meaningless?
12 - Celebrity Pro
To the question as to whether or not I'd like to see an end to music criticism, my answer would be yes and no.
Yes, I'd like to see an end to people who claim to be the be-all-end-all of musical knowledge. I'd like to see an end to people who proclaim that any music they don't care for is garbage and the fans of that kind of music are "idiots." I'd like to see an end to the endless discourse of this form of music being inferior to that form or this artist being a better artist than that one. It's ridiculous and pointless, and too many "critics" feel it necessary to laden their critiques with plenty of such comments. What I'd like to see is a degree of humility and recognition that theirs is but a single opinion and not the only available valid option.
No, in that I don't think it's without value to know another person's opinion of a piece of music. I myself read critiques and find there are those critics with whom I generally agree and those with whom I generally disagree. I'm more likely to take the recommendation of someone whose tastes usually align with mine, but even then it doesn't follow that if I disagree with his opinion that he is right and I am wrong or vice versa. We are both entitled to our impressions.
There's a difference between someone telling me that he thinks this new album is great and that I would be well served to check it out for myself or that he didn't care for an artist's latest offerings, and someone telling me that I'm a moron for enjoying the album that he hates or that the music he enjoys is somehow superior to the music I like. The first critique is a welcome addition to the music scene; the second is just the arrogance of a fool.
13 - Al Barger
CP, I agree wholeheartedly with the basic point of this essay, but you're foundering in the comments. This statement specifically is simply factually and objectively wrong: "Any claim to "objectivity" is false on its face."
Certainly there is much subjectivity and personal taste involved in appreciating music, but there is at some point some MATH underneath it. Without going into a big dissertation, a simple example hopefully might suffice.
Some people will say that Jagger/Richards were better songwriters than Lennon/McCartney. You prefer "Hey Jude" and I think that "Sympathy for the Devil" is the greatest thing ever, say. But they're both great songs and songwriting teams. That's arguably largely just a matter of subjective taste.
On the other hand, if you want to argue that Milli Vanilli is just as good as Bob Dylan, then you are, frankly, an idiot who knows nothing of music. You could start trying to break that down technically, but the point should be basically intuitive.
It's good to be respectful and make nice. I don't like to hurt people's feelings unnecessarily, so I would try to avoid calling, say, 50 Cent fans a bunch of window lickers. Nonetheless, if they think that's great music, they just flat don't know squat about music.
14 - Celebrity Pro
Regarding Janine's comment on "sea-changes" by artists:
I would agree that it's part of generally just part of artistic development. Even if we assume that the artist made the change solely because it would make them more commercially successful, I don't accept that the artist really changed. Evidently, they were always interested mainly in commercial success rather than personal expression: they just changed the road they were taking to get there.
"They changed" the fans cry, but the truth is that they are the person they always were but the fans had the wrong impression of who the artist really was. It's less traumatic when you stop laboring under the illusion that your favorite artist is "just in it for the art" and start to realize that to one degree or another all musicians are chasing commercial success.
And what about getting older? Do you still listen to the same music you listened to 20 years ago? How many of you are still into the hair bands that were so popular in the 80's? (And don't tell me none of you were, they were selling millions of records to SOMEONE...) When you have artists whose careers span decades (such as Paul McCartney), should it really be any surprise that the music they're recording today doesn't sound like the music of decades ago? Of course not. Many of the fans who cry "sellout" are trying in vain to cling to a certain time in their lives by living vicariously through that artist's music. When the artist's music changes over time, it forces an unhappy realization that times have indeed changed and those days are gone forever. Someone has to be to blame, so they turn angry at the artist rather than accepting reality and moving on.
It's the emotional connection we have to music that makes such entanglements almost inevitable: it's part of what makes music such an integral part of our lives. It's the healthy among us who can differentiate between what is changing in our own lives and that our own tastes change over time rather than transferring that anger onto artists who are doing what they have always done...
15 - Temple Stark
50 cents may be good "entertainment"
Celebrity PRO - I tihnk your post is arguing A and your comments are arguing sometihng else entirely.
Anyway, good post. In your comments - yes people spend waaay to much time - and anger - defending their opinions. In many areas, time is worthwhile because there are facts. In music - A LOT is subjective and as you point out arguing over those aspects is what usually comes to the forefront.
And I agree with Al.
Man sometihng Paul is doing right anyway. I haven't thought - musically about Paul McCartney solo ... since never. now I want the album. Of course I liked the first song i heard so that helps a lot, too
16 - Temple Stark
Let me rephrase that first sentence "50 cents" IS good entertainment and I like listening to some of his music.
17 - Al Barger
So Barry, are you claiming that Paul was insincere when he wrote "My Love"?
Paul was always a sentimentalist. Not speaking of it as objective truth, but the dreaded "My Love" strikes me as more sincere, more heartfelt, than, say, "Michelle."
Plus, "My Love" is actually quite an excellent song. A bit sappier than I usually prefer, but a very memorable tune nonetheless.
18 - Al Barger
And by way of giving credit, 50 Cent surely isn't the worst of it. He has a few songs that have a couple of hooks and a beat that might be moderately palatable, so long as you don't mistake it for real food. As radio junk food, I would take him over, say, most modern commercial country radio fodder. But that's faint praise.
19 - Al Barger
Al- You're suggesting that Bob Dylan is good?
Bob Dylan is probably one of the "technically" worst musician to ever sell over one million albumns. His voice, guitar playing, harmonica playing, diction, etc. was horrificly bad.
Before you jump to conclusions, hear me out. I like his shtick....raspy voice, resolute countenance, wooping vocals, and his folklorist appeal by keeping it simple and nostalgic, but if you call someone an idiot for not liking Bob Dylan's music then I'm going to have to side with Celebrity Pro on this one.
Furthermore, I like songs. I prefer songs to the musicians that wrote them. I rarely buy an albumn because of the band or group (unless it is BAch because I enjoy everything i've ever heard of his). Also, someone had to write "Blame It On The Rain", right?? If not Milli Vanilli, give someone the credit. I've hardly listened to a musician or group when I can't say something redeemable about them. Britany Spears? She's got rhythm. No doubt. Doc Watson? Incredible bluegrass guitar-playing improviser. Could he write a song comparable to that of Queen or a solo like Brian May? Probably not. There are alot of legs on the musical octopus...the musicians or songs you like the best happen to be the ones that combine those legs anagolous with your natural aural conditioning as a listener.
20 - nugget
al that was me. I have an odd habit of typing in the name of my addressee.
21 - nugget
that would be "analogous"
22 - fred
His voice, guitar playing, harmonica playing, diction, etc. was horrificly bad.
senator, stick to politics, you know jack shit about music other than playing a skin flute, no doubt.
23 - nugget
bitch (fred),
Say something besides "u doent noe shit!"
You gonna prove me wrong?
24 - nugget
also fred...
I, nugget, posted that thread. And I still think you are a bitch.
25 - Celebrity Pro
Is there a difference between Bob Dylan and Milli Vanilli? Absolutely. If we go beyond the fraud that Rob and Fab committed and just examine the songs themselves, it doesn't mean that song doesn't have value though.
Bob Dylan's music is "meaningful" and "influential," but it's not exactly the tune you're going to get your groove onto while you're trying to pick up women in the late 80's. Not every song has to relay a greater truth or speak to a generation to be enjoyable to its listeners.
It's my opinion that any music which achieves its goal is good music. The goal of dance music is quite simply to make people dance. It doesn't aspire to anything greater and shouldn't be compared in any way to a song which does. Should I judge Bob Dylan lacking because I can't dance to it in a nightclub? Of course not. It's not the purpose of his music.
Will anyone remember Milli Vanilli in twenty years? Doubtful in the extreme. But it doesn't mean that when it was popular that people didn't enjoy it and it didn't make anyone feel good when they heard it. By that measure, it was good music and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand because it didn't have a larger social message.
This is what I mean when I say that each work should be judged individually. If it reaches someone who gets something out of it, even if it's as simple as something to dance to then who are we to say to that someone who enjoyed it that the music was without value? They got to pick up women and enjoy the nightlife while you sat home in your room listening to Dylan. Who was living the better life? It's a subjective judgment which could easily be argued either way.
What if they prefer to get social commentary from the newspaper rather than from their music? Who are we to say that he is wrong and we are right in this regard? If we come to the same conclusion at the end of the day, are you more right because you listened to the socially-conscious rock of Bob Dylan who inspired you or am I because I reached the same conclusions on my own while choosing to go out salsa dancing instead?
We can certainly say about Milli Vanilli: a) I wouldn't choose to listen to it, b) I prefer my music to deliver a meaningful message and Milli Vanilli fails in that regard, and c) I would rather listen to Bob Dylan and each would be defensible statements of personal opinion, but it doesn't mean that it was garbage and shouldn't be classified as music.