i think everyone knows that corporate radio is finally latching on to some indie stuff and are hoping to make a new kind of alternative revolution. I know most of you guys probably think its great that these bands are getting exposure and will probably not like me saying this.

I really do not like it. When no one else i knew knew about these bands i felt unique or something. I liked it when nobody else in my classes knew what i was talking about when i said "modest mouse". How far do you think the radio/mtv will go into indie stuff? what happens after all these bands are exposed? (im young [first experience in selling out thing])

On the flip side, what happens when that band you like so much can't afford to make music anymore because no one's buying their records and they have to stop putting out albums and touring?

There's an upside and a downside to everything.

Not to mention that it's not usually within the band's control how much they get played on the radio. That's usually in the hands of the stations and the record labels working collectively and throwing kickbacks back and forth and the band doesn't have a lot of say in it at all.

Something that may make it slightly better though, is that if an indie favorite makes it big you can gain cool points by liking them first (?)

The guy I work with on my volunteer project told me today about seeing Radiohead way back when Pablo Honey first came out and they opened for PJ Harvey (they were practically booed off the stage, by the way) and I thought that was pretty freakin' cool. SO he got to bask in my admiration for a while. That's something good about it, right?

I think that if you can't make it by not selling out, however you define that term, you shouldn't make it. If nobody's buying the records, that should send you a message that maybe the records are no good.

One band, that may be entirely unique in the modern history of music, is Fugazi. They have remained virtually entirely an underground band. They've never sold CDs or concert tickets for over about 10 bucks, and anybody who knows anything about good music has at least one of their albums. It was clearly a political (in the Aristotilian sense of that word) choice on their parts, and they could have "made it big" and been on the cover of Rolling Stone, but it's pretty amazing that they never sold out to the man.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: RayRay,

Here's the problem with "selling out": one person's opinion of what constitutes selling out is very different from another's. Did Sonic Youth sell out when they went to Geffen? They still got to make their records, the way THEY wanted to, they got a ton of money (which they used to finance smaller, non-label projects), and they didn't turn into a bunch of corporate pap-mongers.

It seems to me that many "indie" fans would rather see their favorite bands be moderately successful so they can keep a grip on them rather than wishing them the success that could come from "going major." That, to me, seems selfish. If I love a band, I would the best for them. I, too, saw Radiohead on the PJ Harvey tour. I also saw them play a headlining date in a small club. I wish that I could still see them play like that...but I certainly don't begrudge them their success.


Sadly, going major also can change and corrupt a band. When a band changes its style and attitude after switching to a major, you can usually chalk it up to the pressure of selling. That's when "selling out" seems to be the worst kind of move.

I don't agree, however, that you only sell out if "nobody" is buying your records. Musicians, like most other homo sapiens, desire safety and security. Why not move from an indie, selling tens of thousands of records and making some money, to a major, selling hundreds of thousands of records and being able to have a college fund for your kids, medical insurance, etc? If you can do it on your terms, it seems quite silly to tell a band to do otherwise. Making the move from touring in a smelly 1989 Econoline into a nice, clean bus is a big deal for a band. Sadly, the old faithful often lob the "sell out" accusation as soon as it happens.

I agree with RayRay that Fugazi has taken a different tack. More bands could try that road, but I'm not convinced that model would work for a band that didn't have a built in fan base (as Fugazi did with the punk/hardcore kids). I respect their ability to stick to their guns. I'm sure they could have been on Rolling Stone, but they didn't want that.

In the end, while I, too, lament when one of the bands that I "discovered" gets too huge to see in an intimate venue, I can't help thinking it's snobby to immediately call "sell-out" when a band signs to a major, or even a bigger indie label. While some bands do change their style drastically (see Soul Asylum circa 1989 and Soul Asylum circa 1993 as a case in point), many take the resources available to them and do good things with them. Recent example: Wilco. Still on a major, still making the record THEY want to make. But Jeff's got a house, a family, and some security. I hardly call that selling out.

As always, the disadvantage of coming to a thread late is that KT, RayRay, and PE have made most of the salient points already.

The only thing I would add to their comments, robot, speaks to your professed youth. Some bands rise from obscurity, but stay true to their own artistic vision. Wilco is a great, current example). Some compromise some of their artistic integrity only to return to it in earnest later (I'm looking at you, Bruce Springsteen). In either case, the artists who remain true to their creative integrity tend to find their way back to relative obscurity as the taste of the notoriously fickle mass audience shifts.

Now Playing: "Joan Of Arc" Leonard Cohen Songs Of Love And Hate (Columbia)

Yes, I agree with all of it ... I just get a little angry when artists are disparaged for doing things that in practicality are good career moves.

If I came home and told my friends and family I had gotten a promotion at work, I would be congratulated for all of my hard work paying off, I would not be accused of "selling out." Artists are the only professionals who actually face getting criticized for becoming succesful.

You can get bigger without getting worse, as long as you stick to your guns and are ready to accept a step back down the ladder if the money isn't coming in. I think "selling out" is mutually exclusive from success (or can be). One can be successful without selling out their vision.

And not to offend robot, because I think most of us feel this way inside--that we like our favorite bands to be our little secrets. But wishing to keep a band all "for yourself" is a selfish wish. Great music should be heard and enjoyed by everybody. If a band is being played on the radio or suddenly makes the charts, it just means that more people are listening to this great music instead of listening to crap. So that's good.

I mean really, we all complain about how crappy popular music is these days but then if we turn around and also complain when MTV and radio start to play "our" music, then it's a little counterproductive. The only way to overcome bad music's foothold on the top 40 is for good music to become mainstream.

I haven't seen MTV2 in a while, so I don't know what they're playing. The bands I always got the impression that were blowing up (modest mouse, flaming lips, shins) from magazines and other sources, never really got much play. I don't listen to the radio because it sucks, so maybe these bands are getting play on 89X, the "alternative" station. However, I am seeing lots of copies of Good News and Moon & Antarctica not only at Best Buy but at Wal Mart and Target.

I doubt that much will change in the world.

-A handful of bands will get big.
-A larger group will get a bit known.
-A lot of imposters will start late but get more attention.
-The fundamental tastes of the fratboys, wiggers and white trash will not change.
-Good music will still emerge from the woodwork.
-Some albums from around now will become classics, and they won't all be the albums we expect to be classics.
-We will claim that now (2000-2004) is an innocent and more optimistic time, and that all the bands from whenever we're saying it aren't nearly as good as the old bands.

Heh ... I suspect you're right Mr. McGuck.

EDIT: You're right LinnTate, (oh no there we go again!) but it's hard to refrain when someone says something spot on and it's 2:30 in the morning and you're feeling SO unintelligent.

I will try to remedy my own post by saying that I love the bands I love for their music, not how many records they sell. And I don't listen to the radio much except for on Tues. & Thurs. when I'm data entering and then I'm either listening to political talk radio or "Morning Becomes Eclectic" which isn't exactly Clear Channel so I'm blissfully unaware of what's going on in world of radio these days.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KT,

I think one of the most hateful things I know on a message board are people who insist on responding to a post with "me too" or "ditto" or "I agree" without really adding anything substantive to the discussion.

Then again, there are times when there really isn't anything to add.

I agree, Professor Sweetie. I agree.

Now Playing: NPR's "Morning Edition"

Just because a band gets some success is a pretty lame reason to stop liking them, as long as the music is good then who cares how many other people like them, the biggest problem to me when a band I like gets popular is that TV and the radio overplay the songs way to much.

quote:

---

Originally posted by robot:
i think everyone knows that corporate radio is finally latching on to some indie stuff and are hoping to make a new kind of alternative revolution. I know most of you guys probably think its great that these bands are getting exposure and will probably not like me saying this.

I really do not like it. When no one else i knew knew about these bands i felt unique or something. I liked it when nobody else in my classes knew what i was talking about when i said "modest mouse". How far do you think the radio/mtv will go into indie stuff? what happens after all these bands are exposed? (im young [first experience in selling out thing])

---

Funny that you mention Modest Mouse, as Isaac Brock had something to say about this (not very healthy) indie mentality in an interview a few months back with the Onion AV Club:

quote:

---

O: Was licensing your songs to commercials a tough decision?

IB: Figuring out ways to pay the rent isn't really a tough decision. Around the time we did the beer commercial and the shoe commercial, I thought, "Am I compromising my music by doing this?" And I think not. I like keeping the lights on in my house. People who don't have to make their living playing music can bitch about my principles while they spend their parents' money or wash dishes for some asshole. Principles are something that people are a lot better at checking in other people than keeping their own. My rationale behind the beer commercial was, "I like drinking MGD! I like beer probably more than I should, probably more than is healthy." I was hoping I could get a lifetime supply out of the deal, but I guess I'll have to buy it with that big ol' check. [Laughs.]

---

EDIT: my grammar is atrocious

hey thanks everyone for replying. I havent stopped liking any bands because theyve gotten famous, but i just dont like how all the stupid kids i know will be like "ah, dude you heard about *insert band name here*, they rawk!!1"

but your replies have been helpful.

Getting famous is not, by any means, "selling out". What annoys me is when they appear in commercials. This is mostly prominent with actors, though. Look at Adrien Brody, an Oscar winner, who walks around witha Coke can spewing out computer generated bubbles for a minute and a half. What the hell is that about?!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: EccentricSam,

I don't think fame necessariliy means "selling out" in all cases. Only when you abandon your fans for the sake of earning cash are you selling out. There are a lot of bands who have signed to major labels and continued to make great music.

Isaac Brock's interview is a good example. He pretty much flipped the bird to a lot of his fans who complained about his selling out to commercial radio and advertisement. But as I mentioned in the Modest Mouse thread, that attituade has always been Modest Mouse. Brock doesn't do anything for anyone but himself and in the process made some of the best music of the 90's. He's not caving in to any pressure, he's just doing what he needs to do.

Bands can sell out but it's a surprisingly small amount that actually do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eccentro:
Getting famous is, by any means, "selling out". What annoys me is when they appear in commercials. This is mostly prominent with actors, though. Look at Adrien Brody, an Oscar winner, who walks around witha Coke can spewing out computer generated bubbles for a minute and a half. What the hell is that about?!

---

Yeah...have u noticed in those exact coke commercials that i have noticed.They have played 2 different lyrics born songs and a goldfrapp song.I dont know...maybe the conglomorites are noticing that good music is goodmusic...and it doesnt matter what "label" or how the music is being made.Even though goldfrapp changed drastically on black cherry.

i actually find it refrshing to hear an completely "indie" or "underground" song being put on a major or minor movie or tv show....or wherever!

I guess indie bands or selling out depoends on your circle of friends and family...all my friends talk about is indie type bands and underground artisits...so maybe that is mainstream to me...that is the norm and not radio friendly tunes...

I think i just confused myself...but who cares!


Have a good day!

isn't one of those coke commercials a gift of gab solo song, too? i've got no problem with hearing good music in commercials...if i have to choose between hearing modest mouse or jessica simpson, i think i know what i'm picking...

I loved a band down this way called "Hunters and collectors" and I remember seeing them at a pub with only about five other people in the room, and they were all at the bar.

My freind and I stood in front of them all night, and watched as the lead singer gave the drummer hell for not keepin' the beat properly.

It was one of THE greatest sets I've ever seen, and I felt they were playin' at me, for me.

OK, the next time I saw them, was in a slightly bigger venue, packed ta the rafters, and I was squashed against the wall.

The music was more polished, and the audience was mucho impressed, but I felt a distance.

The third time I saw them, they had been "discovered", their obvious talents recognised by a wider demographic. They hadn't changed their approach in any way other than they were much more proffesional and accomplished stage entertainers.

I was just another face in the packed venue, and while I was watching I couldn't recognise them anymore.

How I longed to be back in that pub watching and listening to them trying to find their voice.

How selfish and greedy can I be?

i sold out in 1982
ice ice baby

It's not selling out unless you actually change your style and water down your music for the explicit purpose of selling more albums.

Although I do share that 'I want to be the only one that has heard of these bands' snobbery, I don't have any friends who are into indie music. I want other people I know to hear of this music so I can share it with them and talk about with them without being accused of indie snobbery.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobthespirit:
It's not selling out unless you actually change your style and water down your music for the explicit purpose of selling more albums.

I agree with this statement. I think many cases of alleged selling-out AREN'T this sort of thing, but some are.

More interesting for this definition of selling out is the case of a band or artist who changes their style when it might help OR hurt them. Think of Beck, whose stylistic jumping around might have hurt his sales post-"Loser" but won him critical acclaim. Or Bowie. Or Neil Young.

An interesting recent case is the band Louis XIV, who were once an alt-country combo (a quite good one) called Convoy. I assume they changed their style, at least in part, because they didn't sell any copies of the Convoy record.

Another one: once upon a time, the members of Maroon 5 were a Jellyfish-influenced power pop combo called Kara's Flowers. Now, they are RADICALLY different and massively popular. Did they change their style to BECOME stars, or did they do it because they wanted to go in a new direction regardless? Always tough to tell....