All of we have used (or at least heard) the term "sold out", we know that is applied as a response of the dissapointment from old hardcore fans when their favourite bands change drastically their style of music, for both experimenting or reaching wider audiences, and obtain commercial success. What do you think about the term?, Is this correct? What makes you consider a band sold out?

We must keep in mind that many musicians have the music as their jobs, and thus, this is the way for them to put food on their tables, so we must consider why a band sometimes really NEEDS commercial success, I know this is not an excuse (read about Therion), but we must stay in the artists shoes to know what is really happening.

IMO, I don't like the term, for me, Metallica is the only "sold out" band, because of the Napster issue, i mean, they are millionaires, and were so at the time of the Napster issue and blah, blah, blah..... you know the rest.

I dont really give a crap about the term, if a band changes their style and I still like it, good, but if i dont, then I just don't listen, and maybe whine alittle as it does anoy me. but then again, ive never heard of a metal band going pop or 100% rap. generaly they incorprate better selling subgenres(like metalcore).

Written by selken on 19.08.2007 at 06:06

IMO, I don't like the term, for me, Metallica is the only "sold out" band, because of the Napster issue, i mean, they are millionaires, and were so at the time of the Napster issue and blah, blah, blah..... you know the rest.

The only sold-out band among metal or music in general?

Umm.. I usually put the tag "SOLD OUT" to any bands that changed their style of music for the sake of non-metal audience or hot topic kids attention. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see me fav bands getting worldwide recognition but in most cases it meant losing their initial quality and letting their true fans down(In Flames, Within Temptation, etc).

Some bands have changed their style of music drastically (Therion, Amorphis, Iron Maiden (from Paul to Bruce era), Blind Guardian) but I don't call them 'sold out' because it's more of the bands evolution than bending towards the trend.

I never use the term "selling out" because it's completely meaningless to me, a made up term that people use to indicate a change in style. That's all it means to me, commercial success (or the seeking of commercial success) does not have direct correlation to the quality of the music.

Written by KryptoN on 19.08.2007 at 16:35

commercial success (or the seeking of commercial success) does not have direct correlation to the quality of the music.

Sadly in most cases it does. Mainly because most of the "trendy" musics are shallowed, bland and uninspiring. Bands need to sink into that level to gain mainstream success.

Written by HELLilac on 19.08.2007 at 16:44

Sadly in most cases it does.

To me it doesn't, I was mainly talking about myself and my experiences. The motives behind the music are insignificant to me. Of course there exists stuff I don't like that is "made for the radio" so to speak. On the other hand there are lots of stuff that is considered "sold out" that I like, which means there's no correlation to me. Also, blandness, uninspiring and trendy are highly subjective terms and just cannot be generalized to be absolute values or qualities.

Let's take for example In Flames, a lot of people are whining and moaning everywhere that they sold out. To me this "fact" of "selling out" has neither negative nor positive meaning, it just tells me that they've changed. I couldn't give two shits if they chose to make it more commercial and "pop" or tried to be tr00. All I care is if I like the music. People who use the term "selling out" generally are trying to say that the band has turned to shit and are trying to make it public knowledge, to say "stay away from this band." This is why I loathe the term, it reeks of intolerant elitism. It's also a safe term for when you can't figure out why you don't like a band anymore, it's easy to just blurt out that they sold out.

There's a point I tried to make somewhere up there in between the lines, but I'm having a hard time explaining it any better. Meh.

Gotta go with KryptoN here. I used to follow the idea of bands selling out, but now I base it solely on how I feel about the music itself. A change in style is welcome, which in most cases is better than a band playing the same thing forever. Popularity and mainstream success is not what you should base your opinion on. It kind of defeats the purpose of listening to music, which is a form of self-expression.

Written by HELLilac on 19.08.2007 at 16:30

Some bands have changed their style of music drastically (Therion, Amorphis, Iron Maiden (from Paul to Bruce era), Blind Guardian) but I don't call them 'sold out' because it's more of the bands evolution than bending towards the trend.

Maybe the statement (read about Therion), can lead to missunderstoods, I wrote this as an example of how bands change their styles drastically without getting the label of "sold out. I'm not calling such bands as "sold out".

I'm still confused about the thing that Metallica would be the only sold-out band.

Written by Guest on 19.08.2007 at 18:49

I'm still confused about the thing that Metallica would be the only sold-out band.

Ah, sorry, I didn't answered before to avoid double posting, well, IMO Metallica is sold out in the metal world. I consider most of another music genres as market-oriented ej, pop, hip-hop, latin american music and so.

Ah I see, well I'm not saying that Metallica would not be sold-out, because they are. But IMO so is Kiss, Ozzy and quite many other bands who have definetly influenced strongly to metal. What I consider to be sold-out may not be the music, but all the crap (a.k.a. other merchandise than clothes or discs) they're selling. Metallica for ex. sell christmas balls, Kiss sells about anything where can be written the band's logo and Ozzy has his own reality tv-show. If you're talking about selling out in a musical way, then I would prefer something like "turning more to the mainstream sound", which sometimes can be a good thing too.

I don't encourage the use of the term either. To me it should mean that a band printed so many copies of their new CD and they all sold out, or the tickets for a band's live show are all sold out.
If a band changes style to make more money and i don't like it, well, then i just listen to albums of theirs which i do like. Simple!

P.S.

@ HELLilac: My, my, that's quite a fetching avatar if i do say so myself!

Written by KryptoN on 19.08.2007 at 17:14

Written by HELLilac on 19.08.2007 at 16:44

Sadly in most cases it does.

To me it doesn't, I was mainly talking about myself and my experiences. The motives behind the music are insignificant to me. Of course there exists stuff I don't like that is "made for the radio" so to speak. On the other hand there are lots of stuff that is considered "sold out" that I like, which means there's no correlation to me. Also, blandness, uninspiring and trendy are highly subjective terms and just cannot be generalized to be absolute values or qualities.

Let's take for example In Flames, a lot of people are whining and moaning everywhere that they sold out. To me this "fact" of "selling out" has neither negative nor positive meaning, it just tells me that they've changed. I couldn't give two shits if they chose to make it more commercial and "pop" or tried to be tr00. All I care is if I like the music. People who use the term "selling out" generally are trying to say that the band has turned to shit and are trying to make it public knowledge, to say "stay away from this band." This is why I loathe the term, it reeks of intolerant elitism. It's also a safe term for when you can't figure out why you don't like a band anymore, it's easy to just blurt out that they sold out.

There's a point I tried to make somewhere up there in between the lines, but I'm having a hard time explaining it any better. Meh.

Actually I believe we're talking about the same thing but with a different approach here. You're right that a lot of people including myself use the term selling out as an easy way of saying "The old fans beware!! The band have changed their sound and unless you like *insert watchever the subgenres that considered cool at that moment are*, their new album isn't for you". But on the other hand that doesn't mean the general public should stay away from the band because if anything it should mean the new musics are now more accesible to them.

I think it depends on how much you like the bands new 'direction' or 'addition' which unfortunately in my case I always prefer the 'pre-mainstream-influenced' sound of the bands. Me too always welcome the 'change' of any bands as long as I can have 'good' albums to listen to afterwards but sadly the mainstream sounds (nu-metal, metalcore, emo,..etc) never appeal to me. I think IF symphonic metal, power metal, progressive metal or folk/viking metal become trendy I'd have a lot less to complain about.

Written by selken on 19.08.2007 at 18:24

Written by HELLilac on 19.08.2007 at 16:30

Some bands have changed their style of music drastically (Therion, Amorphis, Iron Maiden (from Paul to Bruce era), Blind Guardian) but I don't call them 'sold out' because it's more of the bands evolution than bending towards the trend.

Maybe the statement (read about Therion), can lead to missunderstoods, I wrote this as an example of how bands change their styles drastically without getting the label of "sold out. I'm not calling such bands as "sold out".

I knew what you meant, I marely said that to emphasis the fact that I only accused a band of being 'sold out' when the change in their sound had more to do with impressing the mass audience and a little to do with musical progression..

@ Remus --LOL..I know...if only I'd look like that..

For me it isnt important if band will play same kind of msic for 10- 20 years, or wants to progress with it, only if they do it good. But if band writes music only for money and fame, than its hard to expect anything worth from them. In that case, "sold out" is pretty good term.

I'm not gonna get too deep in this topic because i could fill up pages.

I think it's enough to say that i don't use it,ever.For any band,any genre.

And to tell you the truth.If i were in a band and had to listen to some stupid 17 year old who doesn't know the first thing about...anything really call me a "sell out" and tell me i just suck now because i "sold out",just because he/she doesn't like the fact i didn't make the same album 5 times.(and this is what we're mostly dealing with when people say "sold out")
I'd be pissed off.
With good reason.

It's one thing saying that a certain band's music is different from what it used to be.And as far as i'm concerned,it's good to change,and i always like the new directions my favorite bands go in.

It's another thing to insult them,and the music they make by calling them sellouts.
If you're just that big of an idiot,i suggest you keep your stupid to yourself.It might help you in life.

Written by Deus Ex Machina on 21.08.2007 at 23:16

It's another thing to insult them,and the music they make by calling them sellouts.

That's a good point, I think also that some bands call their peers "sold out" because they feel envious, for example when Metallica released the Black Album, it was a great success, It sold millions and millions of copies, and that's great, and thus maybe some bands (I don't know which) started to call them soldouts for just envy, maybe there are earlier examples.

Believe or not, my point is well represented in a South Park Episode SP fans could realize about which episode I'm talking about.

I think it'd a valid term (applicable when a band compromises its creative integrity for better sales/record deal/whatever), it's just massively over-used.

First of all I would like to say that I don't think Metallica "sold out" when they sued Napster. I read an interview with Dani Filth where he said that he knew a lot of other musicians who would have done the same thing if they had the money Lars Ulrich had. If they could've afford it... but... I don't know why I even commented on it now, the Napster thing is soooooo old!!!

Over to what the topic really is about. I actually never use the term "sold out". For me, I don't care if a band tries to reach more people with their music and wants to earn more money. The music can still be awesome, and if it's not... too bad! :

I also think it's overused.

Most people seem to use the "S.O words" as a form of saying: "this band has changed their style into one which I do not like/approve of, therefore I won't listen to them anymore."

As opposed to: "This band has gone poppy/is obviously trying to appeal to a larger market by changing their sound/image etc to be more accessable and appealling to your average chump and is lapping up this commercial success"

Of course there's a big difference between the two... The latter is selling out.

Written by selken on 22.08.2007 at 03:19

Believe or not, my point is well represented in a South Park Episode SP fans could realize about which episode I'm talking about.

Ah yes, that faithful episode where the boys commit the henus crime of even "downloading Judas Priest songs" for free! Classic!

Still, as Warman said, Metallica shouldn't be reffered to as sell-outs because of the whole Napster deal. Trust me, it really sucks when you're in a band and put tremendous effort (and resources) into recording a CD/Ep and then people just download it illegaly. The fact that Metallica was stinking rich when this happened was a different story but still, it's their money - they should fight for it.

I don't care about teh term. If aband changes its style but I still like them, it's OK. But if I don't I simply don't listen to the "new" stuff. About reaching comercial succes, IMO There's nothign wrong with it, I mean, if musicians make musiic for a living, why not getting more money from their jobs? Example: Dimmu Borgir. Everyone calls them sellouts, but IMO, their music quality has improved since they started "selling out", making videos and stuff, in Enthrone Darkness Triumphant.

I think the term is over-used nowadays, not only within metal but in the underground music scene as a whole. From rap to rock, as soon as a band begin to receive some commercial success the fans complain about them selling out. I really couldn't care less whether a band gains commercial success or not. As long as they play music that I enjoy, I will keep listening to them regardless of other factors.

On another note, bands need to make a living somehow. Now while heaps of metal bands have primary jobs other than music, it's still hard for them to keep their music going, have a family and still make a living all at the same time. So therefore, I really couldn't care less whether a band do try for commercial success.

Everything changes people. Even your favorite bands

I think that when you are 'sold out' that your record is not available in the shop anymore. Which might be bummer.

edit:
Oh, must be serious. Ok.

'Selling out' as a term says more about the one using it, because, apparently, the style of the band in case changed so much (eg. opened up to the public) that it doesn't fit the fan's taste anymore.

Example: if a band makes music and aims for a greater public and the can succeed in that by changing their style, and by doing so they reach their goal, then it seems like a good reason: a band doing things to reach their goal. If you choose to go mainstream, just for the money, it is still a matter of intension and goal. Staying true to your style or genre or roots might be very cool and underground, but it can easily turn into some form of stubborness.

I think 'selling out' is a very subjective combination of taste and expectation.

I think that the term "sold out" is at times apropriate, though somewhat thrown around too much. In my opinion, when a band sells out, it is because they have begun to place money above the prospect of writing thier own, origional music. Think about it, musicians are artists, and to be an artist means to use yourt art in order to create a product of self expression. The moment you forsake art for the sake of money, you are no longer an artist, but a product, something specificly meant for people to buy into. So of course the term "sold out" makes sense when you begin to put your profit above your art, you have essentially sold your soul.
Now I don't think it's right to critisize a band simply because they have perhaps altered their origional sound. If that's what they really wanna do, then so be it, as long as they didn't do it for the sake of larger wealth.

Written by Guest on 23.08.2007 at 20:52

I think that when you are 'sold out' that your record is not available in the shop anymore. Which might be bummer.

edit:
Oh, must be serious. Ok.

'Selling out' as a term says more about the one using it, because, apparently, the style of the band in case changed so much (eg. opened up to the public) that it doesn't fit the fan's taste anymore.

Example: if a band makes music and aims for a greater public and the can succeed in that by changing their style, and by doing so they reach their goal, then it seems like a good reason: a band doing things to reach their goal. If you choose to go mainstream, just for the money, it is still a matter of intension and goal. Staying true to your style or genre or roots might be very cool and underground, but it can easily turn into some form of stubborness.

I think 'selling out' is a very subjective combination of taste and expectation.

As long as Obsidian doesn't "sell-out" you won't hear me complain

I think to dub a band a bunch of sell outs you need to know the inner workings of the band to know there motivations, it is possible to make a crappy album based on the fact you cant write as well as you once did, so im not going to call Bodom sell outs, because its possible that they may have just wrote a bad album musically, maybe it had nothing to do with making a mainstream sound or anything.