#1
i've noticed something in popular culture that doesn't make much sense. when bands in the 60's like the beatles or the who changed their sound they were called innovators, but nowadays when bands like fall out boy or my chemical romance change their sounds they're called sell outs. can anyone explain that to me?
#2
Because people think they change there sound to appeal to the public more and arent trying to new things
#3
No, people know they change their sounds because their label tells them to, the label does so for them to appeal to a wider audience.
#4
Aren't fall out boy/MCR and most other mainstream bands sell outs to begin with?

>.>
Gear:
Fender Standard HSS Strat w/ Tone Zone bridge
ESP Ltd EC-1k Black cherry
Carvin DC127 blackburst with Bareknuckle Warpigs
Peavey 6505+
#5
Quote by johnwolennon
i've noticed something in popular culture that doesn't make much sense. when bands in the 60's like the beatles or the who changed their sound they were called innovators, but nowadays when bands like fall out boy or my chemical romance change their sounds they're called sell outs. can anyone explain that to me?


Well it is the music business. The whole point of any business is to make money.
Bands are products. Like any product they are often molded into appealing to a certain type of customer. Sometimes that product is built of a talented artists, sometimes its built off a not so talented, but possibly good looking bunch of guys or girls. Whatever.

To each their own. Im not a 13 year old girl, so I didnt really dig fallout boy or Nickelback, and choose not to listen to them, but alot of chicks do dig them so good for those shallow poster boy bands and their record companies.

hehe.... yeah I hate crap if ya can't tell. Like I said to each their own.

Im not disagreeing btw that bands havent changed their look and sound for the purpose of making more money or...... "selling out". Depending on your point of view that may be a bad thing. In my opinion it usually is from an artistic standpoint. But from a business standpoint they probably made alot of money. Good for them I guess, just dont buy it if you think it sucks.
Last edited by GuitarMunky at May 29, 2008,
#7
Quote by one vision
I bet you that MCR and Fall out boy will be called "innovators" in a few decades. Not to say that they are more talented than the Beatles. And yes, I hate them just as much as the next guy.


maybe, but my guess is that nobody will remember them accept some old ladies that are teens now.

There is so much crap from the 80's that is just like gone now. I mean you remember Motley Crue, but do many really listen to Trixter or Ugly Kid Joe?
#8
Quote by GuitarMunky
Well it is the music business. The whole point of any business is to make money.
Bands are products. Like any product they are often molded into appealing to a certain type of customer. Sometimes that product is built of a talented artists, sometimes its built off a not so talented, but possibly good looking bunch of guys or girls. Whatever.

To each their own. Im not a 13 year old girl, so I didnt really dig fallout boy or Nickelback, and choose not to listen to them, but alot of chicks do dig them so good for those shallow poster boy bands and their record companies.

hehe.... yeah I hate crap if ya can't tell. Like I said to each their own.


i'm not a13 year old girl either, but i dig fall out boy quite a bit and find some of nickelback's songs ok. and i don't really think that the producers had fall out boy make songs like this ain't a scene and the carpal tunnel of love, or have the whole "people change" in the music video of take over the break's over. and as for the poster boy or poster girl thing, what about jim morrison or Elvis? weren't they both put on posters, and weren't those posters made in the thousands and hundreds of thousands and put on the walls of teenage girls' rooms? yet as far as i can remember they haven't been called poster boys.
#9
Quote by johnwolennon
i've noticed something in popular culture that doesn't make much sense. when bands in the 60's like the beatles or the who changed their sound they were called innovators, but nowadays when bands like fall out boy or my chemical romance change their sounds they're called sell outs. can anyone explain that to me?


The Beatles went from basically being a boy band - making radio friendly pop that made little girls scream, to doing experimental music that turned a lot of fans off. BUT their experimental stuff is what is where they really came into their own and is considered by most to be their best work.

Bands are generally called sellouts if they change to try by more popular. The Beatles didn't change to be more popular. They grew as artists and were bored of the simplistic pop songs that made them famous.
#10
Quote by GoDrex
The Beatles went from basically being a boy band - making radio friendly pop that made little girls scream, to doing experimental music that turned a lot of fans off. BUT their experimental stuff is what is where they really came into their own and is considered by most to be their best work.

Bands are generally called sellouts if they change to try by more popular. The Beatles didn't change to be more popular. They grew as artists and were bored of the simplistic pop songs that made them famous.



Very true, great point.

Quote by johnwolennon
i'm not a13 year old girl either, but i dig fall out boy quite a bit and find some of nickelback's songs ok. and i don't really think that the producers had fall out boy make songs like this ain't a scene and the carpal tunnel of love, or have the whole "people change" in the music video of take over the break's over. and as for the poster boy or poster girl thing, what about jim morrison or Elvis? weren't they both put on posters, and weren't those posters made in the thousands and hundreds of thousands and put on the walls of teenage girls' rooms? yet as far as i can remember they haven't been called poster boys.



Well they were very much poster boys, but your right they were taken a bit more seriously. Maybe because underneath the poster boy image they had alot to offer as artists. I would even say their image was part of their art.

I guess I see it like this:

if you change how you look act & sound for artistic reasons, your not selling out. If you change how you look, act, and sound for the sole purpose of making more money. Then you're selling out. (not that there's anything wrong with that)


Anyway, sorry if I offended you. I really shouldn't have put them down like that. everyone has different tastes. If they inspire you, thats actually a really cool thing, and chances are you probably hate some of the stuff that I dig listening to.
Last edited by GuitarMunky at May 29, 2008,
#11
Quote by one vision
I bet you that MCR and Fall out boy will be called "innovators" in a few decades. Not to say that they are more talented than the Beatles. And yes, I hate them just as much as the next guy.
Doesnt "innovator" mean doing something original? I'm sorry, but the ramones and sex pistols and even nirvanna were doing what fall out boy is doing now 30 years ago. I dont like ramones either, BTW.

Quote by one vision
The Beatles went from basically being a boy band - making radio friendly pop that made little girls scream, to doing experimental music that turned a lot of fans off. BUT their experimental stuff is what is where they really came into their own and is considered by most to be their best work.

Bands are generally called sellouts if they change to try by more popular. The Beatles didn't change to be more popular. They grew as artists and were bored of the simplistic pop songs that made them famous.
Still dont like the beatles. Even their 'experimental' stuff sounds boring. Sure they're a million times better than pop bands these days (I actually like 4 or 5 beatle songs), but there was better music going around (IMO ofcourse).

Meh, ignore me. I probably have a prejudice against 50's/60's pop bands for stealing the spot light from the other styles of music at the time.

Quote by johnwolennon
what about .... Elvis?
Compare Robert Johnson, or buddy guy or BB king (or just about any black bluesman) to Elvis. Sure elvis was definantly one of the best things going round in music at the time, but he only got famous because he was white. White, racist, america didnt like listening to black people, so although these black musicians were more skilled at writting blues, they only ever gained popularity from the black minority.
#12
i agree with most of what has been said here. so it reiterate (and possibly make a new point) here's what i think:

the beatles did move from being a boy band to being more experimental. they did write incredibly catchy pop songs in the beginning of their career, but i happen to think that the beach boys were doing it better (check out the harmonies on pet sounds). then as the beatles became more experimental i think they did become artists rather than entertainers. then again, while everyone talks about how amazing Sergeant Pepper's album was, what about Piper at the Gates of Dawn by Pink Floyd? The Beatles, however, were and are more appreciated because they moved from writing standard pop songs which won them a huge fan base to writing experimental songs and having that entire fan base state their opinions. What i'm trying to say is that when the entire world is watching one successful artistic gamble will be heralded as "amazing" and completely "original" while all the other bands that have been playing that type of music, but have less of a fan base, will be passed over due to lesser popularity.

as for whether or not it was possible for bands to sell out in the 50s, 60s, and even a bit of the 70s. I think it's a matter of context. What's true about the music industry and the culture of the world in general now is not what was true then. The music industry was still young, the mindset of the time was heavily influenced by the countercultural movement and artists were still discovering exactly what could be achieved through music. basically music was not yet viewed as a commodity to be sold and bands as products to be marketed. (even if they were it definitely was not in the same way as it is now). nowadays we have competing record companies who vie for pole position in the music marketplace. When Fall Out Boy releases a hit record, another record company will scout for a band that is similar and will release that record. Both will be marketed in a certain fashion so as to try and maximize the profits for each company. Record contracts dictate how many albums the band must release through its respective record company and could even include clauses that let the record company control the direction of the band. So sometimes it may not even be that the band is necessarily "selling out" it could be that they have absolutely no control over their music, unfortunately. The main problem is that music has become a commodity to fight over and thus the rule of the day has become quantity over quantity. All a record company has to do is have a band turn out one good single, release and album and BAM! there's profits. So i personally think that while some bands sell out, some bands rush into contracts with record companies and relinquish artistic control over their own music (which could be viewed as the expression of their 'selves' their very soul!) and in that sense it was their own impetuousness that sold them out, not their conscious decisions. It's a mixed bag really.

Furthermore its an absolute shame that bands like Fall Out Boy and MCR are heralded as amazing while bands such as King Crimson, Ghost, Ruins, Rodan, Polvo, My Bloody Valentine, and even bands like the Deftones and the Mars Volta go unnoticed and never get the due credit they deserve.

Its quantity over quality in this jaded paper filled landscape.


p.s. **** nickelback. seriously.
#14
Quote by sisuphi
i


as for whether or not it was possible for bands to sell out in the 50s, 60s, and even a bit of the 70s. I think it's a matter of context. What's true about the music industry and the culture of the world in general now is not what was true then. The music industry was still young, the mindset of the time was heavily influenced by the countercultural movement and artists were still discovering exactly what could be achieved through music. basically music was not yet viewed as a commodity to be sold and bands as products to be marketed. (even if they were it definitely was not in the same way as it is now). nowadays we have competing record companies who vie for pole position in the music marketplace. When Fall Out Boy releases a hit record, another record company will scout for a band that is similar and will release that record. Both will be marketed in a certain fashion so as to try and maximize the profits for each company. Record contracts dictate how many albums the band must release through its respective record company and could even include clauses that let the record company control the direction of the band. So sometimes it may not even be that the band is necessarily "selling out" it could be that they have absolutely no control over their music, unfortunately. The main problem is that music has become a commodity to fight over and thus the rule of the day has become quantity over quantity. All a record company has to do is have a band turn out one good single, release and album and BAM! there's profits. So i personally think that while some bands sell out, some bands rush into contracts with record companies and relinquish artistic control over their own music (which could be viewed as the expression of their 'selves' their very soul!) and in that sense it was their own impetuousness that sold them out, not their conscious decisions. It's a mixed bag really.


I'd just like to point out that this is exactly what happened when the beatles made it big. Everyone then had to have their own Beatles-like band and they popped up all over the place, all trying to cash in on the phenomena, and some were pretty successful at it, like the Dave Clark Five and Herman's Hermits and even The Monkees.

The difference now is that back in the 60's the record labels were more willing to take a chance on some weird new artist because every so often something unusual would sell a ton of records. Now they can't take a chance on the unknown. And what you get is a kind of bland sameness. And the more you get used to the bland sameness the more that's what they'll give to you, because you won't know any different.
Last edited by GoDrex at May 30, 2008,
#15
Quote by GoDrex
The difference now is that back in the 60's the record labels were more willing to take a chance on some weird new artist because every so often something unusual would sell a ton of records. Now they can't take a chance on the unknown. And what you get is a kind of bland sameness. And the more you get used to the bland sameness the more that's what they'll give to you, because you won't know any different.
That's not really right at all... record companies spend billions of dollars taking chances on things they're completely clueless about. There are probably close to 10,000 bands and solo-performers in the country that are signed on to various labels, at a minimum, even the ones that are expected to fail, are advanced around 50 grand (MXPX comes to mind, when T&N said they would "never possibly recoup that"). In reality, most bands are given about a quarter million on advance -- before they've even sold a single sticker.

Record companies have never been stupid, and the music industry in the 50s and 60s was pretty cutthroat. You've always had the advance, and the artist on-line for anything they're unable to recoup from that advance... and the risk of total insolvency of the asset.
Quote by les_kris
Corwinoid is God
I'm not even God-like... I've officially usurped the Almighty's throne.
Click here to worship me.

Member #3 of the Corwinoid Fan Club
#16
Well I still think they're far more conservative these days about what they'll take a chance on. In my opinion it's gotten worse in the last 15 years. Back in the early 90's a band like Ween could get on MTV and signed to Elektra records. Now anything like that seems to be only on indie labels.
#17
^ 15 years ago, MTV was indie, and Elektra was a failing business.
Quote by les_kris
Corwinoid is God
I'm not even God-like... I've officially usurped the Almighty's throne.
Click here to worship me.

Member #3 of the Corwinoid Fan Club
#18
Quote by GuitarMunky
Very true, great point.

Well they were very much poster boys, but your right they were taken a bit more seriously. Maybe because underneath the poster boy image they had alot to offer as artists. I would even say their image was part of their art.

I guess I see it like this:

if you change how you look act & sound for artistic reasons, your not selling out. If you change how you look, act, and sound for the sole purpose of making more money. Then you're selling out. (not that there's anything wrong with that)


Anyway, sorry if I offended you. I really shouldn't have put them down like that. everyone has different tastes. If they inspire you, thats actually a really cool thing, and chances are you probably hate some of the stuff that I dig listening to.


that's ok man, i was just trying to point out the fact that the bands you labled as shallow poster boys weren't. i'm not saying that they don't exist, but that you were, in my definition, mislabeling them. i know there's the whole to each his own, but had you listed "acts" like the jonas brothers or myley cirus or britney spears or christina agulera i wouldn't have had a reason to reply. i know that some people say that they're good, but the general agreement amongst pretty much everyone i know is that they're crappy, it could be the fact that they don't write their own songs. i'm not saying that not writing your own songs makes you crappy, cause as far as i know elvis didn't write any of the songs that he did, but at least he played an instrument, and added his own twist to songs, and the monkees at the beginning were just proposed as a tv show band of crazy youths, quoted as the u.s. answer to the beatles, and yes the band started with only one acutal musician, but after a while they got creative control over the songs they sang, learned to play the instruments and stopped doing the tv show.
#19
Quote by johnwolennon
that's ok man, i was just trying to point out the fact that the bands you labled as shallow poster boys weren't. i'm not saying that they don't exist, but that you were, in my definition, mislabeling them. i know there's the whole to each his own, but had you listed "acts" like the jonas brothers or myley cirus or britney spears or christina agulera i wouldn't have had a reason to reply. i know that some people say that they're good, but the general agreement amongst pretty much everyone i know is that they're crappy, it could be the fact that they don't write their own songs. i'm not saying that not writing your own songs makes you crappy, cause as far as i know elvis didn't write any of the songs that he did, but at least he played an instrument, and added his own twist to songs, and the monkees at the beginning were just proposed as a tv show band of crazy youths, quoted as the u.s. answer to the beatles, and yes the band started with only one acutal musician, but after a while they got creative control over the songs they sang, learned to play the instruments and stopped doing the tv show.



I guess I dont see nickelback as being all that different to Miley or the Jonas brothers. I know thats offensive, but it is my opinion. Regardless though, I think whatever inspires you, even if it is the Jonas Brothers..... is always good. I should have just kept my opinion to myself, but the subject was sellouts, and I just give my opinion as to who I considered to be sellouts. My opinion won't change, but I am sorry for offending you.
#20
Quote by one vision
I bet you that MCR and Fall out boy will be called "innovators" in a few decades. Not to say that they are more talented than the Beatles. And yes, I hate them just as much as the next guy.


Just for full disclosure, I hate them too.

But I don't think they'll really be remembered. I think music groups/musicians are remembered for contributions they made to music as a whole. I mean we won't talk about Schoenberg for some great piece he wrote, we talk about Schoenberg because he developed the 12-tone system of composition. We don't talk about the Beatles for any one song, we talk about the styles they introduced the world to. The fact that they were a marketing freakin machine certainly gave them the clout to be able to make drastic changes in sound and survive the backlash though.

Bands like MCR and Fall Out Boy arn't really adding much to the spectrum of music as a whole. People will probably remember some great fusion/prog guys because of the directions they went in with music, not because of some song, but because of a contribution.
#21
Quote by demonofthenight
Doesnt "innovator" mean doing something original? I'm sorry, but the ramones and sex pistols and even nirvanna were doing what fall out boy is doing now 30 years ago. I dont like ramones either, BTW.

Still dont like the beatles. Even their 'experimental' stuff sounds boring. Sure they're a million times better than pop bands these days (I actually like 4 or 5 beatle songs), but there was better music going around (IMO ofcourse).

Meh, ignore me. I probably have a prejudice against 50's/60's pop bands for stealing the spot light from the other styles of music at the time.

Compare Robert Johnson, or buddy guy or BB king (or just about any black bluesman) to Elvis. Sure elvis was definantly one of the best things going round in music at the time, but he only got famous because he was white. White, racist, america didnt like listening to black people, so although these black musicians were more skilled at writting blues, they only ever gained popularity from the black minority.


first of all robert johnson became famous as a blues player, and elvis became famous as a rockabilly singer and player, and robert johnson is known as the grandfather of rock and roll. if there wasn't buddy guy, there wouldn't be eric clapton, and BB king was definately famous, so you can't say that elvis was only famous because he was white. what is more correct is that he became famous for the mainstream white audience because he was white. he became famous because he was introducing black music to the white audience, and he's known as bridging the gap between black and white music, which scared parents of millions of teenagers who began buying chuck berry and fats domino albums.

how about little richard, or chuck berry, fats domino or ike turner? they were just as famous as elvis, and ike turner wrote and recorded the first rock and roll song "rocket 88"

and as for the originality bit, nirvana was doing what the melvins were doing nine years prior, which is what black flag was doing in the late seventies which was what the ramones were doing in the mid seventies which was what the beatles were doing in the sixties which was what elvis was doing in the mid fifties which was what big moma thornton was doing in the early fifties.
#22
Quote by johnwolennon
and as for the originality bit, nirvana was doing what the melvins were doing nine years prior, which is what black flag was doing in the late seventies which was what the ramones were doing in the mid seventies which was what the beatles were doing in the sixties which was what elvis was doing in the mid fifties which was what big moma thornton was doing in the early fifties.
Please don't tell me that you just accused Nirvana of ripped off the sound of The Beatles and Elvis.
#24
Quote by bangoodcharlote
Please don't tell me that you just accused Nirvana of ripped off the sound of The Beatles and Elvis.



i'm not saying that nirvana ripped off the sound of the beatles and elvis, but that nirvana was inspired by the music that had been played earlier, and that what they had done wasn't giant leaps and bounds, but a small step. kurt said himself that he was playing punk music, or what he interprited as punk, which started in the seventies with the ramones, and the ramones were doing the same thing bands like the beatles and the stones were doing, and they were inspired by elvis