When is a band evolving, or reinventing itself vs. when it is selling out?

[coloradodem2005]

This is just a little intellectualization. Trying to see if anybody can articulate what the difference is between a band who changes their sound because it is a natural progression or a reinvention, as opposed to changing because they are selling out.

I guess for me the only thing I can really say is something one of my friends said. "When the money starts to matter more than the music, the music goes down hill and you effectively sell out."

THough, how can you tell by listening to the music?

[420montana]

1. Having been in a few bands

that get near breaking it big, usually, we just get better on our mission then the sound changes, the guitarist gets a better lick, the drummer stops drinking, things like that. Bands that do a 180 in the tonality of the music, thats suspicious.....

[ProfessorGAC]

3. I Think It's The Opposite

When a band finds a formula that works, and then NEVER deviates from the formula, it is now selling out.

Example: Journey. The first two albums, pre-Perry, were adventerous and musically challenging. Then they brought in Perry, and the first album, Infinity, with him was a new, fresh, and exciting sound. Problem was, every album after that sounded just like Infinity.

That's selling out, to me. It's when you stop developing to keep hammering the market niche, in order to bleed every nickel out of the system. When you stop caring about being better, and you stop caring about expanding the musical horizons of the band, you become a musical prostitute.
The Professor

[vi5]

2. There are a lot of ways to look at this....

Bands that change their image or sound to something more pallatable to the current trends or consumers is to me "selling out". For example, Alice in Chains and Stone Temple Pilots adopting a more "alternative" dress sense and a darker sound as it was obvious that Nirvana and that ilk were blowing up big. Not that I imagine those two bands had much integrity to sell out in the first place, but still they are two obvious examples.

Conversely a band like the Butthole Surfers who wallowed in psychedelic scuzz rock and scatological lyrical bent, suddenly adopting a more straightforward mainstream rock sound also seems to me to be selling out.

On the other hand a band like Radiohead changed their sound in a way that was seemingly not commercially viable. Of course it had the opposite effect for them and they became if anything more popular.

I just don't think that a band who maintains their sound and just wants to be heard or have more people know their music is necessarily selling out.

[dolo amber]

5. Radiohead

was the first one to pop into my mind as one who changed drastically and not in a more commercial way. Pearl Jam also did something similar by not following the conventional path after gaining super-stardom.

[RandomKoolzip]

4. This is so easy....

There's always so much debate about this or that band selling out, when really there is only one criteria one needs to apply to this situation.

Do you like the music said band is making anymore?

Yes? They haven't sold out.

No? They've sold out.

Subjectivity. End of story.

[Bucky]

6. "They sold out" = "Either their or my tastes have changes"

Selling out usually means someone has become popular. I'm not sure why being successful in one's chosen profession gets equated with bad morals. Stoopid humans.

[arwalden]

7. Thanks! I wanted to reply with a message that conveyed a similar message..

but I couldn't find the correct words.

It's no wonder I could not find them... YOU had them. :hi:

-- Allen

[asthmaticeog]

8. Motivation is the key

If a band changes because they become interested in different ideas, that's perfectly legit. When a band changes to pursue a bigger audience (read: more wallets) or to bring themselves closer into line with what they imagine will stand a better chance of getting on the radio, it's selling out. In other words, if the change is for any reason other than aesthetics, it's likely to be bunk.

Just recently went through something like that with the band I'm in. The drummer -- great guy, good friend, amazing drummer, BTW -- started veering into "we've gotta start doing trendier stuff more people will like" territorry. I pointed out to him that once a style of music becomes popular, the clock is already ticking on it, and if we were to associate ourselves with it just to snag a slightly bigger audience, we'd be irrelevant as soon as the style went out of favor, so why not just stick to working on what we're genuinely into and see if we can't grow our own thing instead of pandering? To which he replied, I shit you not: "I think it's good to pander."

He's not our drummer anymore. The philosophical differences spilled over into the practical work of being in a band, which makes it difficlut to get anything written, when you have a drummer with a totally conflicting aesthetic agenda.