it does annoy me when bands re record songs to appeal to the main stream, ok in most cases this maybe down to the label but still surely the artist shouldnt want to sell out? maybe they dont see it as selling out......
example.....
the killers..... mr birghtside... the orginal versions put out over a year ago is out of this world fantastic.
the new version which got to #10 in the uk charts i think on the album, makes me want to cry. its a good song, but in my opinion the orginal version is possibly a million trillion times better... this version just upsets me.
OK... this is really dated... but it's the best example for me. When I was a kid I was really into Kiss (I'm 35), and they went for the longest time without putting out an album after cranking out 2 albums a year for 3 straight years. So after all this waiting and anticipation out comes this big shiny silver double-record piece of shit called "Double Platinum", and what is it? Re-recorded and remixed version of past hits. That was the exact moment when I wrote off Kiss. Sums up every career move they made after that if you ask me. Jaggovs.
Most "sell-outs" tend to involve an influx of money and some famous producer. It's not usually the band's fault - other than the fact that they get blinded by opportunity and a bunch of record company yes-men telling them their shit don't stink.
I think it was Keith, in the days when he set the standard for music board discussions, who posted the thread titled (something like) "This Just In: Commercial Success Not A Crime."
I can think of examples where success has spoiled a band or artist, but every album, every song is a risk. No-one knows if it'll be good or bad.
On re-recordings: I wish Psychedelic Furs never re-recorded "Pretty in Pink". I wish Hunters and Collectors never re-recorded "Throw Your Arms Around Me". But I can always play the originals.
TheFuckOffKid said:
I think it was Keith, in the days when he set the standard for music board discussions, who posted the thread titled (something like) "This Just In: Commercial Success Not A Crime."
OK... I obviously misunderstood this thread. I somehow got it into my head that this was about bands running out of songwriting creativity and re-recording their past glories for commercial success.
Selling out in general, huh? I think I'll stay out of this one... this topic is WAAAY too played.
Oh yeah... for the record I love "Love Gun"... the last good record Kiss made and the one that left us biting our nails waiting for... "Double Crap-inum"!
There's a big difference when a band getting successful and when a band is selling out. Personally speaking there aren't an awful lot of aritists that I would use the sell out term for.
A band can sell millions of records, have millions of dollars, live in mansions, have lots of pitbulls, and not sell out. This band writes great music and very good at their art form, it just so happens a lot of people are into them.
There are finacially successful bands out there that are good bands. People in bands have to feed themselves too.
At the same time, a band that's flat broke, eats Ramen soup for means of survival, struggles to get shows and to sell a hundred copies of their album can be complete sell outs. If you pay this band enough money they degrade themselves to bastardizing their band to do just about anything.
Just because a band starts making money and gains popularity doesn't mean they sold out.
Here's my take on "selling out".
Selling out implies that you have abandoned what you value for money and fame. So when one says an artist/band has sold out, it is because they think that that artist/band stopped being true to themselves and what they stood for so they could be more rich and famous.
Now here's where it gets interesting.
If you're giving up something for something else, it's usually because you value that other thing more. So, if an artist/band changes their sound to be more commercially successful, does that not mean that they value commercial success more than they value that original sound? Does it not mean that they would rather have fame and riches than indie street cred?
If this is so, then the whole premise of "selling out" is crap. It's just that the artist/band you are accusing of selling out doesn't share your values. You may think that having a certain sound/image/whatever is more valuable than fame and fortune, but they clearly do not.
So if you want to stop liking an artist/band because of the changes they made for commercial success, go right ahead. Just remember that they're probably not sellouts for it. They just went with what they valued more.
Feel free to disagree with their values, just as they disagree with yours.
escapereality
United Kingdom
October 2003
JUN 10, 2004 11:33 PM