Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

What are some of the worst examples you've known about with artists selling out?

...and also, what do you think about selling out in general? Does it make you lose respect for artists?


Here's mine:

Just saw a DISNEYLAND commercial that had Supergrass' "Alright" playing in it...

...DISNEYLAND

...Supergrass

...?

Not only that, but it actually repeated the exact same verse two times in a row, back to back...(and here's the bad part)...it's because the following verse "unfortunately" has to do with partying and smoking.

So, they wrote a song (which they proudly placed on a "Supergrass" album) that they're now selling to represent an amusement park...and they're cutting it up (making it sound just plain weird as it's repeating itself), and hiding the lyrics of the song (and most importantly part of the spirit of it) in order to be able to sell it.

Probably the saddest example of selling out I've ever seen.

Don't know about you, but that stuff drives me crazy.

...and I hope no one says, "maybe they just like Disneyland."

My worst example of a band selling out would be Radiohead's whole catelogue, because they never have sold out so it's definitely the worst example of its kind.

Marilyn Manson on top of the pops, that was just wrong on so many levels. I used to get called a goth and a freak just for listening to him and then suddenly EVERYONE was singing his songs. Creepy...

Manson is a ****

White Stripes advertising Coke
its to be expected from the likes of money grabbing whores like Beyonce and P Diddy but i thought they might have been above that.

to be fair, if you're going to sell out to a company, coca cola is a great choice. that stuff is goddamn delicious, and it alludes to a life style for which jack white seems to long.

what lifestyle is that then?

the 1950's (not 50's specifically, but...ya know) simplicity and innocence. the stuff pops up all over white stripes records and interviews, though i suppose they've moved away from it.

Satyricon by a mile

Just because a band lends songs to something corporate or commercial doesn't mean they've sold out. Their music has to be directly affected, for the worse, which of course is subjective..so the change has to be drastic.

Bands can't help if their music appeals to a large fan base or not, but exploiting it is a different thing altogether.

My example would be Korn, "Follow the Leader" era. "Got the Life", the video anyway, pretty much summed it up. Them rubbing their riches in everyone's faces, and making shitty rapcore after two wildly successful albums. Even if it was a parody, it went on to be a direct reflection.

NIN and With Teeth.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
NIN and With Teeth.

-AC

amen

Worst example?

Tool.

You'll have to explain that one, unless you're making fun of the title.

I think he is.

-AC

I am.

Mobb Deep.

Originally posted by Deathblow
Mobb Deep.

i agree. dissapointing.

Green Day - American Idiot

The hate With Teeth gets is ridiculous. Too catchy?

Originally posted by Solo
The hate With Teeth gets is ridiculous. Too catchy?

More along the lines of too shit. I listen to Prince, don't be suggesting there's such a thing as too catchy to me.

I'm not one of those who'll accuse a band of selling out simply because I dislike the album. That's not the case with NIN/Trent. Trent Reznor didn't sell out because With Teeth was shit, With Teeth was shit BECAUSE he sold out. If With Teeth was shit, I'd still think it was shit, but I might not have boycotted NIN if he didn't do a complete 180 on everything he's spent his career preaching.

It's none of my business, he didn't owe it to anyone NOT to, nor does any "artist". It's their music. I just don't owe it to them to keep supporting or respecting them afterward.

-AC

Originally posted by The Core
Green Day sold out on "Nimrod", almost a decade ago. They were like a new-age Ramones, then went alternative, only to pick back up on pop-punk when it became trendy again. And by "it", I meant hating the president and letting your music speak for you.
Either way, I really hate that American Idiot album.

As if Green Day were ever a very idealistic band in the first place.

people do grow up, if they were 35 and writing songs about sitting around smoking cones and watching tv people would slag them for being stagnant...

Joe Escalante of the Vandals. The biggest cocksucking sellout in the punk scene.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Hating it doesn't mean they sold out.

If you don't know the definition, don't use the phrase.

-AC
Well peresonally I think they did with the album, some of their old music was alright, had significant depth. American Idiot just seemed to scrap all of that depth and shout "**** Bush and his administration because we know they just started a war!" Just to reach a stupid, ignorrant, 13 year old screaming audience.

Some bands or artists just choose to contribute to a movie or show because they like it and feel it could work well, it doesn't always come down to money, sometimes that contribution to another medium is considered artistic as well.

E.g: Godspeed You Black Emperor! have a song featured in 28 Days Later, but it adds a haunting quality to an already haunting movie. It works.

You are putting too much weight on artists being concerned with us. It's their song or whatever. They don't owe it to us to do anything, quite frankly. Conversely, we don't owe it to them to like it, so the solution is not to have a delusional sense of entitlement here.

For example; Michael Jackson selling Revolution 1 by The Beatles to Nike for a commercial, that is a bad choice because it's contradictory. Simply hearing a song somewhere you dislike shouldn't necessarily ruin things for you.

Jeff Buckley was played on The O.C, so I hear. It doesn't enter my mind while listening to his music.

You seem to be blaming artists for your easily influenced listening experiences.

-AC

Eminem: Obvious choice.
Busta Rhymes
I'd say Method Man. His album(s) with Def Jam suck.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Eminem: Obvious choice.


Not to me.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Some bands or artists just choose to contribute to a movie or show because they like it and feel it could work well, it doesn't always come down to money, sometimes that contribution to another medium is considered artistic as well.
I can believe that. But honestly, I'd say that in %90 of the cases I really doubt bands or artists would just freely give up their song or art...it's the money that's making them consider it.

Maybe they even think it's a good idea of having "said" song in "said" movie...do they like the idea enough that they'd give it for free? That's doubtful in most cases I'd say.

It's basically: "Hmmm...'Bittersweet Symphony'...$75,000 dollars. Hmmm...If I say 'no', I'm just throwing away an easy $75,000 dollars...hmmm. All I gotta do is say 'yes', and I'm $75,000 dollars richer...Hmmm.

Can I totally blame them? Not sure, because we're all human and we need to survive...but for the sake of the art itself (and regardless of what it means to the fans), it's just kind of a sad state of affairs.

Originally posted by The Core
Not to me.

Listen to 'Ass Like That' then listen to 'Rock Bottom' and come and tell me he didn't sell out just a little bit.

I've never taken anything he's written seriously. That "Ass Like That" is no different from virtually anything on his first album. Well, atleast "Without Me".

It's just silly.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
I can believe that. But honestly, I'd say that in %90 of the cases I really doubt bands or artists would just freely give up their song or art...it's the money that's making them consider it.

Maybe they even think it's a good idea of having "said" song in "said" movie...do they like the idea enough that they'd give it for free? That's doubtful in most cases I'd say.

It's basically: "Hmmm...'Bittersweet Symphony'...$75,000 dollars. Hmmm...If I say 'no', I'm just throwing away an easy $75,000 dollars...hmmm. All I gotta do is say 'yes', and I'm $75,000 dollars richer...Hmmm.

Can I totally blame them? Not sure, because we're all human and we need to survive...but for the sake of the art itself (and regardless of what it means to the fans), it's just kind of a sad state of affairs.

You seem to believe that because it SEEMS a certain way to you, that it IS that was factually. It's not necessarily. You have no grounds for such sweeping accusations. You are speaking factually where you have no right.

-AC

Just my opinion. yeah.

Soundtracks are one of those things, just because a good band shows up in a crappy movie (or show or whatever) dosn't make the band sell outs. Bob Dylans songs show up everywhere, i dont see people calling him a sell out (well not as many as Eminem or Greenday...)

"selling out" is the stupidest concept. i hope i never hear those two words back to back again.

Then block your ears or close your eyes.

There's a reason they exist and, misused or not, that won't change.

Originally posted by tabby999
Soundtracks are one of those things, just because a good band shows up in a crappy movie (or show or whatever) dosn't make the band sell outs. Bob Dylans songs show up everywhere, i dont see people calling him a sell out (well not as many as Eminem or Greenday...)

I think he is.

I see no reason, other than monetary gain, for him to be performing in a Victoria's Secret commercial.

-AC

ah its just a fun term people use when they dont like a band anymore but dont have a proper reason.

Bob Dylan did???

Yes, he did.

"Gotta respect him, though.", as everyone seems to believe. Right? Laughable.

Originally posted by tabby999
ah its just a fun term people use when they dont like a band anymore but dont have a proper reason.

It's not is it? Because many people do have reasons, credible ones. That was a stupid thing to say. People confuse not liking something with "selling out", but it doesn't mean everyone does.

-AC

Originally posted by tabby999
ah its just a fun term people use when they dont like a band anymore but dont have a proper reason.
Not for me. I still like New Order, Massive Attack and Supergrass, even though they go against what I think should be artistic principles musicians should try and adhere to.

I'm a bit of an idealist though I guess.


EDIT: Can't believe Dylan did that...what???

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yes, he did.

"Gotta respect him, though.", as everyone seems to believe. Right? Laughable.



It's not is it? Because many people do have reasons, credible ones. That was a stupid thing to say. People confuse not liking something with "selling out", but it doesn't mean everyone does.

-AC

It wasn't a stupid thing to say at all, it was in responce to manorastroman but your post got in first. As for Dylan, again, you can't question Dylan for being in the ad, as you've said, we dont know the motivation behind it, it may have been just for the cash, but do you think he really needs money that bad?

Originally posted by tabby999
It wasn't a stupid thing to say at all, it was in responce to manorastroman but your post got in first. As for Dylan, again, you can't question Dylan for being in the ad, as you've said, we dont know the motivation behind it, it may have been just for the cash, but do you think he really needs money that bad?

Yes, it was remarkably stupid. It just proves the rabid defense of all things Dylan, and also...well, it was generally an untrue comment. As I for one can back up anything I say when I accuse artists of selling out, which isn't something I do often.

I can do whatever the hell I wish to do. Why can't I question Bob Dylan for being in an ad for a lingerie company? I certainly think it would beg questioning, to be quite honest.

In the long run, it doesn't matter to me. It just makes a lot of what he's ever said, or stood for, to seem hollow. Then again, Bob Dylan has never really held himself in such high regard as his fans have. So maybe he's never really said selling out was beyond him.

Either way, you tell me what logical reason he could have for doing that, besides monetary gain. That's precisely why it's selling out. He doesn't need the money, it's just greed. In fact, if he NEEDED the money, I would be more lenient. He WANTS the money, in my opinion. It can't be artistically, and if it is, then he was using it to sell his albums, in which case it's still selling out.

-AC

oh bullplop, I mentioned Dylan once off handedly and you act like i have I LOVE BOB DYLAN written on my face. I've never said you can't say what you like either, i never said Dylan is some god among musicians either, i said i dont think its selling out because, as YOU said, we dont know the motives. Once again, we dont know why he did it, for all we know he is friends with the director, with someone who works at Victorias Secret or maybe he IS doing it for the money.
You are no more correct than anyone else when it comes to speaking for somone who you dont know.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yes, it was remarkably stupid.

Relax dude...what's with all the hostilities?


Although I respect Dylan, I really gotta question his integrity as an artist (the way I understand it) with this one.

Lingerie? What???

Originally posted by tabby999
oh bullplop, I mentioned Dylan once off handedly and you act like i have I LOVE BOB DYLAN written on my face. I've never said you can't say what you like either, i never said Dylan is some god among musicians either, i said i dont think its selling out because, as YOU said, we dont know the motives. Once again, we dont know why he did it, for all we know he is friends with the director, with someone who works at Victorias Secret or maybe he IS doing it for the money.
You are no more correct than anyone else when it comes to speaking for somone who you dont know.

I'm apparantly different from other's in the sense that I see 2, I find another 2, I add them together and I get 4.

I'm not saying I'm factually right, I'm saying that all signs and evidence do point to me being right. Especially seeing as the only counter you can continually provide is "We don't know." or "He might be friends with the director.".

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Lingerie? What???

The stuff women wear.

An alien concept I'm sure.

-AC

???

pffft, it makes more sence than someone like Dylan doing something he wouldn't normally do because he's so greedy for money.

Originally posted by tabby999
pffft, it makes more sence than someone like Dylan doing something he wouldn't normally do because he's so greedy for money.

I'll be waiting for a suitable backing for that believe, then.

I have the fact that he did a Victoria's Secret commercial for clearly no artistic reason (Which doesn't leave us with many more options other than selling out, or doing something he wouldn't otherwise have done, for money or other reasons).

You have "Pfft" and faith in Bob Dylan. I suggest coming better prepared.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'll be waiting for a suitable backing for that believe, then.

I have the fact that he did a Victoria's Secret commercial for clearly no artistic reason (Which doesn't leave us with many more options other than selling out, or doing something he wouldn't otherwise have done, for money or other reasons).

You have "Pfft" and faith in Bob Dylan. I suggest coming better prepared.

-AC

And what do you have? Your wanting artistic reasons for someone doing an ad. Really. What musicians have done an ad that had "artistic reasons" behind them. He did an ad, they paid him. That dosn't make him a sell out, it makes him the same as every other person that works. He did what he does for a living and was paid, call the papers!

Originally posted by tabby999
And what do you have? Your wanting artistic reasons for someone doing an ad. Really. What musicians have done an ad that had "artistic reasons" behind them. He did an ad, they paid him. That dosn't make him a sell out, it makes him the same as every other person that works. He did what he does for a living and was paid, call the papers!

I told you what I have previously, do you have Alzheimer's or something?

Why are you asking me what musicians have done ads for artistic reasons? I'm not asking that question, nor saying any or all of them do or don't, I'm saying I don't believe - given the nature of the ad and the company it was for - Bob Dylan has any.

He did what he does for a living? I was unware that the man was a walking corporate lingerie company billboard by trade. He's not an underwear poster boy, he's a musician. He USED what he does for a living in order to help push a corporate product that has absolutely nothing to do with art, and got paid for it. That's called greed. Please try harder and be logical this time.

So I ask; What do you have? All my signs point to me being correct. You have the naive and idiotic believe that what he did was totally fine for an artist of his stature.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNtlqPfhSzY

I have that in my favour. You have...?

Apparantly he was even quoted as saying "If I ever sell out, it'll be selling women's underwear.".

So again, you have? You can argue with me and apparantly (If the quote is true) Bob Dylan if you wish, but I think there's easier prey.

-AC

I asked about artistic reasons because you stated he did the commercial that had no "artistic reason" and i wanted to know if there was ANY artist that had ever done an ad for the artistic merits.

and like it or not, Bob Dylan is a musician, he plays music and makes money from it, he played music in a lingere ad and was paid for it. He did his job and receieved money for that. I dont go up to plumbers in McDonalds and tell them they're sell outs because they're working for maccas, theyre doing their job and were paid for it. Dylans situation is no different, its just that you know who he is.

And if i spent my time going around looking for fights on the internet and picked soft subjects and easy beats, where would be the fun in that?

Originally posted by tabby999
I asked about artistic reasons because you stated he did the commercial that had no "artistic reason" and i wanted to know if there was ANY artist that had ever done an ad for the artistic merits.

That's sort of my point.

Originally posted by tabby999
and like it or not, Bob Dylan is a musician, he plays music and makes money from it, he played music in a lingere ad and was paid for it. He did his job and receieved money for that. I dont go up to plumbers in McDonalds and tell them they're sell outs because they're working for maccas, theyre doing their job and were paid for it. Dylans situation is no different, its just that you know who he is.

Stop ignoring what it is that you're afraid to say.

I've accepted that musicians sell their product, but it still doesn't mean you have to trade morals and sell yourself to corporations. That's something I'm sure we all know, and plenty of very successful, big-earning bands are also very credible.

The point is what you said at the start of the quote. He gets paid to be a musician, that's his job. Not to sell lingerie. He did it USING what his job is, that doesn't make it reasonable, nor does it make it his job.

He didn't "do his job". His job is to write and release music, which he loves doing and was apparantly honest about it. His job isn't to sell lingerie, he chose to. The only reason that seems to be able to be extracted from this choice is obvious; Money. In which case, yes, he's a sell out. A greedy man.

Many people on that link have said that he was quoted as saying that's how he'd sell out if he was going to, and he has, so I'm not sure what's left for you to argue, since you've done nothing but babble from the start.

The bottom line is; His job is one of a musician. The product he sells? His music. He chose to hawk lingerie. It retracts massively from his credibility, in my opinion, because it contradicts what he stood for and preached. The same as Trent Reznor becoming the one thing he explicitly said he never wanted to be, the same with Eminem giving a f*ck, when he clearly built his career on not giving a f*ck.

Originally posted by tabby999
And if i spent my time going around looking for fights on the internet and picked soft subjects and easy beats, where would be the fun in that?

Where's the fun in this? You're on the back foot with overwhelming evidence infront of you and a poor argument behind you. All this serves to do is drag a dead-horse debate on longer than it need be.

If that's something you enjoy, I send pity.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Stop ignoring what it is that you're afraid to say.

I've accepted that musicians sell their product, but it still doesn't mean you have to trade morals and sell yourself to corporations. That's something I'm sure we all know, and plenty of very successful, big-earning bands are also very credible.

The point is what you said at the start of the quote. He gets paid to be a musician, that's his job. Not to sell lingerie. He did it USING what his job is, that doesn't make it reasonable, nor does it make it his job.

He didn't "do his job". His job is to write and release music, which he loves doing and was apparantly honest about it. His job isn't to sell lingerie, he chose to. The only reason that seems to be able to be extracted from this choice is obvious; Money. In which case, yes, he's a sell out. A greedy man.

Many people on that link have said that he was quoted as saying that's how he'd sell out if he was going to, and he has, so I'm not sure what's left for you to argue, since you've done nothing but babble from the start.

The bottom line is; His job is one of a musician. The product he sells? His music. He chose to hawk lingerie. It retracts massively from his credibility, in my opinion, because it contradicts what he stood for and preached. The same as Trent Reznor becoming the one thing he explicitly said he never wanted to be, the same with Eminem giving a f*ck, when he clearly built his career on not giving a f*ck.


so out of that the only thing that really was worth reading was the line that had "IN MY OPINION" in it. As thats all this is, opinions. Just because you think he's sold out dosen't mean he has, it means in your opinion, he has.
And when did he trade his morals? Does it have "Corporations Rule" over him in the ad? Does he sing about the joys of the right wing? Has he changed the music so they could use it in the ad? Nope. Just because they decided they wanted Bob Dylan in their ad and he said yes dosn't make him a sell out, it means they wanted someone with songs people know and who would do it. He didn't change his approach to be in the ad, it hasn't changed his message since he was in it.
In what way does that make him a sell out?

Originally posted by tabby999
so out of that the only thing that really was worth reading was the line that had "IN MY OPINION" in it. As thats all this is, opinions. Just because you think he's sold out dosen't mean he has, it means in your opinion, he has.

With all logical evidence, reasoning and rationale pointing to "Yes, he sold out.". Not sure what more you need than that. You're being ignorant.

Everything points to him making a greedy decision based on money, nothing points to the contrary. NOTHING.

Originally posted by tabby999
And when did he trade his morals? Does it have "Corporations Rule" over him in the ad? Does he sing about the joys of the right wing? Has he changed the music so they could use it in the ad? Nope. Just because they decided they wanted Bob Dylan in their ad and he said yes dosn't make him a sell out, it means they wanted someone with songs people know and who would do it. He didn't change his approach to be in the ad, it hasn't changed his message since he was in it.
In what way does that make him a sell out?

Selling out isn't JUST about morals, it's about greed. Like I said, he doesn't owe it to me NOT to do it. He might have wanted to do it, even.

My point is, he was once a standard bearer for free-thinking, not doing as you're told just because you're told, credibility and integrity. Now he is selling a corporate product, essentially, owned by a corporation (Which charge near extortionate prices so I'm told), with the OBVIOUS goal of quite simply making his pockets fat.

That is selling out. It means he can no longer be taken seriously, because is he, so quickly, can switch to hawking such a product, it says something about his credibility.

You on the other hand, you come with "He just did what he was paid to do." and feel that's an acceptable argument, while you shut your eyes to all the overwhelming evidence.

-AC

You are yet to convince me Bob Dylan is going around shelling for companys because hes greedy. There is a distinct difference between someone going against their opinions and morals and someone simply appearing in an ad. Dylan made money from it, sure, but he hasn't changed the music, he hasn't changed his standpoint on the things that made people like him to begin with and to be honest, he did an ad for Victorias Secret, its not like hes wearing a chicken suit outside a KFC or promoting Walmart.

Originally posted by tabby999
You are yet to convince me Bob Dylan is going around shelling for companys because hes greedy. There is a distinct difference between someone going against their opinions and morals and someone simply appearing in an ad. Dylan made money from it, sure, but he hasn't changed the music, he hasn't changed his standpoint on the things that made people like him to begin with and to be honest, he did an ad for Victorias Secret, its not like hes wearing a chicken suit outside a KFC or promoting Walmart.

Am I? I'm convinced he sold for the company because he's greedy, I believe all evidence points to that. Whether or not you agree is of no concern to me.

Stop harping on morals. That area of selling out isn't what we're dealing with, we're dealing with greed, which is quite obviously why he did what he did.

The evidence is overwhelming.

-AC

50 Cent has sold out

His goal was to make pop music to begin with.

Keven Federline advertising his album on WWE and it still didnt help him.

Marilyn Manson's new album Eat Me, Drink Me is a pretty good example, if you ask me. I downloaded a few songs from LimeWire and then dleted them after one listen.

It's a shame how drastically he's changed his style since Portrait of an American Family and Anitchrist Superstar. Those were fantastic albums.

Many consider Run DMC's hook up with Aerosmith to do "Walk this Way" back in the day was selling out.

Originally posted by Impediment
Marilyn Manson's new album Eat Me, Drink Me is a pretty good example, if you ask me. I downloaded a few songs from LimeWire and then dleted them after one listen.

It's a shame how drastically he's changed his style since Portrait of an American Family and Anitchrist Superstar. Those were fantastic albums.

Manson has been a corporate whore for ages now.

I don't know how Bob Dylan being in an ad is selling out..

It seems to me from the very beginning he just always did what he wanted to, not giving a **** whatever anyone else thought.

Bob Dylan in a Victoria's Secret commercial is the epitome of such.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Bob Dylan in a Victoria's Secret commercial is the epitome of such.

-AC

How?

Do you think he needs the money or personally feels that line of lingerie is appealing and in need of promotion? No, no.

He's doing it cos he wants the money, attaching his song to a commercial of that nature is greed, that's selling out. He became a tool.

-AC

Funkadelic in 1976 sold out big time.

They changed their sound so they could make more money.

Oh, I figured we meant selling out as in compromise your artistic values to gain money...

My bad.

Apparently using your songs for money in any way is selling out nowadays.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh, I figured we meant selling out as in compromise your artistic values to gain money...

My bad.

Apparently using your songs for money in any way is selling out nowadays.

If he's willing to demean his music in such a way he is compromising his artistic values.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If he's willing to demean his music in such a way he is compromising his artistic values.

-AC Wait, is it because he also starred in that commercial, or do you think the White Stripes sold just as much out with the Coke thing?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Wait, is it because he also starred in that commercial, or do you think the White Stripes sold just as much out with the Coke thing?

Yes, and to answer your question; not as much, because they didn't demean the meaning of already existing music they had wrote in favour of the commercial. Jack White said explicitly that if he's going to do it, he won't use any of his existing material. Whilst it's a decision I frown upon (And to be fair, no artist really owes it to me NOT to do these things, just like I don't owe it to continue respecting them), it would have been worse, to me, if they'd just been lazy about it.

The same cannot be said for Bob Dylan.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yes, and to answer your question; not as much, because they didn't demean the meaning of already existing music they had wrote in favour of the commercial. Jack White said explicitly that if he's going to do it, he won't use any of his existing material. Whilst it's a decision I frown upon (And to be fair, no artist really owes it to me NOT to do these things, just like I don't owe it to continue respecting them), it would have been worse, to me, if they'd just been lazy about it.

The same cannot be said for Bob Dylan.

-AC Totally subjective, you could just as well argue that writing new stuff for commercials is a worse case of selling out.

Either way, it's hardly the worse case, imo, I find changing your sound to appeal to a broader audience instead of pursuing your artistic ideals or doing something after directly speaking out against it worse.

Selling a song you already made to a company that wants to support their product (which in Dylan's case he apparently even wanted ... I mean, he played in the commercial, it seems to me it was just something he wanted to do) is to me not "selling out", but...just "selling".

Well we at least agree on a few degrees of selling out.

-AC

Vanilla Ice for...everything he has done.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Do you think he needs the money or personally feels that line of lingerie is appealing and in need of promotion? No, no.

He's doing it cos he wants the money, attaching his song to a commercial of that nature is greed, that's selling out. He became a tool.

-AC He may have become a tool, but that's not how I would define selling out. I agree with Bardock that it is purely when artistic direction is changed for money or at the whim of a record label.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Do you think he needs the money or personally feels that line of lingerie is appealing and in need of promotion? No, no.

He's doing it cos he wants the money, attaching his song to a commercial of that nature is greed, that's selling out. He became a tool.

-AC

So because he has money already he's geedy? Thats been almost your entire argument but it's irrelevant, i dont know if Bob Dylan is greedy, and dispite what you seem to think, neither do you, unless through seeing him in an ad you somehow got to know his personality/attitude towards money.

Unless he did it for any other reason than personal gain, I consider it greed.

-AC

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Many consider Run DMC's hook up with Aerosmith to do "Walk this Way" back in the day was selling out.


Other people called Aerosmith the real sell outs, but that turned out to be a key moment in music history.

any of metallica's albums after the black album

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
any of metallica's albums after the black album

Explain.

And no; "I didn't like it. It sucked.", doesn't qualify. Nor do assumptions that they did said things to appeal to people, just cos their sound changed.

-AC

Gwen Stefani.

I still mantain that Vanilla Ice sold out worse than any artist ever has.

Nine Inch Nails or even ICP. =P

Originally posted by pcp
50 Cent has sold out

Ummm that talent less ape has never had anything to "sell-out" in the first place. He was an "artist" soley backed by a record company in order to sell shitty music at a large scale.

Originally posted by 2D_MASTER
Ummm that talent less ape has never had anything to "sell-out" in the first place. He was an "artist" soley backed by a record company in order to sell shitty music at a large scale. I hate 50 Cent with a passion, and Pez ICP never sold out.

Originally posted by 2D_MASTER
Ummm that talent less ape has never had anything to "sell-out" in the first place. He was an "artist" soley backed by a record company in order to sell shitty music at a large scale.

Pretty sure it was a joke, actually as I know PCP in real life, I'm sure it was a joke.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Pretty sure it was a joke, actually as I know PCP in real life, I'm sure it was a joke.

You watch your filthy mouth.

Paul McCartney "breaking up" the Beatles.

Originally posted by BobbyD
Paul McCartney "breaking up" the Beatles.

yea, i thought that was john lennon's *****?