Dubstepforum.com

Serious question. Where is the line drawn between "selling out" and "being successful"? Do you think those two concepts are mutually exclusive in any context?

On one end, it could be compromising artistic vision to be more commercial. On the other, it could be generating an amount of attention or/and revenue that is significant enough to tip the jealousy threshold of those who have yet not, or will never, accomplish anything on the same level. Or... something else entirely.

This is an open-ended question, so feel free to answer how you wish.

i think compromising your original vision to make more money

i mean if someone began just wanting to make money it wouldnt be any different

but if they started out making music for themselves as i and many others do and then realised making something in a certain other style made more money and promptly got on it..that for me would be 'selling out'

Pistonsbeneath wrote:i think compromising your original vision to make more money

i mean if someone began just wanting to make money it wouldnt be any different

but if they started out making music for themselves as i and many others do and then realised making something in a certain other style made more money and promptly got on it..that for me would be 'selling out'

This, exactly this.

i think Pistonsbeneath has pretty much summed it up

On the other hand, if you made music to make money in the first place you'd be a 'sale'...

Riddles wrote:

Pistonsbeneath wrote:i think compromising your original vision to make more money

i mean if someone began just wanting to make money it wouldnt be any different

but if they started out making music for themselves as i and many others do and then realised making something in a certain other style made more money and promptly got on it..that for me would be 'selling out'

This, exactly this.

That's a tidy answer. Chicken and egg: which came first, creative originality or lucrative potential? In terms of style, some part has always been borrowed, or less euphemistically "stolen" from another artist... so taking that consideration, it can hardly be a question of the style, since most people with brains and self-respect won't just blatantly rip off someone else.... rather, it's the effect of money involved.

test recordings wrote:On the other hand, if you made music to make money in the first place you'd be a 'sale'...

I suspect that as our cyber generation grows up a bit and certain people start getting bigger professionally, we'll be seeing next-gen wave of shit talking just because some people are making money doing what they love. People hate that, right?

Pistonsbeneath wrote: if they started out making music for themselves as i and many others do and then realised making something in a certain other style made more money and promptly got on it..that for me would be 'selling out'

nail on head imo.

Anybody that makes ANY money from music is a corporate sell out. It disgusts me.

Sgt. Jokes.

Exactly what Pistonsbeneath just said, although it would be hard to prove. Say I produced Roots Dub, then suddenly I get into the filthy tearout stuff and make a ton of money, I could just tell you I wanted to progress musically.

Think Pistons answered it, but I don't see any harm in producing popular music if it generates money for you to live, and also sustain making music that is truly your passion.

Pistonsbeneath wrote:i think compromising your original vision to make more money

this conveniently leaves no space for artistic development.

Pistonsbeneath wrote:i think compromising your original vision to make more money

i mean if someone began just wanting to make money it wouldnt be any different

but if they started out making music for themselves as i and many others do and then realised making something in a certain other style made more money and promptly got on it..that for me would be 'selling out'

i think this would be selling out if they actually made some money out of it, but if they tried and failed that would just make them a "dick"

garethom wrote:Anybody that makes ANY money from music is a corporate sell out. It disgusts me.

You've made a few implications.
One, that music belongs in a separate category from, well, every other manmade thing, and should never be mixed with the global tool of exchange, "money".
Two, that making ANY money automatically makes the artist in some way affiliated with a corporation.
Three, that making ANY money automatically negates the artist's technical and musical merit.
Four, that making ANY money from passion and belief in a vision is just wrong, regardless of what the artist plans to use that money for.

Sharmaji wrote:

Pistonsbeneath wrote:i think compromising your original vision to make more money

this conveniently leaves no space for artistic development.

Yeah, funny how that works.

It's a good question and I think you posed it well mate. Something I and many other producers ponder in the current environment of poor sales.

I think wrongly people brand people making more commercial music as selling out. For me i think the term is one of those more often than not banded about by jealously. It you negate it being about music for a moment and consider that, when you go to work, you more often that not chose a job for most money and you change jobs to get more money to afford your lifestyle.
I am pretty much 90% sure most people would take on an extra responsibility they didn't like at work for for example £5k a year more. I don't see music any different. If you have to do projects you would normally do to make enough money to live why is it any different? Or if you did commercial projects to fund you making tunes you love, no different to working a crap job to do it. end of the day we all need money to live

I think the key is you do things with integrity, and enjoy what you do.

If your doing something, hate it and then don't even use the benefits that job is giving you, thats a sell out to me, and that doesn't have to be music. it's a sell out on your life in my view

I used to think black eyed peas were dreadful but i've actually started to see redemptive notions in their music, i would appreciate them more if I found out will.i.am made loads of underground tunes under different alias but hey will probably never know that...

being on the radio

Selling out would be if burial started brosteppin

If the artist changes the dynamic of their work for the sake of generating more cash, that, to me, is selling out. However, artists need to make a living too. There is a fine line there. Being a successful artist means creating material for yourself, but also appealing to others in way that may help you generate some income as well. I believe that being successful at this means finding your own style, yet considering the views and visions of others.

In order to sell out, you would have to have had artistic integrity in the first place.

I think selling out has to do with you making a decision to 'create' something that you yourself believe to have no artistic merit. If you normally write deep dubstep, which isn't selling well, see that the harder mid-range stuff is selling better, and try your hand at a harder more mid-range tune, but still write a kick-ass tune that you yourself like, and end up selling that for some good money, I don't see that as selling out. If you write a mid-range tune but hold firm to a belief that all mid-range dubstep sucks ass, then you are a sellout.

P.S. Not all mid-range dubstep sucks ass, just the vast majority of it

Sharmaji wrote:

Pistonsbeneath wrote:i think compromising your original vision to make more money

this conveniently leaves no space for artistic development.

Which is why the whole idea of "selling out" is just more dumb fan entitlement BS