Dubstepforum.com

Posted a similar question in the general discussion section, but I figured heads in this subforum would be more inclined to philosophize...

In as much seriousness as possible, do you think "selling out" and "being successful" are mutually exclusive in any context? One possible end could be compromising artistic vision to be more commercially viable. Another could simply 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. They say that making money doing something you love will always make people hate you.

Perhaps the fundamental question, though, is whether or not you think maximum creative potential and authenticity is mainly exclusive to artists living under difficult conditions, e.g. being oppressed or disenfranchised or otherwise compromised.

Here's a hypothetical example to chew on. Say you woke up tomorrow to find an email from a reputable film studio, offering you a contract to use several of your existing tracks, as well as several newly commissioned ones, for an upcoming wide-release film's official soundtrack. You would receive a six-figure commission fee plus considerable future royalties depending on the film's success and hard copy sales, not to mention international attention among those in the media industry and media coverage to go with it. Would you take it? Would you refuse it entirely? Or something in between? You'd have to consider that heads in the scene might accuse you of "selling out" whether or not you consciously decided to alter your artistic vision into commercial viability. You'd have to consider that heads may undermine your credibility within the community regardless of whether or not their accusations are justified or not. Or does it even matter?

My main motivation for asking this is from looking at the global culture drought, all the sleepers, the lost children, the unrelenting downward spiral, and wondering why people insist on "keeping it locked", when the power to recalibrate world culture lies with those creating it. Artists, after all, have the power to shake the world.

What do you think, though? This is an entirely open-ended question.

Selling out is nothing to do with getting popular, its to do with deliberately using your initial credibility and changing your music from what you'd ideally want it to be to something more watered down to appeal to more people and get more ££ but trade off your original underground roots when you were making exactly the music you wanted.

Can't sell out if you don't have already have credibility to sell....ex boyband members never get accused of it.

Mr Hyde wrote:Selling out is nothing to do with getting popular, its to do with deliberately using your initial credibility and changing your music from what you'd ideally want it to be to something more watered down to appeal to more people and get more ££ but trade off your original underground roots when you were making exactly the music you wanted.

Can't sell out if you don't have already have credibility to sell....ex boyband members never get accused of it.

/ thread

If I like a band, and someone else says they like them, they're sellouts.

Mr Hyde wrote:Selling out is nothing to do with getting popular, its to do with deliberately using your initial credibility and changing your music from what you'd ideally want it to be to something more watered down to appeal to more people and get more ££ but trade off your original underground roots when you were making exactly the music you wanted.

Can't sell out if you don't have already have credibility to sell....ex boyband members never get accused of it.

Pretty much this

This is like selling out to me...

It's not so much about sharing the chicken..
but you don't want that fucker getting a grip on your person..

<iframe src="/forum/video.php?url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSFsRlCOpHI&feature=related" frameborder="0" style="overflow:hidden; height:auto; max-width:540px"></iframe>

it's all about integrity

surrounded by turtles is ok...

<iframe src="/forum/video.php?url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6nq4tWI1h8" frameborder="0" style="overflow:hidden; height:auto; max-width:540px"></iframe>

ummm...well maybe...

<iframe src="/forum/video.php?url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIeL0g8GpXM&feature=related" frameborder="0" style="overflow:hidden; height:auto; max-width:540px"></iframe>

What Pistons said.

Mr Hyde wrote:changing your music from what you'd ideally want it to be to something more watered down to appeal to more people and get more ££

Badman Juice wrote:it's all about integrity

http://www.dubstepforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 60&start=0

Interesting how the responses vary in different forums... different lamps, different moths I guess.

Hm... took one night of ninja forum crawling to guess that brightmaroon would come along at some point. Impressive that you've maintained a consistent track record. Reptiles are definitely relevant as they are super-cute.

It doesn't matter.

Dizzee's first album is great - everything else pretty much is shit... but thats up to him - it's his life. Who is anyone to tell someone what they can do?

There's plenty more amazing music in the world both underground and commercial so I don't really care.


In this video Reginald D Hunter covers this in a way, very intelligent man, from about 3 mins in... really worth watching it all.

Okay.... here we go. Ill try to be as brief as possible. There is such a thing as selling out, no philosophy needed. Mr. Hyde pretty much hit the nail on the head.

I work in the music industry. As you are probably aware, the vast majority of worldwide labels are owned by 4 companies, and these companies often share some labels for distribution purposes. I work for the largest, UMG.

It is extremely hard in this era of music, to be in the top 40 list, without being involved in one of the big 4 companies.

Now, what does joining one of these companies mean? It means selling out. They own you, and in most cases you have little musical decisions in the direction your songs go. They can be re-written, edited, mixed, or completely thrown out by producers/editors, just because they want to streamline it to be successful.

So, you make lots of money in the end, but the music that you've put forward will just be a shell of its former self. I've seen really amazing songs be broken down into the lowest common denominator just so they'll be crowd friendly.

knell wrote:Okay.... here we go. Ill try to be as brief as possible. There is such a thing as selling out, no philosophy needed. Mr. Hyde pretty much hit the nail on the head.

I work in the music industry. As you are probably aware, the vast majority of worldwide labels are owned by 4 companies, and these companies often share some labels for distribution purposes. I work for the largest, UMG.

It is extremely hard in this era of music, to be in the top 40 list, without being involved in one of the big 4 companies.

Now, what does joining one of these companies mean? It means selling out. They own you, and in most cases you have little musical decisions in the direction your songs go. They can be re-written, edited, mixed, or completely thrown out by producers/editors, just because they want to streamline it to be successful.

So, you make lots of money in the end, but the music that you've put forward will just be a shell of its former self. I've seen really amazing songs be broken down into the lowest common denominator just so they'll be crowd friendly.

Kaiser Chiefs didn't sell out to get to number 1 many times though, or the Arctic Monkeys. When they did try and sell out they disappeared

<iframe src="/forum/video.php?url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E46BhMIRujI" frameborder="0" style="overflow:hidden; height:auto; max-width:540px"></iframe>

<iframe src="/forum/video.php?url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nttuBm-aHv0&feature=related" frameborder="0" style="overflow:hidden; height:auto; max-width:540px"></iframe>

(Pada) wrote:It doesn't matter.

Dizzee's first album is great - everything else pretty much is shit... but thats up to him - it's his life. Who is anyone to tell someone what they can do?

There's plenty more amazing music in the world both underground and commercial so I don't really care.


In this video Reginald D Hunter covers this in a way, very intelligent man, from about 3 mins in... really worth watching it all.

dizzee's second album is sick and so is his pre boy in da corner stuff.

<iframe src="/forum/video.php?url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2Y41RGVfEs" frameborder="0" style="overflow:hidden; height:auto; max-width:540px"></iframe>

test recordings wrote:

knell wrote:Okay.... here we go. Ill try to be as brief as possible. There is such a thing as selling out, no philosophy needed. Mr. Hyde pretty much hit the nail on the head.

I work in the music industry. As you are probably aware, the vast majority of worldwide labels are owned by 4 companies, and these companies often share some labels for distribution purposes. I work for the largest, UMG.

It is extremely hard in this era of music, to be in the top 40 list, without being involved in one of the big 4 companies.

Now, what does joining one of these companies mean? It means selling out. They own you, and in most cases you have little musical decisions in the direction your songs go. They can be re-written, edited, mixed, or completely thrown out by producers/editors, just because they want to streamline it to be successful.

So, you make lots of money in the end, but the music that you've put forward will just be a shell of its former self. I've seen really amazing songs be broken down into the lowest common denominator just so they'll be crowd friendly.

Kaiser Chiefs didn't sell out to get to number 1 many times though, or the Arctic Monkeys. When they did try and sell out they disappeared

Neither of those got to #1 in the US, or anywhere close (#45), and most of their post chart sales came from B-Unique's merger with Atlantic and Universal.

(Pada) wrote:It doesn't matter.

Dizzee's first album is great - everything else pretty much is shit... but thats up to him - it's his life. Who is anyone to tell someone what they can do?

Nah Showtime is quality as well.

But yeah...basically the bit about changing what you do to become commercially accessible.

It's difficult when artists become successful for doing what they do, to know whether when they change direction (inevitable for any self respecting musician) if it's natural or money driven.