what bands out there could have made it much bigger, but for artistic reasons, kept it small? and how did they put on the brakes? 

would you, in their shoes?

Amen. We can be civil , without agreeing about everything. This is'nt You Tube.

D. A. Anguiano said:

Can I just say what a classy bunch of guys and gals you guys are. For being such a hot-button issue, this conversation has been downright civil. Cheers, everyone! Glad to be a member.

The Pulsebeats , That's a lot to consider , having to hire the venue yourself , and the other people that have to be paid , Soundman , Doorman , etc.    I think a lot of people in your position break even , at best , the first time they book an established act....Some of my friends have really taken a beating on bands that you'd think would draw plenty. On the other hand , I remember a so called "Booking agent" who took over a show my friend and I were doing ( I was the middleman, but , I personally put the two parties in touch.) even though he had no faith in the band or their drawing ability , because he did'nt know who the Hell they were.

They were THE CREATION , and they sold the venue out , two nights in a row , both weeknights , which NEVER happens in Chicago. One of our friends , here , posted recorded evidence of what a great engagement it was , too.

When we put The Dirtbombs on it was our first time putting on a band of their calibre. Before that we'd mainly put on bands who were happy to take whatever door money there was on the night, so we thought 1000 pounds was a lot to begin with and tried to get them down to 800. We covered it though, and the venue hire and all other costs, but didn't make a penny off it. For us it was payment enough to be able to meet them and share a stage with them. Unforgettable night!

John Battles said:

 The Pulsebeats' comment about working with The Dirtbombs , earlier , a grand for a band as popular as they are is'nt that much at all (Though it was'nt clear - to me  - as to whether he was talking Dollars or Pounds , or whether that was a large amount to pay , compared to other bands.).  Those guys draw several hundred people a night , maybe more in Europe.

Can I just say what a classy bunch of guys and gals you guys are. For being such a hot-button issue, this conversation has been downright civil. Cheers, everyone! Glad to be a member.

I think that part speaks highly of Albini. I remember , amidst working with much bigger names , that he produced Chicago - area Punk legends ,The Mentally Ill's first - ever studio CD
. As good as the finished product (And I wish I could say the same for "The Weirdness".) is , it was never officially released , to my knowledge , barring a few promo copies that  turned up at the now - defunct Dr. Wax Records , and a few that can still be purchased from the band , themselves , at their sporadic live shows. I liked "Laboratory of Sound' by The Fleshtones , tho' most people did'nt , it seems. No one could call The Fleshtones , or anyone who'd produce them , a sellout. I mean , really , when your worst is better than much of the competition at their best , you're destined to tour your ass off for eternity , playing to the same people you played to 30 years ago , as they've done. Bringing in Albini did'nt seem like a commercial move , it just seemed like a matter of being mutually interested.
The Pulsebeats said:

D.A., I totally agree with you on the whole FM radio front and obviously there is a large foundation of bands and promoters, especially  within the hardcore scene that basically run everything. It's there, albeit I think to a lesser extent, in the garage scene as well. When I fronted The Vipers in England we regularly put on club nights and had bands playing from all over the UK and also put on mini UK tours for bands from Portugal, Spain, Holland and Canada, and here in Spain we've done it for bands from the UK, Australia and the US (got the amazing Fuck Knights over this weekend). All through this, money has been the very least of our concerns. I think that's why, to be honest, I paid less attention to your Albini quote in your original post, than to your quip about having heard from the "take the money and run camp".

I guess the total polarisation of opinions on this is what makes it a hot topic, and a personal one. There are those who see any foray into 'the mainstream' as selling out and others who believe the whole concept is adolescent and purile. I can understand the former to a certain extent if a band is seen as leaving a scene behind that has helped them become who they are. It must feel a little like "thank you and fuck you later" (which I guess was where Albini was coming from with his Sonic Youth remarks), but total black and white doesn't make sense to me. Take Radiohead's career. For the most part they were signed to a major label operating squarely within the mainstream, but, Budweiser promotion aside, I don't think anyone could ever accuse them of selling out, especially with the way they've operated since setting up independently. 

Albini himself, on the subject of charging for his work, said "I charge whatever the hell I feel like at the moment, based on the client's ability to pay, how nice the band members are, the size and directly proportional gullibility of the record company, and whether or not they got the rock." Now it's amazing that he helps little bands and doesn't charge royalties on his work, but it's clear that he's also happy to take money from the majors when the band is worth it and the price is right. Nirvana were on Geffen and the Manics on Epic when he recorded them. By his own definition, is that not selling out. When thinking about how their music is used, shouldn't musicians be afforded the same as Albini does himself - the opportunity to decide based on the way their music is used, how nice the company/film-maker is and, perhaps (and most contensciously) how much they're paid, whether their music is used. 

Like what John Carlucci said earlier, artists need to be true to themselves. Maybe they should be the ones who decide if they've sold out or not.

I do think selling out is an adolescent idea, myself. It can stifle your artistic progression and your ability to make your band economically and practically viable. You may have to sign to a major record label to get your story and message across as well as finance your band, if it's the most effective way of doing both.

As far as natural artistic progression goes, I think fearing "selling out" can lead you to overlook that you may come to a point where you start writing stories that show a adult perspective on things and your music reflects this. Say, you become more influenced by Nick Drake than MC5, Black Flag and The Stooges and it suits the story you're telling. 

With the advent of the internet, it makes the idea of "the underground" more problematic, as everything is available instantly and sans effort. Angular Recording Corporation once said in their title bar: "There is no underground." I kind of agree with that, the internet has swallowed everything. One expert, Martin Raymond, of London based company The Future Laboratory commented in an article in The Independent, saying trends in music, art and politics are:

... now transmitted laterally and collaboratively via the internet. You once had a series of gatekeepers in the adoption of a trend: the innovator, the early adopter, the late adopter, the early mainstream, the late mainstream, and finally the conservative. But now it goes straight from the innovator to the mainstream.

I even co-wrote a play with an actress for her disseration this way and I think the idea of "selling out" may almost be as outdated and obsolescent as the mainstream you rail against itself. Things are far too fragmented, atomised even, to be mainstream or underground. You should remember that in the theatre, "selling out" is a good thing! 

The Pulsebeats said:

I guess the total polarisation of opinions on this is what makes it a hot topic, and a personal one. There are those who see any foray into 'the mainstream' as selling out and others who believe the whole concept is adolescent and purile. I can understand the former to a certain extent if a band is seen as leaving a scene behind that has helped them become who they are. It must feel a little like "thank you and fuck you later" (which I guess was where Albini was coming from with his Sonic Youth remarks), but total black and white doesn't make sense to me.

Like what John Carlucci said earlier, artists need to be true to themselves. Maybe they should be the ones who decide if they've sold out or not.

D.A., I totally agree with you on the whole FM radio front and obviously there is a large foundation of bands and promoters, especially  within the hardcore scene that basically run everything. It's there, albeit I think to a lesser extent, in the garage scene as well. When I fronted The Vipers in England we regularly put on club nights and had bands playing from all over the UK and also put on mini UK tours for bands from Portugal, Spain, Holland and Canada, and here in Spain we've done it for bands from the UK, Australia and the US (got the amazing Fuck Knights over this weekend). All through this, money has been the very least of our concerns. I think that's why, to be honest, I paid less attention to your Albini quote in your original post, than to your quip about having heard from the "take the money and run camp".

I guess the total polarisation of opinions on this is what makes it a hot topic, and a personal one. There are those who see any foray into 'the mainstream' as selling out and others who believe the whole concept is adolescent and purile. I can understand the former to a certain extent if a band is seen as leaving a scene behind that has helped them become who they are. It must feel a little like "thank you and fuck you later" (which I guess was where Albini was coming from with his Sonic Youth remarks), but total black and white doesn't make sense to me. Take Radiohead's career. For the most part they were signed to a major label operating squarely within the mainstream, but, Budweiser promotion aside, I don't think anyone could ever accuse them of selling out, especially with the way they've operated since setting up independently. 

Albini himself, on the subject of charging for his work, said "I charge whatever the hell I feel like at the moment, based on the client's ability to pay, how nice the band members are, the size and directly proportional gullibility of the record company, and whether or not they got the rock." Now it's amazing that he helps little bands and doesn't charge royalties on his work, but it's clear that he's also happy to take money from the majors when the band is worth it and the price is right. Nirvana were on Geffen and the Manics on Epic when he recorded them. By his own definition, is that not selling out. When thinking about how their music is used, shouldn't musicians be afforded the same as Albini does himself - the opportunity to decide based on the way their music is used, how nice the company/film-maker is and, perhaps (and most contensciously) how much they're paid, whether their music is used. 

Like what John Carlucci said earlier, artists need to be true to themselves. Maybe they should be the ones who decide if they've sold out or not.

Ghislaine , That's a great line "(They) wrote 21 songs that are ALL hits".

     I think The Remains were in a very unlikeable position , in that they were better Musicians and Songwriters than most Garage bands of their time , BUT , their songs did'nt sound terribly commercial , either. To US , those songs are timeless hits , but , in their time , they , somehow , did'nt work within the framework of AM Radio . They could have had a hit single , but , where would they have gone from there ? Albums were'nt selling big , yet , even though they , and several of their contemporaries , put out great albums at the time. The Remains had about every opportunity a band could have dreamed of - The Ed Sullivan Show , Hullabaloo , and an opening spot on The Beatles' very last tour. But , they were on the bottom of the bill , and all the other acts (The Ronettes , The Cyrkle , Bobby Hebb) had hit records. I don't know if drugs factored heavily in their demise(I have'nt read Barry Tashian's book.)....Artistic differences probably had a lot to do with it , plus , outside of Boston , they could'nt get arrested. Doing The Beatles tour had to be invigorating and demoralizing at the same time. Imagine going out to tens of thousands of people who just don't want to see or hear you. They split up right after that tour , maybe they figured this was as good as it was going to get. Sadly , they would have been right. But , at least , time has been very good to them , and they're held with high regard , today. AND , they're still playing , today. I saw them a few years ago , and they were phenomenal. I'D URGE ANYONE WHO HAS THE CHANCE TO GO SEE THEM.
 
Ghislaine said:

woops i remember posting a discussion about the definition of ''selling out '' a  while ago,the discussion turned sour  and it was finnally closed.:( The Remains...kept it ''small''if i may dare to say while they deserved the top cos they are heroes!I read that it was poor decision making of them  that they split due to abuse of substances.But who knows if it wasnt for artistic reasons?Cos ,when you write 21 songs that are ALL hits...maybe you gave it all...i dont know.

Not that it matters , but , it occured to me , The first time I saw Sonic Youth was in 1986.

I only saw them in 2003 because they were opening for The Stooges. Same with Shellac , a few years later.
 
John Battles said:

....While I agree , especially with the last line you wrote , D.A. , not everybody who's smug makes it , or gets branded a sell out. No one would call Albini a sellout , but , he's as smug as they come. I've seen him in action. I'm sure he has a "Cool" side and all that , and , yes , Big Black were contemporaries to Sonic Youth , so he witnessed firsthand whatever changes they made to become moderately famous , so his comments are not unfounded. But , their popularity seems like a fluke , in hindsight. I liked Sonic Youth to a point , but , not enough to buy their records. However , I saw 'em twice in '87 and once in 2003. They sounded exactly the same in '03 as they did when I first saw them , playing to about 40 people . I found Big Black , Rapeman , and Shellac uncommercial as Hell , but , that did'nt mean I liked them. Whatshisname , Big Black's ex - Bassist , he's got my respect , because he's the only person of any note from the Chicago music scene that I used to see riding on the el train with his axe.    You WILL be branded a sellout if money is your only motivation. The Pulsebeats' comment about working with The Dirtbombs , earlier , a grand for a band as popular as they are is'nt that much at all (Though it was'nt clear - to me  - as to whether he was talking Dollars or Pounds , or whether that was a large amount to pay , compared to other bands.).  Those guys draw several hundred people a night , maybe more in Europe.

On the same token , The Gories could have reformed just about any time after about 1995 and been the huge draw they are , now , or close to it. They were virtually unknown outside of Detroit in their day , and only got bigger by splitting up , a strange but effective career move. But , I know Mick and Danny well enough to know their motivations for breaking up the band , and , finally , reforming , were not shallow. If they did tour their asses off , now , yes , the money would be very good , but , they still just do what they feel like doing. They deserve whatever the Hell they do get paid. I was third on the bill to them , two years ago , and even I was surprised with what the club paid me. I'm very , very used to working not for profit , or for next to nothing, so it made up for a few gigs I had to do for free , and I got to work with some people I really like. I think we share the philosophy that , yes , you should work your touchas off , be you big or small. People came out to see you , you should work HARD , BUT , some things are better left to chance . Maybe that was'nt Sonic Youth's attitude about it , but , by the time they'd infiltrated the mainstream , I was, like , "Who cares?".

....While I agree , especially with the last line you wrote , D.A. , not everybody who's smug makes it , or gets branded a sell out. No one would call Albini a sellout , but , he's as smug as they come. I've seen him in action. I'm sure he has a "Cool" side and all that , and , yes , Big Black were contemporaries to Sonic Youth , so he witnessed firsthand whatever changes they made to become moderately famous , so his comments are not unfounded. But , their popularity seems like a fluke , in hindsight. I liked Sonic Youth to a point , but , not enough to buy their records. However , I saw 'em twice in '87 and once in 2003. They sounded exactly the same in '03 as they did when I first saw them , playing to about 40 people . I found Big Black , Rapeman , and Shellac uncommercial as Hell , but , that did'nt mean I liked them. Whatshisname , Big Black's ex - Bassist , he's got my respect , because he's the only person of any note from the Chicago music scene that I used to see riding on the el train with his axe.    You WILL be branded a sellout if money is your only motivation. The Pulsebeats' comment about working with The Dirtbombs , earlier , a grand for a band as popular as they are is'nt that much at all (Though it was'nt clear - to me  - as to whether he was talking Dollars or Pounds , or whether that was a large amount to pay , compared to other bands.).  Those guys draw several hundred people a night , maybe more in Europe.

On the same token , The Gories could have reformed just about any time after about 1995 and been the huge draw they are , now , or close to it. They were virtually unknown outside of Detroit in their day , and only got bigger by splitting up , a strange but effective career move. But , I know Mick and Danny well enough to know their motivations for breaking up the band , and , finally , reforming , were not shallow. If they did tour their asses off , now , yes , the money would be very good , but , they still just do what they feel like doing. They deserve whatever the Hell they do get paid. I was third on the bill to them , two years ago , and even I was surprised with what the club paid me. I'm very , very used to working not for profit , or for next to nothing, so it made up for a few gigs I had to do for free , and I got to work with some people I really like. I think we share the philosophy that , yes , you should work your touchas off , be you big or small. People came out to see you , you should work HARD , BUT , some things are better left to chance . Maybe that was'nt Sonic Youth's attitude about it , but , by the time they'd infiltrated the mainstream , I was, like , "Who cares?".

Okay, yeah. I don't think you read the quote -- or maybe you don't understand what he's saying. So I'll explain it:

There is in place a vast underground community of musicians who operate either non-profit or for profit bands without the blessing or consent of the mainstream music industry. The hardcore American punk movement of the 80's pioneered and established this community with blood, sweat, tears, and lots and lots of hard work and dedication to the idea that inherent to operating within the established system of corporate music is the willingness to compromise your art. To maximize sales you must maximize appeal. If you need a lesson on how to maximize the appeal of a band just go ahead and turn on your FM radio. It all sounds kinda sorta the same, right? It's almost unambiguous in it's homogeneity and that's by design.

It should be said that working outside the corporate music structure is not easy. It's more work for less pay, but the work you do has meaning and the roads you travel on were paved a long time ago by girls and guys with bands and zines they never thought would get anywhere.

To put it another way, being an independent musician is not idealistic -- it's realistic. All that underground music you worship wouldn't exist if every band was as smug and entitled as The Black fucking Keys. Fuck em'.

That's the best way of putting it, as you need your band to be financially viable. If you change your sound, it's considered suspect by some. The Anarcho-punk band But Alive split up and their vocalist, along with a few other members, teamed up with a ska-punk band and went to a direction influenced by Coldplay and Snow Patrol.  They said that it was so they can write more personal material, but wouldn't some people see this as selling out, even if they run their own record label (as they do)?   

Let's say you were in a hardcore band in the early 80's, for the sake of argument. Your band comes to a point where you can't carry on the way you are, but you don't want to end up playing heavy metal either. Where would you go?

I'd go to a direction like the Brian Jonestown Massacre or indie pop, but who would see it as selling out?

I notice that when people talk about selling out, they sometimes overlook artistic progression, aging out or even disillusionment.  Even Kurt Cobain confided the latter in his diaries, apparently. I wonder whether selling out is just, at times, something to limit development by keeping themselves adolescent.

The Pulsebeats said:

It's not that black and white though. For me, the idea of selling out comes down to one of two things.

1. Endorsing something you oppose for cash. Now that can be anything from GM Motors to Disney to Chump Change Mini-mart.

2. Changing your sound because you specifically want to make more cash.

John Lydon has stated that the butter ads he did paid for the making of the latest PiL record. Does that make him a sell out?

When Radiohead toured Kid A around its release, they did it in a tent in parks so that they didn't have to play corporate arenas. The only beer on sale inside the grounds was Budweiser. Sell outs? Or taking some corporate cash in order to help them achieve their own artistic goal. They've also since gone back to playing said corporate arenas. Sell outs?

Did the Clash sell out when they made Combat Rock, or did they just happen to write a bunch of more commercially sounding songs as they aged? Strange that they were accused of selling out when earlier clash songs rallied against other punk bands for the same crime. That said, they were signed to CBS. Not exactly underground.

Nicky Wire of the Manic Street Preachers, again responding to claims in their early days that they'd sold out, said that they did so the moment they signed a recording contract as from that precise moment it was no longer simply about the music.

Kings Of Leon stated from the outset that their goal was to become one of the biggest bands on the planet. Not to write a classic album or influence people and help them expand their miands. Nope, to simply become one of the biggest bands on the planet. By that measure, can anything they ever do be construed as selling out?

What was Sonic Youths heinous crime?

As fans, I think we project our ideals onto our idols. We regard them as untouchable and unsulliable. But we do not know them. In the vast majority of cases, we do not know what they aspire to and what they believe in and support down to the minute details, so who are we to say when someone sells out, because really it's an accusation that is leveled at almost every punk/garage band who break out of the underground. Put yourself in their position a while. Imagine being offered the exact same job that you have now, except with quadruple wages and better conditions. You gonna turn it down?

Going back to Schmo's initial post, my initial thoughts of bands that have kept it successfully underground are Fugazi and The Dirtbombs. Don't know if they've been offered anything that they declined so as not to sell out. I know The Dirbombs survive because they tour like motherfuckers and charge about a grand a night to play (at least that's what they charged when I booked them for their last Manchester show anyway). I once read that Mick Collins still lives with his dad because having his own place makes absolutely no financial sense. 

I think with art, and more so with music, we equate independence with credibility. If that's the case, my mate Gaz is a more credible film-maker than say Christopher Nolan, who like totally sold out when he made a Batman franchise. What a doosh!

We want artists to struggle and fight to be heard. But if the only people who hear them are their neighbours, what's the point in the struggle?

To clear it all up, just check the Moby Equation.

D. A. Anguiano said:

Well I think we've officially heard from the "Take the money and run" camp. I was planning on typing out a few sentences on why I think its a dogshit idea for independent musicians to schill for a particular movie/corporation/tv show/book, but I'm tired. So this Steve Albini quote about Sonic Youth being idiots will have to do:

“[A] lot of the things they were involved with as part of the mainstream were distasteful to me. And a lot of the things that happened as a direct result of their association with the mainstream music industry gave credibility to some of the nonsense notions that hover around the star-making machinery. A lot of that stuff was offensive to me and I saw it as a sellout and a corruption of a perfectly valid, well-oiled music scene. Sonic Youth chose to abandon it in order to become a modestly successful mainstream band — as opposed to being a quite successful independent band that could have used their resources and influence to extend that end of the culture. They chose to join the mainstream culture and become a foot soldier for that culture’s encroachment into my neck of the woods by acting as scouts. I thought it was crass and I thought it reflected poorly on them. I still consider them friends and their music has its own integrity, but that kind of behavior — I can’t say that I think it’s not embarrassing for them. I think they should be embarrassed about it.”

Weezer's reponse when their label told them to bin half an album and write some hits.

...they still went back and did it though.

Oh, and making it. That's easier. Simply being able to live and support my family through playing live and selling records. Not easy nowadays when people are more inclined to spend 5 quid on an over-priced coffee than they are 1 to download a song.

It's not that black and white though. For me, the idea of selling out comes down to one of two things.

1. Endorsing something you oppose for cash. Now that can be anything from GM Motors to Disney to Chump Change Mini-mart.

2. Changing your sound because you specifically want to make more cash.

John Lydon has stated that the butter ads he did paid for the making of the latest PiL record. Does that make him a sell out?

When Radiohead toured Kid A around its release, they did it in a tent in parks so that they didn't have to play corporate arenas. The only beer on sale inside the grounds was Budweiser. Sell outs? Or taking some corporate cash in order to help them achieve their own artistic goal. They've also since gone back to playing said corporate arenas. Sell outs?

Did the Clash sell out when they made Combat Rock, or did they just happen to write a bunch of more commercially sounding songs as they aged? Strange that they were accused of selling out when earlier clash songs rallied against other punk bands for the same crime. That said, they were signed to CBS. Not exactly underground.

Nicky Wire of the Manic Street Preachers, again responding to claims in their early days that they'd sold out, said that they did so the moment they signed a recording contract as from that precise moment it was no longer simply about the music.

Kings Of Leon stated from the outset that their goal was to become one of the biggest bands on the planet. Not to write a classic album or influence people and help them expand their miands. Nope, to simply become one of the biggest bands on the planet. By that measure, can anything they ever do be construed as selling out?

What was Sonic Youths heinous crime?

As fans, I think we project our ideals onto our idols. We regard them as untouchable and unsulliable. But we do not know them. In the vast majority of cases, we do not know what they aspire to and what they believe in and support down to the minute details, so who are we to say when someone sells out, because really it's an accusation that is leveled at almost every punk/garage band who break out of the underground. Put yourself in their position a while. Imagine being offered the exact same job that you have now, except with quadruple wages and better conditions. You gonna turn it down?

Going back to Schmo's initial post, my initial thoughts of bands that have kept it successfully underground are Fugazi and The Dirtbombs. Don't know if they've been offered anything that they declined so as not to sell out. I know The Dirbombs survive because they tour like motherfuckers and charge about a grand a night to play (at least that's what they charged when I booked them for their last Manchester show anyway). I once read that Mick Collins still lives with his dad because having his own place makes absolutely no financial sense. 

I think with art, and more so with music, we equate independence with credibility. If that's the case, my mate Gaz is a more credible film-maker than say Christopher Nolan, who like totally sold out when he made a Batman franchise. What a doosh!

We want artists to struggle and fight to be heard. But if the only people who hear them are their neighbours, what's the point in the struggle?

To clear it all up, just check the Moby Equation.

D. A. Anguiano said:

Well I think we've officially heard from the "Take the money and run" camp. I was planning on typing out a few sentences on why I think its a dogshit idea for independent musicians to schill for a particular movie/corporation/tv show/book, but I'm tired. So this Steve Albini quote about Sonic Youth being idiots will have to do:

“[A] lot of the things they were involved with as part of the mainstream were distasteful to me. And a lot of the things that happened as a direct result of their association with the mainstream music industry gave credibility to some of the nonsense notions that hover around the star-making machinery. A lot of that stuff was offensive to me and I saw it as a sellout and a corruption of a perfectly valid, well-oiled music scene. Sonic Youth chose to abandon it in order to become a modestly successful mainstream band — as opposed to being a quite successful independent band that could have used their resources and influence to extend that end of the culture. They chose to join the mainstream culture and become a foot soldier for that culture’s encroachment into my neck of the woods by acting as scouts. I thought it was crass and I thought it reflected poorly on them. I still consider them friends and their music has its own integrity, but that kind of behavior — I can’t say that I think it’s not embarrassing for them. I think they should be embarrassed about it.”

I don't see why a song shouldn't go in an ad.

But I would add with selling out that quite often it happens to bands who have lost their creative flair anyway. I mean when a guy's in his teens and 20s he's generally got a lot of energy and passion but not so much of the skills to carry off all his ideas.

By the time he gets to his 30s the passion's going a bit, but there's enough there to mix with his superior skills. But generally guys in their 40s? I mean no disrespect to anyone here or anywhere but generally by that point they are experts at their instruments but I can't think of any band where I've really been able to say they produced their best work around 'midlife'.

I think by that point often the bands simply pick a trend and stick with it because they aren't the trend setters any more and what they had originally started as become dated. I don't know if it's really selling out or if they really believe that the music they've made is genuinely worth selling.

Well I think we've officially heard from the "Take the money and run" camp. I was planning on typing out a few sentences on why I think its a dogshit idea for independent musicians to schill for a particular movie/corporation/tv show/book, but I'm tired. So this Steve Albini quote about Sonic Youth being idiots will have to do:

“[A] lot of the things they were involved with as part of the mainstream were distasteful to me. And a lot of the things that happened as a direct result of their association with the mainstream music industry gave credibility to some of the nonsense notions that hover around the star-making machinery. A lot of that stuff was offensive to me and I saw it as a sellout and a corruption of a perfectly valid, well-oiled music scene. Sonic Youth chose to abandon it in order to become a modestly successful mainstream band — as opposed to being a quite successful independent band that could have used their resources and influence to extend that end of the culture. They chose to join the mainstream culture and become a foot soldier for that culture’s encroachment into my neck of the woods by acting as scouts. I thought it was crass and I thought it reflected poorly on them. I still consider them friends and their music has its own integrity, but that kind of behavior — I can’t say that I think it’s not embarrassing for them. I think they should be embarrassed about it.”

Everything said, true. I think we baulk at the idea of our favourite band being used in commercials and all that because we want to keep them "our little secret." I think as long as an artist doesn't allow the use of their songs for something that they are fundamentally opposed to, just to earn money, then they are not selling out. Regardless what people think, they gotta eat! The Black Keys covered it pretty well.

In the UK, Iggy's done car insurance ads and John Lydon's done butter ads! Beats the latest slapstick, nose-jobbed face from The Voice!

I  usually think Rollins can come off pretty douchey and pretentious...but I found myself nodding along in agreement to this whole segment of his

John Battles said:

I remembered seeing this a long time ago. And I still agree. It was weird hearing "What Do I GET" OR "Blitzkrieg Bop" in a beer commercial the first time , but, so what?
 Punk Rock does'nt pay old age pension , much less , Medical insurance, so , if those people who were fortunate enough to not be Dee Dee , Joey and Johnny Ramone and drop off and die when the checks started coming in , and are making some of the money their labels and publishers denied them , I can handle hearing it in a commercial. It's about creative placement of songs , not enticing fans. How many people even know this stuff ? The average Joe knows a handfull of Ramones songs , but , The Stooges , the monks , or Link Wray? I don't think so. Most jockboys would'nt know what you were talking about if you mentioned "Rock'n'Roll Pt. 2", and they've heard it more times than we have .

I hear The Clash , The Ramones , and Sweet in my local supermarket , now , and I don't have a problem with that.
kopper said:

Exactly.

Alison said:

Selling out means changing your sound/vibe/look/ethos in order to please the masses and get more attention and make more money.

woops i remember posting a discussion about the definition of ''selling out '' a  while ago,the discussion turned sour  and it was finnally closed.:( The Remains...kept it ''small''if i may dare to say while they deserved the top cos they are heroes!I read that it was poor decision making of them  that they split due to abuse of substances.But who knows if it wasnt for artistic reasons?Cos ,when you write 21 songs that are ALL hits...maybe you gave it all...i dont know.

I was gonna throw my two cents in here but it seems to already be pretty well covered.

I remembered seeing this a long time ago. And I still agree. It was weird hearing "What Do I GET" OR "Blitzkrieg Bop" in a beer commercial the first time , but, so what?
 Punk Rock does'nt pay old age pension , much less , Medical insurance, so , if those people who were fortunate enough to not be Dee Dee , Joey and Johnny Ramone and drop off and die when the checks started coming in , and are making some of the money their labels and publishers denied them , I can handle hearing it in a commercial. It's about creative placement of songs , not enticing fans. How many people even know this stuff ? The average Joe knows a handfull of Ramones songs , but , The Stooges , the monks , or Link Wray? I don't think so. Most jockboys would'nt know what you were talking about if you mentioned "Rock'n'Roll Pt. 2", and they've heard it more times than we have .

I hear The Clash , The Ramones , and Sweet in my local supermarket , now , and I don't have a problem with that.
kopper said:

Exactly.

Alison said:

Selling out means changing your sound/vibe/look/ethos in order to please the masses and get more attention and make more money.

I think if a band can stay together for a long period of time it is making it. It says a lot about a band / group. It's hard to get 3,4,5 musicians to always agree 100% on everything. Even more so the longer they are together.

To me selling out is when it becomes all about the money, and less about putting out good music. Please don't just toss an album out there with one damn good song and 7-8 other crappy songs for fill space.

"I was listening to music long before rock 'n roll."   Bill Wyman

  As someone who holds a BFA in fine Art & who has been playing music for 40 years, my feeling on the subject is that any real artist needs to be true to themselves. That is why I decided to stop trying to make a living off music. I have another career that supports me. This way the music I make is music that I like. I don't have to compromise or sell out because that's not my goal.