Artists that are 'sell-Outs'

I’m not sure Prince and Lady Gaga belong on there because their intent was always popular demographic sales. U2 may be the single most over-rated band of all time and Bono is extremely self important, but I don’t think they’ve made records specifically to target a demographic … i.e. let pop trends determine song format.

I have to go back a ways … but lets take Journey. They were a very jam oriented band, but were searching for popular acceptance and hired a singer “Steve Perry”, and moved closer to pop song structures. Infinity was the first result. That album worked in both directions. Accessible, but still interesting/creative songs. However, the drummer and keyboard player were totally hating on it as they went through the process for the next pop fest album, and quit. Even Neal Shon hated it, but was digging the response from the audience, so he continued to slug out the pop dribble.

That’s a sell-out. However, I’d gladly sell out for those pay checks.

1.) Metallica

2.) Def Leppard

3.) Steve Fogal

The BeeGees - they became disco boys at the time of Saturday Night Fever, disgusting. :laughing:

Genesis - Beginning at 'Then there were three" Phil Collins ruined that band. :smiling_imp: They proved they could still produce with Trick of the Tail minus Gabriel, but soon after it began to slide down the tube.

Supertramp, Beginning at “Breakfast in America” - Sad sad sad…

The Doobie Brothers - once Michael MacDonald became the lead singer. Rock went Pop. :confused: :frowning:

Bruce springstein has a head so big jo merrick would be proud of him.
Donny Osmond ,if I see this idiot on british tv one more time I will reinvent a Guy Fawkes plot on the Tv station to airs this numpty .
Kiss WTF are these inbreeds all about
Guns and roses what a bunch of &**((^&^
Aerosmith another jo merrick .
Rem i’ll shiney happy people the lead singer if I ever catch up with the depressed gonad

shall I carry on ???

To the contrary, I heard last week that Paul McCartney closed out a show in California at Golden Gate Park at 71 yrs old and did a 3 hour show with 31 tunes and 8 encores. The Grateful Dead played for hours and hours and hours the last 20 or so times I had been to their show. I know there are others but I only had these come to mind since almost every thing I listen to today is from 25 years ago

  1. – has gotta be Fleetwood Mac, two different unrelated bands really
  2. Genesis, or rather, Fill Collins, ditto
  3. Eric Clapton; seriously: do you even have a TV?

It’s tough to judge them, I think. It’s a miracle in the first place that we’re willing to feed anybody for the music they make, let alone give them a mansion etc. It’s a sellout for everyone right from the start. I feel a little bad for the bands that have seen their glory days recede, and are still on the road, playing to small audiences of gray-haired people who leave early when it’s their bed time. It’s not selling out, per se, it’s like hanging on for dear life. I saw the Average White Band recently. They were still excellent, but I was wondering if they could barely stand it, and assumed they were still on the road because they didn’t have good retirement benefits. There are lots of bands touring in this category.


I ain’t proud!

I will record or perform for anybody as long as the cheque clears. :slight_smile:

Speaking of checks…When I first started building acoustic guitars there was a joke going around about optimism:

How do you define an optimist? A luthier with a mortgage! Clearly a few answers there.

By the way…Eric Claptons yacht, 168 feet long, has several TV’s

  • $1.98 I’m cheap

I agree with Early. People need to make a living. Do what pays the bills. If that happens to be what you love, then that is a bonus. If it isn’t, then do it in your spare time and call it a hobby.

The people who cry “sellout!” are generally people who can sell nothing themselves.

They are just jealous of all that success and money :wink:

Nonsense. But you’re entitled to your opinion. And they theirs, and me mine. Its all subjective.


So if an artist who was, previously a sell out, suddenly turns their back on the pop, commercial stuff and begins (once again) producing meaningful work, are they then a “buy-in”?

(I guess KISS would be more of a shell-out :laughing: )

The concept of this topic to me is “do you believe they sold out”… my interpretation, and my response was based upon my dislike of their new direction, in my mind they sold out from their artistic roots to more monetarily satisfying ones.

I never for a moment would suggest they had no RIGHT to do so… of course we all have those choices. When it comes to liking someone’s choice it’s all opinion any way. If you watch interviews with some of the old times, they will often admit that their direction and the different one their bands took was a type of “sell out”.

Ease up people… stress will age you. :sunglasses:

Architects, interior designers, even engineers, have to “sell out” on their original designs in order to satisfy the customer. We all “sell out” in one way or another in order to make a living. Does a kid that wants to be a professional skateboarder sell out when he gets a job at McDonald’s?
My only complaint about an artist selling out is that I miss the style of music they were making and usually don’t care as much for the main stream version of their music.

I have to give the ol’ Kocker credit for being able to stir up the sh!tpot.

Okay, I feel a little bad for my first two.

Metallica …

Lost their soul when they lost Cliff Burton. I love everything through Master of Puppets.

Def Leppard …

Lost their “drive” when their drummer lost his arm. As sad as the story is, they were never a rock ‘n’ roll band from that point on. Amazingly, they went on to become bigger - riding on the wave of a soon to be dead MTV. Also lost their soul when they lost Steve Clark.

As far as Steve Fogal goes …

I like a working man who has paid his dues. You know I’m just pullin’ your chain … :sunglasses:

I guess it all depends on how you define “success”. Success can mean different things depending upon what your goals are. If your goal is to maintain artistic integrity (whatever that might mean to any given artist - and are they really an “artist” if they sacrifice that integrity … blah, blah, blah …).

Art is more of an idea than a thing and is very difficult to discuss once money is involved … especially with the artist.

Precisely my point also. Well said.