The Philosophy of “Selling Out”
I have a difficult time defining the line at which an artist has “sold out,” but, of this I am certain: it is categorically damaging to the integrity of the artist. Ironic, isn’t it? How can something be certainly bad if I don’t really know what that something is? The answer is in the fact that I do have a loose conception of “selling out” which is admittedly in perpetual flux. I would now say that “selling out” in terms of a musician would be signing to a major record label. It sounds pretty arbitrary, but it really isn’t. What it may be is based on false conceptions of the nature of the music industry.
Most of my ideas about the way the music industry works are based on evidence I have gathered from observation. No, I haven’t done a formal study or anything like that, but here’s a cycle I’ve been through more than a few times with different bands.
- I find a band I like who records on an indie label. I buy one album and like it. I buy their entire back catalog and love it as well.
- The band is signed to a major record label.
- The band records its first major label album. It’s not bad, but it has lost something intangible their other recordings had. It will invariably contain at least one track that was obviously crafted as a hit single.
- The second major label album is released. The band has suddenly “matured” and sounds nothing like before. Any character their style may have had has been washed away.
I figure this surely can’t be a coincidence of some kind although I do acknowledge that it might be a prejudice I go into upon hearing the band’s major label recordings. That doesn’t do much to explain why I usually still like the first record after the “sell out,” though. I imagine the process behind the scenes goes something like this.
- The band signs to a major label after the label promises them unlimited resources as well as an endless supply of beautiful virgins, cream soda on tap in the tour bus, loads of weird games to play, and a vault full of money like the one on Duck Tales.
- The label takes a mostly hands-off approach for the first album or two—maybe it’s to keep the band happy or maybe it’s to silence the fans who are already crying “foul.” They have to get at least one radio hit out of the deal, though, so they can begin to reap the rewards of this investment.
- The label now demands that the band make certain changes to increase their audience and the label’s bankroll.
This may be quite far from the truth. Some bands make claims that suggest it is. Other claims suggest I’m not so far off. It’s probably pointless for me to even speculate since I’m not in a position to ever know the truth. Presumably, the label will want to profit from the partnership meaning their will be pressure on the artist to sell records. This alone has the potential to influence the art, and I’m not comfortable with that. Does the problem start with major labels, though?
Even an independent label needs to make money to survive. An artist might be pressured in much the same way as they might be by an independent label. That’s certainly true. I’m sure there are indie labels who are as unscrupulous as any major you can find, but, in general, indie labels are not owned by corporations. Corporations are legal entities that exist solely for the purpose of making money. The corporation has no ties to humanity. It doesn’t care about art or culture. That fact, for me, really draws the boundaries.
If you were to record and distribute an album yourself, you would have full control over the content—unless… What if you want to focus more fully on the art by doing it full time? Unless you are already wealthy, you may have to make some concessions to pay the bills. At the very least, you might have to produce some popular music alongside the stuff you really want to make. I don’t believe that only wealthy people who record and distribute their own music are artists. There are certainly artists out there who still need to earn an income. The ability to decide your boundaries on your own terms as an artist means that the work you produce is still art.
So, this is the line I have drawn. Some major label recordings may be art, but how can I ever discern which are and which are not? I assume intelligent artists would also go through a similar line of reasoning before taking the plunge and signing with a major label. They then would also realize the ambiguity surrounding their work and are implying that the integrity of their work is way down on the list of priorities.
This is also all based on generalization. There are probably some major labels that strongly believe in giving the artist full control of the art. (They already like the artist or else they wouldn’t have drawn up the contract, right?) There are certainly indie labels that probably act in a way much more akin to my characterization of the major labels. I am fully aware of these facts, but I have to start somewhere.
All of this comes out of my indoctrination into the religion of punk rock a few years back and the DIY ethic punks hold dear. It’s also tied to their anti-consumerist ideals. Many critiques have been leveled at punk ideology. Many of them are valid. Ironically, I came to appreciate punk rock through a mainstream band who records on a major record label. Without them, I might not have found the subculture, and I might have no precedent to suggest that I should distrust major record labels and their recording artists. I can’t say I wish I had never found any of this. There is definitely some value in reaching a wider audience, but—this is especially true now as we usher in a new era of music distribution—is the ability to reach a wider audience still tethered to a major label contract?
At the end of this post, I have no answers but more questions. I’m sure their are lots of things I am missing. Things I don’t know or things I haven’t even considered. Do you know of any? Post a comment. Thanks for reading.
Sometimes I think that saying someone is “selling out” is just a way to pass judgment without needing a justification. I am not sure that it is fair. I agree that major labels tend to just be in it for the money, but I can’t say that is always the case for the artists. I do think it shows a lot more integrity to sacrifice for your art if you have that luxury (no illnesses that you need to combat, no families to support, etc), but I don’t know that it is right to blame the artists in addition to the corporations when music becomes incorporated.
I wasn’t saying that YOU were not justified, but I was saying that a lot of people like to throw around the “sell-out” tag just because an artist joins a major label, without considering their motives…without even KNOWING their motives in many instances.
Though I appreciate the pursuit of purity, I would question if this sort of shaky anti-sellout manifesto is really all that interested in purity
when it comes to music.
I tend to shy away from using the term “sell out” myself. It’s a paper tiger, at one time having gravity and meaning but becoming trite and uninspired, like, oddly enough, some of the people
branded “sell outs.”
On one point, I would contend that all music, however “commercial,” is art. Because art is based entirely on perception of a work as art,
music of any stripe’s status as art is self-evident.
As far as finding “purity” of art on a major label, I think reasonable people can conclude individually what they consider art, and what’s merely
commercial MTV-fodder (and, from what is MTV-fodder, what happens to be
well-written and catchy and what isn’t worth listening to). Certainly not
everything on a major label is soulless and artless. I find it
inconceivable that anyone would listen to John Lennon’s Imagine and claim
it is meaningless because it was recorded for Capital Records. John could’ve very well taken that nice piano tune and made it into a love song, and probably gotten all the radio play he wanted, but he had a message that he cared about.
But the strange thing about all this talk of purity is that it ignores the
fact that purity is as much the job of the listener as it is the artist.
If you hear an album and it’s on a major label, as you admit, you’ll be
more inclined to dislike it. Is that purity? You’re not really concerned
with the music, you’re concerned with the little logo on the bottom left corner of the album. If purity is about absolute concern for the music,
then it has to work both ways - musicians and audiences. I think sometimes the fans who cry “sellout” care as little about music as the musicians they assail.
Especially in the punk community, where any band that releases an album
that doesn’t sound identical to the previous one they released is pelted
with a hail of accusations of “selling out.” Some bands do what they want
and absorb these accusations throughout their careers (like the
Offspring), and some are too chickenshit to take the risk of receiving the career-ruining brand (like Pennywise) so they release album after album of disposable sameness to please an audience that doesn’t like or understand change. Punk’s progressivism, unfortunately, is relegated to the politics they preach and doesn’t extend to the music.
Now, do I suggest that ALL bands who change their sound do so out of a
genuine spirit of exploration and desire for something different? No, that would be ridiculously naiive. Just that that’s the case alot of the time. Particularly when bands make the jump from an independent to a major and are exposed to a plethora of new resources unavailable to them previously. Coheed and Cambria’s major label debut, for instance, was substantially lengthier than their previous ones, containing lush string arrangements (which I guarantee would’ve been unattainable on their earlier label) and musically-complex compositions that I would argue make their debut on Columbia less accessible then the punk-inspired pseudo-prog of their earlier releases.
And then there are other prog bands like Tool - whose songs frequently push 8 and 10 minute lengths - completely unmarketable to radio. And, of course, King Crimson, prog pioneers who have been on major labels throughout most of their existence, and whose albums are now comprised primarily of instrumental compositions - which is career suicide if you’re looking to hit it big.
As I said, I respect the search for artistic integrity in the oft-soulless wasteland of American music as much as anyone else, but I think the issue is much more complex than it’s been presented.
How do you figure it’s without justification? This post is an explanation of my justification for making that judgment.
That’s definitely true, but that’s true for anything. It’s always easier not to evaluate things. That’s why people often carry on the traditions of their parents even if they don’t make any sense.
The term may be trite, but I think the concept it describes is concrete and important. The term is the most widely understood way to refer to this concept which is why I chose it for this post.
Art is certainly defined by an individuals perception. I am conveying my perception of the line between art and product. I am not trying to propose that there is some objective definition. I merely want to further perfect my subjective one.
That little logo tells a lot about the music. That logo is a story about the birth of this album. It also tells me a little about what my money is going to do when I buy it. In general, an indie label logo tells me that a good portion of my money is going to go to the artist to directly encourage him to make more music. A major label logo tells me that a tiny portion of my money will go to the artist. A lot more will go into the pockets of record executives whose job it is to milk as much money as they can out of there business. A lot of it will funnel into the RIAA who will use it to sue music fans for sharing the music they enjoy. It also tells me about the conditions under which this album was produced. Take note of the link in my original blog post which gives the reasons for not signing to a major. I know this artist is probably producing music for a label who doesn’t care if the artist meets his goals; they only care that the stockholder meets theirs. To say that major label music should only be judged by how it sounds is to say that clothing should be chosen based on looks alone. Should we not also concern ourselves with the greater impacts of the products we consume?
My arguments are based on generalizations. They must be. I can’t evaluate each and every artist to make decisions about their degree of artistic integrity before making a purchase. Even if I could, I could never know their true motives. The fact remains that their must be something fundamentally different about the philosophies of artists who choose to go the route of independence versus those who choose the sign that away. Those that go with the majors must know they will alienate some of their fans for the very reasons I have described above. What does it say about them that they are willing to make that leap anyway?
I’ve always wondered about the inherent credibility of an established artist signed to a major label. Major labels gravitate toward bands and artists that they can package and sell for extreme profit (obviously!), which means some seminal semblance of such profitability was present in the band’s music. Do most bands that create the type of music that major labels are interested in actually create heartfelt music that is reflective of their philosophies and beliefs? Or do these bands create music that is intended to be (in hope) universally liked and widely distributed? I think it’s hard to start throwing around the word “art” here. I don’t believe that music created to pander to a specific market is art at all–it’s tripe.
As you can call absolutely any tangible or intangible result of creativity “art,” I don’t feel the term really has any merit as a blanket term talking about music. There’s art because someone calls it art, and then there’s art with the je ne sais quoi that somehow profoundly touches you. The distinction between the two is different for everyone. For me, a guitar/bass/drum band singing about relationships could be labeled art only because anything could be labeled as art. For the sake of argument, label them art, but compare them to, for example, landscape paintings (and I feel this comparison is only marginally tenuous). No matter how wonderful and pretty the painting is, it’s still just another hill with trees on it. Only rarely do you find a Picasso that turns the everyday world upside down. Such music can be, at most, only benignly stimulating. How many more four-piece bands wailing about love does the world need? Is this the legacy they sincerely want to leave behind, or is this neutered self-expression inspired by monetary want? I feel this is the targeted market of major labels. (The example of a rock band singing about romance can be applied to any recurring configuration in the major labels’ repertoire.)
So, since major labels predominantly pursue said bands, the bands did not have intrinsic value before the so-called “selling out,” meaning they were deservedly beneath your notice from the beginning! For me, there is no middle ground for making accessible music and for creating exactly what your heart tells you to create. I don’t think the inner core of any musician is a driving melody with rhyming lyrics and in-sync percussion. As I get older, I cannot tolerate “packaged” music any longer. I feel it is a disservice to the self. Maybe I’m wrong for this. And the complexities of what is packaged and what is spontaneous is another whirlpool that perhaps has no bottom.
Now, of course, it would be blind and stupid to charge forward refusing to entertain the creativity of any band signed to a major label. Some bands do achieve widespread fame on what seems to be purer expressions of the music inside them. I’m afraid it all comes down so far to personal opinion that no consensus will ever be achieved on the issue.
That said, no one has mentioned one of the most important parts of the creation of music: the producer. Especially in major labels, the producer has a control on the final product of the music that almost rivals the band’s. A good example is Fiona Apple’s 2005 album, “Extraordinary Machine.” A major label artist, her first try at the album was produced by Jon Brion, but the label considered it too quirky and zany and refused to release the album. A year later, a new producer redid the same ten songs and the outcome was astonishingly different. (As a side note, I consider Apple to be in the faulty middle ground of trying to make music people will like as well as trying to insert genuine self-expression. I just don’t think there can be room for both, as with both, it’s certainly not art, but rather a product being sold.)
For this purpose, looking at the producer on a major label album will give you a good idea of just how far the band “sold out.” If the band produced their own album, odds are greater that they ended up with a sound closer to what they wanted themselves with minimal interference from the record label bigwigs. I disagree with the assertion that major labels generally allow artists to go their own way for a couple of albums before intrusion; generally, the major label wants to select the producer right away.