# Bands that you believe have sold out...



## M3CHK1LLA (May 22, 2012)

when a band begins to make a name for themselves there is even more pressure to deliver a better album or improve their music...

...this is a fine line for some. for others the $ changes their lives and their sound completely. they tend to make music that is more commercially acceptable - whatever that is.

any bands that you believe have sold out?

whos still soldiering on, making music despite the smaller paychecks?

this encompasses all genres. discuss.


----------



## pattonfreak1 (May 22, 2012)

Sold out?


Metallica



/thread


----------



## broj15 (May 22, 2012)

Green Day and Weezer> Both bands early stuff was cool. Then the paychecks came and the quality left.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (May 22, 2012)

I'd have to say Children of Bodom. They ditched their neo-classical power metal sound and went for a more melodic death metal sound which, strangely, sounds easier to sell. 

I'm also gonna throw in Arch Enemy. Not sure what happened, but it sounds like they went from death metal to borderline metalcore.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (May 22, 2012)

Cryptopsy


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (May 22, 2012)

Stealthdjentstic said:


> Cryptopsy



We have a winner, people.


----------



## fps (May 22, 2012)

Honestly, any band that gets big enough to make a living playing instruments, however they do it, good luck to them. Metallica did it, deliberately, having already laid down 4 killer albums and they are the biggest metal band of all time, with a huge variety of material and continue to be one of the best live acts for their legions of fans. And yes, having legions of fans makes your live shows better automatically, but they're there cos they wanna be!!


----------



## M3CHK1LLA (May 22, 2012)

broj15 said:


> Green Day and Weezer> Both bands early stuff was cool. Then the paychecks came and the quality left.


i think we may find that the punk fans will tend to be a little more harsh on their bands than most other ppl


----------



## ByDesign (May 22, 2012)

Architects sold out with The Here And Now. 

Even if they are trying to back pedal now... it's too late for me.



to


----------



## broj15 (May 22, 2012)

M3CHK1LLA said:


> i think we may find that the punk fans will tend to be a little more harsh on their bands than most other ppl


 

While that is true I must say I'm not really looking at it from a punk perspective. I mean lets face it, Green Day, even at thier best was just a cheap imitation of punk and Weezer was always more alternative rock, but lets not play the genre game


----------



## Explorer (May 22, 2012)

As Bill Withers noted, when a furniture store says "Sold out!" it's considered to be a good thing, that people want the product you're selling.

Or, looking at it another way, it's impossible to sell out if the product isn't desirable.


----------



## Dayn (May 22, 2012)

I honestly can't think of any. Metallica's hard rock albums sounded like Metallica to me, some of the songs being pretty rockin', even if some weren't my thing. The only thing closest to 'selling out' I can think of is Metallica's 'Death Magnetic'... selling out to the loudness wars and, despite having great songs, sounds terrible.



Explorer said:


> Or, looking at it another way, it's impossible to sell out if the product isn't desirable.


I was going to say 'hipsters', but they get things second-hand.


----------



## M3CHK1LLA (May 22, 2012)

pattonfreak1 said:


> Sold out?
> 
> 
> Metallica
> ...


i believe their first albums - kill, ride, master & garage days are their best. im sure a lot of ppl will disagree with me but when the justice album came out, to me it was the turning point. most feel it was the black album.




Explorer said:


> As Bill Withers noted, when a furniture store says "Sold out!" it's considered to be a good thing, that people want the product you're selling.
> 
> Or, looking at it another way, it's impossible to sell out if the product isn't desirable.


...please do not confuse us with the facts


----------



## Bloody_Inferno (May 22, 2012)

Explorer said:


> As Bill Withers noted, when a furniture store says "Sold out!" it's considered to be a good thing, that people want the product you're selling.
> 
> Or, looking at it another way, it's impossible to sell out if the product isn't desirable.



This. 

Also, topic related:


----------



## cronux (May 22, 2012)

Slipknot
KoRn
Machine Head
Children of Bodom
etc.

let's say almost every band from Roadrunner records...


----------



## DLG (May 22, 2012)

I'm fine with someone wanting to take a more commercial approach like Metallica, but they did it their way, they weren't hopping on any bandwagons, the success came to them, they didn't chase it. 

The thing I find disgusting is trend-hopping and jumping on the dick of every new trend in order to stay relevant. Bands like Machine Head come to mind. Those kind of bands will never have my respect no matter what.


----------



## Floppystrings (May 22, 2012)

ByDesign said:


> Architects sold out with The Here And Now.
> 
> Even if they are trying to back pedal now... it's too late for me.
> 
> ...




"I wanted to go back to being heavier and I think we've got our balls back. We're not a band that should be on daytime radio and even when we got that stuff, it felt a bit uncomfortable."

They are ashamed it seems. 

I just, I dunno... I like their music but there was a very solid effort of going "radio friendly". I was kind of surprised about the whole thing.


----------



## Seventary (May 22, 2012)

M3CHK1LLA said:


> i believe their first albums - kill, ride, master & garage days are their best. im sure a lot of ppl will disagree with me but when the justice album came out, to me it was the turning point. most feel it was the black album.



Garage days does not count imo. Covers. And yes, if selling out means going for a more commercial approach, wich it does, i totally disagree. If ..and justice for all.. would have had bass on it  it would have sounded like a more natural progression from Master of Puppets. Black album; shorter songs, "verse, chorous, verse, chorous, bridge, solo, verse, chorous verse", top-dollar producer. Of course they set out to sell more records.  Still think the albums after ..and justice were good. Different but still good heavy-metal records.


----------



## Loomer (May 22, 2012)

Arch Enemy. From fairly decent melodeath to super-boring entry level metal with a stupid fucking "WHOA HEY LOOK AT US WE HAVE A CHICK SINGER!"-gimmick. Yeah, you have a woman in the band LIKE OTHER BANDS HAVE HAD FOR DECADES, you really are special snowflakes. Great.

COB. They sucked from the get-go IMO, but the recent stuff is just hair metal for angsty teens. 

In Flames. Well, this goes without saying, doesn't it!?

And now the other end: 

Bolt Thrower.. This band is one of the only bands that can have a shirt that says "In A World of Compromise, Some Don't" and back it up the whole way. They never, ever let their fans down, and stick to their principles. The music has never lost quality, since they can rightfully claim to have no duds in their back catalogues, and their policy of always keeping merch and ticket prices down further cements this. Also, they've had a female member all the way (the mighty Jo Bench), but have never, ever used that as a cheap gimmick unlike some other bands. 

Napalm Death. Still as pissed-off today as always, and manage to straddle the line between sticking to what works and still experimenting and expanding their sound, in the most elegant manner possible.


----------



## BucketheadRules (May 22, 2012)

Bodom and Metallica are the two that spring to mind.

Bodom used to be an awesome band, around _Follow the Reaper_ they were almost like a power metal band with a black metal vocalist, which works way better than you'd think. Now they're nearly bordering on metalcore, IMO. Much more watered down. There's still some decent music coming out, but nothing like as good as it used to be. Still has good solos though.

Metallica, we all know. The Black Album was probably their sell-out point, but at least they chose to sell out with something good. It's one of their best albums. If they'd carried on down that route it would have been great. But they didn't. They kept diluting the formula, over and over again, releasing shittier and shittier albums, and they'll never get back to where they were. People buy the newer albums, sure, but it doesn't sound like Metallica. And Lulu was the final nail in the coffin. It just proves that they're not interested in being a good metal band anymore, they're just a bunch of rich old men dicking around with 70-year-old acid junkies and expecting people to like it.



Explorer said:


> As Bill Withers noted, when a furniture store says "Sold out!" it's considered to be a good thing, that people want the product you're selling.
> 
> Or, looking at it another way, it's impossible to sell out if the product isn't desirable.



But what if your original product wasn't doing badly at all, and you just made it worse for the sake of even more money, instead of having the courage in your convictions and sticking with the sound that people come to expect from you? Metallica, after they "sold out" with the Black Album, were one of the biggest rock bands on the planet, pretty much. They could have carried on with that style, being slightly more accessible but still very much a great metal band, and still ended up sleeping on a big bed of money like they do now. 

You can sell out, but it doesn't necessarily mean you have to make your music worse. Metallica should have spotted that the Black Album was a good sound for them, and stuck with it a while longer. There was plenty of mileage in it.

I'm not butthurt that bands change their sound, often it's what they actually want, and it's cool that they have the balls to change the sound in that case. I mean, it's not as if the old stuff has disappeared...


----------



## morrowcosom (May 22, 2012)

Lacuna Coil- Was decent gothy metal, now it just sounds like Korn riffs over choruses that repeat 5 times every song. The predictability of their songs makes a Lady Gaga song sound as unpredictable as a Mike Patton project.

As for Machine Head, sell out or not, "The Blackening" was an awesome CD. 

Adding onto the bands that never sold out: 
Motorhead: Still the same bad-ass rock/metal/punk 
About any death metal band from the late 80's early 90's that still exists. 
Pretty much any black metal band that still exists 
Meshuggah: This is obvious


----------



## broj15 (May 22, 2012)

morrowcosom said:


> Meshuggah: This is obvious


 
That's because Meshuggah doesn't have to sell out. Everyone's taste just conforms to what Meshuggah is creating because they are that good


----------



## Ninjahat (May 22, 2012)

I think a band has sold out when they make money/become popular. If more people than me like them, what's the point in even listening?


----------



## Floppystrings (May 22, 2012)

Ninjahat said:


> I think a band has sold out when they make money/become popular. If more people than me like them, what's the point in even listening?


----------



## Floppystrings (May 22, 2012)

lol


----------



## skeels (May 22, 2012)

Bill Withers sold out?















I love Bill Withers.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (May 22, 2012)

broj15 said:


> That's because Meshuggah doesn't have to sell out. Everyone's taste just conforms to what Meshuggah is creating because they are that good


I think "selling out" would be the last thing I'd think of when I hear "Meshuggah." If anything, their first album and some of their 2nd albums are their only radio-friendly songs, IMO. They've gotten progressively less radio-friendly with each release.


----------



## SenorDingDong (May 22, 2012)

DLG said:


> I'm fine with someone wanting to take a more commercial approach like Metallica, but they did it their way, they weren't hopping on any bandwagons, the success came to them, they didn't chase it.
> 
> The thing I find disgusting is trend-hopping and jumping on the dick of every new trend in order to stay relevant. Bands like Machine Head come to mind. Those kind of bands will never have my respect no matter what.






I don't buy the hate for Metallica--they followed what they saw as the next step in their career. 


What I don't enjoy, as stated, is a band that will change their entire sound to keep up with the latest trend.


----------



## Don Vito (May 22, 2012)

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> I'd have to say Children of Bodom. They ditched their neo-classical power metal sound and went for a more melodic death metal sound which, strangely, sounds easier to sell.


What? I'd say they just naturally switched their sound to melo death, and THEN sold out to play Lamb of God infused keyboard metal, or whatever the fuck they play nowadays.

I just don't see Follow the Reaper as the album they picked to become the cash cow. Also, they started out playing regular death metal, so one could just assume they sold out from that to play neo classical metal. Ya' know....cause it's easier to sell.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (May 22, 2012)

I don't understand why folks need to single bands out as "sell outs".  

I mean, who here wouldn't sell out for millions of dollars given the chance? Has anyone in this thread calling out these bands ever been at that point where they can take what they love and have worked on for decades and turn that into a legacy that will provide for their families for generations to come? I'm honestly asking. 

I also think a lot of the bands mentioned in here are less sell outs and more of "fizz outs", as in they just don't have the same creativity and drive they once had. Some guys, like Metallica, have been doing this for over three decades, or closer to two decades if you look at them selling out in the mid-late 90's. They aren't those angsty kids that had something to be pissed about, they're grown men with families. The dynamic has changed so significantly that even if they made "Ride The Lightning Pt.II" it just wouldn't be genuine, it would be just as laughable as most of their recent releases are considered. 

That's not to say, that perhaps an artist, when they reach a certain point should consider bowing out gracefully.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (May 22, 2012)

I don't think Follow The Reaper was the said "cash cow", I think Are You Dead Yet was when they tried to follow that trend I was trying to describe with more focus on just being a simplified death metal band then their older style. 

I need to think things through when I type.


----------



## hairychris (May 22, 2012)

Anyone remember the time that Celtic Frost went glam?



It ended badly.


----------



## ArtDecade (May 22, 2012)

What some call a sellout, others call a crossover. I don't have an issue with it. Personally, I love pop just as much as metal. So for me, thank God for J-Rock! At least fans in Japan aren't pretentiousness enough to care whether their favorite band has some success. If playing in a basement in bar in Oslo to thirty dudes is your bag, all power to you. Personally, I would rather play to thousands of people and hear then singing every word back to me. 

I think music is about connecting with others, not exclusivity.


----------



## goherpsNderp (May 22, 2012)

i consider "selling out" to be defined as writing/producing/making music PURELY to make money on, and allowing "the market" to dictate as to the content of your music. ie: if guttural screams are what research is showing to be the most popular, you will incorporate it into your music in order to gain more sales. i think it's completely dishonorable to be a musician and operate that way, but that's to be discussed elsewhere.

EDIT: a simpler way to put it- *it becomes about personal gain, instead of about personal expression.*

the only two bands i can think of off the top of my head that i feel like sold out when they struck gold with a certain sound:
-*deftones:* seems like they got really lazy and just focused on sex-voice vocals for the female crowd. the music itself suffered heavily.

-*lamb of god:* ever since they suddenly gained a lot of popularity all their music began to sound exactly the same. became derivative on the same kind of riffing, as opposed to innovating upon an established style. i think there's a difference between the two.


----------



## Xaios (May 22, 2012)

There are a lot of bands that have been listed here that I wouldn't necessarily regard as sell-outs. I'd say there was a point where they became popular at which point they began to suck, but I think it's more a case of a band running out of inspiration after giving us their best material.

For example:

*In Flames* - After Clayman was probably the point where the ball really started to roll for them. Rightly so as well, as they had a solid string containing some of the best melodic death metal albums ever releasesed. However, they clearly lost their muse after that. Ever album thereafter was either a failed attempt to recapture the spark of what made their previous music special, or a failed attempt to try something new. In either case, it didn't work.

These are some bands that I would well and truly deem "sell-outs."

*Machine Head* - Yes, Ashes and The Blackening were awesome albums. However, they were only made once metal was experiencing a surge in popularity. Their ill-advised foray into rap-metal is well documented, however, and the timing there simply can't be ignored.

*Metallica* - Obvious answer is obvious, but it's not what you think. For the record, I don't think Metallica truly sold out until Death Magnetic. Questionable quality aside, up until that point, Metallica seemed to be doing whatever the hell they wanted to do, including Load/Re-Load and even St. Anger. Death Magnetic, however, was different. That's the point were they actively began to try and re-appeal to the core demographic that "felt abandoned" during the nineties. They started writing "trve metal riffs" and hired a producer with "cred" in the metal world. All that while, again, metal was experiencing a surge in popularity. That album was made to take advantage of that surge. Even if it was probably the best album that they'd released since The Black Album, I can't shake the feeling that it was guided more by a desire to sell records than to "get back to their metal roots."


----------



## VBCheeseGrater (May 22, 2012)

I've got no beef with "Selling Out". I consider heading to work every morning selling out. A man's gotta make a living.


----------



## VBCheeseGrater (May 22, 2012)

Ninjahat said:


> I think a band has sold out when they make money/become popular. If more people than me like them, what's the point in even listening?



I know!! I can't be seen listening to that crap!!!


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (May 22, 2012)

MaxOfMetal said:


> I don't understand why folks need to single bands out as "sell outs".
> 
> I mean, who here wouldn't sell out for millions of dollars given the chance? Has anyone in this thread calling out these bands ever been at that point where they can take what they love and have worked on for decades and turn that into a legacy that will provide for their families for generations to come? I'm honestly asking.
> 
> ...




I agree with you, but in the case of bands like Job for a Craptopsy there was no reason for them to be total dicks to their fans. Now years later even some of their members admit to behaving like children.


----------



## USMarine75 (May 22, 2012)

Metallica may be assholes... but I dont think they ever sold out. They went softer with Black when everyone else was starting to get harder and expected them to. Then they flipped the script and went back to their more unpopular SF thrash roots with St Crappier (along with the 2-blocks-of-wood-smacking-together they call a snare). I agree with Max they didnt "sell out" they just "crapped out". (I haven't like a thing they've done since the Black album)

FWIW I despise the term "sell out" it implies _you_ know what's in someone's heart. I think most people mean to say "achieved commercial success", "have a large fan base", or "evolved" when they say "sold out". 

And even then there is nothing wrong with making money. If you had to write a few ("sell out") jingles for commercials so you could make enough scratch to play in an underground band you wouldn't? 

This thread and "selling out" is like saying the old blues greats of the early 1900s sang the blues because they chose to stay downtrodden and poor because they wanted to stay true to their roots


----------



## The Uncreator (May 22, 2012)

So your band changed there sound and direction? They make more money now? A bit more mainstream? They simply MUST have sold out!

Bunch of babies.


----------



## RevDrucifer (May 22, 2012)

I've been a sell-out for a long time.

I serve tables for a living instead of playing music.

Not doing what I *want* to do with my life in order to survive. This is -IMO- FAR worse than altering your sound to achieve more fans. Metallica wanted to be the biggest band in the world. They never said they wanted to write old school thrash all their careers while trying to get there. They straight out said, "We want to rule the world." Never said how.

Doesn't sound like they did anything but exactly what they wanted to, to me.

I know some of the guys from Lamb Of God worked as cooks at places like TGI Friday's and also roofed. I've worked both these jobs. If I were in a heavy band that got some recognition, I'd do whatever I could to keep that momentum building so I'd NEVER HAVE TO FUCKING HAMMER A NAIL AT 50FT OR GRILL ANOTHER PIECE OF FUCKING CHICKEN AGAIN.


----------



## ShadyDavey (May 22, 2012)

Clearly anyone that achieved commercial success and managed to alienate their hipster fanbase who couldn't maintain elitist street cred by hero-worshipping a band no-one had heard of.......or combined commercial success with piggy-backing current trends because their original vision was about as well received as a case of venereal disease. 

Also Metallica. 

/Tongue in cheek
/Irony

Also in many cases Sell out = Burnt Out and lost whatever creative essence made their first releases so special.

See: Metallica.


----------



## USMarine75 (May 22, 2012)

I'll let you know the Top 100 bands that sold out... 


...when Spin makes the list.


----------



## FireInside (May 22, 2012)

Kiss. Disco album? Seriously? Rubbers, coffins, and comics are fine. Disco is where I draw the line...


----------



## Sikthness (May 22, 2012)

Ninjahat said:


> I think a band has sold out when they make money/become popular. If more people than me like them, what's the point in even listening?



exactly. I had to throw out my Deathspell Omega cds yesterday cuz I saw a post on here where other people like them. I can't listen to such blatant sell outs.


----------



## SenorDingDong (May 22, 2012)

FireInside said:


> Kiss. Disco album? Seriously? Rubbers, coffins, and comics are fine. Disco is where I draw the line...




_I Was Made for Loving You_ is a great fucking tune. I listen to it proudly. 





Also, I think I would be honored to be considered a sell-out at any point in my career, because that term is usually affixed to making unbelievable amounts of money. In my book, making money is A-Okay.


----------



## trianglebutt (May 22, 2012)

goherpsNderp said:


> i consider "selling out" to be defined as writing/producing/making music PURELY to make money on, and allowing "the market" to dictate as to the content of your music. ie: if guttural screams are what research is showing to be the most popular, you will incorporate it into your music in order to gain more sales. i think it's completely dishonorable to be a musician and operate that way, but that's to be discussed elsewhere.
> 
> EDIT: a simpler way to put it- *it becomes about personal gain, instead of about personal expression.*
> 
> ...



As far as Deftones goes, I think you're confusing maturing and selling out. I think the progression of their music makes perfect sense. They're not going to make another Around The Fur or White Pony and they know it. So, instead of trying, they've explored new sounds and styles as they've matured. Now, you might not LIKE this new direction but they've certainly not "sold out". Chino is still going nuts like he did in 1998.

I think accusing any band of "selling out" is so silly. Perhaps there are a few occasions where the term is warranted but 95% of the time it comes across as either:
- Whiny fans pissed that new album doesn't sound like earlier album
- Whiny fans pissed that band went in a different direction
- Whiny people pissed that a band is making money playing their music
- Whiny people.

I think people don't realize that sometimes the change in sound is the band's fucking decision. Maybe it's what they like to play now. Maybe the style of that first album when they were 19 isn't what makes them happy any more? And what, they're making buttloads of money too? I mean that sounds pretty fuckin great.

Also if you don't like what a band is doing, please I BEG you, just don't listen to them! Calling them sellouts, talking crap, it's just free advertising. It's also fucking annoying.


----------



## BucketheadRules (May 22, 2012)

RevDrucifer said:


> I've been a sell-out for a long time.
> 
> I serve tables for a living instead of playing music.
> 
> ...



While I posted what I posted earlier bashing certain bands a little, there is this other side to it.

And you know what, I totally agree with you here. Rep distributed.


----------



## Razzy (May 22, 2012)

Metallica sell out every show they play.


----------



## Don Vito (May 22, 2012)

RevDrucifer said:


> I've been a sell-out for a long time.
> 
> I serve tables for a living instead of playing music.
> 
> ...


I can't fucking argue this. Rep from me as well.


----------



## Winspear (May 22, 2012)

I'd say Dream Theater, thankfully the departure of Portnoy seems to have solved that. They were becoming far too metulz.


----------



## bulb (May 22, 2012)

RevDrucifer said:


> I've been a sell-out for a long time.
> 
> I serve tables for a living instead of playing music.
> 
> ...




I really wish more people had this perspective. Truth.


----------



## Levi79 (May 22, 2012)

I'm on the fence with the whole sell out thing. While there's been good points made on both sides, I don't like it when one of my favorite bands goes from this

to this


Although I must admit I enjoy all of Architects stuff, it's kind of a shame to see them do something like that just for the extra attention. At the same time, making money through music isn't simple.


----------



## SD83 (May 22, 2012)

bulb said:


> I really wish more people had this perspective. Truth.


This is why I love this forum. I can't imagine a discussion with local "metalheads" about "bands that sold out" ending peacefully or with any kind of logical argumentation.
@topic: For many of the usual suspects, I wouldn't call it "sell out". It's the same thing I lost a couple of friends (and my last girlfriend) to... people just change. As for the bands, lots of the members have families to support, children. And, I have seen this too often, money is a strong drug. One where you want to increase the dose and which can become your only driving force rather easily, so no hard feelings from my side to those who fell victim to this. 
The only band that comes to my mind right now where I would say "sell out" is Linkin Park, not sure about the more recent stuff, but to me, the change from "Meteora" to "Minutes to midnight" was rather obviously driven by the thought that that was exactly the music that would reach a huge audience at that time.


----------



## Mordacain (May 22, 2012)

Personally, I think the term "sold out" is tossed around far too liberally by people now-a-days.

First and foremost, a band can completely change their sound if they want to based purely on a desire to play something different, or just as a natural evolution of their interests. Simply because someone plays something that might have more radio-friendly qualities does not mean they have "sold out." All of the best bands, in my opinion have a catalog that sounds very diverse, with each successive release delivering something different.

Releasing the same album over and over again is not something I see as "selling out," I see it as a lack of creativity and a sign of stagnation.

That being said, I LOL'd hard at some of the examples of "radio friendly" listed here. Not saying anyone is wrong, just that we have grossly different interpretations of what that might mean.


----------



## edsped (May 22, 2012)

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> I'd have to say Children of Bodom. They ditched their neo-classical power metal sound and went for a more melodic death metal sound which, strangely, sounds easier to sell.
> 
> I'm also gonna throw in Arch Enemy. Not sure what happened, but it sounds like they went from death metal to borderline metalcore.



CoB have always been melodeath, they just started making bad music.


----------



## steve1 (May 22, 2012)

It's called the music business for a reason. It's ALL about selling.

If you want to earn enough money from making music to live a comfortable life and provide for your family etc etc etc, the likelihood is that you are going to have to "sell out" to some degree


----------



## Don Vito (May 22, 2012)

edsped said:


> CoB have always been melodeath, they just started making bad music.



Really? Aside from bad production, I like their demos a lot.


----------



## vampiregenocide (May 22, 2012)

It pains me to say this, but Mudvayne. I lost my love for them after Lost And Found. That was the last good album they made in my opinion. I have no issue with bands writing commercial music, or streamlining their sound to get a wider fan base, but there's a point where you stray so far from what you originally were that it damages the very foundations you gained that popularity on. As soon as they had a hit with 'Happy?' it seemed like they wanted to recapture the success they had with that song. Can't blame them, but it meant they followed it with two albums of attempts at radio-friendly metal hits with a weak progressive edge. Looking back at L.D50 and seeing how masterfully written that was, it makes the later albums look weak in comparison.

I wouldn't mind so much if they'd just used that material for Hellyeah, seeing as it fit that band perfectly. It just didn't have what made Mudvayne special to me.


On the subject of Metallica, I don't feel like they sold out. They've not really changed their sound a huge deal in my opinion. I think they're great songwriters and I've liked all the material I've heard by them though granted I'm not the biggest fan. I liked Death Magnetic and St. Anger (though better production would have made them 10x better).


----------



## rainbowbrite (May 22, 2012)

i am always puzzled by people who get upset when a band changes their sound or style, as if the band walked into the room and fucked their dog right in front of them. instead of accusing them of changing, they proclaim to the world "you have sold out, kind sir. good day." bands exist for their own selfish pleasure, it is coincidence that fans take pleasure in what they produce...


----------



## Eric Christian (May 22, 2012)

M3CHK1LLA said:


> any bands that you believe have sold out?
> 
> whos still soldiering on, making music despite the smaller paychecks?
> 
> this encompasses all genres. discuss.



The most glaring example would hands down be Metallica. Kill Them All, Ride The Lightning & Master Of Puppets are the only material I own from them. I've always resented what they did.

Slayer on the other hand has always stuck to their guns.


----------



## The Uncreator (May 22, 2012)

rainbowbrite said:


> i am always puzzled by people who get upset when a band changes their sound or style, as if the band walked into the room and fucked their dog right in front of them. instead of accusing them of changing, they proclaim to the world "you have sold out, kind sir. good day." bands exist for their own selfish pleasure, it is coincidence that fans take pleasure in what they produce...




Some fans are selfish enough to think musicians make music for them. They are artists, and we are lucky enough to be a part of what they create.

Like I said before, seems like a bunch of babies, mere children.


----------



## Explorer (May 22, 2012)

Using the definition of "sell out" which means changing your music to make it more commercial... how does one really distinguish between someone doing it for the money... and someone doing it because they now prefer something else?

To say you know the difference is to say you know someone else's heart, and can make that claim with authority. I don't think anyone here is psychic, so really, what gives with claiming to know why another person does anything artistic?

"I don't like how the songwriting now comes closer to what people like to hear" seems to mean "I don't like how the songwriter's tastes in what he writes might have evolved what I wanted." To say that someone can't learn and change is bullshit.


----------



## gunch (May 22, 2012)

Go watch "Why we do this" documentary by Car_bomb and come back.


----------



## Into Obsidian (May 22, 2012)

Eric Christian said:


> Slayer on the other hand has always stuck to their guns.



_Exodus_ as well


----------



## K3V1N SHR3DZ (May 22, 2012)

Levi79 said:


> I'm on the fence with the whole sell out thing. While there's been good points made on both sides, I don't like it when one of my favorite bands goes from this
> 
> to this
> 
> ...




I would never listen to the 1st one.
The 2nd one FUCKING PWNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't agree with making something like that a SINGLE though....


----------



## JStraitiff (May 22, 2012)

Its difficult to say that someone has "sold out" because a lot of times bands change their musical direction for a new album out of personal choice and people jump all over them. I personally believe that to gain any commercial success you kinda have to reach out to more audiences. With some of the harder, less-melodic genres like deathcore its so difficult to attract people. A band that i think made a turn for the better by incorporating more main stream elements is As I Lay Dying. They used to be kinda poopy for my tastes but now they have some seriously awesome melodies. Mostly in the choruses but still better.


----------



## MFB (May 22, 2012)

I can't think of any bands I know who blatantly said "We want money, so we're gonna change our sound" vs. their change in sound lending them to more commercial success per se. In terms of the latter In Flames definitely falls into this category and it always takes me a while to get into their newest album - not to mention they have a fuckton of songs on it as well (14/15 I believe, vs. "A Sense of Purpose" and "Come Clarity"'s 10/11). Same for Children of Bodom - I love them up Hate Crew Deathroll and don't mind if I hear some of the tracks from Are You Dead Yet? but I've yet to listen to Blooddrunk because what I did hear was just not what I cared for. Arch Enemy is another example, even when they had Johann; solid band, and Wages of Sin was my first introduction to them, and then Anthems of Rebellion really sold me on them, then Doomsday Machine was just OK and haven't listened to anything else since because it's more of the same "We're rebels, look at how now suddenly we're united and shit...oh yeah and Angela Gossow" etc...


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (May 22, 2012)

Well, what kind of annoys me, is when bands change their musicial direction but suck at making that kind of music, then blame fans for not liking it and getting all poopy.

Remember Morbid Angel's last album?

NOTHING progressive about it but Captain Douchemeister kept saying the reason fans don't like it is because they don't understand, when really...MA just sucks at making industrial.


----------



## Semichastny (May 22, 2012)

I don't really care to much about selling out or any of the related crap, but I would have to say Against Me! kind of sold out. I was confused by them releasing an album almost entirely dedicated to shit talking the music industry then signing to a major.


----------



## theleem (May 23, 2012)

vampiregenocide said:


> It pains me to say this, but Mudvayne. I lost my love for them after Lost And Found. That was the last good album they made in my opinion. I have no issue with bands writing commercial music, or streamlining their sound to get a wider fan base, but there's a point where you stray so far from what you originally were that it damages the very foundations you gained that popularity on. As soon as they had a hit with 'Happy?' it seemed like they wanted to recapture the success they had with that song. Can't blame them, but it meant they followed it with two albums of attempts at radio-friendly metal hits with a weak progressive edge. Looking back at L.D50 and seeing how masterfully written that was, it makes the later albums look weak in comparison.


Truth. I actually don't have a problem with their later albums, and every now and then I'll really get into one of them, but they have nowhere near the power and amazing composition of LD50


----------



## RevDrucifer (May 23, 2012)

I agree with the Mudvayne thing. I'm a HUGE Mudvayne fan, that band saved my life at one point. But after Lost And Found I didn't feel they even cared about the progressive thing they did early on. I still love the sound of the band, just REALLY miss the songwriting of the first 3 albums. 

The new HellYeah tune sounds like something from the past couple Mudvayne albums, just a simpler rhythm section. The band has been saying it's exactly what you'd think the members of Mudvayne, Pantera and Nothingface would come up with. If that's true, I'll love the album....unless it's like the last couple Mudvayne records.


----------



## Trespass (May 23, 2012)

I think there are two major things at play here:

1) At some point, it's creating art for the sake of self-expression vs. creating art because it allows you to be an artist (and all the 'perks', such as playing live shows, fans interacting with and enjoying something you've made). Sometimes, this dichotomy lines up, and the art you make is commercially successful while being true to self-expression. Other times, you make artistic choices that definitely are more true to needs of the mainstream.

2) When music is your fulltime job, sometimes it's literally just a job. It's hard to sustain the level of passion and enthusiasm you originally had in earlier albums when what you really enjoy may have shifted elsewhere, or the constant musick'ing just over-exposes and over-stimulates the creative aspect.

Members of Dream Theatre, for example, are doing okay financially, but they also have children they want to send to college and have the resources to help them out financially in different ways (illness, entrepreneurship, home ownership). I'm sure that they feel, at times, like quitting their job to pursue something else, but this is the best they've got financially. Sometimes, the rhythm of putting out an album every 2 years isn't in line with what you feel is right. 

But you do it anyways, and say how great it was recording it because that's your job. Remember that they've been at this for 20+ years now, doing the same thing for income.



I do music full time, playing (mainly jazz), teaching, and in my spare time working on new material, writing etc. It's incredibly emotionally wearing at times, and certainly isn't always fun.


----------



## cronux (May 23, 2012)

i think that in almost every musicians life there comes a time where your band's "last cd isn't selling well" and the label wants you to change things up so as you don't lose your paycheck and all the "spotlight" that you've been getting with your "last album"

will you now play catchy tunes in drop d instead of your djent/hardcore/mosh/death metal in drop g# that you've done so far is up to you... (it's either that or you get kicked off the label - it has happened )

kinda like -> will you "sell out" to feed your family of become a regular stiff? 

the thing about music is that there's NO RETIREMENT PLAN, no "gold watch" when you retire from music altogether (playing shows and touring) etc.

let's say i am 42 and walked into a job interview after quiting a band:
"so what were you doing for the last 10-15 years?"

being in a djent/hardcore/mosh/death metal in drop g# for all that time touring the world isn't really a CV 

but that's only one way to look at it


----------



## Loomer (May 23, 2012)

Stealthdjentstic said:


> Well, what kind of annoys me, is when bands change their musicial direction but suck at making that kind of music, then blame fans for not liking it and getting all poopy.
> 
> Remember Morbid Angel's last album?
> 
> NOTHING progressive about it but Captain Douchemeister kept saying the reason fans don't like it is because they don't understand, when really...MA just sucks at making industrial.



I wouldn't call MA's latest album a sell-out thing at all though, because they hopped over to a genre NO ONE likes and it was a shift that made NO SENSE AT ALL business-wise, since pseudo-Rob Zombie dance metal has been out of fashion something vicious for well over a decade, and is thoroughly un-marketable these days. Cryptopsy were much better at this. At least they had the sense to hop on the deathcore bandwagon very early, while that was still in full swing.


----------



## Inverted11 (May 23, 2012)

If you're going to change the sound to bring in more crowds/money, then might as well change the band's name: I won't bitch about the sound, and some nu-metal fan will have a new obsession - everybody wins. Or if you think you've 'been there done that' and come up with some half-assed noodling with fancy artwork and expensive production that you composed while relieving yourself on the toilet after a volatile night of incessant drinking, then might as well find a day job.
A few bands that meet my 'sold-out criteria' are In Flames, Arch Enemy, Cryptopsy, and Morbid Angel. FUCK!


----------



## Rational Gaze (May 23, 2012)

I don't know. I honestly feel that if I ever reached a point where I could play shows, put out records, and make a decent living doing it, I would be happy. People have this gigantic, massive tree branch up their ass about bands sticking to their one sound they have always had. I assume it's fun being in a band for 10-15 years and never finding any kind of notoriety because you're too fucking busy worried about being troo, and underground, and metuhl. If I'm going to spend all my energy and effort, and free time, and money working on my craft and fueling something I love to do, it better DAMN well bring me some money one day. Because personally, I really don't want to work two jobs for the rest of my life.


----------



## goherpsNderp (May 23, 2012)

we're going to just have to disagree on deftones. this is a classic example of one fan that still likes the band saying it's "maturing" or "evolving" and the former fan saying that something suddenly changed for the worse. i could go around and around all day explaining why i think they suddenly changed, the vocals went 90% sex-voice, and the guitar riffs became very uninspired or innovative, but in the end it won't matter because deftones fans will remain fans. *and that's A-OKAY.*

i'm at least understanding of it being a change in their writing (for whatever reasons) and will not be butthurt about it and stop listening to their old stuff like some people do. i think the self titled was not only the last pure deftones album, but also my fave. it was like one last hurrah. it would be dumb of me to not listen to it because im "mad at them" for changing their sound, etc.

also, @RevDrucifer: i completely understand that angle too, and it's completely valid. some people are so good at what they do, that it comes down to a decision between doing that one thing as much as possible AND making a living off of it, or working your ass off most of your life and having to squeeze in doing that thing you love, which could also cost you a lot of your hard earned money just to do in the first place. some people will jump on that chance and completely go balls out with it to make as much as possible, and i can't really pass any foul judgement on them for it. i guess my specific example is as i said before, when a band is already awesome and successful, and seem to be writing from the heart, to suddenly change and do whatever the marketing team says is going to get them more sales based on some pie charts and tiger beat surveys.

one thing i DO NOT get about when bands are called sellouts, is for small shit that seems insignificant, like a label switch. "eww they went to Sumerian? fucking sellouts..." as if they're suddenly going to be a different band now that they are on a different label? i mean if that's something that really happens it's news to me, and i'd be more than happy to listen to some examples.


----------



## Louis Cypher (May 23, 2012)

Eric Christian said:


> Slayer on the other hand has always stuck to their guns.


 
Not quite true dude, Diabolos in Musica is Nu Metal through and through. Kerry King hates the album for it. But at the time they were touring so hard with bands like Korn and Deftones and Kerry says he blames it on wanting to reach out a bit to that newer audiences they were playing to, to try to stay relevant..... And as for Exodus, god much as I love them, Force of Habit is a massive shift in gears for them too to be "down with the kids". Personally I actually really like that album and it was the one that got me in to them, though its no Shovel headed killing Machine! LOL! 

IMO every band that is doing well enough to sell records for a living is gonna be accused of selling out by a percentage of their fans with every new album release. Bands do need to move on and do what they wanna do and hopefully grow their fan base, as without that where is the longetity gonna come from? you can't expect the same 500,000 peopel who brought you 1st album to still be there right with you 10 yars later, much as they get knocked you have to hold a glass up to a band like Metallica because they have lasted so well for so long and sell tons of albums and sell out world tours and i think that is because year on year out they pick up more NEW fans than they lose old ones, and thats the trick. Every Metallica gig I have been to the last 10 years, never will you see such a cross section of fans, from 10 yr olds in to St Anger to Parents in to it form the Black album to Old timers who brought Master of Puppets the day it came out! 

I thnk a load of my favourite bands have "sold out" over the years and I hate them for it!! (Damn you Flea & Co!!!!) But in reality they have moved on with age and time and what they love and I for what ever reason havn't moved with them. And sometimes there is the rare chance that me and said band will meet agian, perhaps like Machine Head & Me, Robb was a great friend, Davidian.... ahh Davidian.... Freedom ringing from a shotgun blast..... then we fell out over The Burning Red and didn't speak for many years but then meet again like old friends when something as awesome as The Blackening is released and then we can relive the good old days of Burn your Eyes n enjoy the new with The Blackening and Unto the Locust and even enjoy a bit of playful reminesing over the From This Day video!! LOL"" 

Bands can't sell out long as the music is geniune and what they wanna do at that time, commercial or not. that goes for every artist or band not just Metal bands. Def Leppard always said they wanted ot be THE biggest band in the world, and they got accused of selling out when they went to the States but whcih NWOBHM band who took the piss when they left didn't look on with green eyes when Pyromania and then Hysteria both sold over 10million copys?!?! 

Sorry for the long winded


----------



## rainbowbrite (May 23, 2012)

Diablous in musica is not remotely numetal...


----------



## Louis Cypher (May 23, 2012)

rainbowbrite said:


> Diablous in musica is not remotely numetal...


Certainly not Reign in Blood though is it? you listen to it and then think of the time it was release, that is an album of its time and of the bands they were playing with its not a "Slayer" album. 

No it ain't Linkin Biscuit Nu Metal but that is a Nu Metal influenced album, check out the reviews and even Paul Bostaphas quote on the album Wiki page, plus as I said check out Kerry Kings comments on that album, I am quoting him.....

EDIT: Kerry king quote added


BlabberMouth.Net Metal Hammer Interview with Kerry King in June 2010 said:


> *Metal Hammer*: You seemed to survive the '90s with more dignity than most. What's your secret?
> 
> *King*: I don't know, man. It was the fuckin' *LIMP BIZKIT* era. I remember that it was the only time that I let something influence what I was writing. When we made the *"Diabolus In Musica"* record, I wasn't into writing music because I was so offended by that shit. I couldn't understand why anybody would make music like that, let alone like it. That was definitely my darkest time as a musician, and that definitely showed up on *"Diabolus&#8230;"* through my lack of involvement....


----------



## lucasreis (May 23, 2012)

As much as my reply may be polemical, I don't believe bands really sell out. 

Sure, some end up going away from their roots way to much. But I honestly stopped caring if a band gets more popular or not. When I was a teenager, I had that mentality of not listening anymore to a band if it got popular, I don't think like that anymore...

What I mean is... bands and musicians make music and they have to make a living making music, no one is in this business for charity. Sure, if I was a professional musician (I consider myself primarily a musician, but I'm not a professional one, living with music and stuff) I would love to play the styles I enjoy and I wouldn't really want to play stuff I don't enjoy. But I wouldn't be too concerned if my sounds were "commercial" or not, because, in the end, bands like Burzum and Behemoth have their cds for sale, and Britney Spears also has her cd's for sale.

So, with this long and probably boring reply, I do think some bands ended up abandoning their original roots and sounds, but I don't really think the reason is always the money, there is a plethora of reasons to change a sound and each band is a different animal.


----------



## lucasreis (May 23, 2012)

Xaios said:


> There are a lot of bands that have been listed here that I wouldn't necessarily regard as sell-outs. I'd say there was a point where they became popular at which point they began to suck, but I think it's more a case of a band running out of inspiration after giving us their best material.
> 
> For example:
> 
> ...



I disagree about in Flames.

I love the classic records, but modern In Flames is sexy chocolate! lol


----------



## Marv Attaxx (May 23, 2012)

ByDesign said:


> Architects sold out with The Here And Now.
> 
> Even if they are trying to back pedal now... it's too late for me.
> 
> ...




This is what they sound like now 





Sounds pretty awesome for me (I even like some of the "The Here And Now" songs)


----------



## Zorkuus (May 23, 2012)

DLG said:


> I'm fine with someone wanting to take a more commercial approach like Metallica, but they did it their way, they weren't hopping on any bandwagons, the success came to them, they didn't chase it.


this

Selling out isn't equal to making music that reaches a wider audience, it's jumping on a bandwagon to reach that goal. If Metallica wanted to sell out then they might aswell have recorded a grunge album instead of the black album.


----------



## depths of europa (May 23, 2012)

Metallica we're already rich when they changed their sound. I think they changed it because they wanted to. If they truly wrote all that newer stuff just to make money, then after they became REALLY rich, they would have started writing thrash again if that is what they really wanted to do.

However, I do think that Metallica did "sell out" when all that Napster shit went down. That was super lame. I was 16 at the time, and broke. To have some multi-millionaire rock star bitching that he was losing out on money from album sales. The stuff they were putting out at that time wasn't worth buying anyway! lol


----------



## Zorkuus (May 23, 2012)

depths of europa said:


> However, I do think that Metallica did "sell out" when all that Napster shit went down. That was super lame. I was 16 at the time, and broke. To have some multi-millionaire rock star bitching that he was losing out on money from album sales. The stuff they were putting out at that time wasn't worth buying anyway! lol


If it wasn't worth buying then why steal it? Would you steal a car that was a piece of crap?

Even though I think they took that Napster thing a bit too far they still had a good point. No matter how one tries to sugarcoat the issue the bottom line is still stealing. Ok they're rich and famous but how about a starving artist who's hard work gets stolen? Wouldn't he be entitled to bitch about it either?


----------



## isispelican (May 23, 2012)

Soulfly (although you may also call it losing all the originality that you have). I am a HUGE fan of their albums from the early stuff until Dark Ages but after that it all went shit. Where is the GROOVE, where is the awesome percussion throughout the songs, where is the brazilian vibe ? They just sound like an ordinary thrash metal band now.


----------



## sevenstringj (May 23, 2012)

I skipped the last couple Meshuggah albums. I was also underwhelmed by the last couple Suffocation, Dying Fetus, and Origin albums. Sometimes a change of pace is welcome. If they get more fans, so be it. It's not like there's a shortage of music in any genre.


----------



## Loomer (May 24, 2012)

Actually, a band I WISH would sell out, ie play shows again, is Demilich  

A day does not go by where I have to muster up all my selfcontrol to NOT bug Antti about it on Facebook. I just love that band so damn much.


----------



## noxian (May 24, 2012)

SD83 said:


> This is why I love this forum. I can't imagine a discussion with local "metalheads" about "bands that sold out" ending peacefully or with any kind of logical argumentation.
> @topic: For many of the usual suspects, I wouldn't call it "sell out". It's the same thing I lost a couple of friends (and my last girlfriend) to... people just change. As for the bands, lots of the members have families to support, children. And, I have seen this too often, money is a strong drug. One where you want to increase the dose and which can become your only driving force rather easily, so no hard feelings from my side to those who fell victim to this.
> The only band that comes to my mind right now where I would say "sell out" is Linkin Park, not sure about the more recent stuff, but to me, the change from "Meteora" to "Minutes to midnight" was rather obviously driven by the thought that that was exactly the music that would reach a huge audience at that time.



did they? (Linkin Park)

i don't mean to call you out but frankly you state you understand the point that ppl just change and mature with time... then repeat the exact same cycle of accusing a band of being "sell-outs" simply because they changed.

i don't care if anyone here likes LP or not, but let's have a little reality check of their "selling out".
between Hybrid Theory to their obvious sellout Minutes to Midnight was 7 years and 35 million copies of their first 2 albums.

do you realize the changes the band members probably went through over those 7 years?

those seven years were the difference between Mike Shinoda (to use a single member as an example) being 23 years old and barely out of college when HT came out, to 30 when MTM came out.
between Linkin Park being just another struggling band, to being the best selling band of that decade (outselling even Metallica).
between Meteora and MTM, Shinoda went from being single, to being married with a son. (as if that's not a life changing event that alters the way you look at the world.)

yet its so obvious that Linkin Park just sold out as opposed to another example of just... growing up?

and let's not confuse the issue specifically with a defense of Linkin Park, but let's extrapolate this out.
think of the next band anyone here is going to accuse of "selling out", how much time passed between their selling out and the last album you consider their "real music".
and once you do that math, stop and consider how much has probably gone on in their lives in those years...

as fans looking as these bands from the outside, you get to freeze your vision of them for all eternity.
"_'XXX' was their real music! that's the music they should be producing now! not that BS album they came out with 9 years later! that was just them selling out and changing their sounds because they didn't think they could sell the same music they wrote when they were 21. that was all about the money not their art reflecting their lives after 9 years of aging, a wife, 2 children..._" 

remember for the bands themselves, they're not just "musicians", they're real people. those 5-10 years are 5-10 years of real life.

and to think that that has no affect on them as real people, and any changes they have had are the product of some insidious sell-out product testing plan as opposed to the result of the passage of life itself is naive.


----------



## ArtDecade (May 24, 2012)

Steve Vai admits to selling out when he played with Whitesnake. I don't care, because I love that album. I wonder if Steve jokes with Joe about Chickenfoot. Hahaha!


----------



## Louis Cypher (May 24, 2012)

ArtDecade said:


> Steve Vai admits to selling out when he played with Whitesnake. I don't care, because I love that album. I wonder if Steve jokes with Joe about Chickenfoot. Hahaha!


 
I love Slip of the Tongue.... Dunno how he thinks it selling out tho as the situation was no different really than when he stepped in to Yngwie's shoes in Alcatrazz, and musically it was not that much of a leap from his stuff with DLR.....?? 

If he thinks thats selling out then I would love him to sell out some more!! Personally I have always prefered Vai's playing when he is in a band to his solo stuff (PaW the only exception)


----------



## Adam Of Angels (May 24, 2012)

About In Flames... they never tried to appeal to a massive market or anything, and they never cared about such things, so you can't justly call them sell outs. After Clayman, every single record still has the same quality of melody and the same spirit/heart, but it's all in a different context, so you have to listen for it differently. I mean, all of their albums are completely different. Try to compare Jester Race to Colony and you'll see what I mean.


----------



## ArtDecade (May 24, 2012)

Louis Cypher said:


> I love Slip of the Tongue.... Dunno how he thinks it selling out tho as the situation was no different really than when he stepped in to Yngwie's shoes in Alcatrazz, and musically it was not that much of a leap from his stuff with DLR.....??
> 
> If he thinks thats selling out then I would love him to sell out some more!! Personally I have always prefered Vai's playing when he is in a band to his solo stuff (PaW the only exception)



Check Vai's website under bands (Vai.com - The Official Steve Vai Website: Bands)... He talks about what it was like and so on and so forth. For Whitesnake, all it says is, "It was what it was." I don't have the source, but I seem to remember he was paid a million bucks to record and tour for that album. Poor Adrian...


----------



## Louis Cypher (May 24, 2012)

ArtDecade said:


> Check Vai's website under bands (Vai.com - The Official Steve Vai Website: Bands)... He talks about what it was like and so on and so forth. For Whitesnake, all it says is, "It was what it was." I don't have the source, but I seem to remember he was paid a million bucks to record and tour for that album. Poor Adrian...


 
Thats a little harsh tbh coz what I read before from Vai and from Coverdale, even lately from David in the Classic Rock special to celebrate the last album, he spoke abotu each of his guitarists and about that time with Vai, Coverdale let him have full creative control of the songs and let Steve do what he wanted with them, and he got to do that alone in his own studio too and then he just handed it all back to Coverdale, he even changed arrangements to suit his own playing plus on tour he got 20 odd mins of the show to himself to play tracks off P&W as well as time off to promote P&W and then there was the money.... thats a little cold of Vai especially as he was treated to almost full creative freedom on that album, which in actual fact is what most people say or blame for the negative reviews (though it still sold what 3million copies in the USA??)


----------



## ArtDecade (May 24, 2012)

Something left a bad taste in his mouth, but it seems the problem wasn't with Coverdale...


IB: (to Steve) Your time with Whitesnake - is that something you look back on fondly?
*SV: Well, when I was doing it I was enjoying it but afterwards it got kind of weird because I just started reading funny things in the press. Some of the guys were saying stuff.*
IB: Anyone in particular?
*SV: I don&#8217;t want to get into that. It was good when I was doing it because touring with a big rock arena band, you get treated like a king, first class everything, I made a ton of dough, and I got to go on stage every night and act like a lunatic.*
IB: And you also did some of your own songs.
*SV: Yeah, my solo section was a good opportunity for me to promote &#8216;Passion & Warfare&#8217;. But afterwards, because the record didn&#8217;t sell 14 million like the previous one, some people were a little upset about that. I have nothing bad to say about that. David Coverdale&#8217;s a total gentleman; we always got along real well.*

Source: http://idiotbastard.com/Interviews/SteveVai.htm


----------



## Louis Cypher (May 24, 2012)

ArtDecade said:


> Something left a bad taste in his mouth, but it seems the problem wasn't with Coverdale...
> 
> 
> IB: (to Steve) Your time with Whitesnake - is that something you look back on fondly?
> ...



Theres a couple of interviews I found where Coverdale says that he was unhappy with the way Adrian took it towards the end and his "competitiveness" all the time on stage with Vai.... so poss it was Vandenberg.... if true not very proffessional but you have to feel for Adrian in that situation.... 

Still find it weird Vai thinks he "sold out" though playing with Whitesnake.


----------



## Oxidation_Shed (May 24, 2012)

I always find selling out a hot topic in music. The thing is, musician is probably the only career where people think that it's a bad thing when you do better.
This is their vocation, in some cases their main method of financial support and we find it acceptable to wish them to write music with less appeal (and therefore make less money). If that was any other career, wishing bad luck on someone would consider unacceptable.
It's the band's business and if their business decision is to try and go for a wider audience at risk of alienating their old fans, well that's up to them. Just as if they decide to try a new style, much to the lament of their old fanbase, it's up to them.

I'm not going to go purchase a copy of Sounds of a Playground fading by In Flames to add to my collection, because I don't like it. But I'm not going to sit behind my computer screen and complain about it either.

At some level, unless you're a one man band who never listens to anyone's feedback, all music being created is based to a degree on the opinion of someone else.

So what if a band I love makes a record I dislike that appeals to a wider audience? I'll listen to the albums I like, wish them every success with their *careers* and find another band from the limitless number of talented ensembles out there to get into.


----------



## vampiregenocide (May 24, 2012)

isispelican said:


> Soulfly (although you may also call it losing all the originality that you have). I am a HUGE fan of their albums from the early stuff until Dark Ages but after that it all went shit. Where is the GROOVE, where is the awesome percussion throughout the songs, where is the brazilian vibe ? They just sound like an ordinary thrash metal band now.



I loved Prophecy and Conquer.


----------



## TankJon666 (May 24, 2012)

Loomer said:


> Arch Enemy. From fairly decent melodeath to super-boring entry level metal with a stupid fucking "WHOA HEY LOOK AT US WE HAVE A CHICK SINGER!"-gimmick. Yeah, you have a woman in the band LIKE OTHER BANDS HAVE HAD FOR DECADES, you really are special snowflakes. Great.
> 
> COB. They sucked from the get-go IMO, but the recent stuff is just hair metal for angsty teens.
> 
> ...



Napalm Death just get angrier with each release. Awesome.


----------



## bhakan (May 24, 2012)

Oxidation_Shed said:


> I always find selling out a hot topic in music. The thing is, musician is probably the only career where people think that it's a bad thing when you do better.
> This is their vocation, in some cases their main method of financial support and we find it acceptable to wish them to write music with less appeal (and therefore make less money). If that was any other career, wishing bad luck on someone would consider unacceptable.
> It's the band's business and if their business decision is to try and go for a wider audience at risk of alienating their old fans, well that's up to them. Just as if they decide to try a new style, much to the lament of their old fanbase, it's up to them.
> 
> ...


I don't think it is that different from any other business. If a company cuts corners in the production and makes a lower quality product to make more money, people often dislike like it and complain just like we complain when a band releases what we deem a "lower quality" album.

Also, I'd bet that not every band that switches to more accessible music is selling out, a lot of them may have just matured or changed to the point where they no longer want to play what they used to. We seem to often think that the only reason people would ever want to write accessible music is to get more money. Regardless, I respect a bands decisions over their music. If they sell out, good for them, they can probably live comfortably now.


----------



## fps (May 24, 2012)

Oxidation_Shed said:


> I always find selling out a hot topic in music. The thing is, musician is probably the only career where people think that it's a bad thing when you do better.
> This is their vocation, in some cases their main method of financial support and we find it acceptable to wish them to write music with less appeal (and therefore make less money). If that was any other career, wishing bad luck on someone would consider unacceptable.
> It's the band's business and if their business decision is to try and go for a wider audience at risk of alienating their old fans, well that's up to them. Just as if they decide to try a new style, much to the lament of their old fanbase, it's up to them.
> 
> ...



Good luck to bands who become popular, they leave many bitter people in their wake though.


----------



## Ben.Last (May 24, 2012)

The concept of "selling out" is one of the most utterly idiotic things bestowed upon this earth by "music fans." People change; that also means that bands change. They grow up, find new influences, learn new things, etc. That means that there is always a likelihood that their sound will change too. Sometimes it will be great and sometimes it will suck (and this is my problem with newer Mudvayne. Not that they've sold out, but that most of it is just not that good). That's it. Barring evidence that a band has literally taken a chunk of change from whomever in order to release music that they didn't want to release, there is NO selling out. 

That's why the Machine Head example irks the fuck out of me. They were influenced by what was going on with music at the time. So the fuck what??? Guess what, those albums they released during that period were still really good fucking albums (sorry, if you can't admit that, then there's no hope for you), and that's all that matters. 

So, anyone who is so obsessed with some imaginary metal street cred that they put it before the actual music can fuck off and stick their fucking finger up their ass (refer to 1st page)


----------



## Loomer (May 24, 2012)

TankJon666 said:


> Napalm Death just get angrier with each release. Awesome.



Getting old and cranky does that to a person


----------



## Dan_Vacant (May 24, 2012)

M3CHK1LLA said:


> i think we may find that the punk fans will tend to be a little more harsh on their bands than most other ppl


if you did look at it from a punk prospective Sex Pistols, Romones and my favorite punk band The Misfits and alot more, so much more.


----------



## Dan_Vacant (May 24, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> The concept of "selling out" is one of the most utterly idiotic things bestowed upon this earth by "music fans." People change; that also means that bands change. They grow up, find new influences, learn new things, etc. That means that there is always a likelihood that their sound will change too. Sometimes it will be great and sometimes it will suck (and this is my problem with newer Mudvayne. Not that they've sold out, but that most of it is just not that good). That's it. Barring evidence that a band has literally taken a chunk of change from whomever in order to release music that they didn't want to release, there is NO selling out.
> 
> That's why the Machine Head example irks the fuck out of me. They were influenced by what was going on with music at the time. So the fuck what??? Guess what, those albums they released during that period were still really good fucking albums (sorry, if you can't admit that, then there's no hope for you), and that's all that matters.
> 
> So, anyone who is so obsessed with some imaginary metal street cred that they put it before the actual music can fuck off and stick their fucking finger up their ass (refer to 1st page)


Even though I have posted in here I whole heartedly agree with this.


----------



## poopyalligator (May 24, 2012)

So back in the day I was really into offspring. I loved the punk sound that they had. I heard a new song of theirs on the radio, and it went a little something like this-



Clearly they have changed their sound a lot lol.


----------



## GuitaristOfHell (May 24, 2012)

Disturbed. They lost it after ten thousand fists.


----------



## Explorer (May 24, 2012)

I've been thinking about this now for a few days, and I like the idea of a band buying back in. *laugh*

In other words, a band can go from doing something you don't like to something you do. 

A nearby topic doesn't quite put this on the listener, saying that a band changed to the listener's tastes, but instead just asks for bands which got "better over time." 

http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/ge...92-bands-who-have-gotten-better-overtime.html

What I like is the easy-to-overlook assertion: "got better over time" actually means "you like it more," so "better" just means "more to your personal tastes."

Really, the fact is that over time bands/performers don't always move in the same direction as their listeners, and often not even in the same direction as their bandmates. 

Saying that a band sucks or got better only means that they did so in relation to your tiny private universe.


----------



## HOKENSTYFE (May 24, 2012)

One band that is nothing but a big bag of sellout...HellYeah. Their new album, their trying to buy back in. And I got a feeling that will rub off on a new Mudvayne, buy back in record. Corey 'captain sellout' Taylor. Everything Stone Sour. 

The 'Bum Juice Tour', Hellyeah & Stone Sour with special guests Metallica playing their St. Anger album backwards.


----------



## M3CHK1LLA (May 24, 2012)

i guess the upside to a band changing their sound is that there are about 50 other bands who were influenced by them, ready to fill in the void...

...or some may call that jumping on the bandwagon


----------



## lucasreis (May 25, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> The concept of "selling out" is one of the most utterly idiotic things bestowed upon this earth by "music fans." People change; that also means that bands change. They grow up, find new influences, learn new things, etc. That means that there is always a likelihood that their sound will change too. Sometimes it will be great and sometimes it will suck (and this is my problem with newer Mudvayne. Not that they've sold out, but that most of it is just not that good). That's it. Barring evidence that a band has literally taken a chunk of change from whomever in order to release music that they didn't want to release, there is NO selling out.
> 
> That's why the Machine Head example irks the fuck out of me. They were influenced by what was going on with music at the time. So the fuck what??? Guess what, those albums they released during that period were still really good fucking albums (sorry, if you can't admit that, then there's no hope for you), and that's all that matters.
> 
> So, anyone who is so obsessed with some imaginary metal street cred that they put it before the actual music can fuck off and stick their fucking finger up their ass (refer to 1st page)



This is the ultimate comment. Really.

The whole "oh I'm a metal fan, I have cred, fuck bullshit sellouts" attitude is fucking moronic and just as sheep-ish as the attitude of some pop fans. Real fans of music don't really care if something is popular or not. It's all about appreciating musicianship. Bravo!!


----------



## Mark Lewis (May 25, 2012)

Avenged Sevenfold
Eighteen Visions
Atreyu
KoRn
Slipknot
Your Demise

I think the worst ones are the ones who kick a member out (i.e vocalist) for a more radio friendly direction, or just make poor excuses for it...Just be honest with your fans...just say "We've made 4 albums, we've run out of things to write about and whislt it was great having freedom...it didn't pay well enough for us to retire and I don't fancy working at mcdonalds soon because I have no qualifications. So we're going to put out some more albums with the view to getting more airplay...We'll try not to differ TOO much...but don't worry we'll still play the old stuff at shows."

THAT...for me....Would make me respect them a hell of a lot more, because then you an think "Well, I've had my time with them.....let other people enjoy them now" and you have closure.

DON'T keep telling people it's your heaviest album yet and then release the metal equivalent to a pop punk album...That's just inciting hatred...

Honesty is the best policy kids...


----------



## ArtDecade (May 25, 2012)

If selling out means being rich, than slap my picture on a coffin and call me Kiss!


----------



## Eric Christian (May 27, 2012)

The Uncreator said:


> Some fans are selfish enough to think musicians make music for them. They are artists, and we are lucky enough to be a part of what they create.


 
Lucky? lol... Thats funny because I've never seen a headline "Unknown Rock Musician Dies, Entire Catalog of Previously Undiscovered Hits Found!" 

So yeah, your statement seems completely illogical because if that was the case then you would have never heard of the artist in the first place if it wasn't for their own ego and need for validation. Throughout history there have been a few reclusive artists who specialized in fine art such as sculpture and oil painting for example who sequestered their work for their entire lives. However, this has never been the case in Rock Music. The entire music business is driven by fans and if you're a musician and you want a paycheck then your fans are important.


----------



## Equivoke (May 27, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> The concept of "selling out" is one of the most utterly idiotic things bestowed upon this earth by "music fans." People change; that also means that bands change. They grow up, find new influences, learn new things, etc. That means that there is always a likelihood that their sound will change too. Sometimes it will be great and sometimes it will suck (and this is my problem with newer Mudvayne. Not that they've sold out, but that most of it is just not that good). That's it. Barring evidence that a band has literally taken a chunk of change from whomever in order to release music that they didn't want to release, there is NO selling out.
> 
> That's why the Machine Head example irks the fuck out of me. They were influenced by what was going on with music at the time. So the fuck what??? Guess what, those albums they released during that period were still really good fucking albums (sorry, if you can't admit that, then there's no hope for you), and that's all that matters.
> 
> So, anyone who is so obsessed with some imaginary metal street cred that they put it before the actual music can fuck off and stick their fucking finger up their ass (refer to 1st page)



/thread
/thread


----------



## Oxidation_Shed (May 27, 2012)

bhakan said:


> I don't think it is that different from any other business. If a company cuts corners in the production and makes a lower quality product to make more money, people often dislike like it and complain just like we complain when a band releases what we deem a "lower quality" album.



Making a bad album and "selling out" aren't the same thing.

Yeah it bothers me when a band make an album that I don't like and flops commercially. But music is subjective and if a band "sells out" and makes an album that the old fans don't like, but brings them to a much wider audience granting them previously unachieved levels of commercial success, I don't see how someone can say that album is "worse" than anything else they've done.


----------



## bhakan (May 27, 2012)

Oxidation_Shed said:


> Making a bad album and "selling out" aren't the same thing.
> 
> Yeah it bothers me when a band make an album that I don't like and flops commercially. But music is subjective and if a band "sells out" and makes an album that the old fans don't like, but brings them to a much wider audience granting them previously unachieved levels of commercial success, I don't see how someone can say that album is "worse" than anything else they've done.


I agree, that's why i didn't say make a worse album, but "what we deem as" a worse album. Obviously music is subjective, but for the taste of most people here, "selling out" results in subjectively worse music.


----------



## M3CHK1LLA (Jun 13, 2012)

^ there are many examples of bands with awesome albums quickly followed by a stinker...


----------



## hairychris (Jun 13, 2012)

M3CHK1LLA said:


> ^ there are many examples of bands with awesome albums quickly followed by a stinker...



Ah yes, especially the case of the awesome first album followed by shitty 2nd.

That is not entirely the band's fault. First album will often consist of songs that have had years of getting right in demos, live settings, etc. Sales go well, record label want a follow-up a year later, band has to learn to write music under pressure, failure often ensues as not everyone can do that. You can often see this happen when the 3rd and subsequent albums get better. Other songwriters are naturally quick so don't have this problem as much.


----------



## estabon37 (Jun 14, 2012)

My experience as a huge Pearl Jam fan makes me kinda surprised nobody has mentioned them yet. I'm always surprised when I'm asked by someone what I listen to and I reply "Pearl Jam" to be immediately rebuffed by what a pack of sellouts they always were. It doesn't take long for me to find out I'm talking to a Nirvana fan who has never listened to any Pearl Jam beyond hearing a couple of songs off _Ten_.

The main reason it's strange is that they fall into the "buying back in" category. _Ten_ is their first album, their most commercial for its time of release, and was my least favourite album by them until it was remixed a couple of years ago. All that horrible reverb was removed, and all of a sudden the band sounded like they do on all of their other albums! Their albums _Vs_ through _Yield_ seemed to deliberately distance the band from the "generic" grunge sound of the early 90s, and this is a band that is constantly labelled as sellouts because ... well, they made a fuckton of money. They are also one of the few bands from that decade who went out of their way to maintain legal, artistic and distributive control of their albums alongside Tool, who had to go to court for five years to do it.

tl/dr: Pearl Jam are as far from sellouts as you'll ever see. For a band who actively tried to sell out and failed hard, check out Live's albums after _The Distance to Here_. It's almost funny.


----------



## oompa (Jun 14, 2012)

The problem with Metallica selling out is not that they're making money.

It's not like they weren't making money back in the late 80's lol

The problem is that it is kind of hard to sing about how you roam around town looking for a fight when you prance around in luxury shopping district for prada caps 

What that does is that it makes it hard for me to listen to them anymore and feel that they're genuine.

You write songs about justice and shit and then you pull off the biggest web-trial ever against napster sharing their music freely when they're all at a point where they have their own jet planes.

That does not make you sound like a musician who wants a better society by complaining about drugs, death penalties, injustices, wars etc.

That makes you sound like a self-absorbed idiot who wants every penny that is 'rightfully theirs' even when they're millionaires, and spreading their message is second or maybe third if you're lucky - hence people feel they sold out 

At least that is my take on it, and that's why I cringe when I see bands like Metallica or In Flames to take one band from my own country who kind of did the same - at first they were all about being creative - then they were all about getting as much air time as possible on the MTV and getting high sales figures and phat publicity.

However, I am far from bitter, since for every band that 'sells out' in my eyes, i.e. quits making music for the sake of contributing to the wonderful art (that is music), a new band pops up with the right spirit! 

Overall I see us going plus minus zero with the side effect that new albums keep popping up that I can listen to, just that different bands make em


----------



## brutus627 (Jun 14, 2012)

Soilwork...chain heart machine was sick and i feel like ever since predators portrait their stuff has been going the wrong way for me to want anything to do with it
Arsis...forced to rock? No they can't force me to do that, in fact I refuse to to rock that shit
Impending doom...to boring to waste the time anymore
Ion dissonance, minus the herd was VERY boring coming off solace which was a masterpiece but cursed was an improvement tho I will admit...easily more "sellable" though than their early work
Dimmu borgir no longer deliver the goods
Decapitated's songs all run together now they used to be sick ala nihility
Meshuggah...j/k, seeing them live locked them in my number favorite band spot permanently


----------



## Equivoke (Jun 14, 2012)

^^^ I feel like you are listing albums which you don't like as much as their predecessors and slapping on the "sold out" tag for whatever reason.

Do you think Minus the Herd or Cursed were "marketable" enough to make a lot of money?


----------



## ROAR (Jun 14, 2012)

I like some of these bands that have been mentioned, Avenged Sevenfold, LoG. 
And I don't think they sold out at all. 
Bands don't really sell out, tastes are just different.


----------



## Sephiroth952 (Jun 14, 2012)

poopyalligator said:


> So back in the day I was really into offspring. I loved the punk sound that they had. I heard a new song of theirs on the radio, and it went a little something like this-
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly they have changed their sound a lot lol.



That was...disturbing...


----------



## spawnofthesith (Jun 14, 2012)

I feel like that Offspring song must be some sort of trolling by the band...


I mean those fucking lyrics and the whole sound of the song...  cracks me up for sure, whether intentional or not


----------



## brutus627 (Jun 14, 2012)

I feel "sold out" is a fairly loosely used term anyway but the examples i mentioned were IMO trying to sell more albums/gain a broader fan base(minus the herd would appeal to more people because it's easier to listen to...listen to solace then that album then picture which one people could follow or even tolerate lol more easily). Soilwork was a heavy screaming thrash band and now sings regularly/employ much more "melody" end result being easier to listen to. You are correct that I enjoyed the earlier music better myself but I do think that these bands have made an effort to sell more albums/tickets to shows. As much as some metal music is limited in he amount of fans or sales you can possibly accrue at the very tip top of that market, tweaking your music to be more "accessable" can ultimately make you more successful i.e. my definition of selling out...as wrong as it may be lol. I never really call people out on selling out Because at the end of the day making money putting out music is awesome I just thought in the spirit of the op I'd throw out when I thought selling out within my understanding of it had occurred


----------



## ASoC (Jun 14, 2012)

Not sure its selling out, but I hate the turn that Rise Against's music has taken

From


To

^I absolutely HATE this song


----------



## brutus627 (Jun 14, 2012)

Aaron Lewis went on record saying that after staind's first album the producers/executives of their record company were basically dictating what kind of music they were going to be putting out. They undoubtedly agreed to give up creative control at some point, if not selling out what do you call that? Serious question!!!  like I said obviously making a large amount of money is sweet and I would do the same... but what term is used for those kind of decisions so the title of he thread can be changed accordingly! Obviously ion dissonance and staind are worlds apart btw and sometimes influences and sounds can change without money being involved but as reality tv watching humans we love controversial overtones haha your disappointment that the band you love isn't the same anymore is what can make you accuse them of selling out I believe...it's like your "getting them back" by accusing them of that.


----------



## RevDrucifer (Jun 15, 2012)

One thing to put into perspective is- 

Maybe some people love catchy music.

I certainly do. It's the *ONLY* reason I've kept listening to Mudvayne this whole time. I LOVE having a chorus pop up and it's stuck in my head so bad it's all I want to listen to, over and over and over until I'm sick of it. 

This is why I LOVE All Hope Is Gone (Slipknot). It's got the heavy stuff you'd expect from them, but then these choruses come up and they're fucking perfect. I love Sevendust so much BECAUSE they're so damn catchy. That's a band that's been TRYING to sell out to hit a bigger audience and the people just won't listen.

It's why I love Alice In Chains, Faith No More, Devin Townsend ("Kingdom"!!! "Supercrush", "Love?"). Fear Factory, Pantera, Linkin Park, Adele, Elton John, Zeppelin, I can go on and on and on....

I've found that after writing a few songs on my own, I've been able to focus in and that catchy factor after I've written a few. You learn how the song breaths and you find the spaces to fill in...

I'm a sucker for melody. I know damn well I'm not the only musician out there who loves shit that gets stuck in their heads. First time I heard "End Of Heartache"....holy fucking shit, man.

We all have our own ideas of what "good songs" are. 15 years ago, for me, it was 10 minute Dream Theater songs. These days, it's anything I can remember after listening to it once or twice.


----------



## lucasreis (Jun 15, 2012)

ASoC said:


> Not sure its selling out, but I hate the turn that Rise Against's music has taken
> 
> From
> 
> ...




I actually prefer the ultra melodic Rise Against than the old one 

Satellites, Savior, Help is on the Way... all of them have insanely good vocal melodies for my tastes! lol


----------



## lucasreis (Jun 15, 2012)

brutus627 said:


> Aaron Lewis went on record saying that after staind's first album the producers/executives of their record company were basically dictating what kind of music they were going to be putting out. They undoubtedly agreed to give up creative control at some point, if not selling out what do you call that? Serious question!!!  like I said obviously making a large amount of money is sweet and I would do the same... but what term is used for those kind of decisions so the title of he thread can be changed accordingly! Obviously ion dissonance and staind are worlds apart btw and sometimes influences and sounds can change without money being involved but as reality tv watching humans we love controversial overtones haha your disappointment that the band you love isn't the same anymore is what can make you accuse them of selling out I believe...it's like your "getting them back" by accusing them of that.



But, fortunately, Staind grew back some balls and made a real good and heavy album with Staind (2011).


----------



## lucasreis (Jun 15, 2012)

RevDrucifer said:


> One thing to put into perspective is-
> 
> Maybe some people love catchy music.
> 
> ...



I agree with your comment almost entirely! I love some catchy melodies as well! I don't know why the metal community is so against melody. Older metal had a lot of melody and people didn't complain.


----------



## ASoC (Jun 15, 2012)

lucasreis said:


> I actually prefer the ultra melodic Rise Against than the old one
> 
> Satellites, Savior, Help is on the Way... all of them have insanely good vocal melodies for my tastes! lol



Its not that I'm against melody, there are catchy songs in the older Rise Against catalogue, but I think that Appeal to Reason and Endgame are horrible albums. 

I miss the raw sound that The Unraveling had, even Sufferer & the Witness had plenty of balls. The two most recent albums just don't carry enough weight for me


----------



## Styxmata (Jun 15, 2012)

A Day To Remember.... never liked the music, now I really don't like the music. My brother is really into them so by default I hear some of the stuff, but jesus christ the new stuff sounds sooooooo 'generic' and pop-tarty.


----------



## Styxmata (Jun 15, 2012)

Social Distortion FTW!


----------



## ArtDecade (Jun 15, 2012)

lucasreis said:


> I agree with your comment almost entirely! I love some catchy melodies as well! I don't know why the metal community is so against melody. Older metal had a lot of melody and people didn't complain.



This. Melody over brutality any day of the week. If you can't get me to sing along, I don't care how heavy you are.

See: Iron Maiden


----------



## bass7620bk (Jun 15, 2012)

lucasreis said:


> But, fortunately, Staind grew back some balls and made a real good and heavy album with Staind (2011).


 
Staind has enough money now they can do pretty much whatever they want.


----------



## Ben.Last (Jun 15, 2012)

bass7620bk said:


> Staind has enough money now they can do pretty much whatever they want.



It wouldn't surprise me if their contractual situation has shifted a lot since the mentioned days of label interference too.


----------



## brutalwizard (Jun 15, 2012)

Despised icon sold out the boise venue once...........


Oh wait pointless thread about bands that have changed there sound and people or arguing the term.


----------



## M3CHK1LLA (Jun 15, 2012)

bass7620bk said:


> Staind has enough money now they can do pretty much whatever they want.


didnt the singer quite and start a country band or something?


----------



## Ben.Last (Jun 16, 2012)

brutalwizard said:


> Despised icon sold out the boise venue once...........
> 
> 
> Oh wait pointless thread about bands that have changed there sound and people or arguing the term.



And a thread being "pointless" determines... what exactly???


----------



## CrownofWorms (Jun 16, 2012)

ion dissonance changed their sound

I'm just getting into em and wanna see like a before and now


----------



## Sikthness (Jun 16, 2012)

CrownofWorms said:


> ion dissonance changed their sound
> 
> I'm just getting into em and wanna see like a before and now



minus the heard is much less chaotic than any other release. a lot simpler. its not a radical departure but its definitely more straightforward deathcore than BII, Solace, and Cursed.


----------



## lucasreis (Jun 16, 2012)

bass7620bk said:


> Staind has enough money now they can do pretty much whatever they want.



True, still nice to see that they made a kick-ass record this time. Hopefully they'll keep up with this stuff.


----------



## budda (Jun 17, 2012)

This was an interesting read! I have to think on it and then I'll try to write a good response.


----------



## CloudAC (Jun 17, 2012)

I don't believe in the term selling out. I think of it more as the band evolving their sound, and if you don't like the direction it's going in, well then thats that really. Move on. 

Many people accuse Linkin Park on 'selling out' but watching their studio diaries and tour diaries it clearly shows that they have enjoyed where they have come musically and are constantly evolving their sound. I really respect that. and there isn't a single Linkin Park album I dislike.


----------



## wizbit81 (Jun 17, 2012)

Lost Prophets first album put them on the verge of greatness, then they followed up with a US sellout, then got worse. I could have seen them the other week, put the new album on to see what it was like and I actually turned it off after two tracks it was so bad. I didn't bother to go see them as well. This is from a band I used to think were AMAZING. I still love that first album, it's brilliant! Sad they just dumped the heavy and clever musical stuff for pop hooks and choruses.


----------



## brutus627 (Jun 17, 2012)

Awesome
Ion Dissonance - Solace - 4) She&#39;s Strychnine - YouTube
Boring
Ion Dissonance - Shunned Redeemer - YouTube

IMO lol


----------



## Equivoke (Jun 17, 2012)

brutus627 said:


> Awesome
> Ion Dissonance - Solace - 4) She's Strychnine - YouTube
> Boring
> Ion Dissonance - Shunned Redeemer - YouTube
> ...



Solace is probably a better album than MTH, but it's silly to think that MTH is (1)A huge departure from previous sound (2) A compromise of what they want to do musically in a deliberate attempt to "grab more fans". 

Most of those guys work day jobs and have families, they aren't going to make a substantial amount of money playing any sort of technical metal, either in the vein of Solace or with a slightly more groove oriented album like Minus the Herd.


----------



## lucasreis (Jun 17, 2012)

CloudAC said:


> I don't believe in the term selling out. I think of it more as the band evolving their sound, and if you don't like the direction it's going in, well then thats that really. Move on.
> 
> Many people accuse Linkin Park on 'selling out' but watching their studio diaries and tour diaries it clearly shows that they have enjoyed where they have come musically and are constantly evolving their sound. I really respect that. and there isn't a single Linkin Park album I dislike.



This, a million times.

Linkin Park was pop from the beggining, and I admit, I liked it, a lot (still do) and I like some of the newer stuff as well. They were never underground so they never really sold out.


----------



## Blackhearted (Jun 17, 2012)

Linkin Park never sold out. They probably would have been more successful had they kept making Hybrid Theory and Meteora over and over, but they chose to evolve. I don't like their post MtM material at all, but at least they're trying to stay fresh.
Staind, imo, is the clearest example of selling out I can think of. More so that Metallica. They scored a hit with 'It's Been Awhile' and then spent the next ten years trying to copy that one song's success. Honestly I was irked more by the "we're going back to our old sound" comments before the release of 'The Illusion of Progress' (trololololol). I am very, very happy with their new record, I couldn't believe that they actually followed through this time. 
Metallica sold out, absolutely. Like Staind, though, they redeemed themselves in my eyes with Death Magnetic, production aside >.< 
Machine Head sold out with The Burning Red, but based on some of the stories I heard about their finances post The More Things Change, I don't blame them. 
I like songs from their nu metal albums, and I like songs from Staind's radio rock albums, and I like songs by Metallica from the Load/Reload era. Just because a band has changed their style in the pursuit of commercial success doesn't mean they automatically lose their ability to write good music.


----------



## brutus627 (Jun 17, 2012)

Have to agree to disagree to a certain degree as I said I haven't stopped liking ID I bought cursed and like it because they brought back some of that "disarray" I suppose you could call it that i thought made them who they are not just chugging the whole time like in mth. I do feel at times bands change in the interest of making more money (not necessarily getting rich...) but that's not always the reason they change of course as progression does exist. Maybe it's wrong to label people for that reason but a bit optimistic IMO to think it never happens.


----------



## M3CHK1LLA (Jun 30, 2012)

idk, sometimes bands just change their sound cause they get bored or want to create something new...


----------



## kerska (Jun 30, 2012)

CloudAC said:


> I don't believe in the term selling out. I think of it more as the band evolving their sound, and if you don't like the direction it's going in, well then thats that really. Move on.
> 
> Many people accuse Linkin Park on 'selling out' but watching their studio diaries and tour diaries it clearly shows that they have enjoyed where they have come musically and are constantly evolving their sound. I really respect that. and there isn't a single Linkin Park album I dislike.


 
I feel like it was like this with Deftones too.

Deftones are a huge band, and yet every CD has it's own sound and is it's own little world. They're always evolving and sounding like Deftones, but just a different version of themselves with each album.


----------



## trianglebutt (Jul 1, 2012)

Blackhearted said:


> Linkin Park never sold out. They probably would have been more successful had they kept making Hybrid Theory and Meteora over and over, but they chose to evolve. I don't like their post MtM material at all, but at least they're trying to stay fresh.
> Staind, imo, is the clearest example of selling out I can think of. More so that Metallica. They scored a hit with 'It's Been Awhile' and then spent the next ten years trying to copy that one song's success. Honestly I was irked more by the "we're going back to our old sound" comments before the release of 'The Illusion of Progress' (trololololol). I am very, very happy with their new record, I couldn't believe that they actually followed through this time.
> Metallica sold out, absolutely. Like Staind, though, they redeemed themselves in my eyes with Death Magnetic, production aside >.<
> Machine Head sold out with The Burning Red, but based on some of the stories I heard about their finances post The More Things Change, I don't blame them.
> I like songs from their nu metal albums, and I like songs from Staind's radio rock albums, and I like songs by Metallica from the Load/Reload era. Just because a band has changed their style in the pursuit of commercial success doesn't mean they automatically lose their ability to write good music.



Yeah, Aaron Lewis has even made some comments implying that the band were pushed to be more accessible and it just made them miserable. The S/T album made me really proud of that band, it's not often that a band says "we're going back to our original sound" and then follow through. 

You made a very good point though, a lot of these albums considered the "Selling out" point for certain bands are actually albums I still enjoy despite the change in style.


----------



## sleightest (Jul 2, 2012)

kerska said:


> I feel like it was like this with Deftones too.
> 
> Deftones are a huge band, and yet every CD has it's own sound and is it's own little world. They're always evolving and sounding like Deftones, but just a different version of themselves with each album.



I agree Deftones havent sold out IMO they just keep evolving. It seems like Chinos voice is shot though kinda sad


----------



## cataclysm_child (Jul 2, 2012)

RevDrucifer said:


> I've been a sell-out for a long time.
> 
> I serve tables for a living instead of playing music.
> 
> ...



I disagree. I think it's worse that bands do something they don't really want to just to manage to make a living out of it, than working a job they hate and make exactly what they want, you know?

Selling out is selling out, no matter what the reason is IMO.

If altering their sound was something they wanted and it happened to bring in more money I'm all for it though.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jul 2, 2012)

fps said:


> Honestly, any band that gets big enough to make a living playing instruments, however they do it, good luck to them....





I'm always curious about what ppl mean when they say "sell out." 

Just because a band makes a switch to play more popular music doesn't necessarily mean they only play said music for the $. There's a chance they might actually like what they do.

If a man goes from being an astrophysicist to a basket weaver has he sold out or simply found something that makes him happier?

I've tried to stop using the term sellout as I don't think it outside the realm of possibility for a band to change direction regardless of what everyone else thinks. Would it be selling out any less for a band to continue in a direction you want simply because YOU want them to? Either way they're not being true to themselves.


----------



## harkonnen8 (Jul 2, 2012)

Amoral

From this:

To this:


----------

