Where is the line between sell-out and talentless nobodies?

U

Uma Sankar

New member
No, what? It's just what you said. They couldn't stop the merchandize or they wouldn't have got a contract. So, they sold their souls to make a record.
 
i just wanted to agree with the inevitable posts that are going to say that the flaming lips older stuff is better and that bloc party just flat out sucks altogether
 
IRONIC!



Yet you still fail horribly at reading comprehension, good job. All people need to do is look at my last post to see you do make stuff up. The most pathetic part is I'd pointed out their various chart topping songs to you before.

EDIT: lols forget reading my last post, lets just read the part below me!



*sigh* they've broken into the top 100 a dozen times in various countries. But that's completely irrelevant you said "they arent a chart monster." yet here you acknowledge they had a nuraber 1. Weird.
 
If a band is too popular they are corporate sell outs, but if they aren't popular enough it seems they are losers, nobodies. Where is that perfect spot between them? Everyone wants thier band to be liked and heard, but no body wants thier band to be commercialized pop idols either (for the most part)
 
OH MY LORD! DID he just say that they are TOO "GOOD" to be on an indie label?

Cripes! Oomph, have you got any idea where the line is between indie and major? It has nothing to do with the artistic value of the music!

It's only a question of whether or not the band is writing music that is commercially viable enough to be sufficiently marketable and thus of potential market value to a major conglomeration like Sony or Universal etc. Hence, all your favourites (Akon, 50 Cent, Christina Aguilera etc.) are on major labels, because they can make the labels a TON of money, while many banRAB I like are on small labels due to the opposite: either their music or image is not commercially-oriented enough for them to realistically garner mainstream attention.

BanRAB like Oomph and GoRABmack attract a large portion of the mainstream because A:, yes, the music is in a (relatively) popular format, and B:, like it or not, their image (all the skulls and shiz etc.) is very marketable too and appeals to another large part of the population - the morbid, depressive, morose pseudo-intellectual morons who feel outcast from society. The same sorts of people who listen to worthless rubbish like Slipknot.
 
Majority of popular music sucks because its sucked into the marketing crap and they make music that sells. They sell a image, become to commericial and their music is crap. Thats why alot of banRAB/artists that are non- popular dont want to be mainstream because they don't want to change their style/ music for the market. Then you have some that do because of the sole purpose to be known. It really doesn't matter if you dig that music then thats you it doesn't matter if its mainstream or not. Who cares what other folks think? they don't have to listen to it lol but alot people don't want their favorite band/artist to become commerical because they are afraid the band/artist might switch their whole music style up for the market.
 
My point is, if for some strange reason, we find out that Beethoven just wrote the 9th Symphony for cash, or F Scott Fitzgerald wanted to strike it rich, so he wrote The Great Gatsby, does it diminish the end product?
 
You really need to stop making up things and pulling facts (lies) out of your ass when you have no argument and you've been proven to be a complete hypocrite. It doesn't make you look good.
 
The ONLY thing you have 'sourced' is a few little pens and t shirts. And I explained already how pens and t-shirts does mean a band is selling out or compromising thier sound.

And we aren't here to file a report or write a term paper, it's supposed to be opinion and deduction and observation/experience.



What the f*** do you know? That they sell pens? How many of thier songs have you heard? And if any which ones?



It's an adobe file or whatever
http://www.texasheritagemusic.org/special_stories/Mommas 1.pdf

It says that the record company owns the music completely and expects the band to sell merchandise (they essentially have a quota and if you don't pay them they take everything from you until you do), the band has little to no choice.

Essentially, the band technically has the right to not sell merchandise, but if they don't thier lives are going to be raped which really means it's not that much of a choice. The companies expect a lot of money and it will rarely be fulfilled without selling merch.
 
I'm not saying its hypocritical but it is odd when you say that and you have an avatar and signature of who may very well be the most popular music artist in the whole world.

I'm a MJ fan, don't get me wrong, its just that when people usually say stuff like what you said, they have a Fugazi avatar or something.
 
Radiohead are not talentless nobodies.

And if Radiohead are still sell outs even after abandoning the whole damn record industry. Then holy sh*t, theres nothing that ain't selling out. But I already made that point.
 
What people don't realise is that however awful it is, most banRAB do enjoy the music they're making. Let me put it this way: music gets put on the radio because people enjoy listening to it, therefore it is enjoyable, so banRAB that make this music will invariably be the people that like the music that's on the radio to begin with. Therefore these banRAB cannot have sold out. Very few banRAB do sell out, it's basically just used to say that you liked a band before but don't know because you realised they were ****e.

Now talentless nobodies is an easy one just look here: indie tag – Music at Last.fm
 
Back
Top