I had a great conversation with Nasty Nate tonight about the concept of "selling out." Before any great discourse about this concept, let me first define "selling out." Selling out, to me, simply means putting the pursuit as the main priority in a career. For example, me deciding to place advertisements on Tabulas would be "selling out" (since the intention would be to make money and on longer make Tabulas an ad-free service).



Now, with that being said, Nasty Nate was bemoaning the death of the music industry as a whole due to the influx of "sellout" artists who are ruining the music industry. This is totally true. If we look at the rap industry as a microcosm of the music industry (in terms of market and cultural impact, rap is the arguably the most important genre anyways), we can see that there are almost _no_ original artist. We are flooded with guys like Lil' Jon, Black Eyed Peas, and such.

This topic naturally led to a discussion on whether it was "ok" to sell-out as a musician. This is important because the concept of selling out will occur to everyone at one point in time. Whether you settle on a corporate job you hate, or you decide to travel to Korea to teach Engrish to make money (har har, jk) ... everyone will at one point in their lives be forced to make a decision they won't find favorable to pay the bills.

Now, the key points I must lay as a background:
1.) Although talent takes you far, in order to be an economic success, musicians must also become lucky.
2.) Any commercial success will immediately be viewed as "selling out" by the grassroots that have supported the artist.
3.) In a simple cost/benefit analysis of a musician, we can determine the cost to be the time required to develop the skills and create albums, while the benefit must be maximized by appealing to the greatest possible market (which quite bluntly means selling as many CDs to as many people as possible).

Point 1: Talent does take you far, but timing (luckiness) will also play a huge factor. Arguably Nirvana's influence would of not of been as great had the grunge rock scene not exploded after the glam-rock era of the 80s. Of course, Nirvana is one of the rare examples where they didn't actually ever "sell out," but had great timing and talent to pull off a real economic success. Had they peaked a few years earlier, their success might of been as limited as the Pixies (another great group, but way out of their time).

So Point 1 basically states that either you have to be talented and lucky to succeed in a "natural" sense.

Some bands do produce a great first CD (one-hit wonders), but to lead to continued economic success, they require the huge corporate marketing machine to continue pushing their albums to people.

[As a corollary, you ever notice that when you see the "top" artists in specific genres, they're always artists who die early? Lynyrd Skynrd, Nirvana, 2Pac, Biggie, ... heck even Jimmy Valens/Buddy Holly can be added to this list. I really think premature deaths can solidify a great to a legend in the music industry, because people will give musicians the benefit of the doubt when it comes to potential. "So much upside!"]

Point 2 basically reiterates what I believe the meaning of selling out is. Groups like Greenday who shunned their original "grassroots" record label for a more "commercial" label were immediately labelled sell-outs (cause they pursued the money). They were not doing this simply for the sole purpose of making an arseload of money, but probably because they realized that in order to have a sophomoric success, they would need corporate backing. By the time any groundbreaking band creates a sophomoric album, there are tons of "imitation" bands that are diluting the marketplace for that genre of music.

The final point's purpose is simply taking an economic standpoint to a musician's career. To succeed economically in music, they must sell as many CDs to as many people while minimizing their time commitment. To do this, many bands cannot rely on small grassroots records. They *MUST* take advantage of a system already in place to distribute items to national retailers (e.g. the RIAA). This is why I'm pretty sure many musicians turn to the RIAA.

And of course, the RIAA's join into this foray puts pressure on the band to "conform" to the latest trends so the execs can push certain trends. It's like an artist being commissioned to do an art building. Execs see a certain trend and tap the talent of a band to push this trend. People who are in successful bands are talented ... they may not be original, but whether their skills lie in entertainment, songwriting or performing... they have talent.

To me, as long as the band/artist realizes that what they are doing is FOR the money, there is absolutely nothing wrong with selling out. Selling out simply means realizing that to succeed economically is to maximize your gains by using the market instruments already in place (RIAA) to distribute your goods.

Of course, I think most of us realize this, but take personal affront to this. Nasty Nate really detests the Black Eyed Peas because they are talentless yet they have a lot of success. Although whether they are talentless is arguable, why hate on them because they're successful? They may be untaented, but they sure know how to play the game to their ends... and there's no reason to hate.

As long as they are happy and they realize that they're doing it for the money, there's no reason to hate.

I think it was Kid Rock who said, "Anyone who said they're in rock n' roll for the music is f'ing lying."

So remember kids, selling out is not bad! Just realize you are selling and do NOT get consumed by the money!

Kind of like the Lord of the Rings... be like Frodo... in control of the Ring. Do not become like Gollum... who is controlled by the Ring.

(P.S. I will be "selling out" shortly. But I am prepared for all the hate that will ensue) =)