Hey, we're back in sync! Exactly what I was going to post, although I kind of like what they became more for the weirdness of it all. Especially when they did the thing with Negativland which was almost post-post modern.

Yeah, but even her 2nd album was already shit.

pete townshend not dying before he got old

just playin'





no wait i'm not

Well said.

That one! It made for an amusing documentary though, watching them try to be in one room together over and over until the tour footage over time finds them more and more isolated from each other (again).

I think their tour title said it all, wasn't it called "Sell-Out Tour" or something, as named by the guitarist because it sold out so quick?

Pixies reunion is not any different than most reunions nowadays... it's just that they're honest about it. I mean, do you really think Pavement reuniting, releasing a best-of and going on a tour (isn't it called Goodbye Tour?) playing all their hits is any better? Even Atari Teenage Riot reunited, while they've been saying for seven years they wouldn't in respect for Carl Crack...
Not to say ALL of them made it for money purpose only (in the case of ATR especially, seeing their political views and how their new shows aren't expensive at all), of course, but Pixies clearly aren't the only ones. Dinosaur Jr also said they reunited for money, and they also hated each other.
Also, not to say the Pixies reunion was good (though some liked it. to each their own, i guess)

I wouldn't have had Godspeed down as the types to do the now-established ATP-sponsored cash-in as per the Pixies, MBV & Pavement, but there you go..

it has never been the same since stevie wonder and paul mc cartney recored ebony and ivory..........

DDD I like you but I don't like this reply.

People make music because they want to. because they like it. People sell their music to make money. kk? If you make money selling yer msuic that's all groovey. But I believe selling out means selling your artistic freedom. If you happen to become famous on the music you make...I think that's fine, but once you start making music only to make big bucks and being really popular....I believe one loses credibility.

I agree with you on the part that people make music because they want to - except in certain cases, obviously.
However, who cares about credibility? It's all about music. If I happen to like some corporate pop artist, should I refrain myself from listening to them just because they are making music for money?

but thats exactly the point. selling out is when you try to make even a little bit of money for something you have little or no passion for..

[quote=Toilet & Bowels]black eyed peas went from being an mediocre underground hiphop group to the most corporately tied in group on the planet.
perfect example.

Ok, yeah I know what you're saying. The replies to this thread are different than I thought they would be, probably because people who know what they're talking about are replying to it. There is a whole other side to the term "selling out", and usually it's just whiney. But, maybe that's what has changed (what I was saying in my second reply)....

Nice job on spelling sacred, I know..

This is what I meant

those whining definitions are not necessarily selling out as much as artists growing or changing direction, but often times money can be involved. There are varying degrees in this, you can be both authentically growing and progressing as an artist but also merging selling out into as you gain mainstream following..

generally, the passion is the key. if folks make money at being passionate and artistic, no doubt, let it be blessed, so long as they let the art make the money, and not the money make the art. personally, I prefer art that is free and less corrupted by money, though in the end it is always about money isn't it...

well to me it's a certain type of exploitation. I don't dig that. I wouldn't bash anyone who listens to said corporate mainstream band....but I myself prefer music that's made for reason beyond money.

I tend to agree with the above, except to say that I'm not even sure what making music for money really means. It's relatively easy to point to someone like Status Quo or the Stones and say they're just going through the motions for the money, but I wouldn't presume to know their minds. Someone like Nickelback - who are awful, obviously - probably 'seriously believe' in their artistry. I've seen very, very low-level bands making incredibly hackneyed, ten-a-penny music who seriously think they're entirely groundbreaking - musicians are a deluded bunch, and the more popular ones even moreso, I'd suggest.

For myself, I far prefer BEP after their 'credible' period. It's not the greatest music ever made, but it's enjoyable nonetheless. Doesn't stop me from thoroughly enjoying something independent made for a financial loss - I saw Adam Bohman a few weeks ago, and he was awesome, in an entirely different way to 'I gotta feeling'.

I think sometimes we forget that music isn't always considered "art". It's also a form of entertainment, sometimes more so. And I don't think that's a bad thing, necessarily.

I wasn't refering to artists being whiney. I meant the listeners. But, whatever, I know what you're saying and I agree.

I know what you mean but when they changed direction with Tub Thumping I don't think it was so much a case of them selling out as a calculated effort to change tactics. To be fair to them, they probably drew more attention to their numerous causes as a result of being invited onto the Brits and appearing on TotP, as well as being interviewed by the mainstream press than they would have received, churning out the same message, in the same style to the same half a dozen already converted disciples they'd managed to accumulate throughout the 80s.

as was i.