Talk:Selling out/Archive 1

Dave Chappelle

"Sketches from his third season, confirmed this suspicion, when he portrayed himself in this position, showing how money had changed him." I took this out because whoever wrote this obviously doesn't understand parody. This does not confirm whether Dave was a sellout -- hell, if anything, turning down millions of dollars and a third season shows Dave is the opposite of a sellout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.9.161 (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

The bit on criticism is fine, but most of it is incorrectly levelled at people who've pointed out that this so called "change in artistic direction" conveniently brings the artist in line with whatever trend (IE bands turning emo). Also, the criticism bit is obviously discussing artists as an example (since "selling out" is not just limited to artists), presumeably musical artists - it should state this, although it's not as important as my first point in my opinion. --Badharlick 02:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Others

Some say Jimi Hendrix sold out, especially by not supporting the Black Power movement of the time. Some say Nick Cage sold out. He used to do edgy, indie movies. Now, he does many big-budget films meant for mass audiences.

When U2 dabbled in electronica, can that be seen as selling out?

POV

I'm concerned that this is getting a bit POV. Also, while I usually hear the phrase in a musical context, it's not strictly limited to music. Isomorphic 19:22, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You think it's "getting a bit POV". I think it's getting less. I take it you are referring to my recent attempts to broaden this article beyond the simplistic "selling out is icky" to "people make decisions about their audience and have to live with them". I did it to make the article more NPOV as you could easily see by comparing earlier versions with the present version. If you look at "what links here" you'll see that this issue comes up all the time, and not just in music. I "sold out" in my life by choosing to suport my family writing computer manuals. Ortolan88 20:48, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Apologies. I was not sufficiently clear.

The original version explained what the term means and gave some examples of where it's used. It was already loaded with qualifiers and phrases like "is used to imply that" to separate the viewpoint of the article from the viewpoint of those who talk about sell-outs. The article didnt have the POV that selling out is bad; the term is used negatively and the article explained that. No one ever says "Wow, he sold out, isn't that great?" Compromise of integrity (i.e. doing it for the money, fame, etc) is a large part of what the phrase means.

What you're really trying to say isn't "some people call in artistic development", it's "some people mistake natural artistic development for selling out." That statement I completely agree with. I will try to rewrite the article appropriately. Isomorphic 15:36, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

BTW, using the word "clearly" in an article, when discussing the motivations of an artist, sounds to me like a POV flag, and that's what most prompted my earlier comment. Isomorphic 15:39, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rearrangement fine with me. The article is better thanks to both of us. No point in disputing minor points of how it "was" in some previous incarnation. Regards, Ortolan88 16:50, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cool. Sorry about the tone of the original comment, btw, I was writing it in a hurry. Agreed that the article has much improved through both our efforts. Isomorphic 17:28, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Isomorphic, I am offended you tore all of my research down. It is not POV to list the facts of bands that have sold out. I admit the Spinal Tap is TIC but I strongly believe the rest of it adds to the article. If you feel it doesn't then let's talk about it or create a new topic 'sell outs' and link to this page. You should have respect for others work and time. Most people that will read this article would find that addition the most interesting part of the article. contact me if you want, maybe_god_doesnt_like_you@yahoo.com

The "list of sell outs" seems to me to be more a list of artists who have allowed their music to be used in an ad campaign for some company. This is a very narrow definition of sell out at least and possibly a deviation from NPOV. Qaz

I'm sorry you're offended. I respect the time and work of others, but that respect doesn't mean that I agree with it, or that it belongs in an article on Wikipedia. In this case, it is inevitably POV to list bands as sell-outs without giving some objective criteria. You've apparently used objective criteria, since your list is of bands whose songs have been used in commercial advertisements. However, saying that that automatically makes those bands sell-outs is POV, since many people (including me) would disagree with that definition of sell-out. Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view if you want more clarification on our policies. Isomorphic 22:52, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alright, instead the list will read "List of well known musical groups that have allowed thier music to be used for commerical purposes for their own financial gain." This is completely factual and avoids the my POV is NPOV to your POV circular trap bullshit logic.

As well you should read the Wiki policies on ownership. You are crossing the line my friend.

First, there's control of the article. Some contributors feel very possessive about articles they have donated to this project. Some go so far as to defend them against all intruders.

Well, it's one thing to take an interest in an article that you maintain on your watchlist. Maybe you really are an expert or you just care about the topic a lot. But when this watchfulness crosses a certain line, then you're overdoing it.

You can't stop everyone in the world from editing "your" prose, once you've posted it to Wikipedia. As each edit page clearly states:

All contributions to Wikipedia are released under the GNU Free Documentation License (see Wikipedia:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it. [emphasis added]

If you find yourself warring with other contributors over deletions, reversions and so on, why not take some time off from the editing process? Taking yourself out of the equation can cool things off considerably. Take a fresh look a week or two later. (See Staying cool when the editing gets hot.)

Or if someone else is claiming "ownership" of a page, you can bring it up on the associated talk page. Appeal to other contributors, or consider the dispute resolution process.

Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia.

I'm aware of that policy. Please use links rather than copying large amounts of text from other wiki pages. As far as the list goes, I have asked the people from WikiProject Albums for their opinion. Isomorphic 18:59, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Qaz. It's a fair compromise. I was getting fed up with Sophmoric's squirrel piss.

Using big words like "sophomoric" is more impressive if you know how to spell them. Stick to easier words like "squirrel piss" and "bullshit" when you insult people. Or better yet, be civil. You'll find people respect you more if you respect them. Isomorphic 20:13, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Are you kidding? I would have to check to make sure how to spell squirrel! Qaz

List

How about a seperate article called "List of bands whose music has been used in commercial advertising" (or whatever similar title is thought best)? Selling out could have a "see also" link to that, with no editorializing on how linked the topics may be. Just a thought. -- Infrogmation 19:13, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's what I was going to suggest -- move the list to List of musicians who have licensed their work for commercial advertising or something. Tuf-Kat 22:08, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

I am not a wiki-expert or participant, but this whole thing shows an increasing trend in wiki-definitions: hijacking of a defintion by a particular POV. Definition of selling out is much broader than punk music!!! Greens can sell out and become energy executives, environmental law students can sell out and become corporate lawyers - so the whole thread that closely links the definition of selling out to music should be linked to and move somewhere else. For now, I will keep a nice fat Webster's handy.

Removing A Song

Starfuckers Inc. by Nine Inch Nails is NOT about selling out, it's about groupies and possibly refers to Courtney Love, since there's a Courtney lookalike in the music video and Trent Reznor dated her for a while. The song has absolutely no relevance to any definiton of selling out outlined in the article, so I'm removing it from the list. If anyone disagrees speak up --If I'm Emo, I Guess That Makes You MONGO lol lol lol 4 July 2005 21:22 (UTC)

Rap

Just 'cause commercialization is a large part of rap doesn't mean rappers aren't accused of selling out. Lots of critics have accused rappers like 50 cent and Ja Rule (whose singles all talk about women) of having shallow lyrics that only talk about how rich they are or how many women they have, unlike other rappers who rap about their own experiences growing up, which could very well include getting a lot of money and "bling" (or at least getting high and drunk). P. Diddy might be another example (he worked with britney spears for gods sake), since he deviates from "hardcore" rap. It's unfair to hardcore rappers to say that rappers don't sell out. Xunflash 21:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The "rap" section of this article was horribly POV and unresearched. I've rewritten the section (the original author was apparently not very familiar with the foundation of hip hop culture, and the full spectrum of the genre's output beyond the mainstram "hip pop" songs that make it to the Top 40). --FuriousFreddy 18:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

dude.. don't forget epmd! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMT8ot77FLA -Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.202.72.243 (talk) 11:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The Pixies

It would be nice to mention "The Pixies" in this article somewhere... I've not followed their history too closely, but I'm fairly sure that they've recently reformed, despite actively disliking each other, and have been touring under the tour-name : "The "Pixies' Sell-Out Tour"" - seems fairly blatant satire to me ! -- Tom, Wed Aug 24 14:11:21 CEST 2005

Origins

The stock trading term "selling out" should probably be here somewhere. See buying in. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-24 01:20

Don "The Emissary" Seributra

I edited to remove the POV attack material regarding Seributra, which was unencyclopedic (to say the least), including unsourced reports of his being accusing of being a "pimp", and similar material of little if any relevance to definition, explanation, or examples of "selling out". MCB 07:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Metal

The metal section is totally bias and was probably written by a thrash metal fan, if anything Thrash metal and Death metal bands compromised the hard rock roots of real metal (Deep Purple, Led Zepplin, Black Sabbath) for a louder more incoherent sound... Also, Glam rock was a 70’s movement and had nothing at all to do with metal.. Ill do some rewriting on this. - Deathrocker 11:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Not for money though. SAlpsu 19:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

_______

Too bad your article is clearly a violation of the neutral POV. using such words as "incoherent" and "ironic" clearly constitutes such a violation. I have re-done your insipid paragraph I don't know how many times and I still see it put back into place. What do you know of metal? Your user page states that you are into punk rock. Please see the section below to see what my overall objection is. Keep in mind that I at least have tried to keep a neutral point of view on the whole affair. You, on the other hand, write down your narrow-minded point of view. People have no need of such diatribes. --General gomba 04:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

______

I have changed the heavy metal section, and will keep doing so until Deathrocker gets the idea through his thick skull that his contribution is little more than one-sided BS. My edit reads as follows:

"Selling out" is used for a variety of reasons in heavy metal circles. Though the particulars may vary, the usage of it is used once a band changes musical direction for a "softer" sound, and associating themselves with more commercial or non-metal acts, such as Dimmu Borgir playing the main stage at Ozzfest or Six Feet Under playing the punk rock-oriented Vans Warped Tour

Anyone please respond to what you think of this. I especially point this toward Deathrocker. Please tell me what you think, what can be changed, and above else please tell me how is it you feel that using weasel words such as "ironically" and "incoherent" are in any way professional--Nargos 22:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop making this section just about Black Metal or Thrash views, it says "Heavy Metal" not its subgenres, due to which Ive added spercific subtitles to try and help the situation, aswel as changing "incoherent" to something more neutral. - Deathrocker 19:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I just have a problem with the whole opening paragraph. Write it up yourself again if need be, just leave your point of view out of it. I don't care if you dislike death and trash. I have also changed the title "black and thrash metal" to "extreme metal", as to include Death Metal and Grindcore.--Nargos 20:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Violation of Neutral POV

I must take issue with the firts paragraph of the section describing heavy metal music. It reads as follows:

The term “sell-out” in metal circles is attached to almost any band who gain some level of mainstream success. The term is mostly thrown out by fans of more extreme versions of Metal such as Thrash metal and Death metal, who ironically themselves compromise the hard rock roots of the original metal (Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath) in favour of a louder more incoherent sound.

Not only is this statement factually incorrect (just because the editor fails to understand death metal does not give him to right to call it "incoherent", which it is not), but the particular usage of pejorative words such as "throw out" and stating how "ironic" it is that death metal fans dislike melodic music, and how it "compromises" metal is a blatant diregard of Wikipedia's neutral point of view. I have tried to rewrite the article, only to see it re-edited to its original state within an hour. This needs to change. It is unprofessional, ignorant, and, above all, childish.

--General gomba 23:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit: I have changed it. This new version should, however, be reviewed by other users to agree whther or not this respects the NPOV of Wikipedia.--General gomba 18:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

_________

I deleted the section on "art cars" because it seemed irrelevant and provided no context. I have no idea what a "car artist" is, and the entry made no effort to explain what it is or what any of the principles involved are.

here is the text i removed-

"Art cars The term 'selling out' or 'sellout' can be used toward art car artists who assimilate with the mainstream."

That's the thing though: since most of the examples don't have sources verifying that they're worthwhile examples, everything one chooses to put on here shows a POV, because an example's inclusion here implies it's a common belief, even though anyone can say "many fans" think Object X is a sell-out. For example, there are a lot of bands that have been considered sellouts by SOMEBODY for some reason. Is there a valid reason that the article mentions Chumbawumba out of plenty of equally-sellout-considered bands? Not one that's evident in the article. But we walk away from the article associating Chumbawunba with sellout, when there's no reason to believe it's a significant example. NPOV requires us to either list every band with the same vague qualification for inclusion, or focus on one that does stand out from all others in this feild. I'm just using Chumbawumba as an example; unless there's a link to poll results or something, listing any example here is a POV. -Unknownwarrior33 04:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Song(s) for list of songs about selling out?

I'm putting this here for consideration rather than "being bold" because there appears to be a lot of action on this page, don't want to step on anyone's toes... I would tend to think that The Clash's "Complete Control" and "White Man in Hammersmith Palais" at the very least should be mentioned, and perhaps "Death or Glory" and "Clampdown". The first two are more explicitly about the topic, however. There are probably others, as well, these few spring to mind fastest.

Also, Elvis Costello's "Radio Radio" - although it might be more of a rant about the quality or lack of it on radio broadcasts, than the act of selling out.

human 05:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Seggestion

I think that the section on genres focuses way too much on a handful of (mainstream) bands in each genre as examples, and how they have been accused by the "scenes" they come from. Why not do it the other way around, and bring up the values in the separate cultures that lie as the ground for the accusation - because there are definitely differences - and mention examples only where it's necessary?

//user:soja

"Sucking Satan's Cock"

I've never once heard this term to describe selling out, much less use it, even though the article claims it is "widely used". Is it even necessary?

While admittedly it sounds like a pretty wicked term, I've never heard it before in my life either. I think this is a case of 'I just thought of a great phrase and I want to coin it, but I don't have enough influence to get it to spread, so I'll just pretend it's popular', if you will. Though I've heard people describe a sellout as someone sucking dick in general, I don't think it ever replaced the actual term or was used synonymously. --SquidMoose 09:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Bill Hicks refers to it in one of his routines...not that that makes it 'widely used' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.207.16 (talk) 00:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ska

There are a few concerns about neutrality here. First off ska was not as "highly popular" in the 90's as is suggested. It had a brief heyday from 1993 (When The Mighty Mighty Bosstones signed to Mercury Records and released "Where Did You Go?") up until No Doubt's Tragic Kingdom began to wane in popularity. Furthermore, there were concerns of ska bands "selling out" whenever they signed to a major label. This encompasses the ska and punk scenes and concerns in the ska scene revolve primarily amongst bands like Reel Big Fish and Less Than Jake. As much as I love Reel Big Fish, they have been questioned of staying "true to their fans" in terms of "selling out" heavily when they signed Mojo Records/Jive Records and that they were not so much of a ska band until they did sign so as to ride on the flash popularity of ska. This is referenced musingly in their song "Sell Out" on Turn the Radio Off, which was, ironically, the theme song for the Florida Marlins for a period of time (due to the song's beginning of "Everybody's doing the fish").

Encyclopedia article...

...not a venue for discussing every single band that might or might not have sold out. Save that debate for MySpace or a book on sellouts.

I've removed all the music subsections because they were basically what one might summarise as "wank". One or two classic examples (such as Dylan going electric) to add to the good Nirvana and Who coverage would be splendid, but remember enyclopedias explain concepts and give an overview, they don't promote new ideas and original research and they don't tell a reader everything there is to know about a topic.

Now reduced, the article is a nicer size, easier to read, and mostly wank-free.

Furthermore: Instead of wandering off into POV fancruft sub-Usenet nonsense (pointless debates and listings of bands who have "sold out" (equals just about every band that ever hit the big time, by the way)), it would be far more interesting to mention examples in popular culture. We already have a (split out) list of songs, and the mentions of the Who and Nirvana works; how about mention of a film or two which concerns selling out? A novel? The work of a comedian? --kingboyk 09:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

POV

Most of the "Selling Out in Popular Culture" references are just bitter-fan-bitching-about-artists-they-used-to-like additions. This article's unnessecary in general unless it adresses the sociological/psychological concept of selling out rather than just complaining.

Should it be mentioned...

That the term is usually used by children and thought of as a ridiculous concept by most normally functioning adults? - Deathrocker 14:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can find sources to document this, yes. If it is your opinion, no. janejellyroll 23:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Please fix this...

You should know that when you search for the term "Gwen Stefani" (the artist) in Wikipedia, it automatically redirects you to this page. Obviously, this is someone's childish attempt to be funny, but it really is misleading and annoying for someone who is trying to find the actual information on this person. I would change it myself, but, embarrassingly, I don't know how, so, if someone else would, it would be much appreciated. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.187.94.147 (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Selling Out

This article has obviously sold out.

Every band signed to a lable is a sellout —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.244.1.209 (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Peter Jackson Reference

The article says peter Jacksons movie 'dead alive', in reference to the American Release of the film, even though it was titled 'Braindead' in New Zealand, the country of origin... I think it should be changed to Braindead, as wiki is supposed to be a world wide participation, and not just for American Readers.

85.178.72.3 15:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

See Also

How come Metallica and In Flames are in this section? I can maybe understand Metallica because of the whole napster thing and the musical style change how thats all discussed in the Metallica article. But shouldnt the See also section contain things mentioned in this article? In Flames being there seems like a personal bias seeing as how this article never mentions them, and the In Flames page doesnt even have a discussion on whether they have "sold out". Frankly I dont think any bands should be in the See Also section because its labelling them as sell-outs which is always debatable and cannot be considered completely "factual". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darknight0 (talk • contribs) 23:34, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Well-Documented "electrification"

I just want to comment that it is amusing to read about Bob Dylan's "well-documented" electrification without any citations to go with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbarbier (talk • contribs) 00:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

How Definitive Of Various Colleges!

I would assume many of partially high and/or drunk people clash about such an issue as "selling out" especially at a place like college. What colleges are up to that task?Tacobellis (talk) 09:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Specific examples

This article is MUCH better than it used to be, but it still bothers me that there are specific examples on this page; there's no way such examples can fit NPOV. Does anyone else think we should generalize the few that remain? --Unknownwarrior33 (talk) 04:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Neil Kinnock isn't dead

He's still alive and ginger. He certainly didn't die before T Blair came in. Although Ian Smith, Blair's predecessor did die causing a leadership election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.41.4 (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Green Day

Why is there a Green Day link at the "See Also" section? This calls them, indirectly, sellouts. Changing your sound doesn´t make you a sellout. I am going to stop this nonsense and delete the Green Day link. --84.217.20.184 (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)