The Controversy of Selling Out

An Opinion Piece by Zack Holden

Some might say there is no greater insult in music than calling someone a “sellout”. In an industry built entirely around innovation, creativity, and absolute freedom of self-expression, merely implying that an artist compromised any of these core values for monetary gain is not taken lightly. Naturally, this makes sense, but it raises two important questions: 1) What exactly defines selling out, anyway? And 2) When an artist does sellout, how egregious a crime is it, really? Well, the answers may be more complicated than you’d think.

The music industry is incredibly diverse and exhaustive, with a countless array of niche genres and divisive subcultures that develop their own unique personalities and customs. As such, these subgenres, or groups of like-minded music purveyors, come to take the form of something closely resembling a cult: everything about one’s character is defined by the overarching tenets of the subculture to which he or she belongs. Political view. Religious affiliation (or lack thereof). Relationships. Clothing. Home location. Even hairstyle. All of it is carefully molded to fit the stereotype resembling a member of that specific group. Consider punks, one of the most outspoken and noteworthy countercultures to pop up within the music industry. Many were nihilists who sported a buzz cut or mohawk and purposely heavy and tattered clothing. Moreover, a vast number of punks were extremely liberal, almost to the point of pure socialism (see: Jello Biafra on any Dead Kennedys’ song), and rougher than sandpaper (see: the stage-diving and pogo-dancing during any live show featured in The Decline of Western Civilization). Punks may have complained about adversity and police violence, but in a sort of masochistic way they also encouraged it because it brought an air of independence and exclusivity that made the community that much more tight-knit. (Think of it as essentially equivalent to hazing in frats, except instead of being forced to drink goldfish or do Edward 40-Hands, you’re getting harassed by any regular Joe on the street and beaten by cops.) Consequently, the punk music scene developed some of the greatest barriers to entry for bands. The single most steadfast rule? Absolutely no major labels. Maximumrocknroll would sing praises about a band until they signed with a major, and then it was if they didn’t even exist. All because they “sold out” and dishonored the noble DIY punk ethos.

Yes, Green Day is largely responsible for unfortunate early-2000s pop-emo bands like My Chemical Romance and Fall Out Boy, but they did also serve as the primary influences for the third-wave of punk, which includes greats Jeff Rosenstock and PUP. But hey, even Rage Against the Machine was blamed for Limp Bizkit.

On the other hand, in pop music it is nearly impossible to make it without having major label affiliation. Based on the way Billboard Top 100 charts, radio play, and album distributions function, for years it has taken the influence and monetary power of a leviathan like Sony Music Entertainment in order to break into the mainstream. (Yes, I’ll concede that the recent advent of SoundCloud rap popularity, spurred by xxxTentacion, Lil Uzi Vert, and company, is changing that.) But does that mean that every artist tied to a major (and thus ninety-percent of pop acts) is a sell out? Of course not. Just because one specific subset defines selling out in one light does not mean that it holds true for everyone, or even anyone for that matter. Green Day was shunned by punks when they signed with Warner to create Dookie, their third full-length studio album. Personally, I don’t think that they sold out at all. Green Day’s original label, Lookout Records, was struggling to even handle small-scale demand for their first two albums, 39/Smooth and Kerplunk. The band was gaining popularity fast, and their third album was guaranteed to reach gold status easily, regardless of the label. Thus, the decision to partner with Warner made sense both for themselves and for the fans: in the days before streaming, how could anyone hear, let alone appreciate, the album if there were scarce quantities of pressings available? To that effect, even if you did make the case that Green Day sold out during the Dookie era, you can’t ignore the myriad of positive developments that occurred in the punk scene as a result. Dookie dug punk music out of the grave that it had created for itself, rejuvenating a dying counterculture and bringing it to the masses. Yes, Green Day is largely responsible for unfortunate early-2000s pop-emo bands like My Chemical Romance and Fall Out Boy, but they did also serve as the primary influences for the third-wave of punk, which includes greats Jeff Rosenstock and PUP. But hey, even Rage Against the Machine was blamed for Limp Bizkit.

Speaking of Rage Against the Machine, they may be one of my personal favorites, but even I can’t help but say that their choice to sign with Epic Records, a division of Sony BMG at the time, was perhaps the epitome of selling out. Here is this political-activist rap-metal group from Los Angeles screaming about how fat, greedy capitalists are destroying society, and they then turn around and decide to partner with one of the most bloated and bloodthirsty media monopolies in the entire world. Think about if PETA decided to partner with Fairlife. That’s the kind of scenario we’re dealing with here. There may not be a hard and fast rule for what is explicitly selling out, but there’s a line in the sand for everything. Personally, I draw the line when a group defies their own principles and ideologies for obvious monetary gain or when they do something that seemingly has no purpose other than to rake in the cash. For instance, Green Day did not sell out until they created a Broadway interpretation of American Idiot. I mean, c’mon. A stage play based around a popular concept album is nothing more than a money grab. But what was harmed by the whole episode? Nothing, really. They were already openly excommunicated from the diehard punk community, barred from playing at their old haunts like 924 Gilman Street, so they certainly weren’t harming the reputation of the punk subculture. As for the music, American Idiot was a revolutionary album that forever altered what could be done within the punk landscape. Five-minute, let alone nine-minute, punk songs were unheard of before American Idiot, and now they have been adopted among third-wave artists. In terms of their credibility, Green Day is still insanely talented, and Dookie and American Idiot are still solid albums. In fact, I must concede that the play featured a well-developed plot and received strong critical reception; however, let’s not mince words here: they sold out to create it.

Selling out is truly victimless, and thus people who get all worked up as if it is a crime on par with first-degree murder are truly just pretentious and misinformed.

Circling back around to the two driving questions, I’ll start by addressing the second, regarding whether selling out is indeed as unforgivable as it is made out to be, which demands a less complicated response than the first. To be perfectly honest, there are absolutely no victims when a band sells out. Does it potentially indelibly harm their reputation? Of course. But from the perspective of all the stakeholders involved: every party is ultimately satisfied. The artist receives the money that they desperately wanted or needed. The fans receive an end product, whether it be a song, album, merch item, or even Broadway musical, that they were evidently willing to pay large sums of money to receive. Music critics get yet another easy target to piss all over. Selling out is truly victimless, and thus people who get all worked up as if it is a crime on par with first-degree murder are truly just pretentious and misinformed. At the end of the day, musicians need to pay the bills just like everyone else, and they shouldn’t be chastised for trying to make a comfortable living. As for the first question, regarding how sellout should be officially defined, the answer is that it truly varies depending on the individual circumstances. Personally, I look for one of two different scenarios: 1) The artist is blatantly compromising their values in seeking the almighty dollar. Or 2) The artist is creating a product that serves no discernible purpose other than to make money. That being said, just like with the English language, be mindful that there is always an exception to the rule. Consider alt-rockers Modest Mouse. They licensed “Gravity Rides Everything” to Nissan for use in a TV commercial. Normally, I would consider this selling out; however, the only reason Modest Mouse did this was because the band was struggling financially and needed a way to pay the bills. Completely understandable. So, before calling an artist a “sellout”, just take a step back and consider the bigger picture.

THE VERDICT: It’s not wrong to call someone a sellout, just as long as you do it for the right reasons.