mclaren Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 I've known - and still know - plenty of bands, none of the level of success of Green Day, or anything like it, I hasten to add. Some of them sold out - by which I mean, literally sold their souls for a record contract, to the extent of maybe dropping a band member because his face didn't fit. I heard of another one only last week, and the poor fucker concerned is trying to make out like he doesn't blame his former bandmates for what they did. Bands who sell out cut their own hearts out, and the ones I've known who did, generally disintegrated. That's selling out, folks, doing real things that affect real people - not failing to live up to the expectations of a bunch of people who expect their heroes to be perfect. Walking Contradiction, folks - listen, for crying out loud! Ideals are a major luxury in the recording industry, and Green Day have stayed true to each other, and to their music. U2 are the same - they were asked to dump Clayton in the early days, and they wouldn't, at a time when they were just another band looking to sign. your logic is, some bands sell out huge, therefore the bands that sold out to a lesser extent don't count because they didn't sell out as much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 I think Reel Big Fish's video for 'Sellout' depicts shows it well. http://theonenetwork.com/music_videos/reel...ll_out_300.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xBasKetxCaSex Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 I think people who call green day (and other bands like GD) sell outs are the people who believe thier too ...oh i dont know..."punk" to listen to popular bands....because being popular isn't cool and isn't punk enough. So therefore they make these cockamaney rules and guidleines they let themselves go by, and never go outside the lines. If green day NEVER sold enough records to becom "famous," only ever had ONE hit single, wern't all over the magazines and TV and were still "struggling" with thier music and money...THEN they wouldn't be sellouts, but if those people who call them sellouts really "think" about it, 90% of the time, if a band isn't making any money from thier music, then they will stop making music because money does make the world go round. well, I really am not making any sense at all...hah. .......by the way this isn't my first post, I was "Me American Idiot" but I had my computer cleaned and forgot my password. oops actually that made perfect sense and i do agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherri Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 I don't know this is like the biggest debate dealing with them... I mean in a way they did - they left the whole Gilman underground punk thing and signed into a major label. But then again, I think that was the best decision they ever could have made for the band. They still play the same type of music, they're not all snobby or like oh yeah man we're representing a major label or anything. They already pointed out a loooong time ago, it's not about the money and it never will be all about that. They took their music to the next level, and that lead to the rest of their lives. Now they still make music, and they grew up to be one of the best bands in the world.. period. They wouldn't have been able to play over 130,000 fans in two nights if it wasn't for signing into that label. They just wouldn't be where they are today without 'selling out' if that's what you want to call it, but I would call it making the right decision to the rest of their lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 I don't know this is like the biggest debate dealing with them... I mean in a way they did - they left the whole Gilman underground punk thing and signed into a major label. But then again, I think that was the best decision they ever could have made for the band. They still play the same type of music, they're not all snobby or like oh yeah man we're representing a major label or anything. They already pointed out a loooong time ago, it's not about the money and it never will be all aboutt hat. They took their music to the next level, and that lead to the rest of their lives. Now they still make music, and they grew up to be one of the best bands in the world.. period. They wouldn't have been able to play over 130,000 fans in two nights if it wasn't for signing into that label. They just wouldn't be where they are today without 'selling out' if that's what you want to call it, but I would call it making the right decision for the rest of their lives. At the expense for losing all of their peers they'd grown up around? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicoleah Posted February 12, 2006 Share Posted February 12, 2006 At the expense for losing all of their peers they'd grown up around? I'm sure you're still friends with everyone from kindergarten? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 I'm sure you're still friends with everyone from kindergarten? I didn't leave Kindergarten to become a rock star. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Jackpot Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 If they'd stuck with the whole 'punk scene' they left behind, surely they wouldn't have had nearly as many opportunities to make music and what not? I have no idea; anybody care to teach me Things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicoleah Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 I didn't leave Kindergarten to become a rock star. So you're implying that they should have just stayed where they were and take the risk of not existing in 20 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justcause Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 At the expense for losing all of their peers they'd grown up around? I think that reflects badly on their peers, not on them. If someone honestly wants to move on in a different direction, then if you're a friend, you support them in that. There were some hardline intractibles around Gilman St. - people got physically attacked there for moving beyond that scene. Is that the kind of attitude people admire? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicoleah Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 sorry..accidentally qouted my own post when editing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoki Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 At the expense for losing all of their peers they'd grown up around? That's stupid. If you're gonna lose a bunch of your friends, because of you contradicted one unwritten rule, then they weren't really your friends. And the whole gilman thing is over exaggerated. Didn't they play there sometime in 2000-2001, and everything was fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 If they'd stuck with the whole 'punk scene' they left behind, surely they wouldn't have had nearly as many opportunities to make music and what not? I have no idea; anybody care to teach me Things? Bands make alot more money on their records on indie labels than on major labels. Also, the Offspring sold 8 million Smash discs on Epitaph. I could elaborate but I'm tired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclaren Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 I think that reflects badly on their peers, not on them. If someone honestly wants to move on in a different direction, then if you're a friend, you support them in that. i'll keep that in mind when one of my friends tells me he wants to go on a murder-spree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 That's stupid. If you're gonna lose a bunch of your friends, because of you contradicted one unwritten rule, then they weren't really your friends. And the whole gilman thing is over exaggerated. Didn't they play there sometime in 2000-2001, and everything was fine. They played CBGBs, which is a pile of poo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannit Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 selling out there you go, you all can judge for yourselves now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Jackpot Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Bands make alot more money on their records on indie labels than on major labels. Also, the Offspring sold 8 million Smash discs on Epitaph. I could elaborate but I'm tired. But wouldn't they have been accused of selling out if they'd sold 8 million records anyway, whatever label it was on? I don't geddit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicoleah Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 i'll keep that in mind when one of my friends tells me he wants to go on a murder-spree. Don't you think that was a bit over-exaggerated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoki Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 They played CBGBs, which is a pile of poo. Yea I know they played at CBGB's around 2000, back when fat billie existed, but they also played at gilman, I read it in an interview, I think with mike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclaren Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Don't you think that was a bit over-exaggerated? yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoki Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Don't you think that was a bit over-exaggerated? I was just gonna say that, but it's mclaren, doing what he does best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 But wouldn't they have been accused of selling out if they'd sold 8 million records anyway, whatever label it was on? I don't geddit. They'd be accused of being good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannit Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 selling out there you go, you all can judge for yourselves now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Jackpot Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 They'd be accused of being good. So...if they'd stayed with their original record label and did as well, that'd be ok. But since they changed labels people think that they only did it to earn more money quickly? Actual question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicoleah Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Green Day are indeed in the definition of "Punk Sellouts". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.