Definitely agree with Thomas' definition. I think the lines of what constitutes a sell-out have been so fluxed for a long time. These people aren't rich so if they're doing what they have to do to make a living on the side of their band, then that's fine as long as it doesn't compromise who they are as a person and what should be their main priority (their band; Ex: Yellowcard)

Originally Posted by fearthesloths

personally i think writing for someone else is totally fine, they're still creating the music themselves and it just happens to make them money. having your music written for you though, i think thats lazy and more along the lines of 'selling out'

Agree with this. Having someone write your songs is lazy as hell. But most pop stars are lazy even when they do write their own shit. Will I Am...by far the worst writer in all of pop music history. He could benefit from paying someone to write something for him.

But writing for another artist aside, what would constitute a band of selling out just in the confines of their band. I hear people say that a band changing their style to appeal to a wider audience, I don't know if I truly accept that as a sell-out

Originally Posted by tiredofwaiting

Everyone's got their own definition of "selling out." For me, it's all about expectations. If people are early to follow a band, they are wary of any changes in style, and resent their newer style becoming popular. See Green Day and a million others.

If a band came out and made it known that they were going to the top of the world, and it didn't matter how they got there, then by definition they couldn't "sell out" since it was their plan all along. It's the bands that are very musically unique, very intimate with their fans, and very humble when they enter the scene that have potential to sell out. I hated when Dashboard, He Is We, and others went away from acoustic...their unique sound. I hated when Fall Out Boy stopped writing songs with built in singalongs giving you the vibe that you were in a small club with them while listening to an album. I hate when bands that belong in small clubs start playing arenas and stadiums and even if I could afford a ticket, it'd be 1/10 of the experience it used to be.

Good topic though, intrigued to see some opinions on here.

Originally Posted by johnnyferris

I don't think writing a song for another artist is considered to be selling out. The musician is merely expanding what he can do with his/her talent. However, I feel that a completely drastic change in sound or image for that musician's project can be considered selling out. Basically what Thomas said.

But just doing something as simple as changing their sound, even if their intentions weren't to go to the top, that's not selling out? For example, Saves The Day, they were a strict pop-punk band for years and then they branched out to involve indie elements to their music. Yet their far from selling out because they still open for other bands, they're not on the radio, or the top of the charts. I think as long as they are happy playing what their making and it doesn't compromise who they are or what their goals are, then that's not selling out

Originally Posted by fuckyourscenes

Which is why they can do side-projects.

Very rarely do side-projects become more successful than the artist's original project. So just having a side-project wouldn't cover financial things. Unless you want them to be involved in an overwhelming myriad of side-projects where they forget what their intentions are and dies of a drug overdose :)