Originally Posted by Thomas Nassiff

My opinion expressed as an example: take a member of a prominent band. Let's use Sean Mackin of Yellowcard cause he's a friend. Sean probably does okay with Yellowcard but he isn't filling his swimming pool with Benjamins. If Sean writes a pop song for Katy Perry and it turns into an enormous single and he makes six figures off of it - good for him. I don't think he sold out at all. I think he MADE A LIVING by playing music - his job and calling, after all - and he used that living to keep doing something we all love - playing violin in Yellowcard.

As long as Sean doesn't start writing pop songs for Yellowcard and making the band wear neon clothes, he's not a sell-out.

Bottom line: if the artist doesn't change their own style or fundamentals, he's not selling out. Artists should go off and be in the touring band of a shitty Disney artist. They're making good money doing what they like doing.

This. I couldn't agree more. I have one question, though:

What bands/artist would you say have sold out?

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.

Which is why they can do side-projects.

Originally Posted by AsfAstAswegofar

cough: green day: cough

I used to think that, too, but I'm not sure anymore.

There comes a point where artists just grow up, and it reflects in their music. Perfect example: blink-182's shift from Take Off to their untitled album. They could only write so many songs about getting probed by aliens, and taking part in beastiality before they realized how old they were. Granted, not all bands hit that point in their career (Bowling for Soup) and more power to them, but for those who do; I defend them for growing up.

Now Linkin Park on the other hand...

Originally Posted by georgedcc

I'm not a Linkin Park fan, but I don't understand this reasoning. Hybrid Theory and Meteora were massive sellers. The safe "sell-out" option would have been to just make the same album again. They didn't though, since then they've made two very different albums and have taken artistic risks, and have not written simple middle of the road rock songs that would sell well.

That said, I think Minutes To Midnight and A Thousand Suns are awful ha. But still, I respect them for not making the same album over and over.

With all do respect, and I do mean that because I'm not here to spark a shit-war, just to discuss;

I consider MTM where they sold out. I say so simply because Nu-Metal was a dying genre when they went to record MTM. Limp Bizkit had flopped, System of a Down had broken up, and Staind..well, we all know what direction Staind took. So, I think they're more modern-rock/Nickelback sound was where they had hoped to gain sales. Just because they didn't get the sales, doesn't mean they didn't sell-out, because to me; they tried to get those sales.

Then again, this is just my opinion and we'll never really know because we weren't in their heads with them when they decided to write MTM.

Originally Posted by georgedcc

That's fair enough. However, I'd argue that MTM wasn't a "sell-out" album, simply because they were so massive already. LP have sold more albums than anybody else who's debut album was in the 2000s. I'm not sure that sentence makes any sense ha, but their debut album sold nearly 10 million copies. I'd argue that it's impossible to sell-out when you are already one of the biggest bands in the world.

Touche. Hybrid Theory is the highest-selling debut of the 2000s, correct? I think that's where you were getting at. Hahaha.

Linkin Park is always an awkward subject, because thirteen year old Logan would argue to hell and back about how they've sold out, but seventeen year old Logan doesn't really care anymore.