The Big Sellout

  • Thread starter Thread starter fat_fleet
  • Start date Start date
people think if you get old you're supposed to adopt all the cliches of getting old.
Screw them ....... I'm a young rocker forever ...... well .....'till I die and everyone will be sad that I went so young!

Fuck yeah. Actually, I think I'm going backwards. My songs are getting dumber and more juvenile as I get older. :laughings:

I'll say this: my kids don't really like my music, which is fine. Kids aren't supposed to like their parents's music. But their friends really like my music which is oddly satisfying. I can't tell if that's a good thing or a bad thing. One one hand, it's always good to have the attention of the younguns, on the other hand they also like shit like One Direction and Bieber, so while I'm nice to them about asking for a CD I don't get too excited about it. :o
 
I've had people tell me stuff like "your musical tastes are juvenile". Lol. WTF?

Haha, that's funny. I've never had anyone comment on my tastes except maybe to look uncomfortable and start making their way to the door when I start spinnin records.

:laughings:

Robgreen said something in another thread about how he thinks people gravitate back to what they liked in their teens and I think that's pretty spot on. I've turned over alot of stones in my life and now find myself listening to the same albums I liked when I was 14.
 
Robgreen said something in another thread about how he thinks people gravitate back to what they liked in their teens and I think that's pretty spot on. I've turned over alot of stones in my life and now find myself listening to the same albums I liked when I was 14.

I think that's pretty common. Pretty much everyone finds their musical identity in their teens, and they stay there for a long time.
 
Musicians are sell outs if they care about money more than the music. If they weren't payed, they wouldn't play. So, I know a lot of bands that are mainstream, over produced, or suck, but I think that if they really love what they're doing, they aren't sell outs.

I feel like Green Day is a popular band for this topic...
The thing with Green Day is that they came up as punk, but made it accessible enough that the masses loved it. They had no idea what they were doing... but suddenly punk was a get famous quick scheme. There were legitimate artists, but the genre became overpopulated with "punks" that were really just looking to be rock stars.

Many think that you sell out if you sign to a major label... I happen to disagree. There's nothing wrong with taking the next step and making music your career. If you retain your artistic integrity, you aren't a sell out. How many of us would love to quit our jobs and play music full time? Let me name a few mainstream bands. Led Zeppelin, The Doors, The Red Hot Chili Peppers, The Who, Nirvana, and the list goes on. Does anyone ever call them sell outs?
 
Not a fan of RHCPs later stuff... I know many who consider them sellouts. I just don't like the evolution of their music. Miles away from their early stuff.
 
But just to be clear, in my first post I was asking about albums that you've slagged off and then realized were pretty good years later.
I can't really think of any. There's been quite a few albums that I was really disappointed with or didn't like straight away but within a relatively short time grew to really dig. Can't say any took years though. Even now, but especially back then, if I didn't like or was disappointed in an album, I'd listen to it over and over and within a few weeks, I'd be hooked. The one time that didn't happen was back in 1980 when I tried ever so hard to like Bad Company's "Straight shooter". It just wasn't happening. So don't be sending it to me for my birthday ! I'll just swap it !!
Thinking about it, when the Spice girls first hit, I so wanted to dislike them because all the teenage girls I was working with at the time were into them. But at a kids' party I was helping out at, I heard their first album and not knowing it was them, but thinking the songs were good, I enquired as to who were these songs by.
I got a shock at the reply ! So I had to modify my view of them.
But not so much that I went out and bought it.

I can't say my tastes have changed at all.
My tastes have progressed. If I go back to 1970, there's been an adding on of stuff which, between '76 and '92 was at it's zenith and has slowed down considerably since then.
Am I supposed to switch to easy listening or something? At what age are you supposed to start liking and playing old folks music?
I always did. In my family, I was the great eclectic. I liked the classical stuff of my Dad, the easy listening {stuff like the Seekers} pop of my Mum, the soul I heard at weddings and gatherings and thevarious pop stuff {David Cassidy, David Essex, Carly Simon, The Bay City Rollers, Gary Glitter} that my sisters and friends liked. I was a right magpie. Still dig them too {though I can't listen to Gary anymore.....}.
I hope I die before I get there.
That can be arranged ! :D
My songs are getting dumber and more juvenile as I get older.
I sometimes feel that. I'll look at some of my lyrics and think, this isn't what you'd imagine a near 50 year old would come up with or when my friends have been recording and we do the mad vocals or sound effects, we have a hard time not cracking up. But I think music and subject matter and ways of conveying such took a very important turn after the advent of Bob Dylan's lyrics and the song "Yellow Submarine". After them, serious writers could come up with all kinds of jocular material {"Boris the spider"} that stood on a par with more serious material and wouldn't be regarded as 'novelty' stuff.
And after the 60s, older people found they still could write about things that younger people could identify with.
I'll say this: my kids don't really like my music, which is fine.
My kids are the opposite. They go around humming my pieces and they often pop in when I'm recording or submixing or mixing for a listen. When my older son wanted one of my songs on his ipod, I didn't try to talk him out of it ! :D
Kids aren't supposed to like their parents's music.
I see it the other way actually. I have long felt that some of the music our parents listened to kind of filtered in by osmosis and familiarity bred liking.
My Dad was a rare man for his time. A Nigerian in mid 50s Birmingham and alone among his peers and pals as a lover of classical music. When we kids used to be in bed and my Mum, being a night nurse, was out at work, he'd settle down and spend the evening listening to his classical stuff. He was taping reel to reel off the radio from before I was born ! So over 13 years or so, I'd be hearing this music without really taking conscious notice of it. But I obviously took it in because I never disliked it or made fun of it. And by the time I was 12, 13, I genuinely liked some of those pieces. By the time I was collecting my own stuff, I'd have the odd bit of classical and now I have quite a bit of it. That came from my Dad.
it's always good to have the attention of the younguns
I think children of just about every era since the dawn of the 20th century have actually been pretty versatile in their music tastes. Although it's long been fashionable to criticize various genres, I've never yet come across a kid that only liked one genre and in the plethora of interviews and biogs that I've read over the years, it's almost always struck me the kind of music the bands/artists we love {and hate !} dug as kids. Even with the punks, you'll find loads of the Brits were into glam and prog, while many of the Americans were into psychedelia, folk rock and poetry.
Robgreen said something in another thread about how he thinks people gravitate back to what they liked in their teens and I think that's pretty spot on. I've turned over alot of stones in my life and now find myself listening to the same albums I liked when I was 14.
There's very, very little music I've stopped liking since I first heard it. I tend to be someone who, if I liked something, I mean, really liked something, regardless of the age I was at the time I first heard it, I still like it now. My record collection goes back to when I was 2 & 3 with "Get off of my cloud" by the Stones and the songs that appeared on the Monkees TV show and songs like "My boy lollipop", "Baby love" and stuff that reminds me of my Mum because she used to listen to that kind of chart stuff on her radio with the holes and brown leather case.......
I think that's pretty common. Pretty much everyone finds their musical identity in their teens, and they stay there for a long time.
I think that's true. Alot of our identity in a number of important things comes into sharp focus in our teens. It's when we become really independent thinking beings ~ with something to say and different, thought out ways of saying it.
Personally, everything I listened to in my teens, I still listen to and enjoy today.
I just don't like the evolution of their music. Miles away from their early stuff.
That's fair.
Like I said earlier, I don't really believe in the concept of selling out. But I absolutely believe in the evolution of artists' music. It's their right and their freedom to evolve as they see fit. It's not something that one can plan. It's also my right and my freedom to not go with the evolution.
 
At what age are you supposed to start liking and playing old folks music? I hope I die before I get there.

Screw them ....... I'm a young rocker forever ...... well .....'till I die and everyone will be sad that I went so young!

You guys both like old fart music already - it's called guitar rock.


Even now, but especially back then, if I didn't like or was disappointed in an album, I'd listen to it over and over and within a few weeks, I'd be hooked.

I think that level of persistence is a real hallmark of the days when we paid big bux for records...many times I'd take a chance on something I didn't know much about because the cover looked cool or I liked the "idea" of it, and I'd really have to work to appreciate it...but dammit I was gonna get my money's worth. Now if you don't like something, a different song is just a click away. There are pros and cons to that. We're exposed to more music now than we ever could've dreamed, but the incentive to get into something that takes multiple listens to get is gone.


Thinking about it, when the Spice girls first hit, I so wanted to dislike them because all the teenage girls I was working with at the time were into them. But at a kids' party I was helping out at, I heard their first album and not knowing it was them, but thinking the songs were good, I enquired as to who were these songs by.
I got a shock at the reply ! So I had to modify my view of them.
But not so much that I went out and bought it.

You know a few years back when all those manufactured tweener groups were popular, there were a few of those songs in heavy rotation that I thought were just brilliantly written. I mean, they were written by committees of middle aged professional songwriters who had been doing it for decades, so I guess it would make sense they know their way around a hook. But it was always the type of respect I'd be a little hesitant to bring up when talking about songwriters with other music snobs. And yeah, I never bought any tweener albums or anything.
 
Last edited:
I think that level of persistence is a real hallmark of the days when we paid big bux for records...
When I was establishing my music collection, I never really felt a loss of finance in buying albums. Partly because over here, many of the albums I bought were cut price or I got them from the second hand record shops or the library. When I was living in Nigeria as a teenager, the record shack guys would, for the price of a C90 cassette, record two albums for you or one double album. It was a brilliantly cheap way of building an album collection and I amassed a whole load of albums, which I then bought on vinyl when I got back to England. I only remember asking the guys to record over an album that I didn't like, twice. One was "Straight shooter" by Bad Company {in it's place was AC/DC's "Let there be rock"} and the other was "Emotional rescue" by the Rolling Stones. In it's place was Ted Nugent's debut solo album. {It was meant to have been Ted's album in the first place, but the guy made a mistake. As I was listening to what I thought was Ted, I thought he'd gone horribly soft !}
I was persisent primarilly because I wanted to like those albums and I soon learned that my first impressions weren't necesarilly reliable if they were negative. The saying "you only get one chance to make a first impression" may be factually correct but it puts way too much emphasis on the importance of one's initial thoughts.
many times I'd take a chance on something I didn't know much about because the cover looked cool or I liked the "idea" of it, and I'd really have to work to appreciate it...but dammit I was gonna get my money's worth.
I can dig that too though. The reason I listened to the Beatles in the first place with both ears was because of the "'67~70" cover attracting my attention. I know that the reason I initially listened to Pink Floyd was because of the "A nice pair" album cover. When I went through my jazz fusion and Irish folk excursions, it was the instrumental line ups that often attracted me to the albums. Sometimes, I'd have to work liking the music. Ultimately though, if I didn't like something, then there was no point flogging a dead horse. With my later excursions, what I find is that it became increasingly rare that I'd like the entire album. So I'd just keep the songs I liked in the order I liked and put them on tape. I still do my listening on tape.
Now if you don't like something, a different song is just a click away. There are pros and cons to that.
I had been doing a modified form of that for 20 years so for me, the whole "listen to which songs you like and have those" bit is not new.
We're exposed to more music now than we ever could've dreamed, but the incentive to get into something that takes multiple listens to get is gone.
For me, the reason for that is that I've pretty much got all the music I want. I'm not really interested in pursuing new stuff. So to sit down and work at liking something is a relic from a bygone time for me. I have done it recently {since 2007} a few times but I don't go hunting anymore. Once in a while, I'm pleasantly surprized and I never rule out new stuff but I'm outrageously happy to be stuck in the music I've spent 40 years amassing and digging.
You know a few years back when all those manufactured tweener groups were popular, there were a few of those songs in heavy rotation that I thought were just brilliantly written. I mean, they were written by committees of middle aged professional songwriters who had been doing it for decades, so I guess it would make sense they know their way around a hook.
As easy as it is to scoff at pop and formularised music, many of the results have been fantastic songs that have endured for decades.
I still maintain that hits have an element of fluke about them. No one can tell for certain whether something will be a hit unless the manager would go and order 10,000 copies of the single. Albums were always harder to guage. There are some wonderful hooky songs that barely got off the runway, similarly some awful things that still get played now. One can rarely tell if thousands or millions will truly latch onto a hook. Sometimes, the songs that have been hits have truly defied logic !

S-A-TUR-DA-Y NIGHT! Bringing back baaaad memories on Super Bowl night!
I first heard "Saturday night" on friday, 12th December 1975. I remember the date because my Dad left the country that day for 6 months {it was meant to be 2 weeks} and he'd bought me a cassette recorder ~ a move that altered my existence forever. He taped a message on it "To the man about the house....". He used to call me that as a part joke, part future expectancy thing. And I was thrilled to have a cassette. So after school, I went and bought 2 albums, a compilation of chart hits called "Supersonic" and the Rollers' debut album "Rollin'". I didn't think about albums as such and my younger sister was the Rollermaniac in the house. I bought those albums because they were the only ones that had anything familiar to me ~ not that I can recall what else was in Woolworth's that day. My memory's not that sharp !
Anyway, "Saturday night" was on it. I liked it from the moment I heard it and it was cool witholding listens of the Rollers from my sister until she went and bought "Once upon a star" and "Wouldn't you like it" a few months later !
 
actually to be honest ...... I kinda like everything. It's rare that I hear something that I can't stand.
Some stuff starts to wear on me quickly but, in general, I like music and that kinda means all of it.

And if anyone with money is out there ....... I'd sell out in a second if there's money to be made!
I'm definitely a whore.
 
took me a while to realize, but, i always wondered why a band would suddenly APPEAR, have a big GREAT hit song... couple others almost as good on the album... and o course, other songs around them, whatever.

than a lot of times? hat might be about "it"... yeah, theres another album, but... suddenly its a couple covers, a couple polished pop-ier things...

I THINK what happens a lot? They were working on stuff coming up... but theres always ONE song the band wrote, the BIG one... they end with a few other good ones around it in their set, but...

I think that ONE big song, and a few of the almost as good ones around it? Thats the GEMS out of their sum total of years f work coming up... what do you DO for an encore, your sophomore album? Well... you DO have a budget now, and a (hopefully) good producer...

over polished pop sells albums to kids, we all know it... critical acclaim is NICE, but... its still a business. Record company wants (needs?) SALES... producer(s) are INVESTORS, and they do their thing on what the artist comes up with... when needed, the producer picks out covers and gets the rights to do them, the producer "helps" them finish lyric/music ideas...

*shrugs*

a relative FEW bands? They are all serious about everything, and they have talent, have educated themselves, they do a lot of work to keep getting better at everything... i figure those are the ones that go on to do several "good" albums...

============================================================================

THEN, theres that "thing" when an established artist no longer needs money? They have enough for 10 lifetimes. Fame? They had more than they wanted. At that point, if they are REALLY good, and creative?

you get the album later in the career... YOU know the one... differrent genres out of character for them, experimental stuff... theres always a song based on some rare jungle chant fertility ritual they liked the sound of while touring the rain forest, LMAO

theres usually a GEM or two on those types of albums, late in the career of a long established artist. Its a lot of times a BUST, too many different genres.

=============================================================================

i think "they" build a first album a lot of times around ONE singer and HIS one great song of his life, and his other stuff that goes with it... but, without a solid TEAM of a "real" band, all good, all experienced and educated... you end up with the "flash in the pan" syndrome...

having one big STAR singer songwriter is great, but... nothing beats a really solid TEAM of long time ultra dedicated professionals... in my book anyways...
 
Ever write off an album and then go back years later and realize it was really pretty good? Tell me yours and I'll tell you mine. Grim, you must have something..... :D

albums that you've slagged off and then realized were pretty good years later.

I can't really think of any.
Actually, one that I've thought of is Suzanne Vega's "Days of open hand". A good mate of mine that died last year and I used to work together on a couple of adventure playgrounds and we used to do alot of fundraising together. This heavy marxist intent on overthrowing the Conservatives {this was the 80s !} that we knew was grudgingly impressed because we had big plans for the kids that lived in the area and frequented the playground and he used to refer to us as "a couple of Maggie Thatcher type entrepreneurs....." which, believe me, was paradoxical because he meant it in a grudgingly complimentary way, but to a couple of Black guys, it wasn't really the kind of thing you'd be proud to display on a T shirt. Even a ripped one that only cost £2.
Anyway, I digress.........
When my mate and I used to get together to chat and plan and fundraise, he'd more often than not stick on either one of Vega's first two albums and over a three year period, I grew to really dig them, borrowed them off him and taped them. So by 1990 he was quite excited to play me "Days of open hand". It was her new LP at the time. I was kind of looking forward to it and on a journey up to Nottingham, we gave it a blast. And I was so disappointed. I really thought it was crap and that she'd shot it. There was nothing approaching "Small blue thing", "Solitude standing", "Calypso", "Cracking", "The Queen and the soldier", "Ironbound market", "Wooden horse" or other greats. I thought "what a crock !" and subsequent listens didn't appease my wrath. "Don't walk near Islington, Vega ! I'll be looking out for you, wench !".
But you know, we used to play pool every wednesday and they were really competitive sessions. The loser over a three month period had to stand a "eat whatever and however much you like" pizza so neither of us liked to lose. Defeat could be so depressing ! And while we were playing, there'd be music playing and every so often he'd shove on "Days of open hand" and initially, I'd be like 'mutter......grumble.....bloody Vega crap.....grizzle.....whinge.....' but over a period of time, I thought that it was OK. Not earth shaking, but OK. And I realized that it was one of those albums that is flaming hard to get at first, but if you do try with it, it had some real nuggets. So I bought a copy {by now this was the mid 90s} and between then and now, I have to say, I love the album. It's got some OK songs, some good ones and some utter masterclasses. It's actually a real progression from "Solitude standing" {though it's still a classic and my favourite of the three of hers that I have}.
 
I've only ditched a couple of albums over my 4 1/2 decades of buying music. Some are consigned to collect dust, albeit in alphabetical order & chronologically alongside other releases by the same artist, some only get a run every year or so and some get played every month, (Cold Fact, Songs of Love & Hate, Yoshimi, The 1st Mull Historical Society album, Wire, Imperial Bedroom, 801 Live, NTYBOAFriend, D'AccorD, Break Away, Hall Of THe Mountain Grill, Forever Changes, Radios Appear, In Flame, Altered Beast, Marquee Moon, Boy Child, Argus etc all sit in a draw at my bedside for the evening listen before sleep).
I do give up on an artist/band when they run out of steam: Elvis Costello in the last few years (around TV show time), Black Sabbath post Ozzie, PFloyd by WYWHere, and some when they sell out/change direction, grow up or explore their Jazz Fusion side (I loved Spinal tap)! Some I persist with in hope of the resurrection (& because they do get at least a couple of excellent tracks on an album) like Nick Cave (he's became a bit tame - The alter ego band seems to have provided an outket for that side of him recently at least).
The last few days I've listened to Let's Active from the mid 80's, Leonard Cohen from 1970, a live Zeppelin (Celebration Day), Sabbath's SBS, Greg's last, Supercreep's last, Bowie's Diamond Dogs (& a live version of that album I pulled to gether from various sources) The Stanglers 1st, Kill City, Flaming Lips' Yoshimi, the 2nd Oasis album, Bruce/Trower's Seven Moon, a live compilation I made of Reed's Berlin (mainly from RNR Animal & LReed Live), Little Birdy's Hollywood, Ido1957's recent Hamilton Steele CD and the Go-Betweens' Before Hollywood.
I can't help it - I like music that I like.
 
Back
Top