I’ve heard the term “sellout” thrown around quite a bit lately. So I figured this might be a good topic to take a closer look at. What is a sellout? How do you sellout? Why would you sellout? Well, let’s take a look at the issue at hand.  

Selling out is basically compromising your musical integrity to make more money? So if we want to be hyper technical about the issue, the moment any musician received any kind of compensation for their music they are a sellout. But I don’t think that’s what people are talking about when they throw around the term “sellout” these days. What they most often are talking about is when an established band changes their style and ultimately finds more success because of it. Now we have to look at that a bit closer because it might be that the band was just evolving musically, trying to grow as musicians and a band. Were the Beatles “sell-outs” when they changed from their sugary pop rock to the psychedelic sound on “Revolver”? Some could make that case, since at the time the hippy scene was just beginning and the Beatles may have been trying to tap into the “new thing”. However, that is unlikely. If anything the Beatles helped fuel the acid rock movement and brought it to the mainstream.  No, when people talk about selling out, they most likely are referring to a band that changes their sound to “fit in” with an established popular music trend or style.  So can a band that changes their sound to something new, gains more popularity and ultimately spark a new music trend be sellouts? I don’t think so, since it was the band themselves that helped make the style of music popular, they weren’t changing their style to cash in on a popular trend. 

Being an established band is a double-edged sword especially if you have enjoyed a measure of success. On one hand, if you keep churning out album after album of the same old thing you run the risk of becoming stagnant and people might grow tired of the same rehashed sound on every album and lose interest. On the other hand, if a band changes their style from album to album they run the risk of alienating their core fan base. This might lead to charges of selling out. So it boils down to, you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t.  It’s a daunting task for a musician to walk the fine line between these two camps, growing musically, keeping the fans attention while not alienating your core fan base. 

Before we take a closer look at a few bands and the “sellout” arguments, I think we should look at another issue first. What happens when a band has been playing for years under the radar and suddenly they become popular? Are they sell-outs? Some people tend to think so. Their mindset basically says that if it’s popular it must suck. That’s not rational, but I’ve seen it happen. Someone loves a band for a few years, buys all their CD’s, and goes to their concerts.  This band struggles year after year, putting out music, hoping one day that they will catch a lucky break. Well, Providence smiles on them and suddenly they have a hit and become more popular, then almost as quickly this same person who stuck with them through the lean years calls the band a sellout instead of being happy for their success and being thankful that more people have discovered the same thing that attracted them to the band in the first place. Seems ridiculous but it happens all the time. Some people actually prefer that their favorite bands stay underground. The only problem with that is the fact that the band members suffer. Most likely they are doing this for a living and selling a few thousand CD’s and playing in small venues doesn’t always pay the bills. They work hard and are talented why shouldn’t their music be enjoyed by more people and why shouldn’t they make a decent living from making their music? If they are lucky enough to catch a break, their long time fans should cut them some slack and be happy for them. I know some will disagree, but that’s how I see it. 

Did they really sellout? Here we jump into the pit, head first. Did “band x” sellout? Some argue “yes”, other offer up a resounding “NO”! The funny thing is, both sides usually give valid arguments to back up their claims. Typically, unless the band’s change in style is overly blatant, I stay out of these arguments and try and see it from both sides. One of the biggest bands to face the “sellout” debate is Metallica. Did they or didn’t they sellout? Where does antiGUY stand on this one? To be honest, right smack dab in the middle, this is one of those cases where I do see both sides of the argument. For the record I will state right now I’ve never been a huge Metallica fan. I was in Jr. High when “Master of Puppets” came out and they became better known in mainstream metal circles. At the time, I couldn’t really get into them; I was more into the Ozzy, Iron Maiden, Judas Priest school of metal. They were a bit too heavy for my young taste. All my friends jumped on the Metallica bandwagon so to speak, I remember seeing them (with Cliff) open up for Ozzy, all my friends were there for Metallica, I was there for Ozzy. Later on I grew to appreciate them, I now consider “Ride the Lightning” a masterpiece. I just wasn’t ready for them when they hit I guess. Even back then I had an aversion to bandwagons! 

With that confession out of the way let’s look at the big Metallica sellout question. 

I’ve seen arguments place Metallica’s alleged sellout at different points in their career. Was it when they signed to a major label? Was it the moment they decided to do a video? Was it with the Black Album? Was it when they cut their hair and put out “Load”? Was it when they went after Napster? 

One thing people have to remember is the Metallica that recorded Master of Puppets wasn’t the same Metallica that recorded the Black Album or ..And Justice for All. Those albums were made by different lineups. After the tragic death of Cliff Burton the dynamics of Metallica changed. It had to. They lost a core member of the group. If I’ve read my Metallica history correct it was Cliff who fought to keep the band as underground as possible, refused to do videos and was one of the driving forces in the early Metallica sound. So when Cliff died some of his attitude and ideals died with him. History has shown that Metallica went on to do videos, their sound did change after they lost Cliff and they did gain more popularity. In a way it was a new band, just like Black Sabbath and KISS changed with the different lineups and became different bands. 

Did Metallica change their sound in order to sell more records with the Black Album? That’s arguable; the only people who know the answer for sure are the members of Metallica. The fact does remain that Metallica gained a lot more fame once they mellowed their sound a bit and brought in Bob Rock to produce the “Black Album”.  Ok, so did they intend to gain more fans by mellowing out? That’s debatable; they might have been just evolving musically like Beatles before them. Maybe they wanted to avoid being stagnant and try something different? Now if the mainstream of popular music at the time was the sound Metallica put out on the “Black Album” the sellout charge would be a slamdunk, but it wasn’t. If they would have put out a glam album, (which was popular at the time) then you could accuse them of trying to ride the wave. So this argument still can land on either side. 

Continue