So, I just got into a debate thing with this guy on FB, essentially his point was certain music "sucked," and said to listen to good music, which I argued that both of those was solely opinionated. Next he mentioned they were just doing it for the money, which got me thinking. What if they're not? What if the huge amounts of money they make is just a bonus for them, the band we're talking about is Jonas Brothers if you care, I mean, who's to say say they don't enjoy playing these songs that are mainly for young kids and teenagers if they like it and enjoy doing it, there should be no reason to flame them for getting paid so much or for the record company that they're in. The money could just be a bonus, and they could be purely doing it because they want too.

Thoughts or arguments? Not just the JB, I mean any band in general.

I will use your example of the JB.

I do think they enjoy making music and may enjoy the very music they make. But music is not their sole objective. They have TV shows, clothing lines, backpacks, and so forth. The things that go along with their music is what makes them more of a product then musical artists. As for making money. Any musician who tells you he or she is not interested in getting paid for playing music(payed not rich) is a liar. Who wouldn't want to get paid to play live in front of an audience of fans as a career? The integrity of the artist is what is important. The goal of a musician should not to sell 10 billion copies of their first album. Instead what you want is to be able to sell 10,000 copies every time you release a record consistently. If labels thought this way they would not be in the shape they are now. The amount of money an artist makes and how many records they sell should never get in the way of whether you like the music or not. But having said that. Most poor bands will make better music than rich bands. Because once you become rich you begin to disconnect with what got you there in the first place(see Metallica).

AarO)))n wrote:

I will use your example of the JB.

I do think they enjoy making music and may enjoy the very music they make. But music is not their sole objective. They have TV shows, clothing lines, backpacks, and so forth. The things that go along with their music is what makes them more of a product then musical artists. As for making money. Any musician who tells you he or she is not interested in getting paid for playing music(payed not rich) is a liar. Who wouldn't want to get paid to play live in front of an audience of fans as a career? The integrity of the artist is what is important. The goal of a musician should not to sell 10 billion copies of their first album. Instead what you want is to be able to sell 10,000 copies every time you release a record consistently. If labels thought this way they would not be in the shape they are now. The amount of money an artist makes and how many records they sell should never get in the way of whether you like the music or not. But having said that. Most poor bands will make better music than rich bands. Because once you become rich you begin to disconnect with what got you there in the first place(see Metallica).

I think most of the stuff with JB is from Disney itself, odds are they had to sign a contract of sorts and what if said contract stated that they had to pretty much do whatever they (Disney) said? Without the label, odds are they wouldn't get to play the music they do. Assuming they're doing it because they enjoy it.

I get what you mean about the goals and sales though.

Well, what it comes down to is whether the band is doing it for the love of the music(art for arts sake), or are a commercial construct/product designed to make money. Some bands of course, while making the music they love, just happen to fall into success.

I know very little about JB, but historically, there have been many bands that were formed/created solely to generate lucre. Many of the boy bands in the '90's come to mind, many nu-metal bands as well. However, they may very well have enjoyed making their music regardless of artistic merit.

What really gets up my nose is when a band sticks to their artistic integrity, achieve success, and then get labeled a "sell-out" despite making no discernable change in their sound. Some people just don't like it when a band hits the mainstream, usually just because it stops being their "little secret", and then move on to the next underground sound in search of their next group that they know are just in it for the "art".

But irregardless of all this, EVERY band wants to be financially successful, and it is ultimately a question of musical integrity being lost or not while doing so. So do JB actually enjoy being a teen beat production line? I'd say yeah, why not?

Edit: or what Aaron said.

Kwartin wrote:

I think most of the stuff with JB is from Disney itself, odds are they had to sign a contract of sorts and what if said contract stated that they had to pretty much do whatever they (Disney) said? Without the label, odds are they wouldn't get to play the music they do. Assuming they're doing it because they enjoy it.

I get what you mean about the goals and sales though.

The only flaw in your statement Matty, is saying they had to sign a contract. No one put a gun to their head. They and their parents knew what the deal was. This is why I do not feel sorry for these child stars that go crazy. They knew full well what they were getting into. But I know what you are saying also.


Let us not forget this also. I have brought this up before but it bares repeating. Imagine you are in a band with nothing but the highest integrity and only in it for the love of music. But that love is not paying the bills and you are dirt poor. Now imagine some record executive offers you a contract and enough money to live off of. The only thing you have to do. Water down the music just a bit. Easy to sit here now and say, "No way man!" But being in that position. Who knows. I think many bands are faced with this. It is not as though many of them are rocket scientist.

Abominog wrote:

Well, what it comes down to is whether the band is doing it for the love of the music(art for arts sake), or are a commercial construct/product designed to make money. Some bands of course, while making the music they love, just happen to fall into success.

I know very little about JB, but historically, there have been many bands that were formed/created solely to generate lucre. Many of the boy bands in the '90's come to mind, many nu-metal bands as well. However, they may very well have enjoyed making their music regardless of artistic merit.

What really gets up my nose is when a band sticks to their artistic integrity, achieve success, and then get labeled a "sell-out" despite making no discernable change in their sound. Some people just don't like it when a band hits the mainstream, usually just because it stops being their "little secret", and then move on to the next underground sound in search of their next group that they know are just in it for the "art".

But irregardless of all this, EVERY band wants to be financially successful, and it is ultimately a question of musical integrity being lost or not while doing so. So do JB actually enjoy being a teen beat production line? I'd say yeah, why not?

Edit: or what Aaron said.

Great to see great minds continue to think alike.

I agree wholeheartedly with Aaron and John. And it's a lot, lot harder to sell out than it looks. I'll use Metallica for example - they were getting huge. They had a successful single with One, a mega-tour with Ozzy and were growing fairly quickly in the metal scene and were soon going to break into the mainstream. And then, rather than staying to the musical path that would've kept them on that same path, they did almost a complete 180, alienated most of their fans and went in a musical direction that was COMPLETELY OPPOSITE of what had made them famous in the first place. Now I don't know firsthand their motivations for the change and we can all speculate but none of us really do - the bottom line is that they took a massive risk with their sound and it happened to pay off for them.

Also,

-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----4------------------------------4----------------------------
---------4------------------------------4------------------------
--2--------2-----------2----5---2--------2-----------2----5----
---------------2----5-------------------------2----5-------------

Quote :

a mega-tour with Ozzy and were growing fairly quickly in the metal scene and were soon going to break into the mainstream.

I saw that tour BTW. It was the Ultimate Sin tour, and came before "One" as it was the MOP tour. But you probably knew that. Hetfield had a broken arm, so they had a roadie filling in on guitar.

Yeah, yeah I know. I just said things as they came to my head

I honestly think Metallica would've exploded in popularity no matter what they did on that next album.

Nautilus wrote:

Also,

-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----4------------------------------4----------------------------
---------4------------------------------4------------------------
--2--------2-----------2----5---2--------2-----------2----5----
---------------2----5-------------------------2----5-------------

do like

I don't think people should get so angry at sellouts etc.

Sure they're doing it for the money but the amount of money they're making is well worth it. I like money, I really do. It's nice to be able to have lots of it and if the opportunity arose to make millions then for sure I would. It's not like that actually stops me from playing good music ever does it? Obviously for many bands the motto is 'we play to make good music and for fun' but sooner or later the main discussion is 'how do we get more noticed?'

AarO)))n wrote:

Let us not forget this also. I have brought this up before but it bares repeating. Imagine you are in a band with nothing but the highest integrity and only in it for the love of music. But that love is not paying the bills and you are dirt poor. Now imagine some record executive offers you a contract and enough money to live off of. The only thing you have to do. Water down the music just a bit. Easy to sit here now and say, "No way man!" But being in that position. Who knows. I think many bands are faced with this. It is not as though many of them are rocket scientist.

If it came to that and they chose the watered down version, but they still loved doing that more than anything else. It's not so much selling out as doing what they love and making a living at the same time, right? Though, I think it would depend on how many albums they had released before getting this offer, wouldn't it?

Kwartin wrote:

AarO)))n wrote:

Let us not forget this also. I have brought this up before but it bares repeating. Imagine you are in a band with nothing but the highest integrity and only in it for the love of music. But that love is not paying the bills and you are dirt poor. Now imagine some record executive offers you a contract and enough money to live off of. The only thing you have to do. Water down the music just a bit. Easy to sit here now and say, "No way man!" But being in that position. Who knows. I think many bands are faced with this. It is not as though many of them are rocket scientist.

If it came to that and they chose the watered down version, but they still loved doing that more than anything else. It's not so much selling out as doing what they love and making a living at the same time, right? Though, I think it would depend on how many albums they had released before getting this offer, wouldn't it?

There are a lot of factors really. The Metallica example Alex used is great. They went for the easy way. No doubt with the release of the One video they were going to make a jump in popularity. But they were looking to make bigger jump. So they "sold out". There is a fine line. Some bands cross it but continue to make great music. many more do not.

I once heard Elvis Costello say something to this affect. What is more "punk"? making a record in your friend garage using money he borrowed from his parent that you will never be able to pay back? Or taking money from a big record label and making the same record?

The true definition of "selling out" in the DIY way of thinking, is the moment you charge for anything. In the end it all about the music. I never felt that Metallica really sold out until they released the Load and ReLoad albums. At least the Black Album was Metal. Passion can not be faked. Metal fans can smell bullshit from a mile away, always have.

If someone offered me a few million to strum a couple of chords and sing through a vocoder you had better believe id take it. It'd be shit, id still call it shit, but I wouldn't turn down the offer.

"Happy is the man who can make a living by his hobby" - George Bernard Shaw.

Music is music, it doesn't matter what the motivations are. People should be mature enough to take things for what they are, Metallica's more recent catalogue being a great example.

Most music made purely to generate cash is genuine bollocks anyway. If it makes loads of money, who gives a fuck? Life's too short to hate something you'll never change.