You have to put these things in historical perspective. When they first came out they were cutting edge.
I don't really know what selling out means, but I'm sure Metallica come close.From "And justice for all" to crap like Load and Reload and suing plumbers and Napster.
In order to be considered a sellout, I think you actually had to not be a sellout at some point and then become one. U2 always wanted to be huge and would have shot their dogs in order to be so. And I've been a fan for 20 years, so go figure.
Martin Quittenton did a lot of that 12-string work (he co-wrote Maggie May) and Mick Waller was the main drummer. And then Beck got jealous and kicked him out. But yeah, Stewart's right at the top of sellouts.
I'm surprised Dave Matthews hasn't made the list. The last two CDs were beyond atrocious sellout crap. Of all time, however...... I wouldn't label McCartney a sell out, because he didn't do this stuff for the money. He just started making sappier and sappier music. If all artists who started sucking in later stages of their careers are sellouts, where's the Stones? U2 aren't sellouts either - they're just not cutting edge anymore. Achtung Baby is one of my top albums of all time, but they were hardly small at the time. Zooropa was self indulgent, but it wasn't selling out. (Although it did suck donkey balls.) By POP you could see they were mocking themselves even as they were going over the top. If anyone is a true sellout, its Mick Fleetwood, touring with "Fleetwood Mac" that contained one original member - him. Oh, Clapton, Lenny Kravitz and Queen get votes for me. Everyone's opinion of Queen is colored by Freddy Mercury's passing, but the truth is that their later stuff was pretty bad, and they played Sun City for the moolah. Clapton's done some stupid duets that irk me. That, and I think he's the most overrated musician of all time. (Smiths being the most overrated band. I get it you're depressed.)
I'd have to agree with the ones who suggested Genesis - or more precisely, Phil Collins. Phil was a dynamite drummer back when Genesis had Peter Gabriel. Then again, would it be any better if they'd kept beating the dead horse like Yes has done for all these years? Genesis was pretty well drained of material by about 1975 or so. As far as continuing to cash in despite having no reason to exist, I'd say Chicago gets a mention. And there are too many graybeard rock reunion bands to mention, but one of the most flagrant ripoffs is a group that calls itself "Bad Company" without Paul Rogers.
Well, to try answer this and another poster's question selling out is an act of changing one's musical aesthetic/sensibilty for the sole purpose of commercial success. The ol' "can I look myself in the mirror," test. To be fair, that's a harsh test-especially when it's not your career in the balance. But at the end of the day, I think you do get an answer. David Bowie "Let's Dance" period is an interesting examination of the law of unintended consequences and selling out. He cleary wanted to make a more commercial record, employing Nile Rodgers. And it worked-but look what it did to his career? He wasted a whole decade trying get his hands around what for him was a one-off effort. He admits that he tried to follow up the success of that album-selling out, if you will. And his career suffered. (Although I am glad it gave us Tin Machine-but that's me). The Stones I don't consider sellouts. They are simply an extravegant oldies act. Perhaps the selling of their music for commercials and stuff bothers people, but I have never really cared about that stuff. Now Eric Clapton is a different story-but at least he is honest about it. He has mentioned quite a few times that in his heart, he would like to be a cross between Stevie Ray Vaughn and Johnny Winter in terms of following his muse. But he likes the trappings that come with being a pop star. And that has left us with a lot of spotty records. He has been on record saying that this is a conflict that has bothered him at times. I don't think he is overated and when you see him play live he is a diffrent animal. I think the antithesis of this are people like Elvis Costello, Van Moririson, or Joni Mitchell. They have for the most part, found a way to age gracefully; experimenting and being realist about their past. Costello in particular has made it a point not to be nostalgic about this early success. Pete Townshend as well has done some good solo work; his recent touring with The Who, much more a result of his loyalty to Daltrey and the late John Entwhistle. It's these and other examples, that IMO puts McCartney in the sellout category. He has on occassion, tried to do some interesting things, but if you examine his work since "Tug Of War," at best it's a guy who's just run out of ideas and is comfortable coasting; at worst someone searching for a hits formula. The telling thing about his career is the lack of collaborations-I mean Joni Mitchell in 1980 was on the road with Pat Metheny, Jaco Pastorious, and Michael Brecker. You'd think someone of his stature would have done some landmark work with others, but look at his discography. "Paul McCartney`s Liverpool Oratorio" ...eh
I think the Spice Girls sold out with "Spiceworld". They never did recover from that one. But then following up "Wannabe" was always asking a lot.
I still disagree. Its not that McCartney said one day "I really want to make more commercial records". Its that he's run out of ideas ages ago. That's OK - most artists do. Its hard being a relevant artist when you ARE the status quo. That's why when Harrison said he didn't like Oasis, even though they loved the Beatles, Noel responded that "of course, he's old! If old people liked our music, we'd be in trouble." Making bad music isn't selling out. Styx made horrible, horrible music for years. They weren't sellouts. They just sucked.
Oh, I just remembered the person I consider the biggest sellout of all time. No, he's not a musician, but God DAMN I hate how Dan Akroyd sold out. From Blues Brothers and toys unsafe for children to playing the Nazi of Christmas cheer in Christmas with the Kranks? Dan, just how badly do you need that paycheck?
Here's one that came to me while driving home tonight. Chicago... They were jamming "I'm a Man" on the radio and it came to me. How could such a kickass band in the 60's and 70's turn into a smary, soupy love ballady piece of crap. Their first couple of albums absolutely rocked. They were all talented musicians that were as tight a band as there came. Then it all went wrong. Maybe losing Terry Kath to had something to do with them losing their edge some, but they went COMPLETELY overboard. I can't help to get a little sad when I hear some of their old stuff and think about what could have been. Think I'll go put on "Chicago Transit Authority" on the cd player now....
Did you leave out "Crossroads" for a reason? How can one talk about Akroyd without talking about playing Britney Spears' father?
post?????? wtf crack you on?? they don't do videos, they don't do mtv... is your definition of selling out... creating the music you want to create and touring?????
OK, I agree with most of these choices - Chicago, Genesis, and Liz Phair are great calls. But I need to add a hip-hop name here - Big Daddy Kane, starting with parts of Taste of Chocolate and then full-on with Prince of Darkness. His first two albums are stone classics of the genre, but then he moved into R&B-drenched loverman territory with lame, Vanilla-Ice's-"I Love You"-level raps and cheesy sung hooks.
Thinking of Styx (Tommy Shaw) lead me to think about Damn Yankees. HTF does Ted Nugent go from singing Wang Dang Sweet Poontang to crap like High Enough ? Motor City Madmen should not be doing power ballads. The Stones are definitely the Ultimate sellouts, they just do it so well no one complains. Rock Band -> disco -> selling songs to Budweiser -> selling to Microsoft -> ?. What's left, rap ? Neil Young gets my anti-sellout vote.
That's an excellent question! How DO you know that? I did not, actually. But man, that makes it even worse. Ugh.