KARISHMA D'MELLO
THE
FURY
of
THE
S
omewhere in the 1950’s
began a thread of
accusations that owe its
roots to the political and literary
influences of the eighteenth
century. Musicians were being
incessantly questioned and
called out for allegedly “selling
out”. It started off with the
early jazz musicians of that
era, eventually making its way
to Bob Dylan and other big
names of that time. It seemed
to have spawned an almost
movement like rage among
the public. Not even the likes
of Tchaikovsky were spared.
Quite understandably artists
have lived in fear of having
their integrity questioned.
Changing your sound,
endorsing a brand or sometimes
even indulging in a bit of self-
promotion is often regarded as
a serious deviation from the
age old movement of “sticking
it to the man”. Abiding by
convention and trading in what
MASSES
A
PERSPECTIVE
ON
“SELL
OUTS”
26
The
Score Magazine
highonscore.com
they regarded as an artist’s
true principles for the likes of
money or fame was the worst
thing a musician could do.
India’s own version of
this can be observed when
occasionally, indie musicians
choose to step into Bollywood
or take to composing
jingles for commercials.
I’ll admit to being one of the
lot. Not the leader of the bunch,
but as a young, naïve, angsty,
teen I definitely championed
the cause that every deviation
in sound that tended towards
the pop variety was the act of
a sell-out artist. As a naïve,
angsty adult on the other
hand, much like everything
else I have developed a more
or less conflicted and flexible
opinion on the whole concept.
That sweet balance between
staying true to your sound and
being able to pay the bills is
usually a hard one to maintain.
For bands that have to bear the
cost of touring, merchandise and
what not, it’s almost impossible
to manage without a bit of
marketing and endorsements.
It’s not like people are lining
up outside record stores
to buy CDs anymore!
So, do artists really owe a
loyalty to their sound and
their fans? Do they owe
it to the public to choose
a romanticized image of
standing their supposed
“sound” versus making
enough to live comfortably?
Now, criticisms of this sort are
a part of the job description as
an artist. An unfortunate one
for sure, but one that rings truer
for indie musicians or those
who are part of niche genres.
People are hardly likely to call
out Britney Spears for taking
up endorsements. Now if The
Offspring decides to release a
few albums that are punk rock
and not just hardcore punk –
their purist fans are marching
out there with their torches.
Or is it just that when that song
you once listened to in a quiet
corner is suddenly blasted on
the radio? Is it just the fact
everyone seems to like it that
creates the problem? Would
the same sound have as big an
appeal if it didn’t have more of
a cult following? Is alternative
music only good when it can
be labeled as “alternative”?
There’s a fine line between
maturing as an artist and
“selling out”. There’s nothing
wrong with having a strong
opinion against the latter and
I do understand the charm
of authenticity. Who doesn’t
like a band that truly stands
for something? The problem
arises when underground
bands truly begin to find their
ground and are then arbitrarily
accused of selling out by the
self-righteous masses.
Sometimes bands have to pay
the bills, sometimes they’re
bound by rigid contracts.
Who really knows? Perhaps I
haven’t been truly tested on
the subject, having had none
of my favorites undergo a
truly shocking deviation in
their sound. Until then my
stance remains the same.