Guest I Got Banned for Sucking Posted May 8, 2004 Report Posted May 8, 2004 Take the Black-Eyed Peas, for instance... It is sad to think of them selling-out. How about Limp Bizkit? Sure, they did only start making decent music when they showed signs of signing on the dotted line, but that's beside the point. That was just a couple, but it really is sad in music these days - money over the fans.
Jack_Bauer Posted May 8, 2004 Report Posted May 8, 2004 As Xander said. Here's an interesting angle ... who cares ?
Guest cobainwasmurdered Posted May 8, 2004 Report Posted May 8, 2004 yeah because Limp Bizkit used to be hardcore mother fuckers.
Guest I Got Banned for Sucking Posted May 8, 2004 Report Posted May 8, 2004 Durst said himself that Three Dollar Bill Y'all sucked, but I thought that it had some not bad tunes on it, i.e. Pollution, the Faith cover, some parts even more funny if you've listened to and enjoyed the original. Limp Bizkit did used to be hardcore - now they're pop, included in pop-up ads along with Britney Spears and Eminem.
haVoc Posted May 8, 2004 Report Posted May 8, 2004 but it really is sad in music these days - money over the fans. "These days" include the last 50 years? God forbid some bands and/or artist want to make some money and be stars instead of playing clubs of 500 and living in debet.
Guest I Got Banned for Sucking Posted May 8, 2004 Report Posted May 8, 2004 but it really is sad in music these days - money over the fans. "These days" include the last 50 years? God forbid some bands and/or artist want to make some money and be stars instead of playing clubs of 500 and living in debet. That last paragraph is hard to combat - but I'll say that if they're making that HUGE money, they were never underground material - they just hadn't gotten off the ground yet. Hi and bye.
snuffbox Posted May 8, 2004 Report Posted May 8, 2004 Limp Bizkit did used to be hardcore Hardcore like Ward Cleaver
Guest Museite Posted May 8, 2004 Report Posted May 8, 2004 How about Limp Bizkit? Sure, they did only start making decent music when they showed signs of signing on the dotted line, but that's beside the point. I blame the Undertaker The Who > Limp Bizkit
Guest Choken One Posted May 8, 2004 Report Posted May 8, 2004 Limp Bizkit was no more hardcore then fucking SIMPLE PLAN is. Idiot. I hate the term Selling out...people use it in the wrong context all the time. If a band wants to make money...let them. Any true artist who doesn't want $$$ will self-produce. Take the guy in my sig. He self produced his own albums and sold via his website and has made a very good living doing so, allowing him to play HIS music for HIS fans and still have fun with his national sold out tour with Agony.... I believe bands and artists will start to go that route...leaving record companies obsolete.
skullman80 Posted May 8, 2004 Report Posted May 8, 2004 Limp Bizkit Hardcore? as in the Genre Hardcore??.....riiighhhtt anyhow...Limp Bizkit never made good music, their first album was pretty shitty..and they went downhill from there....but hey they got rich and Durst got famous...good for them I say...
Guest Brian Posted May 8, 2004 Report Posted May 8, 2004 Bob Dylan and the Victoria Secret commercial. 'Nuff said.
Guest Agent of Oblivion Posted May 8, 2004 Report Posted May 8, 2004 Selling out is definitely a major misnomer. Any band wants to make a living off of their music, that's obvious. Sucker fans are the ones who dictate who "sells out" in the first place, so there's really no way one can place the blame. There's plenty of examples of bands that do well without huge national exposure on TV and radio, as well as ones that get handed the corporate pogo stick and fall flat on their faces.
Guest The Winter Of My Discontent Posted May 8, 2004 Report Posted May 8, 2004 Limp Bizkit was no more hardcore then fucking SIMPLE PLAN is. Idiot. Shut the fuck up. Simple Plan is the pussiest of all pussies who have ever made pussy music attempting to be disguised as non-pussy music. Limp Bizkit is atrocious, but at least they had a hint of "edge" in their music. Simple Plan is the bottom of the barrel. I'd say Phil Collin's solo records of the late 80's are more hardcore than Simple Plan.
Red Hot Thumbtack In The Eye Posted May 8, 2004 Report Posted May 8, 2004 They had the pissed off angst thing going for a little while before it got completely exposed.
Guest Agent of Oblivion Posted May 8, 2004 Report Posted May 8, 2004 That's the fickle nature of the angry fratboy. Get a beer and a nap in, he'll settle down. Limp Bizkit still has ONE last stop before they completely fall off the face of the earth, though. The acoustic album.
Jingus Posted May 8, 2004 Report Posted May 8, 2004 "Selling out" is a modern myth. Hell, before the 20th Century, musicians HAD to "sell out" if they wanted anyone to actually hear their music. They had to get a wealthy patron or sponsor to pay them to put on the performances of their art. It wasn't until the invention of recorded music (and telecommunication helped too) that musicians even thought about just making music for music's sake, instead of trying to make money off it.
The Metal Maniac Posted May 8, 2004 Report Posted May 8, 2004 I don't think selling out is a myth, but I do think people use it in the wrong context a lot. People can sell out, but it'd take a producer actually telling them, in plain english, "change your musical style and you'll make a lot more money" for me to consider them a sell-out. It's one thing to want to make money for the art you produce - it's another thing to want to get money by producing art that someone else told you to.
Perfxion Posted May 8, 2004 Report Posted May 8, 2004 I hear 'em cryin, "You gon' sell out" ya damn right I done sold out before and re-comped the same night Straight hopped the next flight- Nelly Selling out isn't a bad thing. Here is a sellout. Wes from Limp Bizkit. When you make music that you don't like to hear, then you are a sell out. As long as you like what you do then you aren't a sellout.
Guest Brian Posted May 8, 2004 Report Posted May 8, 2004 "Selling out" is a modern myth. Hell, before the 20th Century, musicians HAD to "sell out" if they wanted anyone to actually hear their music. They had to get a wealthy patron or sponsor to pay them to put on the performances of their art. It wasn't until the invention of recorded music (and telecommunication helped too) that musicians even thought about just making music for music's sake, instead of trying to make money off it. Not true. Guys like Haydn in his time were relegated to a single patron, but his followers like Bach and Beethoven worked without a single patron. In fact, Beethoven chose what he wanted to write and then sold it, rather than getting contracted first. It's more of a case of making money not based on their choices but being controlled by the dollar. If you're writing pop music for it to be pop music so you can supe up your hummer, that's the issue. If you're writing commercial music rather than what you want, that'd be selling out. Musicians need to make a living. But when they let that control what they do, or vthey start playing too hard to money, than they've sold out.
Guest Choken One Posted May 8, 2004 Report Posted May 8, 2004 I hear 'em cryin, "You gon' sell out" ya damn right I done sold out before and re-comped the same night Straight hopped the next flight- Nelly Selling out isn't a bad thing. Here is a sellout. Wes from Limp Bizkit. When you make music that you don't like to hear, then you are a sell out. As long as you like what you do then you aren't a sellout. which is why he left the band... He got tired of the act and left. He admited he didn't like doing it and left. Thats not selling out...that's "creative differences"... It's been done shitloads of time.
Perfxion Posted May 9, 2004 Report Posted May 9, 2004 Yeah but who stays through three fucking CDs? That is like what 4 years? 1 CD I can see, but three of them. That is going after the dollar and the second the boom is over, stop "liking" the music. That is a sell out. Pure and simple.
Guest Choken One Posted May 9, 2004 Report Posted May 9, 2004 That might be true. Keith Caputo did the same thing in a way but I believe he actually meant it since they were never about the money and actually went and sold his own albums on his own money and time...and did quite well doing it. That proves my point...If A lead singer of a relatively unknown metal band (although LOA was above that point but far from mainstream) can sell a great deal of solo albums in a completely different style(it's VERY different)...I don't see how other "mainstream" artists can't just do the same without having to conform to what the record labels say. If Wes really hated that music...he would have left a long time ago...No...he was a whore and wanted attention(why you think he did the crazy antics). He should have left the band right after the first album, when he knew that wasn't his style. I swear more artists need to stop using the tired old "It's for the money" cliche. You can MAKE money and meaningful music if you have desire and talent to do sowithout needing the "corporate evil empire"...instead alot of bands/artists don't want to do that.
Mecha Mummy Posted May 9, 2004 Report Posted May 9, 2004 Bob Dylan and the Victoria Secret commercial. 'Nuff said. Dylan himself said in the 60's that if he were to ever appear in a commercial of some sort, it would be a commercial for women's undergarments. So that's not really going against his beliefs, is it?
caboose Posted May 9, 2004 Report Posted May 9, 2004 Say what you will about Limp Bizkit: They sucked, they sold-out, Fred Durst is a cock, backward caps are gay etc... but they were the best thing to come out of a genre (nu-metal) that is now universally despised. They may not be everyone's cup of tea, but they still released an album that is fun to listen to every so often ('Signifcant Other'). I'm sure I'll be ridiculed, but to be fair, I don't give a fuck.
Guest Choken One Posted May 9, 2004 Report Posted May 9, 2004 I would venture to say Korn was better then Limp Bizkit...and so Was staind(at least on the Tormented/Dysfunction albums)...
Guest I Got Banned for Sucking Posted May 9, 2004 Report Posted May 9, 2004 I would venture to say Korn was better then Limp Bizkit...and so Was staind(at least on the Tormented/Dysfunction albums)... I would say that Korn were better than Limp Bizkit too. On Limp Bizkit, I agree with caboose - Significant Other is fun to listen to now and again, hell, so is Chocolate Starfish and the Hot Dog Flavoured Water. You could easily say that Korn sold-out too, but they just kept plugging away and doing their shit, which they were/are damn good at. And what about Less Than Jake? Johnny Quest thinks they're sell-outs... 10 years later, are they?
Guest Choken One Posted May 9, 2004 Report Posted May 9, 2004 I would venture to say Korn was better then Limp Bizkit...and so Was staind(at least on the Tormented/Dysfunction albums)... I would say that Korn were better than Limp Bizkit too. On Limp Bizkit, I agree with caboose - Significant Other is fun to listen to now and again, hell, so is Chocolate Starfish and the Hot Dog Flavoured Water. You could easily say that Korn sold-out too, but they just kept plugging away and doing their shit, which they were/are damn good at. And what about Less Than Jake? Johnny Quest thinks they're sell-outs... 10 years later, are they? I wouldn't say they 'sold out' because they pretty much kept to the same music... Sure they flirted with MTV and TRL but they kept the music the same...I call that good business decision. Nowadays they aren't a "hot" band but don't really seem to care and release albums to little fanfare these days (I believe TAKE A LOOK debuted outside top 10)
Guest I Got Banned for Sucking Posted May 9, 2004 Report Posted May 9, 2004 I would venture to say Korn was better then Limp Bizkit...and so Was staind(at least on the Tormented/Dysfunction albums)... I would say that Korn were better than Limp Bizkit too. On Limp Bizkit, I agree with caboose - Significant Other is fun to listen to now and again, hell, so is Chocolate Starfish and the Hot Dog Flavoured Water. You could easily say that Korn sold-out too, but they just kept plugging away and doing their shit, which they were/are damn good at. And what about Less Than Jake? Johnny Quest thinks they're sell-outs... 10 years later, are they? I wouldn't say they 'sold out' because they pretty much kept to the same music... Sure they flirted with MTV and TRL but they kept the music the same...I call that good business decision. Nowadays they aren't a "hot" band but don't really seem to care and release albums to little fanfare these days (I believe TAKE A LOOK debuted outside top 10) It's hard to pinpoint them to one genre - you could call them pop who think they're punk, like Blink 182, you could call them a legitimate punk band, legitimate rock, generic rock, it's difficult.
Guest Choken One Posted May 9, 2004 Report Posted May 9, 2004 I never ONCE fucking heard anyone consider them PUNK. NOT ONE FUCKING SOUL ON THE GOD DAMN EARTH. Korn is Nu-Metal/Hard Rock.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now